(Prologue)
What could be my stance
on evolution? This was something I repeatedly wanted to address but I was
usually unsure if it would find relevance on my blog. Firstly, because I’m not
a theologian. And secondly because I just thought most people were way past that.
For some reason I assumed this was not an argument among Christians anymore
(wow, I know, my ignorance) and we’ve moved onto weightier issues. However,
that is really not the case. I have seen people both within and outside the
scientific community that think evolution is some sort of a tale or a
conspiracy theory, sometimes even having “scientific” theories of their
disapproval of the same. So here it goes!
During my days in school, I, like every other child, thought that evolution was simply a theory supported by loosely based facts and wasn’t something I should be too bothered about as a good Christian kid. I genuinely believed that Darwin and the rest of the evolutionists only wanted to have a good “explanation” of how we came into being and did not want to ascribe greatness to a God/gods out of their own self-centeredness.
Somewhere
in middle school, when my dad started doing his Ph.D., this began to change. My
dad and I would always argue/debate and discuss theology (sometimes out of
curiosity of what the other person thinks and sometimes just to pass time). He
explained to me that some people think that maybe the 7 days of creation didn’t
necessarily mean literal 24 hour days since the Bible also says that a day and
a thousand years are the same in the eyes of the Lord (2 Peter 3:8, Psalms
90:4). He also said that there was another school of thought that interprets
Genesis 1-4 as not a literal story, i.e., not a literal man and a woman being
created but a metaphor for mankind (since Adam simply meant ‘man’), which also
meant not a literal tree and not literally a forbidden fruit. What was this
supposed to mean? As a child, this was shocking for me to digest. You’re
telling me that the 7-day creation story is a lie? You’re telling me that Adam
and Eve did not literally exist? And there wasn’t a talking snake? This was
obviously an overreaction but it sowed seeds of curiosity within me to see for
myself and explore how the Creation narrative really had to be taken and how
that would accordingly change my stance on evolution.
In
the following write-up, I’d like to briefly take you on my journey through the
subject i.e., how I went from exploring the subject to fully embracing it and
seeing the Bible through the lens of multiple genres, metaphors, and parallels
and a God who is constantly engaging with people through their point of view
(instead of the other way round).
In the 16th century, when Galileo Galilei
supported the Copernican view that it wasn’t the sun that revolved around the
earth but vice versa, the then Catholic Church was greatly disturbed. At that
time, the church believed in Aristotle’s theory which stated that there were
two different types of matter – terrestrial (the earth) and celestial (sun and
moon and all the stars) and for some reason, both of them had their own motion.
The church also believed that since Jesus came down to live on earth, it had to
be the most special place and, therefore, the universe's center.
Galileo’s support and the constant conviction that it was indeed the sun that was the center of the universe (in their time and age, the entire solar system was the universe) led to 9 years of him in prison, after which he died since heresy was punishable by imprisonment or death.
When I listened to modern-day flat earthers, I couldn’t help
but draw similarities between the two. I could also sense that their conviction
of the earth being flat came primarily from a literal interpretation of the
Bible and only secondarily from facts that loosely fit together to convince the
opponent that the earth is flat. (There is also some historical debate that the
church also opposed Newton in his theory of gravity because acknowledging it
would mean that you didn’t believe in the grace of God, but that’s another
story for another day).
2. I compared evolution to the theory of reproduction.
So if evolution is real, when exactly does the soul come into picture? This was another question I had in mind when I used to sit down to study my biology lessons. The simple answer is, I don’t know. But here’s the thing, I don’t think anyone really knows. Perhaps, I could draw out an analogy that could come close to a trying answer.
