Depression is the most common mental health affliction, described as the common cold of psychiatry. I work among the mentally ill every week, and most of my patients are depressed, some severely so. They move slowly, they sigh a lot, their facial expressions are grim, their words few and negative, their thought process inward and despairing. Some have tried to kill themselves. Many are thinking of doing so, something called “suicidal ideation.” Some of these eventually succeed.
Here are some grim and little understood facets of depression.
1. Both body and mind slow down. People become constipated. They talk slowly. They report that it’s difficult to think because thoughts come slowly, if at all.
2. Many abandon social media. This phenomenon is so reliable that psychiatrists have proposed monitoring social media posts as a way to diagnose depression.
3. Sleep becomes poor. Some cease dreaming. Others run a fever at night. Most toss and turn. Some can’t sleep at all, while other sleep away the day.
4. For many, all color drains from the world, as if they now see in black and white. Food loses its taste. Sex becomes uninteresting. Smells are muted. Beauty is obscured. God goes behind a Great Wall.
5. Regrets take hold. Even those usually not prone to ruminating about the past now obsess about it, becoming convinced that their current doomed lives are the results of choices they now wish could be altered. Sometimes a regret is just a regret. But depression magnifies them to an inordinate degree.
6. Relationships becomes less important. Making new connection is nearly impossible due to low energy levels. Maintaining current ones is a strain. Most people with depression withdraw from their social networks and even their families.
7. Pain is more painful. Aches are more achey. Uncomfortable stretches become more uncomfortable. Even random painful stimuli like a stubbed toe or a paper cut are magnified.
Given the many and varied afflictions of depression, why would Mother Nature let this happen to her children? Depression is a phenomena of withdrawal and shutdown. Based on this some believe it’s an adaption to tragedy, loss or social humiliation. Depression encourages the sufferer to slow down, reflect and reconsider while also protecting one from further harm. While this has plausibility, the extreme forms depression are hardly adaptive. Severe depression can render people completely disabled, unable to work or interact with society. Some become bed bound. Others kill themselves. The standard theory for this is due to a biochemical imbalance. Certain forms of depression such as manic depression show these kinds of changes, with large swings in dopamine driving equal large swings in mood and behavior. The question is whether biochemical changes cause depression or are caused by it.
What’s clear is that depression is an illness, one that can be treated effectively with medication and talk therapy. New therapies are coming online: magnetic stimulation of the brain, ketamine, and psychedelics. There is no need to endure months of affliction.
The mysteries of depression persist. Most of the depressive signs I described are not understood. Plenty of research lies ahead. In the meantime, I can reassure the suffering that they are not at fault, and that treatments exist to ameliorate and asometimes cure their affliction.
Lord, Make me an instrument of your peace and a channel of your grace. May I be an emissary of your love, an envoy of your blessing and a messenger of hope to all who suffer. Amen.
We all have spiritual sight, but our vision can become blurry. Grace, like corrective lenses, restores our spiritual vision. When we do wrong or ignore the spiritual life, the blurry vision returns. But grace is aways nearby, waiting to make our sight clear again. We put our grace glasses on, we take them off again. This is the dynamic of our life with God.
Emotions are primary. Thoughts are secondary. Thoughts float through the mind, marching by, circling back, insistent. Emotions well up from the deep, unbidden, then flow out, swirl, erupt like a geyser. Neither emotion nor thought can be controlled, but emotion is the primal power. Emotion is the horse, thought the rider. But who controls who? Thoughts are wisps of cumulus cloud on a sunny day, which fade and disappear. Emotions are the thunderstorms and hurricanes you never forget. Emotions are primary.
This is a piece I wrote in 1999. I had been reading the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and a book by Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, that explores the implications of the theory of evolution for philosophy and theology. Darwin presents an overwhelming case for evolution, and perhaps to a lesser extent, natural selection. I found Dennett’s conclusions devastating for any traditional Christian theology. I also found that Christian thinking had not engaged evolution by natural selection in any meaningful way. I had a lot to think through, and I did so by writing a piece in debate format.
