The Two Spheres

I had a tough time conveying my beliefs regarding the relationship between creationism and evolution earlier today. I was arguing for an approach to the debate that respected both theology and biology as separate and distinct disciplines.

I hold a largely literal interpretation of Scripture. However, I acknowledge that science, as an area of study, concerns itself with those things that are falsifiable and can be proven with respect to the laws of the physical universe. Therefore, I do not expect teachers of biology in academic settings to promote creation on equal footing with evolution for the sake of appeasing Christian taxpayers. It is not science’s obligation to pander to matters of faith.

Having cleared that up, I can now go on to state my belief in the literal interpretation of man’s formation out of the dust as described in the book of Genesis. To elucidate on how I could still make such a claim in light of the above, I will make an analogy to an event from another area of Scripture. When the Israelites broke free from their bondage to Egypt and set out for the land promised them by God, they were sustained by him with manna from heaven. Bread which rains from the sky is quite uncommon, as those who live in this modern age well know. A meteorologist might describe how such an occurrence as a “bread storm” is impossible, perhaps with a smile, like those of the friendly weathermen on the news. Significantly, devout and literalist Christians would also admit that this sort of thing does not happen every day. However, a Christian will affirm that bread rained down for the Israelites all the same, just as we read. And what is the Christian’s explanation for this? Proper faith dictates that a believer takes it as true, even though it clashes starkly with our senses and common perceptions. Manna, far from being explainable in scientific terms, was a miracle nonetheless. A miracle—something not dependent on the physical laws which govern the universe. God performs miracles freely, as he is not constrained in his work by the rules of the creation which he himself created. This is our belief.

Why has there been no meteorological debate on a par with the evolutionary debate? Scientists and Christians would certainly hold contradictory views on the subject. This is because a Christian is content to believe a miracle to be the exception to the general rule, while he otherwise subjects his understanding to the practical workings of geological science, which describe what we see day by day. This does not present a problem, for faith allows us to hold as true also that which is unseen.

What does this have to do with evolution? I propose that in dealing with evolution we are dealing with a similar scenario. Man’s direct creation by God’s hand is a miracle, and this truth should be accepted unreservedly, no matter how buried it becomes under the heaps of Neanderthal bones that are drudged up out of the earth. Why has evolution become such a hot topic while discussions of manna are safely closeted to Sunday school lectures? The difference lies in the practicality of miracles. The miracle of man’s creation, before the rise of Darwinian thought, seemed practical in lieu of an alternate explanation. The miracle of the manna, on the other hand, was never practical, not even in the time in which it was manifest. The evolutionary debate has been spurred on, then, I believe, by Christians unwilling to let creationism skip into the category of the unpractical. We must realize, always, that because something seems unpractical, in light of physical evidence, it does not bar us from a recourse to faith in miracles that overcomes any obstacle, moves any mountain, without any overt exertion of our own. So do not struggle to argue for creationism’s practicality; do not attempt to say that it is scientifically feasible—this is not necessary. Christians must know when to divorce themselves from scientific thought and reasoning. (I write this not to argue that we should remain ignorant of learning, but rather we should not say that such-and-such is impossible merely because science precludes it. All is possible with God.)

This is my belief. There are two spheres, those of science and religion. I can yet uphold a literal belief in creationism without denying the physical evidence for evolution or making an assault on science.