Reading Genesis after Darwin

I attended a fascinating series of lectures today, hosted by the Theology Department and the Institute of Advanced Study (IAS) here at Durham, on science and theology, specifically looking at the impact of Darwin on theology - and on the reading of Genesis in particular. This is part of an ongoing series of interdisciplinary lectures put on by the IAS, which this year is looking at The Legacy of Charles Darwin.

I made it to four out of the five lectures today, all of which were extremely stimulating and covered a range of topics from Paley to Dawkins and Augustine to Koko the Chimp.

I've left with a range of responses to the different ideas presented, and plenty of questions. I'm left pondering the nature and status of evil, the pervasiveness of the 'God of the Gaps' and Deism, the significance of rationality and language in apes, the place of humans in the natural world...

Here's a selection of the some of the ideas presented today (some I agree with more than others):

o Does the idea that creation must have been instantaneous have more to do with a Deist God who creates the universe and then "goes off to have a cup of tea" than with the God of the Bible? (DW)

o Perhaps drawing the line between humans and animals on the basis of rationality, language or other qualitative differences is a 'God of the Gaps' approach. Are all of these elements, including moral choices, just a matter of degree? (DC, JA)

DC discussed one particularly fascinating example, Koko the Gorilla. I also recently came across the story of N'kisi, an African Grey Parrot with a vocabulary of 950 words and the ability to form sentences and even to use humour.

o In the early church and beyond, the understanding of the incarnation has moved from 'God became a Jew' through 'God became a man' to 'God became a human'. Can this be taken further, to 'God became a Creature'*? (DC) [*I have some issues with this from a Biblical perspective..]

o The question of evil, in terms of suffering and death, is more complicated than we at first imagine when we look at nature. "Competition, struggle, suffering, death and extinction" appear to be completely entangled in the way that nature functions - in reproduction, predation, life cycles, adaptation, evolution and so on.. Intended or permitted? (JA)

o The universe is so complex that it makes little real difference on a practical level to distinguish between which models of deism / theistic evolution / God of the gaps you employ to explain the Creator's relationship with the Creation. The universe is just as complicated whether you believe that God is constantly acting at the level of quantum uncertainty or you think he created the laws which govern it 'at the beginning'. The point at which the question becomes important is the difference in what you expect from God. (JA)

One of the ideas which I thought was most interesting, was Prof. Jeff Astley's observation (borrowed from Holmes Rolston III), that evolution makes a necessity of waste and suffering. That every part of nature has a 'cruciform' shape, a passion play in which the innocent die so that many may live. As Rolston puts it, in this 'slaughter of the innocents' we have perhaps,

"vignettes hinting of the innocent lamb slain from the foundation of the world. They share the labor of the divinity. In their lives, beautiful, tragic and perpetually incomplete, they speak for God; they prophesy as they participate in the divine pathos. All have 'borne our griefs and carried our sorrows'." (Science and Religion: A Critical Survey, 1987, p.145)

This is Karl Barth on a similar theme:
"The suffering, by which the whole created world of men and things is controlled, is His, His action, His question, and His answer." (The Epistle to the Romans, ET 1933, p.309)

JA argued that 'errors' in DNA copying are a 'happy fault' when seen from a species-wide or planet-wide perspective. It's hard to argue with the sense that the "imperfections of the world are a driving force for its perfections". (JA)

I also liked Astley's description of the way in which the way we look at nature can be likened to a religious experience. He talked about the way that in viewing nature we are both attracted and repelled for it is both lovely and terrible. The proper response is a 'shudder of otherness', akin to our experience of God, to have both awe and fear.


Lots to ponder here I think!

[DW - Dr David Wilkinson, DC - Dr David Clough, JA - Prof Jeff Astley]