When I look at this piece today, I note the immaturity of the writing; no one actually talks like this. But I wouldn’t change the arguments at all.
I hope you find this a thought-provoking read. — E. D. Nelson
Townsend: Good evening. It’s 9 o’clock, and this is WDRW radio 99.9 FM. My name is Mark Townsend. Today’s show is about evolution and Christianity. Is evolution compatible with Christianity? Can you be a Christian and accept that humanity evolved through a process of natural selection? Is evolution compatible with the idea of a creator God?
We’ve invited three prominent scholars here today to discuss these questions. Tom Sabeus teaches systematic theology at the Cornelius School of Religion in New Trent, North Dakota. He has a PhD in theology from the University of Lund, Sweden and specializes in the dialogue between science and religion. Our second guest is Robert Strand, a professor of evolutionary biology from Salem University in Tennessee. He publishes widely on evolution and co-authored a recent book with Princeton philosopher Dan Denettson on the philosophical ramifications of evolution. Our third guest is the Director of the Institute for Scientific Creation in Montreal, Canada. His name is Frederick Dish, and he has a PhD in biochemistry. He’s also a pastor of a 700 member church in Montreal.
Gentlemen, thank you for coming today. I’d like to start with a few words from each of you on this issue. Professor Sabeus, let’s start with you. Does evolution pose a threat to Christianity?
Sabeus: No, Mark, I don’t think it does. Misunderstandings about creation and evolution mostly stem from confusing the questions science can answer with the questions religion can answer. Evolution is like any other scientific theory. It can only tell us how things happen, not why. It doesn’t threaten Christian faith any more than Newton’s theory of gravitation, because religious faith deals with the purpose of life, not its cause.
Townsend: Professor Strand, what’s your take on this?
Strand: Well, I’m happy that Tom isn’t opposed to the scientific theory itself, but I doubt that he’s going to like my position.
Townsend: Why’s that?
Strand: Well, it’s popular these days to say there’s no incompatibility between evolution and religion. Many scientists take this position, including well-known scientists like Steven Gould. But I maintain that if you accept evolution, you can’t logically believe in a creator God.
Dish: Mark, forgive me for breaking in here, but I just want to say that I couldn’t agree more. Evolution is absolutely incompatible with Christian belief. They just don’t work together.
Sabeus: I think that’s a little extreme.
Townsend: Gentlemen, before we get into a heated debate, let’s have everyone finish their opening statements. Professor Strand, were you done?
Strand: For now.
Townsend: Dr. Dish, did you have more to say?
Dish: Yes, I do. First I’d just like to say I’m pleased you invited an evangelical. We’re often excluded from debates like this, and I appreciate your open mindedness in inviting me to your show.
Townsend: You’re welcome, Dr. Dish.
Dish: Now, as I was saying, creation and evolution are utterly incompatible. It’s clear from the scriptures that God created each kind of plant and animal by divine command, not by natural law. Furthermore, the Bible teaches that God created man and woman specially, as the crown of creation. If evolution is true, there wasn’t anything special about it. Man just emerged through random, mechanical forces with no need of the intelligent acts of an omniscient God. That just isn’t compatible with a biblical doctrine of creation.
Townsend: That’s a pretty strong statement. Professor Sabeus, what’s your response to that?
Sabeus: As I said earlier, I think Fred’s position is based on a misunderstanding of the function of religion. Religion doesn’t explain how humans came to be. It just tells us why. And the reason why is something we agree on—to love and to know God. The people who wrote the Old Testament didn’t have the scientific method. So they explained things as best they could, through myth. According to the Genesis myth, God created the heavens and the earth in seven literal days and made Adam and Eve out of dust and a rib. No one believes that today, of course.
Dish: Wait a minute, what do you mean “No one believes that”? I believe that.
Sabeus: I meant no one who is scientifically literate.
Dish: Tom, I have a doctorate in biochemistry, so I don’t think you have the right to…
Townsend: Gentlemen, let’s try to keep the discussion civil. If you were finished Dr. Sabeus, I’d like to ask Professor Strand to tell us more about his position.
