I’ve been thinking about evolution lately, and given how much of a concern it is to Christians, I thought it might be helpful to put together some guidelines for Christians who want to protect themselves from falling for it. I know one reason it weighs on many Christian’s hearts is due to the fear that our children might be taught it in school and then possibly leave the church as a result of it. To that end, I’d like to share some strategies which I believe will help Christians protect themselves and their children from believing the theory of evolution.
Take scripture literally
This might seem obvious at first glance, as most Christians I know would say that they already do this. However, I’d like to lay out in finer detail some ways to accomplish this. In the first place, you must stop yourself from thinking too critically about certain things. The first two chapters of Genesis feature two separate creation stories – you must ignore feature, and it is best to assume that the 2nd narrative is merely an intentional retelling of the story while focusing on a different aspect. The danger to be avoided here is thinking which supposes that there were multiple stories passed along by word of mouth over multiple generations within the Israelite community, and the two most popular ones that were included weren’t intended to be a unified story but rather express different truths which happened to be important to this ancient community because it helped them to express the meaning of life. This would mean that there is a great burden on the reader, forcing them to accept that there are mysterious elements to it, and that efforts to walk away with a complete understanding will always be frustrated. It is dangerous not in the sense that God’s word is made weaker or less trustworthy by any means; but it is dangerous in that it can begin to cause the Christian to stray from the idea of a simple fairy tale like story that seems to explain everything that there is to know about the beginning of the world. It could also weaken the pillar of smugness that some Christians rest upon, the pretense that they know everything there is to know about the world, and that they know so much more than their poor, sinful neighbors. It could also cause the reader to suspect that efforts to appropriate the story as modern writing or to align it with a modern genre of history or science are misguided. If these realizations set in, they can cause the Christian to start to think that there are things about humanity that are both unknown and unknowable, and certainly will cause great harm to their egos.
It is also important not to give any thought about who the bible, and specifically Genesis, was written to. The best course of action is to assume that it was written to us (21st century people), and that it was written to address concerns and questions that modern people like ourselves care about. Specifically, that it would describe history in the same way that we do now, and that they care about modern scientific ideas like we do – the how, why, what, and when. We must stay as far away as possible from the idea that the bible was written to an ancient people, who don’t think anything like we do, and wouldn’t even be interested in “scientific” questions that we have. Or that this people’s “science” would not even come close to anything we would recognize. As long as we keep this out of thinking, we can continue to pretend that ancients were interested in questions like we have – questions about exactly how and when the earth was created, what it was like to live in a perfect garden, what it was like to live with no sickness or death. We can continue to pretend like Genesis is a historical account designed to answer questions that we as modern people have, rather than a story intended to cause us to wonder who we are as humans, how we should relate to creation and others given our designation as image bearers or representatives of God. When thinking about ancient people, it’s vital that we believe that the only difference between them and us is, the way they dress, and their lack of technology and underwear. We must take care not to learn about how they thought about the world — that they thought the sky was a solid dome, which held back “waters above”, that the earth was a flat but round disk (like a saucer), that people literally thought with their hearts, that they believed that light emanated from people’s eyes allowing them to see (extramission). We must ignore that they thought the world was held up by large columns that extended down into deep waters, where large creatures like the leviathan lived. We must believe that when they closed their eyes and thought of the idea “world”, they would see a large blue sphere in black space as we do, instead of the aforementioned ideas. When we read passages of scripture which reference these things, we need to believe that references to “loving with the heart” and “waters above” were meant as simple poetic metaphors rather than how they literally thought things worked in their world. We must not under any circumstances allow ourselves to believe that the bible is speaking in terms of ancient science or participating in the incorrect way of thinking which the ancients exhibited (accomodation). For if we did allow this, it would mean that God would meet ancient people where they were in their (scientifically) primitive way of thinking, conveying spiritual truths via an archaic perspective of reality which our modern science has ruled incorrect, and would cause irreparable damage to our modern notions of “inerrancy”. (For how can we promote an inerrant Word if the bible is speaking nonsensically about things which we know to be false, or at least different than our modern understanding?)
How can we protect ourselves from falling prey to this? One helpful strategy is to employ the “slippery slope” mentality. We must conjure the notion that our ideas and understanding of scripture is at the peak of a mountain, and that allowing even an inch, or any sort of concession that our understanding might have been previously incorrect would destroy our footing. It would cause us to start to slip down the mountain, and as a result, we’d never be able to regain our traction, losing our spot on top of the mountain of truth forever. We must not consider the converse; that perhaps we are in a valley of ignorance, and have been offered a foot hold to help us to climb out. That perhaps, we have been in a cloudy haze, not really sure we were off course, and someone has offered us a bright lamp to help lead us out. These thoughts must not be entertained, and must be pushed down deep — for we have been right for over 500 years, nothing can now shed any additional light on the nature of things – there’s nothing else to learn here, regardless of any new historical findings which may have presented themselves in the last half millennium.
