Sermon for Sunday,  May 22, 2005  

CAN I BE A CHRISTIAN AND BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?

By

Rev. Dr. Harvey C. Martz

Scripture: Genesis 1:1-5

1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

 I still get amused and a little troubled when I see some of the fish symbols on the trunks and bumpers of some cars. You have seen the variety that I have seen. The original symbol of the fish began 1900 years ago as a secret code for Christians to know each other when there was danger of them being arrested for their subversive faith, subversive of the Roman Empire. The Greek word for fish, ICHTHUS, is an anagram for these Greek words: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.

 That symbol was a way for early Christians to identify each other without putting themselves in danger. But today the fish symbol has become so trivialized I feel sad about it. I have seen cars with two large fish and some little fish to symbolize a family. I see some fish with legs and the word Darwin on the inside. I have seen the response to that symbol—another larger fish with the word TRUTH in it swallowing the fish that says Darwin. Maybe you have seen some variations I have not yet seen and you can let me know.

 The Darwin fish points up the controversy that has been present the past 100 years and was present in the Scopes trial and is now surfacing again in the state of Kansas where the school board wants to teach something besides biological evolution in science classes in Kansas schools. I have placed some articles about this on the foyer table for you.

 Some experts see the push to teach the perspective of “intelligent design” as just a masquerade for the unscientific approach of creationism; others see it as a valid scientific subject that should be offered in biology classrooms along side Charles Darwin. Some people have seen a conflict between science and religion or Darwin and Genesis; others believe you can believe that God created the universe and that God took longer than six days.

 The folks who want to teach that the universe was created in six days have done some homework in the Bible, and they say that our universe is very young—only about 6000 years old and that God even created all the fossils just as they are—maybe even to fool us into thinking the universe is very old when it really is not old at all!

 Those creationists say the universe was created in 4004 BC while geologists say that the creation occurred perhaps 4 billion years ago.

 Creationists have said that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and that if it is in the Bible it must be scientifically true because the Bible is inerrant and infallible. So if anyone questions his or her perspective we are questioning the Bible and questioning God.

 Others have said that there is no conflict between science and religion, that one can believe God is the reason for the whole complex creation, and that religion and science are sister disciplines that are trying to answer different questions: science deals more with the question of “how” we have gotten here and religion deals with the “why” questions: why are we here, what is the purpose and meaning of life.

 This uneasy relationship between religious truth and scientific truth, the Bible and scientific inquiry, has been around for hundreds of years and has been marked by great tensions. In the sixteenth century astronomers Galileo and Copernicus got into a terrible fight with the church of that time when they dared to make public their observations that the earth was not the center of the solar system and that the sun did not revolve around the earth but the earth revolved around the sun.

 Why was that so controversial? Because they were daring to question the Bible. The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth so that settles it. And it was not until just a few years ago that Galileo was finally forgiven by his church for daring to advance his heretical scientific notions. We ought to learn some things from that encounter—namely that the Bible is a book of theology and not geology and we rely on it not for its scientific insights but for its spiritual insights. But still the controversy goes on in different forms today.

 I believe that God has created us and our universe. I believe that this universe is so vast and awesome that there is probably other intelligent life somewhere else in this wondrous creation. I don’t think the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are meant to be scientific accounts of how we all got here but they do contain very important insights about why we are here and what our purpose is. But let me not get too far ahead of myself.

 The folks in Kansas who want to question the basic biological thinking about evolution are relying on arguments called intelligent design and want that theological point of view taught in biology classes alongside Darwin. They also believe that calling the perspective of evolutionary development a “theory” should cast doubt on its validity; “after all”, they say, “it is just a theory.”

 Their viewpoint ignores how the word “theory” is used in scientific inquiry. One source says this: “in science, a theory is a unifying concept—such as gravity or electricity—which is repeatedly tested and affirmed.” So while the theory of evolution is a concept which explains the changes in life and origins of species, so is the theory of gravity a theory also—an explanation which can repeatedly be tested and affirmed.

 So when Biblical literalists want to ridicule the “theory” of evolution they are not being honest or respectful of how that word is used. Let’s look at another key word here: the National Center For Scientific Education says simply that evolution is the idea that all living things have a common ancestry. There is more to it than that but that can be a beginning point. Incidentally, some of you who have read more biology and history of science than I have know that Darwin himself was not trying to debunk any Biblical ideas, he was working on observing and explaining the origin of species.

 The next step we need to take in this whole discussion is to talk about why the Bible is important. I don’t believe we cherish our Bible because of its expertise on science and geology. If we did we would still be teaching that the earth is the center of the solar system and that the earth is flat and has four corners. We would teach that mental illness is caused by demons because the people who wrote the Bible believed all those things. We do not or should not use the Bible for scientific truth.

 We read and cherish the Bible for its spiritual truth that is eternally true and applicable. The Bible is not valuable for its geological insights but for its theological insights. This is a key difference between Methodists and literalists. Literalists say that if the Bible is not accurate about everything, then it is useless and unreliable and should just be put aside. This was the point of view that someone had who emailed my two months ago and said they were leaving St. Andrew Church because we obviously did not believe the earth was created in seven days and that meant that we are not Christians and do not trust the Bible. They were not members here but had been attending for a while. If they had come through our orientation process they would know the difference between Methodists and fundamentalists. And would know that we take the Bible very seriously here and trust it for what it was written for—a guide to our spiritual lives and to following Christ.

