I began this series by stating that the issue of human evolution has profoundly changed, not just the scientific community, but the course of Christianity. I will continue making my case.

The World We May Want

As Christians, most of us would prefer a world where there is absolute agreement between the straightforward interpretation of scripture and the world in which we live. However, that is not the case. There is a notable discrepancy between how some of that scripture is interpreted and the evidence apparent in the world. Following Thomas Aquinas’ teachings, those two books must be reconciled.

Is the creation story, how God created the entire cosmos in just six days, literal? That would have profound implications for geology and archeology, not to mention cosmology. Archbishop Ussher’s reading of the Biblical genealogies in the seventeenth century, with an uninterrupted lineage between a literal Adam and Jesus, would indicate a world that is just six thousand years old. If Noah’s flood was literal and worldwide, it would have profound evidence in the earth’s geological record. If the theological concept of human sin, ushering in death, would have profound implications in history, where there could be no pre-human deaths of any organism, if taken literally. But I argue, this is not the world we find when we look at it honestly. Those who promote an agreement between such a literal interpretation of scripture and scientific evidence are lying to you. They are grossly misrepresenting the science.

I spent over half my life in a brand of Christianity that demanded you must believe the literal interpretation of scripture, as I have described in that previous paragraph. And in that world, if there is an Aquinas-type of reconciliation, it is in re-interpreting nature, not scripture. That’s what I found in that world. However, once I chose to pursue the truth at all costs, first studying the conservative Christian view of nature, then the secular view, it became apparent that the evidence for the secular view is overwhelming and the conservative Christian view, delusional. There is more evidence that the Earth is very old (billions of years) than that the Moon is not made of cheese. Evolution too has profound evidence supporting it in both the fossil record and in the genomes of organisms, including humans. Why then does there appear to be a conflict between the conservative Christian and the geologists, anthropologists, and evolutionary biologists?

Coming to the Evidential Table

Imagine an evolutionary biologist sitting at one side of a table of evidence, and a conservative Christian on the other side. Both of them are intelligent. Before them is evidence about the age of the Earth and human origins. Looking at the evidence, they reach profoundly different answers. What’s going on here?

The case I’ve been trying to make is that in science, and I know science well, there is a sincere objective of finding truth. In religion, there is only one objective, and that is proving the dogmas of that religion. Dogmas run deep into the soul of a person. Looking at evidence with a genuinely open mind is virtually impossible for them. It would be like trying to persuade (most of us) that pedophilia or racism has some good qualities. It would run so counter to our core beliefs.

I watch a lot of lectures and debates on anthropology and geology. One debate I watched a few months ago was between a Christian anti-evolutionist and an anthropologist, who goes by the YouTube name “Gutsick Gibbon.” Gutsick’s real name is Erika, and she was raised as a young-earth creationist, evangelical, but is now an evolutionist and an agnostic.

Erika did a five-hour debate with Dr. Jerry Bergman. Dr. Bergman is on staff at the Institute of Creation Research, which requires all staff to believe in a six-thousand-year-old Earth and anti-evolution. In the beginning, the moderator asked Dr. Bergman what he would have to see (evidence) to change his mind. He reported that just one transitional form, a creature that is between apes and humans, exists. During the night, Erika presented (clearly) transitional forms after transitional forms (with both ape and human characteristics), and each time, Dr. Bergman dismissed them as either being an ape or a different human race. This illustrates the emotional impossibility for those who hold these dogmas, religiously, to be objective. I’ve heard these young-earth conservative Christians project their bias onto the scientists, claiming that the scientists have an agenda. Few do. You can watch the debate here. If you are someone who understands the basics of science, it is also a very good (although very long) discussion showing both the evolutionists and the anti-evolutionists’ evidence.

The church had a choice to make, starting with Galileo Galilei in the seventeenth century, to reassess its dogmas in the face of overwhelming evidence in nature that contradicts its teachings. That’s what an honest truth-seeker would do. The Catholic church, in the case of Galileo, chose tradition over proof. As the enlightenment progressed and sincere truth seekers like James Hutton (the father of modern geology) in the eighteenth century and Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century, part of the church (now known as conservatives) chose to ignore the evidence and stick with their traditions, often based on a literal or narrow interpretation of scripture, or tradition alone.

Now, I will be clear, on a personal level, it does not matter if you believe in an earth that is 4.5 billion years old or six thousand years old. It does not matter if you think that there is evidence of evolution on many levels or not. By itself, this is not a moral issue. It does not make you a better or a worse Christian, on which side you come down.

The problem is how the conservative Christians have chosen to react to the overwhelming evidence. Rather than to consider the evidence, they have decided to lie and create conspiracy theories about the scientists who have found this evidence. The problem has evolved (pun intended) that now, the entire conservative Christian movement has become comfortable with lies and conspiracy theories. Now, and I know this from experience, conservative churches are awash in these anti-science lies. They demonize good people such as Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and all Democrats. They exchange stories of how Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton operate pedophile enterprises. They are against vaccines, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that they are safe and effective in saving lives, basing their positions on lies rather than evidence. I’ve heard conservative pastors tell cancer victims to stop their chemo and take “natural” herbs they are selling, with incredible evidence supporting the chemo and none supporting their herb. I’ve watched those people die due to these lies. This is the great tragedy of the war they have started against science. In my opinion, the scientist is doing God’s work, far more so than most of the religious people. If there is a God, that God is bathed in factual truth, not lies.

In the next posting, I want to start going over the actual evidence regarding evolution. I will begin with the “proof” of the anti-evolutionist conservative Christians.

Respectfully, Mike