Evolution, fall and morality

Our evolutionary heritage | Adam and Eve | Talking Beasts

Were humans created perfect and then fell, or did we already bear the baggage of our evolutionary heritage?

Uncle Den, Irenaeus and the evolution of conscience

I'm rather proud to be related by marriage to Dr Denis Alexander, founder of the Faraday Institute and author of Rebuilding the Matrix and Creation or Evolution: do we have to choose? (Read my review) 'Uncle Den' is a bit of an expert in the field of evolutionary biology and is also a strongly evangelical Christian in the Reformed tradition. I have great respect for both his scientific views and for his faith, though my own theology is rather different.

After hearing him speak on Darwin and evolution at a conference at Spurgeon's College last year, I asked him what he thought about the role evolution may have played in the development of human conscience and moral sense, and also whether our evolutionary heritage had predisposed us to sin. I can't remember his answer in full but he seemed inclined to believe that we were originally fully able to obey God and had chosen not to - very much the standard evangelical line.

Irenaeus believed that humans were created immature

However, he did mention the 2nd-century theologian Irenaeus who believed that humans were created immature/imperfect and we were intended to reach maturity through a lengthy process of change, growth and development. Denis doesn't agree with this view but to me it makes a lot of sense, particularly in light of evolutionary theory.

Our evolutionary heritage

humans share millions of years of evolutionary history and heritage with other animals

If Darwinian evolution is broadly true, as I believe it is, then we humans share millions of years of evolutionary history and heritage with other animals, including all the instinctive mechanisms of lust, greed, aggression and selfishness that have always been vital for survival in a competitive world of limited resources. We know that nature is at best amoral, and we may not like it but we do not blame lions for killing zebras, frigate birds for robbing terns, robins for being aggressively territorial, cuckoos for laying eggs in other birds' nests, or ducks for having multiple partners. Our closest living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, are frequently violent and sexually promiscuous.

This leads me to two major questions:

1) If we do indeed owe much of our own evolutionary history and DNA to creatures like these, how on earth could humans have escaped bearing the marks of this in our own instincts and behaviour? Why wouldn't our earliest human ancestors have been every bit as aggressive and lustful - as amoral - as all these other creatures?

2) But in that case, how come humans do - apparently unlike all other creatures - have an inbuilt moral sense, a deep belief that so many of these 'natural' behaviours are in fact morally repugnant? As I say, we don't hold animals morally responsible for their behaviour, nor do we expect them to feel guilty for doing what comes naturally. But we ourselves have set up complex ethical, moral and legal systems to discourage indulgence in many evolutionarily-encoded activities. Why?

Adam and Eve

I've said before that I don't hold the Genesis chapter 2 'fall' story to be factual history, but nor do I believe it to be merely fictional. I see it as mythicised history, with elements of fact set in a highly symbolised myth to convey spiritual, psychological and theological truth.

'Adam and Eve' were already evolutionarily predisposed to sin

If my hypothesis is in any way correct, then 'Adam and Eve' were already evolutionarily predisposed to sin (qu 1 above). However, God somehow set them spiritually or morally apart from other creatures, giving them (whether by divine act or by natural means) a unique moral sense of right and wrong which enabled them to rise above the legacy of their brutish evolutionary past (qu 2 above). Their inability to do so in the long run is not only their story but the story of all their descendants - of you and me.

To me, this account seems the obvious way to marry classic Christian theology with current biological theory. However, I realise that it will please neither evangelicals nor evolutionary scientists. It pleases me though, and maybe Iranaeus too. :-)

Talking Beasts

"Do not go back to their ways lest you cease to be Talking Beasts"

As usual, C.S. Lewis and Narnia come to my aid at this point. In The Magician's Nephew, when Aslan has brought forth the animals from the earth he goes among them and touches a male and female of each kind to set them apart. Then he breathes on them, there is a flash of fire and he speaks words of power over them: 'Narnia, Narnia, Narnia, awake. Love. Think. Speak. Be walking trees. Be talking beasts. Be divine waters.' The Talking beasts reply: 'Hail, Aslan. We hear and obey. We are awake. We love. We think. We speak. We know.' Then he instructs them:

'Creatures, I give you yourselves... I give to you forever this land of Narnia. I give you the woods, the fruits, the rivers... I give you myself. The Dumb Beasts whom I have not chosen are yours also. Treat them gently and cherish them but do not go back to their ways lest you cease to be Talking Beasts. For out of them you were taken and into them you can return. Do not so.'

