Does Evolution Prove that Christianity Is False? Part 2

Since I’m not a trained scientist, I wanted to have someone with substantial scientific training to evaluate my article to make sure I understood and explained the issues accurately. Thus, I asked Dr. Eric Birgbauer to review my article before I published it. Dr. Birgbauer earned his B.A. in Molecular Biology at the University of California-Berkeley and his Ph.D. in Biology, with an emphasis in cell biology, from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), one of the most prestigious universities in the world. He currently serves as Associate Professor of Biology at Winthrop University. Dr. Birgbauer wrote the following about my article:

Dr. Johnson has written an excellent paper discussing the theory of evolution from a Christian perspective. He explains our current understanding of evolution and the science behind it. He does not dismiss the science, but analyzes it meticulously. He starts with an explanation of the premises of evolution and the strong scientific data that supports small evolutionary changes by natural selection. He then thoughtfully discusses whether these random processes can be extrapolated to explain the origin of all known organisms in all their diversity, and he provides intelligent evidence for his arguments. Furthermore, Dr. Johnson clarifies the important practical theological issue that the science of evolution does not negate the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What if Evolution Is True?

Introduction

This is the second part of an article where I’m attempting to answer this question: does evolution prove that Christianity is false? I’ve chosen to write about this subject because I’ve encountered many people who have rejected Christianity because they think evolution is true; in other words, they think these two beliefs are mutually exclusive. In the first part of this article (which you can read here), I began by stating the obvious: if evolution is false, then it surely doesn’t prove that Christianity is false. I went on to summarize the strongest argument against evolution that I’m aware of. Now, here in part two, I’ll argue that even if evolution is true, this still doesn’t prove that Christianity is false.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that tomorrow someone proves that evolution is true. I’m referring here to full-fledged Darwinian evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, which claims that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor, that all species originated through the process of natural selection selecting superior traits among varying offspring, and that these offspring variations are the result of both normal gene heredity as well as mutations to these genes. I’m going to argue that even if this theory of evolution was somehow proven true tomorrow, this wouldn’t prove that Christianity is false.

Implications Which Would Follow if Evolution Were Proven True

It’s important to think through the implications which would follow if evolution were someday proven true because it’s wise to be prepared for something that might happen. I don’t think it will be proven true, but I could be wrong. In thinking through such implications, it’s important to distinguish between primary and secondary Christian beliefs. Primary Christian beliefs are those which are so basic to the core of Christianity that if one of them were proven false, then Christianity as a whole would in effect be proven false. While there’s some debate as to exactly what should be considered primary Christian beliefs, the following would be affirmed by many, if not most, Christians as a satisfactory list of basic primary Christian beliefs.

1. God exists.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus died and then was miraculously resurrected.
4. A person is forgiven of their evil choices, reconciled back to a right relationship with God, and welcomed into heaven when they die to spend eternity with God if they trust in Jesus as their Savior.
5. The Bible is from God.

It seems to me that this fifth belief isn’t quite as primary as the first four. For example, if somehow it was proven that not all of the Bible was from God (for example, if it was proven that the New Testament book of 2 Peter wasn’t from God) but that the first four beliefs were true, then Christianity as a whole would not be proven false. However, the first four beliefs are just so basic to the core of Christianity that if one of them were proven false, then Christianity as a whole would in effect be proven false.

Secondary beliefs, then, would be beliefs that many Christians have but that aren’t as essential to the Christian faith. In other words, if any of these beliefs were somehow proven false, then Christianity as a whole would not be proven false. As you would expect, Christians disagree with one another and take different positions on these secondary beliefs. For example:

1. Some Christians believe the universe is very old (around fourteen billion years) while other Christians believe it’s rather young (several thousand years).
2. Some Christians believe certain verses in the Bible teach that Jesus will return to earth someday and set up a literal kingdom while other Christians believe those verses shouldn’t be interpreted literally.
3. Some Christians believe many of the Old Testament laws should still be followed today while other Christians believe they shouldn’t.
4. Some Christians believe the Bible has some historical and scientific mistakes in it while other Christians believe the Bible contains no mistakes.
5. Some Christians believe God created human beings instantly through a special act of creation while other Christians believe He created them through macroevolution.

