*Update 08/28/12: For those of you who found this post by Googling "Mark Driscoll, evolution," I just want to point something out. Originally I said I didn't know much about evolution, so I wasn't going to jump into the whole Evolution Vs. Creationism debate. Well, two years and a college Biology class later, I'll have to disagree with Driscol and Breshears' argument that "macro-evolution goes against what the Bible teaches." And I say this because:
1). Genesis was written during a pre-Enlightenment era by ordinary men trying to make sense of extraordinary experiences with God
2). Fossils don't lie!
Now, back to the original post . . .
* * *
In chapter three of
Doctrine, Mark Driscol Gerry Breshears talk about how God created the world, and what creation tells us about God.
First, Driscoll and Breshears go over the different ways Christians interpret Genesis chapters 1 and 2:
1.
Historic Creationism: The earth was cultivated in six literal 24-hour days, but the world could have existed in a formless state billions of years before that (see Genesis 1:1-2).
2.
Young Earth Creationism: Both the earth and the universe were created in six literal days, and the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
3.
Gap Theory: A first creation happened perhaps billions of years ago. Then after a catastrophic event--most likely the fall of Satan--the earth was left formless. A thousand years later, God re-created the earth in six literal days.
4.
Literary Framework View: The biblical account of creation is a figurative framework in a topical, not sequential, order.
5.
Day-Age View: The earth was not created in six twenty-four hours, but in six sequential periods of time.
6.
Theistic Evolution: God begins creation, but then pulls back from working directly and instead works through evolution.
Driscoll and Breshears claim that Historic Creationism is the most biblical, but they don’t believe it’s the only way to interpret Genesis.
Second, contrary to what many people believe, Christianity is not against science. Science teaches us how God’s creation works. Christianity is, however, at odds with scientific naturalism, which is the belief that creation is “merely the product of time, energy, and chance” (page 97). In other words, it teaches that no gods were involved with creating life at all. While there is some truth to micro-evolution (plants and animals adapting to their environments), macro-evolution (species descending from other species) goes against everything the Bible teaches, according to Driscoll and Breshears. Macro-evolution says that there is no rhyme or reason to anything, and that everything in nature came about by mere chance.
Third, Driscoll and Breshears write that because God created heaven and earth, He is not a distant God. As N.T. Wright says, rather than God being either physically present in nature or completely distant from it, God interlocks His heaven with His creation. “Therefore,” Driscoll and Breshears write, “the doctrine of creation sets the stage for the coming of Jesus Christ. Indeed, God becomes a man who is our creator amidst His creation. He comes to connect heaven and earth through Himself as the mediator between the two” (page 108).
I didn’t take AP Biology in high school (I had the brains, but lacked the motivation), so I honestly don’t know much about evolution. From what little bits I’ve read from the creationism vs. evolution debates, I side more with either Theistic Evolution or the Literary Framework View. But I could be wrong, so I’m not going to stand on a roof and loudly proclaim either one.
I do, however, think that instead of a debate between science and religion, there should be a
dialogue between the two. Both are trying to figure out how this crazy world works (in different ways, of course). Maybe if both sides compared notes more often we wouldn’t have such a dichotomy between faith and fact.
What do you think?
