Grudem on Evolutionary Theory
I have been going through the Doctrine of God with my Sunday School class the last few weeks and this week we are talking about creation. Wayne Grudem has an interesting inference on this topic dealing with evolutionary theory:
"If in fact life was not created by God, and if human beings in particular are not created by God or responsible to him, but are simply the result of random occurrences in the universe, then of what significance is human life? We are merely the product of matter plus time plus chance, and so to think that we have any eternal importance, or really any importance at all in the face of an immense universe, is simply to delude ourselves. Honest reflection on this notion should lead people to a profound sense of despair.
Moreover, if all of life can be explained by evolutionary theory apart from God, and if there is no God who created us (or at least if we cannot know anything about him with certainty), then there is no supreme Judge to hold us morally accountable. Therefore there are no moral absolutes in human life, and people's moral ideas are only subjective preferences, good for them perhaps but not to be imposed on others. In fact, in such a case the only thing forbidden is to say that one knows that certain things are right and certain things are wrong.
There is another ominous consequence of evolutionary theory: If the inevitable processes of natural selection continue to bring about improvement in life forms on earth through survival of the fittest, then why should we hinder this process by caring for those who are weak or less able to defend themselves? Should we not rather allow them to die without reproducing so that we might move toward a new, higher form of humanity, even a 'master race?' In fact, Marx, Nietzche, and Hitler all justified war on these grounds."
posted by Charlie Wallace at
2:47 PM
18 Comments:
Grudem is wicked smart. It's interesting to note that despite his rejection of evolution, he's an "old-earth" advocate.
Drew,
Good point. Maybe Grudem finds its unreasonable to go against the scientific 'evidence' of the earth being millions of years old.
I tend to lead toward the young earth/mature earth theory that advocates God created the earth to look old, or mature, which is similar to how he created a mature Adam and Eve. I'm not 100% in the camp though. What about you?
Charlie,
What exactly is the young earth/mature earth theory? I have not heard that much about this. Is it as simple as od created the earth to seem old? Why would he/she do that?
In regards to Grudem
I don't think that believing that humans are the result of random occurances leads to a sense of despair. I think it could lead to a sense that humans have overcome. Against all odds, we have triumphed.
The part about the moral absolutes is a trickey subject that i think all people struggle with. Not the idea of where they come from, but do they exist? Is it okay to kill? This question will result in a million different reasons for people saying yes and a million for people saying no. Does that mean it's not a moral absolute? I do not know. I do know that if one were to ask a million christians if it is okay to kill the answer would roughly be split. So does the belief in god really result in moral absolutes? In the last paragraph you posted, I think he is stretching. I would say that there are certain things that the majority of people can agree on. Genocide being a bad thing, i believe to be one of them. A dictator using propaganda to persuade a population that all of their problems can be blamed on one race of people, i would not classify as "natural" selection.
thats supossed to say god, but i think you knew that.
I am young earth/mature earth, though I am open to old earth.
Dude, the doctrine of God in Sunday School? You rock.
Mr. Mcfeely,
I'll leave the young earth question for Charlie, but I am interested in talking about something you said.
"I think it could lead to a sense that humans have overcome. Against all odds, we have triumphed."
What exactly have we overcome? The witness of history proves that we are moving closer and closer to completely destroying ourselves. For the first time in human history, we have weapons that can potentially bring an end to all life. We just emerged from the bloodiest century in history. Millions upon millions upon millions dead through unnecessary violence. When did that happen? After we decided that God wasn't necessary. Nietzche was right. If God isn't there, then there is no moral judge; therefore, I should will myself to power. Once in power, there will be no real consequences for my actions. Sound like anybody??? Hilter, Mussolini, Stalin, etc.
The human species has overcome. We made it through ice ages, learned how to make weapons that can be used to feed ourselves, etc.
"Millions upon millions upon millions dead through unnecessary violence. When did that happen? After we decided that God wasn't necessary."
More people have been killed beecause of god than for any other reason.
McFeely,
The mature earth view is in fact a view that states that God created the earth in a mature state. Why would he do this? That's a good question. We cannot definitively say why he would do that but we do know, for instance, that the Appalachain mountains are 'older' then the Rocky Mountains. And because of this they look very different and are beautiful in their own ways. All of God's creation is beautiful in different ways. If all of it was the same 'age' then we may not have the beauty we do have. Therefore, God may have created a 'mature' earth where some parts seem older then others so that God's creative beauty may be displayed.
We have evidence that God may work like this since He made Adam and Eve fully mature - and not babies or infants.