 Look with me at the insert titled “Harvey’s principles of Biblical interpretation” and see a couple of the points on that sheet. The Bible is not a science book or history though it contains both. The Bible does not tell us everything about everything. Most importantly, the Bible is not as useful in addressing the HOW questions of life: how did we get here? How did God do all this? How did that big fish swallow that guy named Jonah? People can ask those questions of our Book but it is not a useful process. Scientific inquiry is better at answering the HOW questions.

 The Bible is most useful for addressing the WHY questions? Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? What is life all about?

 Is there a conflict between science and religion, Genesis and evolution? I don’t think so and I am in a lot of company including some of the people on the front of your bulletin. I think you can say that God created all that is and that God took a long time to do it. One scientist says, maybe evolution is the way in which God has created and is still creating.

 Other scientists do not see any conflict and, in fact, as some scientists continue to do their work of exploring God’s creation, their sense of awe and wonder just grows and increases day by day. Wernher von Braun, twentieth century rocket scientist: “The idea of creation is inconceivable without God”

 Albert Einstein “There does in fact appear to be a plan.”

 Albert Einstein “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

 One other person who sees no conflict between Genesis and evolution: Jeremy Mohn is a high school biology teacher in Kansas City in the state that is trying to undermine the credibility of evolutionary theory. Mohn is an active member of a United Methodist church and says in one of the articles on the foyer table, “I accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for life as we know it. I also believe that God is ultimately responsible for the process.”

 There are other sources that will be important for you as you make up your own mind about all of this. I have placed some articles on the foyer table which I have been collecting. We have ordered more copies of the two books which we normally have: “When Science Meets Religion” by Ian Barbour who is Professor Emeritus of Physics at Carleton College in Minnesota and “The Luminous Web” by Episcopal priest Barbara Brown Taylor. I also commend very highly to you the chapter on creation and Genesis in Dr. Borg’s book “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time.”

 Let’s finish by looking at our Bible and in particular the stories in Genesis 1 and 2.  The first surprise that some people get when they actually start reading their Bible is that there is not just one story of creation in the Bible: there are two different stories just in Genesis and there are other creation accounts in other places including the book of Job.

 The two stories in Genesis are in chapters one and two and they are different from each other; the sequence of events differs. In the first story, God begins to create when all that exists is chaotic water. The first thing God creates is light, then the dome of the heavens, then the dry land and plants, then the sun and moon and stars (this is the fourth day by now), then the fish and the birds and the animals, then on day six, the last day of creation, God creates men and women together and puts them in charge and tells them to care for the creation and to be fruitful.

 At the end of each day, God looks at what God has created and God says, “This is good." At the end of day six, the last day of creation, God looks at the man and woman and says, “This is very good.”

 Then--there is a new and different story about the creation beginning in chapter 2, verse 4. The style of writing is different, the words for God are different, it is a new story. and listen to how it unfolds. When God made the universe there were no plants and no rain and no one to cultivate the land. So the first thing God did in this creation was to take some soil and formed from it—a man. And God breathed the breath of life into the man and not until the man could breathe did he become a living being.

 The next thing God created was—a garden. God made all kinds of trees and plants and put the man there and said here is what is good for you and what is not good for you. Then God saw that the man was lonely and God said this is not good. Loneliness is not good—it is the first thing that is declared to be bad in God’s creation. God decided to make a helpmate for the man so God then created--a giraffe. God created the animals and brought them to the man for the man to name. But a suitable helpmate was not found. So God caused the man to sleep and took a rib and made a woman and brought her to the man.

 After God had practiced enough to finally get things right, then God made woman!

 Do you see the differences in these two stories? If you try to make the Bible into a science book, which of these stories is scientifically accurate? I think that is the wrong question.

 The better question is what truths about us can we learn from these stories? Where are the spiritual insights, the spiritual truths, that should stick with us forever?

 First, the universe is not a random accident. There is a plan, Einstein says. More than that, human beings are not here by accident. That is one of the most appealing things about Rick Warren’s book on the purpose driven life. You are here with some purposes. You are not an accident. God has hopes and plans and designs and dreams for you.

 That is why some people have difficulty with the whole notion of evolution because they think if you believe the creation took a long time that it must have also happened by accident. It is a false dilemma. You can believe in a purposeful creator and still believe it took a long time.

 The Genesis stories say, we are here on purpose. There is a creator who cares for us and who wants the best for us. This creator has designed us so that we find happiness by being in relationship. The first thing described as bad in the creation is loneliness. Human beings are the crowning glory of creation. That is what our opening psalm says also. Not only a sense of awe at all the creation but most of all, wonder at human beings created just a little lower than God.

 There is so much more truth in these stories: God asks us to be in charge of the creation, we are stewards of God’s world and God expects us to take care of it and not abuse it or pollute it. God is an environmentalist—maybe even a member of the Sierra Club!! God sets some boundaries on how we are to use the creation and God holds us accountable for our care or our abuse.

 And there is a mixed kind of ending to these stories in Genesis 1-5. When the man and woman have crossed the boundaries and God does expel them from the paradise God has created, God does not abandon them or kill them (the talking snake in chapter 3 is right about this!). God makes clothing for them and has mercy and compassion on them even as they leave to live east of Eden.

 These stories are full of truth and they have formed how we think about life and about ourselves. They are important for their spiritual insights, their theological insights—not their geological insights.

 I pray that we can see the difference and that we can also see that God is the source of all truth whether we find those truths in our scientific inquiries or in our Bible. And I pray that when we come to the limits of our scientific search that we will also be open to the mystery and sense of awe and wonder in God’s creation—which the Bible says, is the starting place for our faith in God! Amen.

  Sermon Library