Strand: Well, I certainly agree that the Genesis creation story is a myth, but I don’t think evolution can serve as an updated version of that myth.
Townsend: But isn’t Professor Sabeus right that evolution could just be viewed as the way that God made life?
Strand: Well no, Mark, I really don’t. Evolution is based on natural selection, which is a deterministic process. Natural selection isn’t creative in the sense we usually use the word. It’s creative, but it’s a mindless creativity.
To see my point it might help if I explain the process of natural selection a bit. First of all, there’s a lot of variation in nature. Look anywhere and you’ll see it—in flowers, birds, and bees. No two individuals are exactly alike, even in asexual species. Second, there are a lot more individuals born than will ever survive. Think of bacteria. Some species reproduce every 20 minutes. If they all survived and reproduced, the earth would soon be a big ball of bacteria. Well, they don’t all survive. Some individuals do better than others. For example, if the climate is cold, bacteria that are slightly more resistant to the cold will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers. They pass on this trait to their offspring, increasing the frequency of the trait in their species. The bacteria as a population have changed. There are now more of them who are resistant to the cold.
Natural selection is really pretty simple, once it’s explained. The main thing to notice is that it’s an automatic process. It doesn’t need any guidance from an intelligent being. All you need are two things: variable traits passed on through inheritance and superabundant reproduction. By definition, the individuals with a better tooth or wing or whatever survive more often and leave more offspring. Whatever helped them survive gets passed on. And whala! You get change. Sum up thousands of little changes over thousands of years and you get a big change, maybe even a new species. That’s natural selection, and it’s as mechanical and mindless as sorting beans. It happens because it has to, not because God has a hand in it.
Sabeus: I disagree. I believe God does have his hand in the process. He guides the process of natural selection by causing the appropriate variations to appear at the right time. And since God knows the state of the environment, he knows exactly which way the organism will change. Because he’s omniscient, it’s all visible to him. He just chooses to use a process we can observe called natural selection.
Strand: That sounds pretty convincing, except that evolution assumes there is no guiding hand, no mind. That’s something we can demonstrate experimentally, by the way. For example, in the laboratory we can force bacteria to change at will by manipulating their environment.
Sabeus: Bob, that just proves my point. You’re guiding the process. You make the decisions as an intelligent agent. In nature, God makes the decisions. But in both cases someone is guiding the outcome.
Strand: Look, it’s not the same. My choices are arbitrary. For example, I could increase the salinity of the culture medium until 99 percent of the bacteria die. The ones that live will be those who can handle a lot of salt. On the other hand, if I freeze the culture a different variant arises that can handle cold. Or I could hook up my climate control unit to a random number generator that would select conditions by chance. I don’t even have to be in the loop. The bacteria would still evolve. I might be guiding the process, or it might be purely random. There’s no way to tell.
Townsend: Dr. Dish, what’s your view on this? Isn’t it possible that God guides evolution?
Dish: I don’t believe in evolution, so my answer would have to be no. But if you mean…
Townsend: I meant the example Professor Strand just gave with the bacteria.
Dish: No, God is clearly not guiding them. Obviously Bob is, or his random number generator is, or whatever. Look, we accept that there are some examples of change in species, or kinds as the Bible calls them. Bob’s example is a case in point. We can’t just brush off a demonstration like that. But scientists have never shown that a species can transmute into another species in the laboratory. Species evolution is pure conjecture. It’s not based on the evidence.
Strand: That’s not true.
Townsend: Gentlemen, I’m going to remind you that we’re not here to debate the evidence for evolution. Dr. Dish, were you finished?
Dish: I just want to reiterate my point. The problem with evolution is that it doesn’t allow any room for God. Natural selection is a self-contained, deterministic process that doesn’t leave any room for divine guidance or intervention.
Townsend: Dr. Sabeus, you obviously disagree with that.
