| Why Theistic Evolution is So Popular by Darrel Kautz (January-February, 2003) |
A theistic evolutionist, unlike an atheistic evolutionist, places God into the heart of the evolutionary process. He
holds that God created the cosmos, life, living things, and human beings through the process of evolution. It was
God, an intelligent Being, Who devised and controlled the whole process of evolution. Both theistic and atheistic
evolutionists assume the same framework of evolutionary history and the same evolutionary mechanisms. Thus
theistic evolution is an attempt to reconcile biblical creation with atheistic evolution; it is a compromising position
in respect to origins.
The theistic-evolution approach to ultimate origins is immensely popular; it abounds in most mainline Protestant
churches and in the Roman Catholic Church. Ever since the rise of the Documentary Hypothesis in Protestant
circles over two hundred years ago as a naturalistic way for accounting for the origin of the first five books of the
Bible, there has been a pronounced tendency to understand the Genesis creation account as a purely human
portrayal of how the world came into existence.
The following statement by Jaroslav Pelikan reflects the thinking of many theistic evolutionists. “Although the
story of how God originally fashioned the world and all that is in it comes first in the sequence of the biblical
narratives as we now have them, it is a mistake to interpret this story as the foundation for all the subsequent
narratives. Indeed, literary analysis of the creation stories suggests that they come rather late in the history of
the development of the Old Testament . . . The story or stories of creation in Genesis are not chiefly cosmogony
but the preface to the history that begins with the calling of Abraham. Genesis is not world history but the history
of the covenant people of God. And as the Book of Exodus is interested in Pharaoh only for his part in the
Exodus of Israel and otherwise cares so little about him that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is still difficult to identify
historically, so the Book of Genesis is interested in ‘the heavens and the earth’ as the stage for the essentially
historical, rather than cosmic, drama it sets out to recount.” 1
In Roman Catholic circles theistic evolution entered that church body in a big way through Father Teilhard de
Chardin, a Jesuit paleontologist and biologist who lived from 1881-1955. Malachi Martin states that Teilhard’s
“starting point was Darwinian Evolution — he always ‘personalized’ the word [Evolution] with a capital letter —
which he took to be fact, not theory.” 2 In speaking of Teilhard, Prof. Wilder-Smith says that he “so extended
evolutionary doctrine as to include the view that matter possesses a built-in force which causes it to
automatically surge upward, slowly and irresistibly (to use Teilhard’s expressions), to more and higher
complexity, ending in psychic pressure build-ups (Teilhard), cephalization and Point Omega. That is, God so
constructed matter that it had to evolve. Many academically trained persons are willing to believe this type of
theory and apply it to their religious beliefs.” 3
Although the papal encyclical Humani Generis (Origin of Man) issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950 warns Catholics
against teaching evolution as fact, it does condone the teaching of this view of origins in Catholic institutions with
the understanding, however, that all theistic evolutionists must believe that the souls of people are created by
God. In 1986 Pope John Paul II stated, “So long as we do not exclude divine causality as the explanation for
creation, we can hold that Genesis is not opposed to the theory of natural evolution.”4 According to current
Catholic theology, God the Creator intervened at some specific moment in the evolutionary process, and infused
a spiritual/immortal soul into what had already become a highly developed “higher animal.”
holds that God created the cosmos, life, living things, and human beings through the process of evolution. It was
God, an intelligent Being, Who devised and controlled the whole process of evolution. Both theistic and atheistic
evolutionists assume the same framework of evolutionary history and the same evolutionary mechanisms. Thus
theistic evolution is an attempt to reconcile biblical creation with atheistic evolution; it is a compromising position
in respect to origins.
The theistic-evolution approach to ultimate origins is immensely popular; it abounds in most mainline Protestant
churches and in the Roman Catholic Church. Ever since the rise of the Documentary Hypothesis in Protestant
circles over two hundred years ago as a naturalistic way for accounting for the origin of the first five books of the
Bible, there has been a pronounced tendency to understand the Genesis creation account as a purely human
portrayal of how the world came into existence.