I myself hold certain positions on all of these issues, which I’ve defended elsewhere, but this isn’t the place to reiterate and defend my respective positions. My point here is to illustrate that there are many secondary beliefs, which Christians disagree on among themselves, that, if they were somehow proven wrong, would not prove that basic Christianity as a whole is false.

Some might be surprised to hear that there are Christians who affirm macroevolution. Such Christians sometimes refer to their position as theistic evolution or evolutionary creation. For examples of Christians who affirm macroevolution, first consider Francis Collins. Collins led the Human Genome Project, which mapped out the human genome; was nominated by President Barack Obama to be the Director of the National Institutes of Health; received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and National Medal of Science; wrote the New York Times best-seller The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief; and founded BioLogos, which advocates for the idea that Christianity can be reconciled with evolution.

Second, consider Stephen Barr, who earned his Ph.D. at Princeton, was elected as the president of the Bartol Research Institute, wrote the book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, and is a professor of physics at the University of Delaware. Barr affirms macroevolution but doesn’t believe that natural selection alone can sufficiently explain the origin of species. He wrote that

There is a great deal of evidence—it seems to me to be overwhelming evidence—that evolution happened. What I mean by that is that there is a great deal of evidence pointing to the fact that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. There is also a great deal of evidence that natural selection plays a large role in evolution. What is lacking is sufficient evidence to prove that natural selection by itself is capable of doing the whole job of driving evolution. On top of that, the are some discoveries in recent decades that make that job look a lot harder than it once did.¹  

By explaining the difference between primary Christian beliefs and secondary Christian beliefs, and arguing that macroevolution is a secondary Christian belief, I’ve tried to point out that even if evolution were proven to be true tomorrow, this would not prove that Christianity as a whole is false. However, if evolution were proven true, then there would be at least two important implications for Christianity that I’ll consider now.

First, if evolution were proven to be true, then this might weaken the design argument for God’s existence. I say that it merely might weaken the design argument because maybe it wouldn’t. Consider this insight from Barr in response to Richard Dawkins’ claim that evolution has destroyed the design argument for God:

Paley finds a “watch,” and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley’s point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than the watches themselves? … Darwinian evolution, far from disproving the necessity of a cosmic designer, may actually point to it. We now have the problem of explaining not merely a butterfly’s wing, but a universe that can produce a butterfly’s wing.²

Also, consider the fact that evolution, even if it’s somehow proven true, can’t explain the origin of life. The process of evolution can’t even get up and going until there are organisms that are reproducing themselves, and then only if these reproductions have variations that differ from the parent and from each other. In other words, evolution doesn’t, and can’t, explain one of the most complicated things about life—reproduction. Thus, one could still develop a compelling argument for a designer that designed this initial reproducing organism. Barr noted that

The origin of life problem is made very hard by the fact that that first, “primitive” life-form was probably already enormously complicated. Partly in response to claims that vestiges of one-celled life had been discovered in Martian rocks, biologists have given some thought to the minimum requirements for a self-reproducing one-celled organism. It appears that it needs to have quite an elaborate structure, involving dozens of different proteins, a genetic code containing at least 250 genes, and many tens of thousands of bits of information.³

Even if evolution did weaken the design argument for God, there are still many other good reasons, evidence, and arguments for God’s existence, such as the moral argument, the fine-tuning-of-the-universe argument, and the first-cause argument. 

The second important implication for Christianity, if evolution were somehow proven to be true, is that some Christians, including myself, would have to adjust our interpretation of some verses in the Bible and some of our theological positions. For example, we might conclude that well-known Christians such Augustine (AD 354-430) and C. S. Lewis (AD 1898-1963) were correct in interpreting the early chapters of Genesis more allegorically instead of literally. For example, we might conclude that the creation story in Genesis isn’t as much of a literal explanation of how God created the universe, earth, and humans but more of a poetic summary which communicates, in a way that pre-scientific people could understand, the truth that God is the creator of everything. But it’s important to remember that adjusting our interpretation of some verses in the Bible is a far cry from rejecting all of Christianity as a whole.