Also, we must ignore any thinking which might creep up in the corners of our minds regarding the strangeness of having magical trees, talking snakes, and whether there are similarities between Genesis accounts of creation and other cultures which would have been extant during the time of the formation of Israel. It would be tempting to note that despite the similarities, the stories of other nations are comprised of many gods – gods who often are relegated to controlling only certain parts of creation due to their limited powers, and were responsible for creating not all of creation, but maybe certain things, like the sun, moon, oceans, etc. It would be tempting to note that people of those nations would have had certain gods who had control of fertility, rain, war, etc, and to realize that this would have been a major temptation for the Israelites to conform to these cultural religious assumptions. Furthermore, it would be tempting to interpret the creation account in Genesis as God casting shade on those religions by stating that He created the very things which other nations worshiped as deities. And not only that these things were part of His creation, but that He created them by Himself — that he has all power, not just the limited jurisdictional power of the gods of the other nations. It would be tempting to further note that these gods would often be angry and capricious, that they relied on humans to feed them, and that they might sometimes destroy people if they made them angry. These aspects of other ancient religions could be thought to stand in stark contrast to the God of Genesis, who doesn’t need people to feed him, and who instead graciously invites people to care for his creation in His stead. We must not allow ourselves to be taken by these parallels, as it could diminish Genesis as we know it – a simple historical and scientific account of the physical details of how God built the world and how we messed it up by eating from the magic tree and brought death and sin into the world. Allowing for other ideas expands the scope of Genesis way too much, and could make it seem as though there are bigger ideas than we currently allow it.
Cast doubt on the intentions of scientists
When thinking about evolution, the subject of science naturally comes up — it is often responsible for starting such conversations in the first place. People who advocate for evolution will always raise scientific discoveries, old or new, and claim things as “fact” which science has discovered regarding aspects of the world. An important defense against these “facts” and this “science” is to discredit the scientists by questioning their motives and demeaning their vocations. In doing this, it is helpful to note that there is an implicit dichotomy here, and everything that follows flows from it. Without this dichotomy, everything falls apart. This dichotomy allows that there are 2 proper sides; atheists and Christians, or evolution and creation (and evolution and atheism are practically interchangeable in this model). Again, it is an implicit belief, so it is something that is learned over time from immersion within the culture of Christianity, so that those who are very new converts might not be familiar with it. Anyway, with regard to defending creation, a helpful move is to assert that the scientists are atheists, hate religion, or hate Christianity, and so that is why they hold their views on evolution. It is immensely helpful because it creates a sharp edge that Christians will steer well clear of, as no Christian wants anything to do with something that could cause them to become an atheist. So it is important to constantly bring up this dichotomy, and to make belief in evolution equivalent with being an atheist, or at the very least, being a lesser Christian. This will protect you from considering whether any of the discoveries or scientific topics actually have any merit. Don’t think about the fact that the conclusions of evolution actually state nothing about religion; what matters is that from the Christian’s perspective, our interpretation of Genesis stands at odds with any fact or discovery they may throw at us. When considering that every scientist who discovers elements of creation is against God or is an atheist, it can be tempting to wonder if this mentality might be somewhat simplistic or even conspiratorial. For example, in order for it to work, we must hold that it is the agenda of all scientists, studying all manner of subjects, from geology, astronomy and archeology to those who study physics to somehow repudiate Christianity. It also requires the Christian to assume bad motives of those whom they have never met, and likely have never really read. While we’re here, I’ll note: it is extremely dangerous to read the writings of these scientists, especially if they’ve written popularly for a non-technical audience. In doing so, we run the risk of beginning to think of them as fellow humans, going about their lives and using their God given gifts and talents to explore God’s creation. We are also in danger of setting ourselves up for a very unhealthy dose of cognitive dissonance. It’s almost impossible to read the writings of those who have dedicated their careers to science and not start to see them as decent human beings, or start to believe that their work has worth or that they actually have pure motives. The best option here is willful ignorance; learn as much as you can for arguments against evolution, and don’t pay any attention to learning about what evolution actually entails or about the science that is behind it. As long as it can remain something to be reviled, and as long as you can treat as enemies any and all who advocate for it, you will be well on your way to innoculating yourself against giving it a remotely reasonable thought. This is not as easy as you might think it should be, especially as a Christian; it requires us to actually go against another area of scripture, where we learn that to love others we need to assume the best motives and not evil ones. There is also the issue of condemning another human being’s work as unworthy and not having dignity. The best way to deal with this, i’ve found, is to bury it deeply, if it ever happens to come up. Or, focus immediately on how they have evil motives in their desire to suppress God (this raises a catch-22, as we are assuming an evil motive on the part of scientists in order to help us justify our unloving act of condemning their work, but you just have to decide to accept that in order to move on)
Don’t attempt to find out if evolution might be true
In protecting yourself against evolution, do not, under any circumstances try to find out whether, in fact, evolution might be true. There are a couple of common pathways one would normally follow in attempting to discover its factuality. I’ll outline them here so that you know what to avoid. The primary way is learning what the theory of evolution actually entails, and what claims it actually makes with regard to life, biology, and cosmology. At first glance this seems a harmless path, as it could be helpful in attempts to refute it. But it risks destroying a number of valuable assumptions that you may already have, and would not have even thought to question. For instance, you might assume that evolution makes claims about who or what created the universe, time, and all that is reality. It does not. You may also believe that evolution requires adoption of a certain moral code, or an amoral code, or the belief that the world is merely a result of chance and that there is no point to it. It does not. You may believe that it is tied inextricably to atheism, and that its adherents promote it as an alternative to religion. It is not and they do not. All these assumptions are helpful guardrails which protect the Christian from truly understanding what evolution is about, and they make it far easier to dismiss it as a ridiculous idea. In trying to seriously understand the claims of evolution, the Christian risks destroying these assumptions, and becoming susceptible to believing it is true.
