Theistic Evolution

I have become aware of a significant number of (largely American) Christians who follow a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. This means that they believe that the universe and everything within it was created in 6 literal, solar days. Furthermore, they take the world to be 6,000 – 10,000 years old using the genealogies in Genesis (I have no idea why there is a discrepancy between creationists on exactly how old the universe is, because I would have thought the genealogies would be specific. Anyway, this is irrelevant).
I have become a firm believe in the concept of ‘Theistic evolution’ – the idea that evolution did occur, but it was in a God-centred way. In practice what this means is that God put in place the conditions for evolution to occur, and for modern man to come about. This of course also necessitates an old earth and universe.
The reason I believe in theistic evolution is as follows: It is unclear as to whether Genesis should be interpreted literally or metaphorically. It is written in a sort of ‘story’ format, and the happenings in early Genesis are fairytale-like. But on the other hand, it does not make any reference to being a metaphorical account. However – the Bible is not the only source of truth. If the Bible was the sole source of truth, then presumably it would claim to being so – and it does not. God made the Bible. God made the physical world. They both require interpretation, and neither is greater than the other. But truth can be found in both. If the answer you find in one part of God’s creation contradicts the answer you find in another part of His creation, then you must come to the conclusion that you are interpreting one of them incorrectly. This is the case with evolution.
This can lead us to one of four possible conclusions:
1) Evolutionist science is incorrect; and that a correct reading of the evidence will lead us to believe in creationism
2) God deliberately put the evidence in the world when He made it in order to confuse and test man
3) Science is not as valid as the Bible, as the Bible was made by God but science was made by man
4) Evolution occurred, Genesis is metaphorical
I shall deal with each conclusion in turn

“Evolution never occurred, the evidence does not point to it”. A classic quote from creationists is that, “Evolution takes much more faith to believe in”. I don’t know whether they think this is a funny quip, or they’re just taking the piss, but it’s wholly untrue. I’m not interested in going into the actual science; science is not my forte and I’m sure I would not do the evolutionist argument justice. However, in a Newsweek survey done around the turn of the millennium, of 480,000 scientists (scientists being defined as someone with a relevant degree), 700 believed in creation ‘science’. I think that speaks for itself. If, as creationists claim, the evidence points to a young earth and no evolution, then why do over 99% of scientists accept evolution. The evidence does point to evolution, this must be accepted

“God deliberately put the fossils and so forth in the world when He made it in order to test man”. Or alternatively, “God made the world with age”. The first argument puts a serious question over who exactly God is. Is God a god of confusion? Is He a God which would go out of his way to lead people to believe something untrue? Hardly. The second argument is possible; however, it is paramount to asking, “How do we know the past has happened and we haven’t been created 10 seconds ago with memories and so forth already in place?” This is an unanswerable question of philosophy. It would however still assume a god of confusion.

“Man made science, God made the Bible”. This comes from a misunderstanding of exactly what the word “science” means. Science is, by definition, the study of the physical world. Bible scholarship is the study of the Bible. Both creationists and theistic evolutionists agree that the Bible and the world have been made by God. So what do we have:
God made the physical world
God made the Bible
Man interprets the physical world through science
Man interprets the Bible through Bible scholarship
How exactly is one more valid than the other? Mistakes can be made in both science and Bible scholarship, because man has to interpret both. This is why there is disagreement in both disciplines – in science there (was) disagreement over whether global warming is occurring, in Bible scholarship there is disagreement between pre-destination and free will. In both those cases, only one can be correct, and both have tried to interpret God’s truth but one has failed. It’s just the same with evolution. We can find God’s truth in the Bible and in the physical world, and if our conclusion from reading the Bible (a young earth) contradicts our conclusion from studying the physical world (an old earth), we must be interpreting one of them incorrectly. Since it is anything but obvious whether Genesis is a historical account or merely a theological account, whereas it is completely obvious that evolution occurred, I come to the conclusion that Genesis must be a metaphorical account.
Genesis isn’t a history book, nor is it a science book. It is a book telling us about God’s love and the condition of man. It can achieve this through metaphor better than through literal account.

Oh, and no, they shouldn’t teach creationism in science lessons at school. They should only teach science in science lessons, and creationism is wholly unscientific.