Sabeus: Yes, I do. I believe God is involved in all of nature. He is guiding those bacteria evolving in the test tube just as he is guiding the rest of the biosphere. I don’t think it’s consistent to say God created long ago and far away but not here and now. That’s a God of the gaps.
Dish: It’s also the God of the Bible, Tom. The Bible tells us that God created the universe in seven days by his direct command. After he finished, he ordained the universe to obey his directives in the form of natural law. Law is a form of order, and that’s why science is so successful, because the universe is dependable. We can count on that to formulate scientific theories, as long as they are consistent with Scripture.
Evolution, on the other hand, is part of a larger viewpoint based on a random, meaningless universe that was created out of nothing, by nothing, for nothing.
Strand: I couldn’t have said it better.
Townsend: It’s interesting Professor Strand, that both you and Dr. Dish agree that evolution and religion don’t work together. Tell us more about that? Why can’t God be guiding evolution, as Dr. Sabeus was saying?
Strand: Well, my question for Tom is, how can you tell? How do you know if it’s God guiding evolution or random forces? A similar problem arises in gambling. Let’s say I roll a dice three times, and I get a one, a four, and a six. Now, all three outcomes are equally likely. If I roll again and get three sixes I might think that God had specially favored me, but actually I’d just be lucky. That’s exactly how evolution is. Genes combine at random to form new individuals. Some of them succeed better than others in the game of life, depending on the environment. It’s just luck that determines who wins and who loses.
Sabeus: The difference between you and me, Bob, is that I don’t believe in randomness. I believe everything happens for a reason. And that reason is God. He guides all events, including those you call random. The unlucky bacteria who don’t adapt are unlucky because God caused the mutation that made them unlucky. At every point in evolution, God in his foreknowledge is creating. What’s different today is that we know it’s a slow process, rather than something that happened at one time a long time ago. God still creates, but he does it slowly—in real time, so to speak.
Strand: Wait a minute. There’s a problem here. You’re saying that God uses evolution as his method of creation. But the process looks the same whether God is involved or not. Adding God doesn’t explain anything. He’s just sort of tacked on as an extra reason—a metareason if you will—in addition to the ones that explain observations. So what good is God? Again, I come back to the question: how can you tell that God is involved?
Townsend: Gentlemen, I’d like to move on. Professor Sabeus, did you want to respond?
Sabeus: Just that nothing Bob has said rules out God. I’ve thought about randomness long and hard, and it’s a slippery concept. Scientists love to wield it as a sort of all purpose weapon to destroy purpose. But how do we know if something is truly random? Until there’s a test, all that scientists can say is that evolutionary processes appear random. Perhaps it’s in the gaps between determinism and randomness that God acts.
Strand: Whatever that means.
Sabeus: As I was about to say, whatever the details are of God’s work in nature, I still don’t see any fundamental contradiction between the idea that God is guiding the universe and the theory of evolution. It’s ultimately a matter of faith, after all, not scientific evidence.
Dish: Mark, I’d like to add something, if we have the time.
Townsend: Please, go ahead.
Dish: I disagree with Tom on the compatibility question. I’m a biochemist and part of my training was in evolution. And I can tell you, evolution is a messy process. First of all, it’s based on competition—organisms and species battling it out, survival of the fittest. That’s pretty nasty right there, pretty indifferent. Then there’s extinction. Evolutionists say that 99 percent of the species that have ever lived are now dead. Why would God make his creatures and then just wipe them out, species after species, for billions of years? That’s a lot of waste, and I don’t believe in a wasteful God.
Another problem is disease and death. If we accept Tom’s view, then God created pathogenic microbes, parasites, and old age. I just can’t believe that. It implicates God in creating evil. If I ever became convinced that evolution were true, I think I’d lose my faith in God. I’d conclude there wasn’t a God after all.
To me it makes much more sense if you’re a Christian to believe in a literal creation and a literal fall. Before the fall, before Adam and Eve sinned, all creatures lived in harmony and the earth was a paradise. After the fall, disease and death entered the world as a punishment for sin. That’s the biblical view, and it makes sense out of what we know about evil and the facts of nature.
