r. Ted Davis spoke Thursday, Sept. 26 in Brinser Lecture Room about the controversy over evolution. Davis is a professor of the history of science and religion at Messiah College. During his presentation, Davis remained neutral on the issue, presenting the facts behind the debate and the views of the people involved throughout the debate’s long history.
He explained the views behind creation science and intelligent design, as well as the history of these belief systems. His main point was to illustrate why these belief systems do not accept the scientific explanation of the theory of evolution. His presentation answered three questions: why has evolution been so controversial among Christians? What do creation science and intelligent design claim about God, the Bible and Christianity? Does the acceptance of the theory of evolution deny Orthodox (traditional) Christianity?
From the culture wars of the 1920s to the literalism of today, Davis spanned the history of this conflict. Creation Science began in the early 20th century, when fundamentalist Christians worried that modernity and science were assaulting traditional beliefs. Fundamentalists, at the time, claimed that teaching evolution in schools was a violation of religious freedom, as stated by the Constitution. In short, evolution has been controversial because it is a threatening concept to many people. To some, it defies what the Bible lays out as truth and having truth shaken can be a frightening thing.
To combat their worries, people at this time used political cartoons to describe science as a series of blind guesses attempting to destroy traditional beliefs. “As they say it, the Bible was being bombarded by culture, liberal theology, science, hypothesis, which really means revolution, and atheism,” Davis said. “All those forces were attacking the bible.” Today, people equate a belief in Creation Science with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. This literal interpretation involves the belief that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, rather than over billions of years or during “ages” that the book’s writers interpreted as days.
This view is usually involved with the idea that the Bible is the only reliable source of information on the creation of the Earth and the universe because it is the word of God and God was the only eyewitness to the events of creation. It also tends to lead to the view that the natural sciences, along with the theory of evolution, are “falsely so-called” or even satanic in origin, designed to lead humanity astray.
Intelligent design lies somewhere between creation science and scientific theories. Founded by Philip E. Johnson in the 1990s, intelligent design is actually a relatively new idea, at least compared to the other two contenders. It dictates that to bring God or religion into the equation is a losing proposition. This belief holds that there was an “intelligent designer,” that the creation of the earth and the universe did not literally happen in six days, but was not blind chance either. Intelligent design proponents call their theory a “big tent,” meaning that people opposed to the theory of evolution get over their differences and focus on questioning scientific theories.
As for whether the acceptance of evolution is actually a threat to modern Christianity, experts are divided on the answer. Some say yes; a belief in evolution leads to a slippery slope to losing faith. Others, such as Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” theorize the same slope, but believe the loss of faith to be a benefit brought by scientific theory.
There are also those who propose that Christianity must change with the times, like John Shelby Spong, a retired bishop of the Episcopal Church and author of the book “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” They believe it is necessary for their faith to evolve along with changing world views, to accept scientific reasoning and incorporate it, or risk their religion dying away. And some, like Francis Collins, author of “The Language of God,” are far more optimistic. They feel, while all things change and grow, it is possible to harmonize their scientific views with their religious beliefs, that one is not necessarily more important or sounder than the other.
