by Terry Defoe

Terry Defoe was educated at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Sociology, 1978), Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (M.Div., 1982), and the Open Learning University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Psychology, 2003). Defoe served as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. He has been interested in the science / faith dialog for more than 30 years. His intellectual journey took him from young earth creationism to an evolutionary perspective. Details at www.evolvingcertainties.com. In 2018, two years after he retired, he published Evolving Certainties: Resolving Conflict at the Intersection of Faith and Science, which received endorsements from scientists affiliated with the BioLogos Association, including a Foreword from its first president, biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma University, as well as scientists holding membership in the American Scientific Affiliation, a group Defoe joined in 2019.

Abstract

For many years, the theory of evolution has been at or near the top of the list of controversial issues in the evangelical church. This is especially true among U.S. evangelicals over the last 100 years. A cottage industry has grown up, focused on defending evangelical orthodoxy, which claims that the Bible is inerrant in every topic it deals with, including science. This paper is a brief account of a journey from young-earth creationism to an evolutionary point of view. It includes a summary of the kinds of questions asked, and important insights gained along the way. It is intended as a guide for others who are, or who may be contemplating, travelling that same road.

Introduction

I was ordained in 1982, in a very conservative Lutheran denomination. That denomination, for example, discourages prayers with other Christians because that prayer could indicate greater agreement on doctrinal issues than actually exists. And so, rather than minimizing, or appearing to minimize the doctrinal issues, prayer with other Christians is discouraged altogether.

It’s helpful to consider the kinds of arguments against evolution and biological science that I was hearing during those early years of ministry. A sample of my questions at the time

includes: .

• What exactly does my denomination teach about creation?
• What am I as a pastor expected to uphold and proclaim?
• Is it possible for me to change my mind on any of these things?
• And if it was, would it be possible to indicate that publicly, without reprisal?

At the time of my ordination, I promised to subscribe to my denomination’s views about creation. This topic was not a high priority for me at the time. I was “opted in” but there was no check box allowing me to opt out [while remaining on my denomination’s clergy roster!]

From the earliest days of my ministry I have been an advocate for responsible stewardship – that is, for looking after the gifts that God gives his people. But at this point I hadn’t considered the importance of the responsible stewardship of knowledge as well, and that includes scientific knowledge.

For several years before enrolling in seminary, I had spent time in Pentecostal circles, known in those days as the charismatic renewal. At that time, I had some half-baked ideas about science. I believed, for example, that science was essentially atheistic. I believed that science was a form of idolatry. I bought into the idea that science was inherently antagonistic to religion and that the so-called warfare thesis was an accurate description of the relationship between science and faith.

Cognitive Dissonance

I was ordained in 1982. Seven years later, in late 1989, I began researching the literature on science and faith. As noted above, I had many questions and few satisfactory answers. The answers I did receive from my own denomination were, in my opinion, one-sided and often evasive. The intellectual journey that began back in 1989 continues today, 36 years later.

Psychologists describe “openness to new experience” as an important personality trait – a trait that varies over a spectrum from one individual to another. I score high on that trait which helps to explain why the prospect of embarking on this journey was – and remains – exciting to me. Looking back, I can now see that a major motivator for my research was a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological theory first proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957, describing the mental discomfort experienced by individuals confronted with new information that conflicts with their existing beliefs. I began my survey of the literature with more questions.

• I wanted to know the age of the earth and about deep time.
• Was life created in six days or over a very long period of time?
• Was creation complete or ongoing?

Flood Geology

I learned that young-earth creationism had its beginning in the nineteenth century in the context of the Seventh-day Adventist [SDA] Church in the U.S. SDA prophet Ellen G. White experienced a vision in which she claimed she had been shown that the Biblical flood caused massive changes in the earth’s geology, including the deposition of countless fossils. White’s predictions were questioned, however, after she predicted – incorrectly – the return of Jesus Christ on October 22^nd, 1844. My research revealed that White’s flood geology, which is at the center of creation science, was given its current form at the turn of the 20^th century by Canadian self-taught geologist George McCready Price.