Townsend: Dr. Dish, what you said is a nice segue into what I had in mind for the remainder of our discussion. Let’s talk about evolution and the Bible. Dr. Dish, tell us more about why you think evolution is incompatible with the Bible.
Dish: I have a lot I could say on that subject. Could you be more specific?
Townsend: What I had in mind were specific Christian doctrines.
Dish: OK. There are a lot of problems there too. Probably the main one is that the Christian doctrine of salvation is based analogically on Adam. In scripture, Adam and Christ are parallel figures. Adam was the first man, who brought sin into the world. Christ was the last man, who brought salvation into the world. If there was no literal Adam who was the author of sin, then why do we need Jesus, who is the author of salvation?
At least the biblical view is consistent. Christians believe that the world was originally perfect, then fell because of Adam’s sin. Sin introduced evil into nature, but God sent Jesus his son to redeem us from sin, although we’re still waiting for the complete transformation of nature. But without Adam, the whole story falls apart. If Adam did not really exist, Christ may as well have not have existed. I really don’t see how Tom can have it both ways.
Townsend: Professor Sabeus, a rejoinder?
Sabeus: Yes. Fred, I think we have to have it both ways, because God exists and evolution happened. There isn’t any necessary contradiction between evolution and creation. God uses evolution as his instrument to make physical life, just as he uses gravity to make rocks roll downhill. There’s really no difference. It’s just that we’re not used to thinking of evolution the way we think about gravity. What evolution has taught us is that life isn’t any different than rocks, water, or stars. Life obeys natural laws just like every other object in the universe.
Now, that said, I agree there’s a problem with the traditional Christian doctrine of the fall and evolution. If evolution is true, then, as you say, there was no literal Adam and no literal fall. So then the questions is, when did sin enter the world?
Some people argue it just happened sometime after man came on the scene, however you want to define that. The problem with that theory is that Christianity teaches that death and disease are the result of sin. Well, it couldn’t have been man’s sin, since he wasn’t around yet. So whose sin was it? C.S. Lewis argued that evil entered the world through Satan’s fall—the idea being that Satan had some power over nature, so that when he fell, nature was dragged down with him. Another interpretation is that the fall is a metaphor for the original sin of disobedience against God that we all commit when we fall from childhood innocence. Other theologians see the fall as awareness of sin. We grow up, we gain the knowledge of good and evil, we eat of the apple and become aware that we’re sinful. There are a lot of options.
These theologies are all slight retellings of the story, but they still preserve the basic teachings about sin, and they’ve got the virtue of being consistent with what we know about the history of life.
Strand: Tom, I must say, you theologians really do impress me sometimes. That story about Satan was a good one, very entertaining, and logical in its own fanciful way. But it’s basically just a myth. And the other approaches you mentioned are more literary and really don’t address the metaphysical problem of evil.
Look, there’s a basic problem here. You say that man was originally pure and innocent, then fell into sin. But the evidence from evolutionary history implies that man was originally an animal—a primate related to chimpanzees. And chimpanzees aren’t always nice. They sleep around a lot. They fight over mates. They go on war parties and kill other chimps. Chimps are more like us than any other species, so it’s reasonable to assume that our common ancestor had these nasty habits too. If that’s the case, then our origins were not pure and innocent but violent and lawless. We didn’t fall from perfection, we rose from savagery.
It’s only in the last few thousand years that we’ve started to tame those animal behaviors. We developed reason and analyzed the consequence of our actions. We developed ethical and legal codes. We learned to say no. We said no, today we are not going to kill our neighbor, because tomorrow he may come and kill us. That was the beginning of civilization.
Sabeus: Have you ever considered theology, Bob? [laughter]
Strand: No, that would be outside my field of interest.
Townsend: Dr. Dish, what’s your reaction to what Professor Strand said?
Dish: Well, it’s typical of the reasoning you get from evolutionary theory and secular humanism in general, which makes man into some kind of god that has picked himself up out of the mud, washed himself off, and pronounced himself civilized. That’s the very opposite of Christianity, which says that man is desperately sinful and can’t do anything to help himself apart from God. It’s no wonder evolution is so attractive to atheists.
