Purpose and Progress

Genesis 1.1-4 (ESV)
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good.

Pastor Henry G. Brinton, as quoted by Al Mohler on his blog, "sees no contradiction in accepting that humans are the product of evolution and believing that God decided evolution would be the method by which humans would be created." This sounds perfectly reasonable in many ways, and is a common way that Christians (including me) have reconciled the creation story of Genesis and evolutionary theory. Dr. Mohler brings up a very important point, though. He writes, "the mainstream doctrine of evolution denies that evolution can have any fixed goal at all. Nothing had to happen... We can eliminate the conflict between evolution and Christianity if we redefine God to be something far less than the Creator he reveals himself to be in Genesis."

Many Christians (again, including myself) have said that the Bible reveals why all things were created, and that science has discovered that evolution is how this was accomplished. But the issue of purpose that Dr. Mohler brings up points at a problem with that dichotomy. Is the universe a blind assortment of collisions whose "purpose" only appears when certain patterns of collisions become imperfectly self-perpetuating? The point is that if we say that naturalistic evolution explains the "how" of our existence, is there any point in looking to any religion for a "why"? Naturalistic evolution tells us that we are here by random chance or, worse, by an exceptionally complex but unyielding mechanical process. Scientific observation, models, theories, and predictions can be very useful and are a way that God has enabled us to "fill the earth and subdue it," (Genesis 1.28) making it a better place to live in many ways. But how can we speak of any purpose, any right or wrong, if we are just lucky to be here in the form we are in? There is a conflict between two "truths," so one of them must not be true.

G.K Chesterton speaks of the necessity of a fixed ideal or goal to guide progress in the chapter "The Eternal Revolution" in Orthodoxy. He says that naturally evolving systems have no goal in mind, but only immediate perpetuation or aimless drift in current conditions. (Keep reading in Genesis to find out about the perfection Chesterton speaks of Adam seeing.)

"At any instant you may strike a blow for the perfection which no man has seen since Adam. No unchanging custom, no changing evolution can make the original good any thing but good. Man may have had concubines as long as cows have had horns: still they are not a part of him if they are sinful. Men may have been under oppression ever since fish were under water;still they ought not to be, if oppression is sinful. The chain may seem as natural to the slave, or the paint to the harlot, as does the plume to the bird or the burrow to the fox; still they are not, if they are sinful."

How can we "strike a blow," how can we take a stand that something must change because it is wrong, if our only measure of right and wrong is the consensus of most people this moment? Even worse is the view that some people are somehow more "ethically advanced" and that their ethics should guide the rest of us. How do you evaluate advancement if there is no standard for comparison? And if there is a standard, why would I want to conform to a more or less advanced example of the standard when I should strive to bring myself to the ideal standard itself?

I have no grand summary statement about evolution as a result of this thinking. All I know for sure is that ultimately, nature (God's general revelation about himself, as described in Romans 1.19-20) and the Bible (God's specific and progressive revelation about himself through history) must agree. If one thing is clear in the Bible, it is that God has a purpose for this universe he created. We are here to show how great, loving, powerful, holy, forgiving, etc., he is. We are here to respond to God because of who he is. Clearly random chance is eliminated as a method of our creation, but so is mechanical predetermination, because no response would then be genuine but only preprogrammed. How will this truth be ultimately shown by science in its study of nature? I don't know. There have been attempts recently, but there is more study to be done before the two can be fully reconciled.

God, open the eyes of the human race to see how nature points us to your eternal power and divine nature. Please don't let us be distracted by our study of your vast creation to think that the physical world is the ultimate reality. Thank you that as vast as the universe is, your love and holiness are so amazing that an eternity will be required to explore them. Thank you, Jesus, for taking the form of a finite man to usher me in to your loving purpose for me!