The following statement by Jaroslav Pelikan reflects the thinking of many theistic evolutionists. “Although the
story of how God originally fashioned the world and all that is in it comes first in the sequence of the biblical
narratives as we now have them, it is a mistake to interpret this story as the foundation for all the subsequent
narratives. Indeed, literary analysis of the creation stories suggests that they come rather late in the history of
the development of the Old Testament . . . The story or stories of creation in Genesis are not chiefly cosmogony
but the preface to the history that begins with the calling of Abraham. Genesis is not world history but the history
of the covenant people of God. And as the Book of Exodus is interested in Pharaoh only for his part in the
Exodus of Israel and otherwise cares so little about him that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is still difficult to identify
historically, so the Book of Genesis is interested in ‘the heavens and the earth’ as the stage for the essentially
historical, rather than cosmic, drama it sets out to recount.” 1
In Roman Catholic circles theistic evolution entered that church body in a big way through Father Teilhard de
Chardin, a Jesuit paleontologist and biologist who lived from 1881-1955. Malachi Martin states that Teilhard’s
“starting point was Darwinian Evolution — he always ‘personalized’ the word [Evolution] with a capital letter —
which he took to be fact, not theory.” 2 In speaking of Teilhard, Prof. Wilder-Smith says that he “so extended
evolutionary doctrine as to include the view that matter possesses a built-in force which causes it to
automatically surge upward, slowly and irresistibly (to use Teilhard’s expressions), to more and higher
complexity, ending in psychic pressure build-ups (Teilhard), cephalization and Point Omega. That is, God so
constructed matter that it had to evolve. Many academically trained persons are willing to believe this type of
theory and apply it to their religious beliefs.” 3
Although the papal encyclical Humani Generis (Origin of Man) issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950 warns Catholics
against teaching evolution as fact, it does condone the teaching of this view of origins in Catholic institutions with
the understanding, however, that all theistic evolutionists must believe that the souls of people are created by
God. In 1986 Pope John Paul II stated, “So long as we do not exclude divine causality as the explanation for
creation, we can hold that Genesis is not opposed to the theory of natural evolution.”4 According to current
Catholic theology, God the Creator intervened at some specific moment in the evolutionary process, and infused
a spiritual/immortal soul into what had already become a highly developed “higher animal.”
Among the factors which contributed to the widespread acceptance of theistic evolution are the
following:
1. The entrenchment of various forms of Darwinism in the academic circles of Europe and
America ever since the publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species.
2. The unrelenting flow of evolutionary propaganda from textbooks, newspapers, periodicals
(including National Geographic), museum displays, books, national news commentators, and
TV programs. Man’s natural disposition of enmity towards God and to sin renders each per
son a potential victim of evolutionary propaganda.
following:
1. The entrenchment of various forms of Darwinism in the academic circles of Europe and
America ever since the publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species.
2. The unrelenting flow of evolutionary propaganda from textbooks, newspapers, periodicals
(including National Geographic), museum displays, books, national news commentators, and
TV programs. Man’s natural disposition of enmity towards God and to sin renders each per
son a potential victim of evolutionary propaganda.
3. Fear on the part of some Bible-believing persons of being marked as anti-intellectual. One is not really
an intellectual person, say some people, until one rises above legends about origins, and discovers for oneself
the truth about ultimate origins.
4. The influences of coworkers and friends (peer pressure) which intimidate those who express confidence
in the truthfulness of Genesis 1-2.
5. The necessity of educators and scientists, in particular, of accepting the evolutionary view of origins to
remain in good standing and eligible for promotions (job security).
6. The prevalence of the existential philosophy of life with its stress on subjectivity, individual experience,
unlimited freedom, and on what is important for a person in his life right now. The existentialist asks, “Why am I
here?” not “From where did I come?” or “To Whom am I ultimately responsible?” Matters such as ultimate
origins, the distant past, and objective truth are not primary concerns.
7. Persistence in the view that passages of the Bible do not have one intended meaning, but can mean
whatever a person thinks they mean — one of the characteristics of existential thinking.
8. The denial of divine revelation in the sense of God’s conveying specific information to man. The loss of
the conviction that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, an accurate and trustworthy record of His redemptive
involvement in the world from creation to the end of New Testament times.
9. The assumption that the first five books of the Bible came into existence after the time of King David (the
Documentary Hypothesis), and that they do not record historical events in the normal sense of the word
“history.” Correlated with this is the use of the historical-critical method of interpreting Genesis and other
biblical books — a method which assumes that the Documentary Hypothesis is correct. It is to be noted that this
hypothesis is itself based upon the theory of evolution; for religion, in general, and the Old Testament in
particular, are assumed to be products of man’s evolutionary development.
an intellectual person, say some people, until one rises above legends about origins, and discovers for oneself
the truth about ultimate origins.
4. The influences of coworkers and friends (peer pressure) which intimidate those who express confidence
in the truthfulness of Genesis 1-2.
5. The necessity of educators and scientists, in particular, of accepting the evolutionary view of origins to
remain in good standing and eligible for promotions (job security).
6. The prevalence of the existential philosophy of life with its stress on subjectivity, individual experience,
unlimited freedom, and on what is important for a person in his life right now. The existentialist asks, “Why am I
here?” not “From where did I come?” or “To Whom am I ultimately responsible?” Matters such as ultimate
origins, the distant past, and objective truth are not primary concerns.
7. Persistence in the view that passages of the Bible do not have one intended meaning, but can mean
whatever a person thinks they mean — one of the characteristics of existential thinking.
8. The denial of divine revelation in the sense of God’s conveying specific information to man. The loss of
the conviction that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, an accurate and trustworthy record of His redemptive
involvement in the world from creation to the end of New Testament times.
9. The assumption that the first five books of the Bible came into existence after the time of King David (the
Documentary Hypothesis), and that they do not record historical events in the normal sense of the word
“history.” Correlated with this is the use of the historical-critical method of interpreting Genesis and other
biblical books — a method which assumes that the Documentary Hypothesis is correct. It is to be noted that this
hypothesis is itself based upon the theory of evolution; for religion, in general, and the Old Testament in
particular, are assumed to be products of man’s evolutionary development.