It should also go without saying that you should refrain from finding out what the different scientific disciplines say with regard to various claims of evolution. This warning is really very much related to the previous one of not trying to understand the claims of evolution, but this has to do with the more specific ways the sciences point to it. This is also harder to do in practice, because often the subject can come up unexpectedly, or in a roundabout way. For instance, you might be reading a news article about DNA, or some genetic disease, and the author might spring on you the idea of mutations, or even worse, the idea of mutations being used as genetic clocks. And there you are presented with a line of evidence which infers a very large timescale for mutations found in hominids or other creatures. Or you might be reading about beautiful rock formations, and hear about the process of its formation, and evidence to support it. You may even hear the shocking idea that as you go backwards through the geological column, certain animals disappear, starting with humans, then mammals, to the point where only reptiles are found, then further back to a point where there are sea creatures only, and so on. You might think yourself safe if you take an interest in the stars, or things in the heavens. But you will immediately run into the timescale problem of light having to travel millions of years to earth before we can finally observe it. The most dangerous idea which might pop up here at any time is that of what stars do – they are creating helium, from hydrogen, and then eventually most other elements known to our universe. While this last point is outside of the theory of evolution, it has an important tie in with regard to the age of the universe, as well as the source of the elements which fill it, and from which humans are made. For the Christian, the idea that multiple distinct lines of evidence from differing fields of work agree with one another on evolution is an idea that is best left hidden and safely ignored. The cognitive dissonance of coming across these things independently, and unexpectedly could be catastrophic to a world view constructed in a way which typically laughs at the ignorance of those who believe in evolution. Of all the fields to be avoided, the one to certainly stay away from is that which speaks of what was involved in the big bang, or cosmology. To a Christian who has never read anything about it from a scientific perspective, it can be easily laughed off as the musings of those who desperately want for there to be no God, and who are willing to believe that something can come from nothing. Again, it is safer to simply stay in this scoffing mindset than to step out and actually read what the big bang entails. By reading it, a Christian could come to realize that the big bang is ultimately an expression of a great deal of energy being converted to matter, ala E=mc^2, and an explanation for how the stuff we see and feel came from energy. They would also realize that omitted from discussion is why there was energy in the first place, and why we are all here. Learning that science is uninterested in these questions would be detrimental to the Christian’s ability to outrightly reject these things as incompatible with their faith and so should be avoided at all costs.
Conclusion
Evolution poses a serious threat to the ways that popular evangelicalism has built its worldview and how it has chosen to interpret scripture. It also threatens a very common streak of anti-science sentiment in the church, which often presents itself independently of evolution. There are a multitude of ways that the Christian can accidentally become informed about what evolution actually asserts, and thereby encounter powerful cognitive dissonance that is hard to overcome. It is important to be aware of these so that if we encounter them, we can deal with them accordingly. But the goal is to avoid encountering them altogether. I hope that the preceding guidelines are helpful to you and your children in maintaining as little knowledge as possible about evolution and allow you many more years of denigrating those who do believe in it.
Resources
- BioLogos. “God’s Word. God’s World.” biologos.org/
- Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes! – Lamoureux, Denis O.
- Inspiration and Authority – Achtemeier, Paul J.
- Surprised by Scripture – Wright, N. T.
- The Language of God – Collins, Francis S.
- The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate – Walton, John H.
- The Lost World of Genesis One – Walton, John H.
Merely Xtian 