The
human embryo and its status have been a hot topic for scientists and
theologians especially when countries pass laws regarding abortion (again, that’s
another topic for another day). But a fascinating view that all of us hold true
is that two gametes, a sperm and an egg, from two separate individuals, form a
zygote which differentiates into many stages of the embryo and fetus and
finally, if all the conditions are optimal, becomes a human baby. Now nobody
really knows at what point the soul incorporates itself into the unborn baby’s
body. Some propose it’s after 5 months of conception, i.e., when the embryo is
now a fetus. Some believe it is somewhere in the first trimester. There is also a small
percentage who believe that it begins right at conception, when the zygote is
formed. No one knows the answer! We could always speculate about it, enjoy the
difference of opinion and try to come to what we think is closest to the point
but we will never really know.
In
my personal opinion, I usually draw the same conclusion about the incorporation
of souls into the human body. Was it the Neanderthals who were the first bearers of
souls since Homo sapiens and Neanderthals often mated and some humans,
especially those of European origin, have a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA
in them? Or was it the Australothipicines since they were the first to use
stones as tools signifying intelligence? I like speculating about these but I
am careful to not draw rigid conclusions. I have found more peace being certain
that I do not know something than drawing conclusions to satisfy my own ego.
3. I don't view the creation story as a literal story anymore.
Andre van Oudtshoorn in his paper ‘Mything
the Point: the Use of Mythology in Genesis 1-11' (click here to view full paper) states, “The mere fact that there are two different accounts of
creation which have been placed directly after each other, points to
an alternative purpose than simply
informing the reader of historical data.
The two accounts differ in a number
of significant ways: In Genesis 1
there is, for instance, too
much water, while in Genesis 2 there
is too little. Genesis 1 is about
the whole universe, while Genesis 2 offers a
more intimate account, depicting a garden into which God leads the people he
has created. In Genesis 1 humanity is created after the animals;
in Genesis 2 humanity is created before
them. Alter argues that these
two depictions should be
seen as complementary, rather
than alternative accounts. It is,
nevertheless, true that if they are
interpreted literally as historical events
the differences present significant difficulties.
Many scholars have pointed to the poetic structure
of Genesis 1.22 This poem deals with
mythological issues in that it wants
to situate Israel within the cosmos
and in relationship with God and
the surrounding nations. It also
refers to humanity in general, abstract,
terms rather than as individual characters,
so for instance it depicts male and
female together as reflecting the image
of God. Its scope encompasses the formation of the whole
cosmos and all the people of the world.”
To put it bluntly, that’s my view of
the creation story of Genesis. I don’t view it as a historical fact anymore.
Instead, I see a God who seeks to connect with His people and keeps their back
story in check. I see a God who recasts the myths of human inception that were
surrounding the nation of Israel and retells the story with a new
theological framework, a framework where the reader is affirmed as to how they
are viewed in their Creator's eyes. That was the whole point of the creation
story in the first place - not to argue how we came into being but what could
be the reason we came into being (something we're still continuing to
explore).
Conclusion:
As a non-Jew I think it is impossible for one to fully understand the context of the myths that stretch between Genesis 1-11. But we can try, and we can argue and we can formulate. For those interested in exploring how a lot of us don't find the two mutually exclusive, I would encourage you to check out BioLogos which is a Christian page that affirms the scientific theory of evolution. Here is another very similar article about how some evangelicals have changed their views on evolution. To refer to the previously mentioned article by Biologos, click here.
I
hope in the process, we all rightfully come to our own conclusions and are
satisfied with what we know for ourselves to be true. I don't expect to change
anyone's opinions on this if they have already come to conclusions on their own
prior to reading this. I am only grateful for the people (which I cannot count)
and resources in my life that made me come here so far. I am grateful that I
was able to think for myself and my thought process wasn't shut down. And I am
only looking forward to what life has to hold, especially when it comes to
unlearning and relearning different aspects of the religion I am most
intimately familiar with.
Thank
you for joining me in my journey!
Image Credits:
1. Mything the Point: The Use of Mythology in Genesis 1-11
2. Why Some Evangelicals Changed their Minds About Evolution
Interesting perspective. Proud of you buddy.
ReplyDelete