Evangelicals typically respond to mainstream science in one of three ways: ignore, attack or engage. I have consistently chosen the latter – engagement — in my ministerial career. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, has consistently chosen the second – attack – overtly denigrating science and scientists. And the reason they do this is not so much based on the science itself, its data, or its evidence, but out of loyalty to a Bible doctrine called inerrancy which is a high priority for U.S. Evangelicals.

Presuppositionalism

A critical component of the young earth creationist worldview is presuppositionalism, the view that should science and faith differ, it is always science that’s in the wrong. Young-earth creationism [YEC] is simultaneously an attack on science and a defense of the Bible, as most evangelicals understand it. YEC’s believe that their proprietary interpretation of scripture’s creation accounts is inviolable. They believe that the Bible is a book of science as well as a book of faith.

Biblical science is ancient science, and ancient science is phenomenological—that is, based on what the eye can see and on limited human abilities—without the benefit of technology. Many evangelicals are convinced that the Bible has scientific discoveries written into it, put there by inspiration as a way of reassuring believers that the Bible is in fact inspired. Most YECs believe that science and faith are naturally opposed to one another and that science has a long-term goal of destroying the Christian faith. Psychologists call this catastrophism, that is, making a non-issue into a catastrophe.

Before I entered seminary, I was warned that I ought to be careful about science and not buy into what it was saying about evolution. Evolutionary science, I was told, would seriously erode and could potentially destroy my faith.

As far as evangelicals are concerned, science is either contested or uncontested. Most science is uncontested — it causes evangelicals no theological concerns. Some science, however, is highly contested — typically biological science and the theory of evolution. It seems odd to me that individuals would be against evolution but in favor of almost everything else that science has accomplished. Anything that would challenge their proprietary interpretation of scripture’s creation accounts is contested, while everything else is fair game.

Young-earth creationist leaders are more than willing to take advantage of the lack of scientific literacy among their constituency. In addition, YEC’s often cherry-pick quotes from mainline scientists, ignoring the original context, turning the message into something very different from the author’s original intention. It’s ironic that those who complain loudly about “fake news” will so often be captivated by the “fake science” promoted by YEC.

There is an unfortunate lack of integrity among YEC leadership both in terms of message as well as methodology.

Young earth creationism is a major liability to the Church. Many young people have left the church, convinced that the Church is inflexible and out of touch – living in an alternate reality. Many church leaders avoid responsibility in this area by remaining silent. Young-earth creationism is imprisoned in a pre-scientific worldview. It’s not surprising that what young people learn about science at church is often quite different from what they learn in a university classroom. I call the resulting cognitive dissonance, “science shock.” Science shock leaves young people wondering whether the church can be trusted in other areas if it cannot be trusted in the area of science. Many young people believe that they must choose science or faith. They cannot have both. Many evangelical denominations do not tell the whole story to their people.

Copernicanism

It’s significant that as the Scientific Revolution was gaining momentum in the early 16th Century, Nicholaus Copernicus claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe. He argued that the earth circled the Sun rather than the other way around. Theologians of that day said that Copernicus was wrong because he was proposing a view that disagreed with their interpretation of the Scriptures. They quoted verses such as Psalm 93:1 that describe the earth as immovable –

The lord reigns; he is robed in majesty. The lord is robed in majesty and armed with strength. Indeed the world is established firm and secure. It cannot be moved.

Psalm 104:5 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 carry similar thoughts. Copernicus put Christian leaders on the horns of a dilemma. Was he correct? If so, what did that mean for the exegetes and their interpretation? How could they modify their interpretation without causing problems for themselves and the Church?

