that chance was for him a proper
SHUTTERSTOCK
belief. One of Darwin’s major contri- butions to theology is the conviction that we belong down here, to this Earth, to the creation, not under or above the whole of the biosphere. The theory is a corrective to human arrogance and to any religion that forgets our proper place here with all other creatures.
Why then is Darwinian evolu- tion cause for so much controversy? Particularly in the West, there is the basic problem some Christians seem to have with science generally. Some believe evolutionary theory is hopelessly atheistic. Others argue that it’s “only” a theory, ignoring the scientific use of the term as a coher- ent, tested and reliable explanation of nature. The fact remains that there is more than enough evidence for it. Evolution has occurred, and, as Dar- win suggested, natural selection has been the major, though not necessar- ily the only, mechanism at work. For many Christians since Dar-
win’s time, evolution has been an acceptable explanation of variety in nature. Despite Darwin’s denials
explanation and only a sign of our ignorance of all the causes for variation, the perception of many has been that the theory insists precisely on chance elements as a sort of explanation. The very idea of evolu- tion through random varia-
tion, without direction or purpose, has smelled of godlessness, an ulti- mately meaningless universe. Ever since Darwin, many clergy and religious thinkers have supported the Darwinian understanding of natu- ral evolution. He was quite popular in ecclesiastical circles in the 19th cen- tury. Questions about God weren’t really central to early debates, but rather the place of the human in evo- lution—the question of our origins, dignity, and place and role in nature. Given the nature of evolutionary theory and how much it is able to explain about our world, it will do well for the religious believer to come to terms with it. God’s deep involve- ment doesn’t preclude the messiness of an evolving world. Creation is not a closed system, but an open one: it’s not yet all that it could be or become. We can say then that the universe is still unfinished. The future of cre- ation is therefore intimately related and dependent on God’s own future. The world is imperfect and suffers from its own imperfections, including accident, pain and suffering. From
an evolutionary perspective, we see more possibilities in dealing realisti- cally with these difficult questions. Christians and other religious thinkers have seen advantages in a theology of creation informed by evolutionary theory. Evolution can help change our views on God’s rela- tion to the world—which can be seen as an ongoing creative process. It can also open new venues of dialogue about “divine transcendence” (and the autonomy of nature’s laws) and “divine immanence” (as in the case of emergent novelty).
It may lead, at least in the case of Christian theology, from a renewed sense of our place in the world to a richer understanding of God’s “real presence” in the world. It sheds light on the Christian belief on God’s “con- tinuing creation” of the world. Truly, evolutionary theory can enrich a Christian understanding of the world in all its complexity. Evolu- tion has been the proper background for new views on divine action in nature pointing toward a fuller pic- ture of the world, in which elements of beauty as well as tragedy are part of the picture. The world is a great “web of life,” with its abundance of life forms and processes, where everything has a place.
This “view of life,” to use Dar-
win’s own phrase, opens the view to aspects of a “self-creating” world, made so by divine love and will, and to see nature as the realm of change, novelty and creativity. We believe God has created a world that is at one and the same time independent from God in its growth and yet dependent on God for its con- tinuity. Darwinian evolution can help us rethink our ideas about God by giving us a more concrete and down- to-earth approach to matters religious and theological—a view more in accord with an “incarnational stance” in Christian thought.
April 2013 19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52