Sabeus: Whoa, wait a minute. Are you saying that I’m an atheist for believing in evolution?
Dish: No, of course not. You’re a fellow Christian, and I accept you as a brother in Christ. I’m just saying that it would be more logical if you were an atheist. Evolution is an anti-theological theory. It rules out God by assumption. It just fits easier with atheism than Christianity. That’s all I’m saying.
Strand: Well, it isn’t just evolution that rules out God. It’s scientific thinking in general. Practical atheism is part of the scientific method. You can’t make an observation as a scientist and then say, “Well, I guess this is the part God does.” If you do, you haven’t explained anything. All you’ve done is deified ignorance, and that’s not something a real scientist can tolerate.
Sabeus: But you’re expecting God to be like a secret fifth force. But he isn’t a thing or a force or any kind of natural phenomena, but the someone who is the reason and sustainer of existence. You see God as a tinkerer in the universe. But that God is too small. The real God is an impenetrable mystery.
Dish: At the same time, Tom’s God is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is living and active, doing things in today’s world. He’s just and holy and loving. He cares for us and provides for us. He’s the Father who made us, the way a potter makes a pot—in short, a personal God. If he’s not personal, what good is he? Not many people are going to find help in the impenetrable mystery that Tom believes in. But they will find help in the God of the Bible, the loving Father who made us, redeemed us, and wants to be with us forever.
The biggest problem with evolution is that—if it’s true—we were not created. We just emerged. And if God didn’t personally make us, then how can we be sure that he knows or cares about us? Tom, don’t you see this as a problem?
Sabeus: Well, yes, I do, but our relationship with God is something we believe by faith, not something science can demonstrate.
Dish: I think people need more than that.
Sabeus: Maybe they do. I’m just not willing to deny the evidence of science in exchange for a comforting theology.
Dish: Hey, I don’t deny the evidence either, I just come to a different conclusion. You’re putting too much faith in scientific evidence and not enough in God.
Townsend: Um, OK. Professor Strand, what’s your reaction to this?
Strand: Oh, I think it’s fascinating. I’m torn over who to agree with more. In some ways, I have more sympathy for Fred, even though our beliefs are worlds apart. He doesn’t believe in evolution, but at least he understands its consequences for religion. With Tom, well, I don’t think he’s really letting himself see that, though I respect him for trying to make religion and evolution work together. I don’t think they do, but you know, religion is important to a lot of people. Maybe there is a way to integrate them that I don’t see. I don’t know. I wish him luck.
Townsend: Gentlemen, we’re almost out of time, but I’d like each of you to make a closing statement before we leave. Professor Sabeus, why don’t you go first.
Sabeus: We’re stuck with science, because science is the most reliable method of knowledge ever invented, and it’s the only method that results in people being able to agree with each other. We’re stuck with God too, because God is the source of morality and inner strength for most of the world. He’s also an inspiration for beauty and creativity and a lot of other good things. Luckily, with the help of science, we’ve been able to root out some of the superstition in religion. That’s been tough for the church, but it’s been good, because instead of trying to dictate cosmology we’re doing what we’re good at, which is helping people connect with the divine and live a meaningful, ethical life.
Maybe evolution does change our view of man and his origins. Maybe the doctrine of the fall will have to be changed. In any case, the changes will have to be consistent with scientific knowledge, since we can’t ignore logic and observations forever. The fact that we evolved from animals might be disturbing at first, but we’ll get used to it, just as we got used to the earth not being the center of the universe.
The process of evolution is not really that different than the process of conception, gestation, and birth. Just as life on earth started as a single-celled organism and evolved over billions of years into the biosphere, so a baby begins as a single cell and develops over nine months into a multi-billion cell human being. Every day we can observe the creation of new human beings and someday, presumably, we will understand it. Does this nullify God’s creative activity? Of course it doesn’t. The Bible says that God knit us together in our mother’s wombs. In the same way God makes all of life, slowly but surely.