Nathan,
I would be in your camp. Also, I taught the SS literature for 2 weeks, got bored and decided I'd teach the doctrine of God. My SS class for those in their 20's...they love it. It gladdens the heart that churches have young people in them that are thirsting for real answers and not this fluffy curriculum about how we can make our lives easier.
Mcfeely,
You said: "beecause of god."
So, if God exists, then it is his fault that many people abuse his name in order to kill. Hmmmmmm....
That would be like saying, "Many people have been killed in the name of Barbara Streisand." In spite of the fact that she never asked anyone to kill for her and, in truth, she hates killing.
“This evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer,” he wrote. “Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic.”
This quote is from Pope Benedict XVI, who at the time of writing was Cardinal Ratzinger. For more info on the Pope and his views on evolution, see the article in today's New York Times. A very interesting article for a classic debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/world/europe/02vatican.html?hp&ex=1157256000&en=6fc4f605bda4679d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Charlie,
I'm torn where I stand on creation right now between old earth and mature young earth. My biggest concern with old earth is squaring it away with the use of "yom" in the biblical text, and my concerns with mature young earth is explaining the fossil record.
Drew,
Those are also my concerns with both views. The fact that the phrase, "it was evening and it was morning, the ____ day" makes me think the days of creation were literal. I think that is strong evidence.
However, science through carbon-14 dating seems pretty sure about fossil dating, even though they will never be 100% sure.
michael
"that would be like saying, "Many people have been killed in the name of Barbara Streisand." In spite of the fact that she never asked anyone to kill for her and, in truth, she hates killing."
No. That would not be the same. First of all Barbara Streisand is a person. Secondly she is not a "being" that religion is based on. Thirdly, who care who's fault it is. The fact of the matter is that millions of people HAVE been killed in the name of god. If millions of people had been killed in the name of Barbra Streisand your analogy might hold water.
McFeely,
You are being ridiculous. All you are doing is taking responsibility away from men for their actions. Since they kill in God's name, it is all his fault. Just look into the Scriptures. Take a stroll through the New Testament and tell me what it says. Love your neighbor as yourself. Look at the words alone. They say, no scream, DO NOT KILL. Quit looking at the interpretation of fallen man. Man is SINFUL. Unless they submit themselves to the teaching of God, they will continue to do sinful things. Yes, sometimes they will do in God's name. That does NOT mean that God is glad they have acted in this manner. In fact, I have a pretty good feeling that it makes him angry.
McFeely, I know you are smarter than your argument would lead me to believe. It is obvious to me that you are. Just think about it for a minute. Your argument goes like this: A man kills somebody and says that he did it for his "best" friend. The problem is that his "best" friend didn't want him to kill anybody. In fact, the truth of the matter is that the killer murdered his "best" friend's best friend. But, everybody starts looking at the situation and says, "Hmmmm, I think that the murder's best friend is the one who is guilty for this crime." Why? Because people start to believe the killer instead of the one who hates killing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I wrote a response, but then realized that it was useless. I'll continue to have my beliefs, and you continuse to have yours. Maybe we can even get together and help to create some "good" in this world. As long as our ideas do not cross each others (ie Jerry Faldwell or Pat Robertson), I do not see how we cannot.
McF,
I know you deleted your comment but i still got it. I believe you asked some good questions. I'll attempt to answer those by looking at what Scripture says about the nature of man:
1) Death Penalty - This is tough. Nevertheless, Scripture is clear on this issue.
2) War in Iraq - I don't think Scripture directly confronts this issue. Jesus command to 'turn the other cheek' is a matter of personal ethics, and not corporate. At some point, if there is an evil in the world, somebody has to act to stop it so that that sinful, evil nation does not destroy the earth and kill more innocent people (much more then are being killed in the war). I know that sounds utilitarian but look at Hitler, etc. Eventually, war is inevitable.
3)If god is so angry that people misrepresent his "words" than why does he not cast them down?
Amen, brother. Why doesn't He? Scripture says that God is patient and longsuffering. Nevertheless, he is storing up his wrath for the end times. God is also loving and his common grace in the governance of the world allows that sin has not completely taken over and destroyed the world. Praise God for his patience with a bunch of sinful (saved as well as not saved) people.
4)Why does he continue to allow people to misrepresent him for their own prosperity?
Good question. Why does God allow anyone to prosper that is evil? Because God has his own secret plan that is not revealed to us.
5)If god is angry that people use his name to kill, then why does he not end them?
Those that kill in his name are probably not Christ-followers. God will deal with all people in the end times.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home