TORONTO, CANADA 1. EVOLUTION AND SOVEREIGNTY : CHANCE IN A PURPOSEFUL WORLD

F irst, let met examine the belief that the theory of evolution is possib le only for those of an atheistic persuasion. Many Christians point to the large number of atheists who are evolutio­ nists as evidence but surely th is is mistaken. Many of those who believe In E in ste in 's theory of special re la tiv ity are also atheists but we do not upon that ground deny the theory. If trutli or fa ls ity has objective meaning, and I think that they do, then whether a theory 1s true or false can scarcely depend upon the beliefs of its adherents. One might, however, agree that there are many atheists 1n society (particu larly 1n the scientific society), so that it is not su rp rising that many will hold any contemporary scientific theory such as special re la t iv ity , but argue that 1n the case of the theory of organic evolution there is some logical or psychological connection between atheism and the theory.


Few
questions have stirre d up as much co n tro ve rsy within the C h ristia n community as the one asking whether the theory of evolution can be reconciled with the belief In a Creator, p a rtic u la rly a Creator sovereign over h is creation.
In th is paper I wish to examine some of what I take to be the major Issu e s at stake and to suggest some solutions.
1.1 Atheism and evolution theory : purported lo gica l and p sy c h o lo g i cal connections F irs t, let met examine the b elief that the theory of evolution is p o ssib le only for those of an a theistic persuasion.Many C h ristia n s point to the large number of atheists who are evo lu tio n ists as evidence but su re ly th is is mistaken.Many of those who believe In E in s te in 's theory of special r e la t iv ity are also atheists but we do not upon that ground deny the theory.
If trutli or fa ls it y has objective meaning, and I think that they do, then whether a the ory 1s true or fa lse can sca rce ly depend upon the beliefs of its adherents.One might, however, agree that there are many atheists 1n society (p a rtic u la rly 1n the scie n tific so c ie ty ), so that it is not s u rp risin g that many w ill hold any contem porary scie n tific theory such as special r e la t iv ity , but argue that 1n the case of the theory of organic evolution there is some logical or psychological connection between atheism and the theory.But we also liv e In a universe which seems to have expanded and thus one In which long ago temperatures were much higher.
Thus as we move backward in lime atoms can no longer e x ist and the laws governing them cannot appear; even e a rlie r atomic nuclei become Im p ossible together with th e ir law structures, and s t ill e a rlie r the multitude of sub-atom ic p article s vanish and we enter a world of q uarks.As we go even fu rth e r back, theory suggests that the force Involved in ra d io -a c t iv ity which we call the weak force and the electromagnetic force unite.
Yet e a rlie r th is force is united with the strong (or nuclear) force, and beyond even that point th is force and g ra v ity form and which we believe 1s a fulfilm ent of our creaturely r e s p o n s ib il ity to learn of God using our mind and our senses w hile learning the Word in the world and in Scrip ture .

2.4
The nature of scie n tific creatlonlsm A portion of the title of my paper speaks of "Scie n tific creatlonlsm ".
T In turn they Interpret the catastophlc events as either alterations In the laws of nature or 1n the rates of th e ir a c tiv ity .They may also argue that sim ila r events occurred e a rlie r, sa y between or p h y lla ?It makes an immense difference to the amount of e volutionary change which one w ill permit.Again, if the Hebrew term "b a ra " or "cre ate " is used only for the heavens and the earth, for anim als, and for humans, what then of plants?And why is man said both to be created and also made of the dust of the ground and, in verse 11, what does it mean for the earth to b rin g forth grass (as the En g lish translates 1t) or sprouts (as the Hebrew re a d s)? Su re ly we should expect the crea tio n ist sc ie n tist to add re ss the question of what It Is that is emphasized re sp e c tive ly In the appearance of something new under G o d 'em phasizing G o d 's a c tiv ity 1s not compatable In th is view with another so rt of em phasis upon the naturalness of a p rocess.Unfortunately, th e y do not.Genesis also speaks In im precise Hebrew term inology of "creeping th in g s ", of fly in g creatures (m isle a d in g ly translated as "fo w l" as 1t may include other th in g s ), and of large forms of sea life and four-legged animals.Su re ly one Is not to d e rive any sort of p recise b iological Information from th is any more than one is to infer that, because the account d e scrib e s the events of Genesis chapter 1 1n the fa m iliar language of a week, the creation began and was complete w ithin s ix lite ra l d ays.2.8 Scie ntific creatlonlsm and creation science : in g an account of man.T h is Is true but 1t Is at least an attempt to be faith ful to what I called e a rlie r "sc ie n tific creatlonlsm " and thus to both G o d 's creative a c tiv ity 1n nature and the e vident major em phasis of the e a rly portions of Genesis upon that fact rather than upon scie n tific detail.u ltie s of fa llin g as a science, of reducing the C h ristia n w orld-view to Incoherence, and of seeking to extract scie ntific God is to be found not only In Scrip tu ra l teaching but also as the C h rist through Whom God creates and sustains the world.Th is means many th in gs.It means, for one thing, that nature does not lie beyond the sovereignty of God and, because God 1s fa ith fu l, that nature functions la w fu lly .It means also that and so on, e a rth ly life as we know it could not e xist.At one time such a th e sis was used to argue to the design of nature but it was employed ve ry d iffe re n tly later.After Darwin, 1t was said that life a rise s and s u rv iv e s on the earth n atu rally and that, because of the p re va ilin g conditions, life has the forms which It has.Cannot both design and adaptation be true, though?Are they not complementary ways of speaking, In p assing I might comment on what may seem a contradiction.E a rlie r I said that God can create, and could have created, any so rt of universe consonant with h is nature but now I have remarked that if man were to appear the chances are ve ry constrained.The latter would not be true, of course, If God created a cosmos with the general character that we now have 1n which a concept such as " lif e " Is appropriate is inapplicable to molecules, for example, just as concepts of ethical behaviour do not ap p ly to ro c k s.I think that th is d escrip tion of the world as a h ie ra rch y 1s rather what Dooyeweerd called the "law sp h e re s" of creation.Many C h ristia n have managed to d isto rt th is w orld-view .Instead of seeing God in all natural processes thay have tended to find God manifest in intrusions into nature.Thus, to use an example, when they study the fo s s il record they do not emphasize G o d 's dominion over all past life 1n all times and at all places of all re s p o n s ib ility to study Scrip ture ca re fu lly nor to attempt to find out in science when we are lik e ly to be wrong 1n our theories and to what extent we can be reasonably confident of th e ir partial In sig h ts.What we seek 1s a p ro g re ssive In sig h t Into nature, e x p re ssib le In scie n tific language, which we w ill understand in re ligio u s language as a re vealin g of G o d 's creation