Divine Intervention

A critical issue in this discussion is the question of divine intervention. Is God involved in creation? I have come to believe that the initial spark of life was God’s work, that it was a singularity, a unique event in history very similar to the singularity called the Resurrection of Christ. In both instances God stepped into history and did something totally unheard of. I’ve come to the conclusion that God is directly involved in maintaining his Creation. And should that maintenance stop, chaos would return. Science in general has no problem with divine intervention because it takes place below the surface and cannot be measured scientifically or falsified. Again, many evangelicals reject modern science, not on the basis of scientific facts and evidence, but on the basis of the social pressure that would be brought to bear should they change their views.

Divine intervention is the key to a proper understanding of the relationship of science and faith. The point of view that I have adopted is similar to a scientific theory called orthogenesis. Orthogenesis proposes that evolution has an innate tendency or driving force that compels organisms to evolve in a straight line progression towards some definite goal or predetermined end point. God has a plan for his creation and that plan is unfolding according to his will.

Living Color

I remember watching a series of YouTube videos about a very special kind of eyeglasses.

These expensive eyeglasses enable individuals with color blindness see color for the very first time. These glasses are expensive so family members we’ll often get together and chip in to be able to buy them. What families will often do is invite the individual to a family meeting. They will give them this gift, ask them to open the package and put the glasses on. The moment they do that, they will often break down, overcome by emotion because they are seeing color for the very first time and they realize what they’ve been missing.

Something similar occurs when individuals abandon YEC pseudoscience and take on an evolutionary point of view. We have seen that the real reason for young-earth creationism is a misguided defense of the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy which causes evangelicals to bend over backwards in an effort to show the world that the Bible is indeed a book of science as well as faith. Inerrancy is a basic evangelical doctrine. But some scholars are proposing that inerrancy ought to be limited to the spiritual truths that the Bible contains. It could very well be that young-earth creationism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible is all about.

Conclusion

Christian pastors are accountable for the accuracy of what they claim. Church members trust them to convey accurate and reliable information. The information that YEC shares is anything but accurate and reliable. Jesus of Nazareth was correct when he said that putting new wine into old wineskins could easily cause the old wineskins to rupture. Pastors are under intense pressure to adhere to the party line, as it were. Should they change their views publicly, they are liable to be shown the door. As a result, many pastors live in the closet and are very discreet about what they say and to whom they say it.

The more I studied this issue, what science had to say made increasing sense to me. Whenever I considered the possibility of adopting a pro-evolutionary point of view, however, a kind of guilt swept over me based on the thought that I was somehow betraying my ordination vows by taking on a perspective that was unacceptable to my denomination. But that didn’t deter me. I still felt driven to check these things out.

In 2016, I published a book on science and faith titled Evolving Certainties: Resolving Conflict at the Intersection of Faith and Science. That book tells my story. It deals with biblical, literary, and hermeneutical issues. Since the book was published I’ve made many new friends, people who are able to balance their faith with their science, including members of the American Scientific Affiliation which is made up of several thousand PhD scientists from around the world who are evangelical Christians at the same time. I have come to believe that it is certainly possible – and God-pleasing — to balance faith and evolutionary science. Evangelicals have been kicking this can down the road for many years, and needs to deal with this divisive issue once and for all.

There are many who are on a similar journey and many more who are considering it. I would hope that this paper is an encouragement to carry on – and, most importantly, to tell others what you discover along the way. There’s an old Russian proverb that says you should measure your cloth seven times before you cut it because once it’s cut it is done. And that certainly applies to this issue as well. Expect questions and criticism. No dogma ever rolled over and gave up without a fight. As I said in the preface to my book,

I truly believe that faithfulness to a particular theological heritage may require challenging that body of doctrine from time to time. Martin Luther knew this truth and acted upon it, despite great danger to life and limb. At the end of the day, this journey has impressed upon me the critical importance of hermeneutics: accurate interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. If at the end of the day our interpretation of the Scriptures is more accurate, our doctrines have been appropriately reviewed, our respect for science has grown, and our personal faith has been enriched, then the excursion outlined in this book will have been worthwhile.