Keeping Faith: Evolution and Theology

Abstract

SINCE 1859, with the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, biology has increasingly challenged comfortable theological assumptions. Being convinced, however, that evolutionary biology and theology have in common the desire to know truth, we have used Ian Barbour's models of interaction in order to investigate ways in which evolutionary biology and theology conflict, are independent, can be in dialogue, or might even be integrated in light of the quest for truth, goodness, and beauty. In our conversations (one of us is a biologist and the other a theologian), we have sought to uphold scientific rigor and reasoned faith, even though differences in methods and assumptions complicate the effort. In spite of these differences, meaningful conversation can take place between biology and theology if theologians do not question the data of scientific discovery but remain free to question the data's interpretation at the theological level. Likewise, biologists should not restrict themselves to hegemonic and reductionist interpretations that leave little or no room for nonbiological reality. The Biological Framework Although theology and biology seek to understand truth, the scientific drive for truth focuses on the natural world, gathering evidence, designing hypotheses, and experimenting in order to test truth claims. One of the basic principles of evolution is that individuals within a population are variable based upon random differences in their genotype, and these variations are heritable and can be passed on to future generations. Because of these heritable differences, some individuals are better suited, or naturally selected, to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. What is it about these observations of nature, about how the diversity of life is generated, that can be so threatening to faith? Probably the single greatest issue is that the process seems random, mindless, and undirected. Why would God play at dice? Yet while randomness is an important part of the evolutionary process, randomness does not mean utter lawlessness. While randomness occurs by individual variation within a population, the outcome of that variation is not random, but rather, is increased adaptation to a particular environment. On the other hand, evolution is not clairvoyant; it does not look to the future in order to plan what trait will be best served in the future generation. As a result, evolution yields adaptations, not perfections. However, if the embodied, biological being of Homo sapiens is subject to the same laws of random variation and niche seeking as all other species, can human distinctiveness be maintained? Can we still believe that we are made in the image of God? DNA comparisons of humans and other primates that were unavailable to Darwin confirm, as Darwin predicted, large areas of commonality. Learning that we have evolved from lesser animals can come as quite a shock. If we are a biological development of a lower organism, are we really special in the eyes of God? Each organism, from the smallest bacterium to the largest elephant, is subject to the same evolutionary laws. All organisms, including human beings, are subject to the same rules: changes in genotype beget changes in phenotype that may or may not be adaptive in a certain environment. There may be more than materialism in human life, but there is no human life lived apart from material laws. Biologically, we are subject to the material form of DNA that contains genetic information that drives our phenotype. Our knowledge of evolution did not arise through luck, and it is not an invention of a darkened mind; to the contrary, knowledge of evolution has arisen from a disciplined search for truth. As such, people of faith ought not lightly dismiss evolution. Biology must focus on the physical realm; it cannot form hypotheses and design testable experiments to answer questions about faith. …