Some Christians may be hesitant to acknowledge that science can help us interpret the Bible more accurately. They might even respond to such an idea with indignation and contempt, incorrectly assuming this acknowledgment elevates human ideas above God’s truth. Such Christians should remember that God communicates to us in two ways—through nature (His creation) and through Scripture (the Bible). Theologians often refer to these two forms of communication from God as general revelation (through His creation) and special revelation (through the Bible). It’s important to note that both general revelation and special revelation are revelations; that is, they’re both truth that God has revealed to us, albeit in different ways. Now, if Christianity is true, and there are strong reasons and evidence to believe it is, then these two forms of communication cannot contradict each other. In other words, there can be no contradiction or conflict between what creation (nature) tells us and what Scripture tells us.

However, one very important truth is often forgotten in this conversation: we as finite human beings have to interpret both forms of revelation. We call our interpretation of nature “science,” and our interpretation of the Bible we call “theology.” Christians should all humbly acknowledge that our interpretations of nature and the Bible are not infallible; we make mistakes in our interpretations because we’re finite, fallible creatures. Thus, while there cannot be a conflict between nature and the Bible, there are times where there’s a conflict between science and theology. When such conflicts between science and theology occur, we can assume that one of two things has happened: either we’ve made a mistake in our interpretation of nature (in our science) or we’ve made a mistake in our interpretation of the Bible (in our theology). We all know from history that we as humans have made grievous mistakes in both areas of interpretation at different times, some of which had dire consequences.

Therefore, because we can make mistakes in interpreting both general and special revelation, Christians should embrace the idea that science can help us interpret the Bible more accurately. For example, in a situation where there’s a conflict between our science and our theology, if we’re much more confident in our interpretation of nature (science) on a particular issue and less confident in our interpretation of the Bible (theology) on the issue (maybe there’s a few possible, plausible interpretations of the Bible we’re considering), then science could help us ascertain which of these interpretations is correct. In fact, this very situation has happened several times within Christian theology.

Consider for a moment the most famous example from history where science helped Christians improve their interpretation of the Bible. For centuries Christian theologians had interpreted certain verses (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5) to mean that the earth doesn’t move. This was one of the reasons that caused Christians at the time to believe the earth didn’t move and that the sun rotated around the earth (geocentrism). However, early scientists, such as Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, by studying God’s general revelation in nature, discovered in fact that the sun doesn’t move and that the earth rotates around the sun (heliocentrism). Some Christians theologians were too prideful about their interpretation of these verses in that they assumed their interpretation could not be wrong. They accused those who advocated for heliocentrism of committing heresy, attacking the Christian faith, and rejecting God’s Word in favor of man’s word. Eventually, as more and more scientific evidence verified heliocentrism, these theologians had to admit that their interpretation of these verses was wrong. Instead, they should have been more humble to begin with by admitting that their interpretation of the Bible might be incorrect and listened more respectfully to the scientists. We too should be humble about out positions, admit that our interpretation of the Bible might be incorrect, and recognize that science, by studying God’s general revelation, can sometimes help us improve our interpretation of the Bible.             

Conclusion to Part 2

In this second part of my article, I argued that even if evolution is true, this still doesn’t prove that Christianity is false. I began by explaining the difference between primary and secondary Christian beliefs and argued that whether or not evolution is true is a secondary Christian belief. Secondary Christian beliefs are those beliefs which, if proven wrong, would not mean that basic Christianity as a whole would be proven wrong. I often counsel people who have become convinced that evolution is true that they don’t necessarily have to therefore reject Christianity. There are many solid Christians who affirm evolution though I respectfully disagree with them on this issue.

If evolution were proven true somehow, there would be some implications that all Christians would have to consider. It’s helpful for people who don’t believe evolution is true to think through these implications now so that they’re prepared for the possibility of evolution being proven true. I myself, at this time, believe that macroevolution is false based on the scientific evidence, and I interpret the first few chapters of Genesis more literally. However, I could be wrong on both accounts. Therefore, I’m willing to continue studying the evidence both in God’s general revelation (nature) and His special revelation (the Bible) to improve my interpretation of both.

Footnotes

[1] Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), 109–10.

[2] Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, 111–12.

[3] Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, 74.

Bibliography

Barr, Stephen M., Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003.

Behe, Michael J., The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. New York: Free Press, 2007.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, 1859.

Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.

Dembski, William A. and Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems. Dallas: The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008.

© Adam Lloyd Johnson and Convincing Proof.