Townsend: Thank you, Professor Sabeus. Let’s go to Professor Strand next.
Strand: I want to make two final points. My first point is that evolution makes religion untenable by ruling out certain historical explanations. As Tom and Fred were saying, Christianity teaches that disease and death were caused by sin. However they might differ on interpretation, I think it’s fair to say they both agree on that. An evolutionist explains disease completely differently. Disease exists because germs exist which make a living at our expense. Nobody disputes that, even the most ardent fundamentalists. But if evolution is true, then human sin couldn’t have caused disease, because the germs existed billions of years before the sinners.
The point here is that evolution gives the correct historical explanation for disease. Christianity, on the other hand, provides a myth about Adam and Eve and forbidden apples. And since Christianity is based on supposedly historical events like this, evolution undermines its foundations.
My second point is this. Evolution rules out a creator God by dispensing with the idea of purpose. This makes evolution pretty much a death blow to most religions. Here’s why.
Purpose has to do with intention. When people ask themselves, “What’s the purpose of life?” they’re saying, “Is there a higher plan or goal?” Now planning takes intelligence, and most religions assume that a higher intelligence is at work in nature. But evolution shows that intelligence isn’t needed for life. Beyond survival and reproduction, there’s no purpose or goal to life. There aren’t any blueprints or designs. There’s just a mindless algorithmic process called natural selection that produces complex objects called life. Evolution doesn’t need creativity, intelligence, or purpose. My conclusion, therefore, is that evolution doesn’t need God.
Townsend: Thank you, Professor Sabeus. Dr. Dish?
Dish: I agree with Bob—foundations are essential. That’s why I reject theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is a pathetic attempt to hobble together an atheistic science with a crippled Christianity. Evolution is no more compatible with creation than marxism is with capitalism. Giving allegiance to both is giving allegiance to a contradiction.
The Christian message is wonderful. It says that, yes, you’re a sinner. But no, God doesn’t hate you, he loves you and gave his only son Jesus for your sins. Believe in him, and you’ll be forgiven. Nearly a billion people believe in that good news. But Christianity depends on certain historical facts. First, that God created man perfect, sinless and free. Second, that man sinned by disobeying God, and as a result, evil came into the world. Third, that Jesus was born, died, and rose again to redeem man’s sin.
Three historical events—creation, fall, and salvation—are absolutely essential for Christianity to make sense. Evolution denies two of these three. Evolution says no, God did not create you. And no, there was no fall. But if there was no creation and no fall, why do we need salvation? Evolution makes the Christian message superfluous and irrelevant. If evolution is true, then Christianity is no longer the answer to man’s problems.
Townsend: Gentlemen, thank you for being here tonight. I hope conversations like these will help all people of good will make sense out of life in an age of science and religion. This is WDRW Radio FM 99.9, and I’m Mark Townsend. Goodnight.
I was driving to the grocery store when I saw it. A giant orange orb, swaddled in pink cirrus clouds, sinking toward the earth. I put the shopping trip on hold, rolled down the windows and drove around west Green Bay, chasing the sun. It was setting fast, dipping below the passing tree lines. I finally caught up with it in the parking lot, setting behind distant trees, a fierce red glow, like a wildfire on the horizon.
I noticed something. During my sun chase, I had stopped worrying. Not a thought about today’s bills, or purchases best not made. Not a question about yesterday’s visit in the Emergency Department, nor a worry about tomorrow’s on-call shift. No dread of Covid either.
This is what nature can do for us. She can pluck us from the strife of everyday life, and put us back into Eden.
Eden can be found anywhere. Under the stars at the cabin. In the cathedral of the woods. On the beach, immersed in the roar of waves. In the garden, moving aside soil. In fact, wherever we are immersed in Creation, we can find Eden. We only need to quiet our minds and engage with what’s around us.
After I had chased the sun, I returned to grocery shopping. I was back in the aisles, weary with my lists. When I got back to the car, I realized I had forgotten something.
We may not be meant to stay in Eden, but I was grateful knowing I could visit again.