10. The assumption that when interpreting the Bible, greater weight is to be given
to the context (historical, cultural, and literary factors) in which the Bible developed than
to the text itself — especially when interpreting the first books of the Bible. It is the
context, it is claimed, which is the key to unlocking the meaning of the books of the
Bible for people living in our times, not adherence to the biblical text. 5
to the context (historical, cultural, and literary factors) in which the Bible developed than
to the text itself — especially when interpreting the first books of the Bible. It is the
context, it is claimed, which is the key to unlocking the meaning of the books of the
Bible for people living in our times, not adherence to the biblical text. 5
11. The training of pastors in many seminaries to accept macroevolution as an explanation of origins
superior to Genesis 1, because Genesis is assumed to be a prescientific view of how the world came into
existence — a view not worth serious consideration in our advanced scientific age.
12. The lack of knowledge on the part of pastors and Christians generally that the facts of science
correlate well with Genesis 1-2, but do not correlate with macroevolution.
It is evident that macroevolution is without a solid scientific basis. The same can be said of theistic evolution;
for all the scientific information which is so devastating to atheistic evolution is equally devastating to theistic
evolution.
The era in which theistic evolutionists can be comfortable with both the Bible and with macroevolution appears
to be drawing to a close. Just as the evolutionist Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,
exposed the vulnerability of macroevolution on the basis of molecular biology, so the time is approaching when
some perceptive theistic evolutionist will likely write a book which could be entitled, Theistic Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis.
The former atheistic evolutionist Michael Pitman, in his book Adam and Evolution, writes as follows about the
incredibility of both atheistic and theistic evolution. “Adam and Evolution should be controversial. The many
issues it raises cannot all be dealt with, let alone in depth, in a single sweep. But the direction of the argument
is clear — there has been neither chemical evolution nor macro-evolution. Nor, as some twentieth century
churchmen bioillogically accept, did God involve chance mutations in ‘creation by evolution’. No intelligent
creator would leave matters to chance; on the contrary, his purpose would be to realize, in plan and in
practice, his ideas. Pressing the logic to its conclusion, this book advocates a grand and full-blooded creation.
The implications of this view necessitate a reappraisal of ourselves and of the whole world of organisms
around us.” 6 LSI
References
1. Issues in Evolution., Vol. 3 of Evolution After Darwin. The University of Chicago Centennial Discussions, Sol
Tax, ed. (U. of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 3031.
2. Martin, Malachi. The Jesuits (Linden Press / Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 287.
3. Wilder-Smith, A. Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Bethany House, 1968), p. 168.
4. Dimmler, Eleni, Religious News Service Correspondent. A news article on the topic of faith and science
released from Vatican City shortly after the Challenger space shuttle disaster of January 28, 1968.
5. Link, Mark. These Stones Will Shout (Tabor Publishing, 1983), pp. 10, 15.
6. Pitman, Michael, Adam and Evolution (Rider, 1984), p. 135.
superior to Genesis 1, because Genesis is assumed to be a prescientific view of how the world came into
existence — a view not worth serious consideration in our advanced scientific age.
12. The lack of knowledge on the part of pastors and Christians generally that the facts of science
correlate well with Genesis 1-2, but do not correlate with macroevolution.
It is evident that macroevolution is without a solid scientific basis. The same can be said of theistic evolution;
for all the scientific information which is so devastating to atheistic evolution is equally devastating to theistic
evolution.
The era in which theistic evolutionists can be comfortable with both the Bible and with macroevolution appears
to be drawing to a close. Just as the evolutionist Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,
exposed the vulnerability of macroevolution on the basis of molecular biology, so the time is approaching when
some perceptive theistic evolutionist will likely write a book which could be entitled, Theistic Evolution: A Theory
in Crisis.
The former atheistic evolutionist Michael Pitman, in his book Adam and Evolution, writes as follows about the
incredibility of both atheistic and theistic evolution. “Adam and Evolution should be controversial. The many
issues it raises cannot all be dealt with, let alone in depth, in a single sweep. But the direction of the argument
is clear — there has been neither chemical evolution nor macro-evolution. Nor, as some twentieth century
churchmen bioillogically accept, did God involve chance mutations in ‘creation by evolution’. No intelligent
creator would leave matters to chance; on the contrary, his purpose would be to realize, in plan and in
practice, his ideas. Pressing the logic to its conclusion, this book advocates a grand and full-blooded creation.
The implications of this view necessitate a reappraisal of ourselves and of the whole world of organisms
around us.” 6 LSI
References
1. Issues in Evolution., Vol. 3 of Evolution After Darwin. The University of Chicago Centennial Discussions, Sol
Tax, ed. (U. of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 3031.
2. Martin, Malachi. The Jesuits (Linden Press / Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 287.
3. Wilder-Smith, A. Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Bethany House, 1968), p. 168.
4. Dimmler, Eleni, Religious News Service Correspondent. A news article on the topic of faith and science
released from Vatican City shortly after the Challenger space shuttle disaster of January 28, 1968.
5. Link, Mark. These Stones Will Shout (Tabor Publishing, 1983), pp. 10, 15.
6. Pitman, Michael, Adam and Evolution (Rider, 1984), p. 135.