Of course this is a myth, and unlike the Eden story it is entirely fictional, but it is nonetheless powerful and instructive. Aslan - okay, God - has chosen beings from among the dumb beasts to think, love, speak and know. But they share a common origin and heritage with the dumb animals and can return to their un-talking state if they follow their unthinking, unloving ways. This is far closer to the Irenaean view as I understand it, and to mine, than the classic evangelical reading of Genesis.

Related posts:

• It's only natural (but it still sucks)
• Addressing Creationist concerns

Why I believe Creationists get it wrong part 2 - Scripture

Creationists generally fit into the fundamentalist wing of evangelical Christianity, viewing the Bible as God's perfect, inerrant, timeless Word and so to be read as literal, historical and scientific fact wherever possible. Wherever the Bible's account of origins appears to differ from that of modern science, science must therefore give way. They argue that God is perfectly capable of saying plainly what he means, and he knows far better than modern scientists what happened at the beginning.

Finally they believe that the whole Bible stands or falls as a unit, so if you question the historicity of Genesis 1-2 you also by implication query the historicity of the gospels.

Inspiration and inerrancy

It's probably no surprise that I disagree with this view of Scripture at almost all points. I do accept that the Bible is divinely inspired ('God-breathed', 2 Tim 3:16) but I have a very different understanding from the Creationists of how that operates and what that means. For a start, I do not believe that divine inspiration must imply 'inerrancy' as they understand it, still less complete historical or scientific accuracy at all points. In my view this is to fall into the same Modernist-paradigm trap as Dawkins that there is only one kind of truth and knowing which is the Factual, ultimately the Scientific. This is certainly not how the original Hebrew authors would have approached Truth, nor does it in fact provide the best or fullest description of Reality. Scientific and historical truth are both important, but truth can also be personal, relational, philosophical, paradoxical, poetic, symbolic or mythopoeic.

To read Genesis 1-2 as teaching history and science is, I believe, to do serious violence to the texts, to the type of literature, its cultural context, and the intentions and understandings of the original authors. Gen 1 is essentially a poetic polemic for monotheism in a polytheistic cultural context, and Gen 2 can best be read as a mythological and theological account of the origins of evil, sin, pain and death. This does not mean that it contains no history, still less that it is untrue - indeed, it makes it more deeply and timelessly true.

The Gospels and Genesis

But if you believe this, how can you say whether any of the Bible is historically true? Most importantly, what of the Gospels, the accounts of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ? If these events were not historical, then the entire basis of our Christian faith is gone (1 Corinthians 15:14). But in the Gospels we have a very different kind of writing and literature to the early chapters of Genesis. The gospel writers, particularly in the Synoptics and Luke most of all, are explicitly setting out to record eyewitness accounts of events that took place within their own lifetimes, whose actuality or otherwise would in most cases be fairly easily disprovable were it not true. Here we have the beginnings of recognisable modern historical writing - theologically-interpreted history to be sure, but history nonetheless. C.S. Lewis wrote that, to a scholar of mythology, the resurrection accounts bore none of the hallmarks of myth but stood out very clearly as historical accounts. The Garden of Eden, by contrast, with its talking snake and Trees of Life and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - quite clearly not standard horticultural varieties - bears all the marks of a mythological-symbolic story of origins, written primarily to convey theological rather than historical truths.

Can God not speak plainly?

Finally, let's deal with the point of whether God is incapable of speaking plainly. Of course he's capable, but that does not mean he always chooses to - look at Jesus' many parables and highly symbolical sayings. And sometimes plain factual statement is not actually the best way to convey what you are trying to say - particularly if you are conveying spiritual truths which are beyond the capabilities of normal human language and experience.

Can a leopard change its spots?

Of course, I need to always be open to the possibility that I may be wrong about all this. I sometimes wonder what it would take to make a dyed-in-the-wool Creationist or Evolutionist change their views - so much has often been invested emotionally in their position that to change would almost be a religious conversion (to a Creationist it would probably feel like apostasy, and might even involve a loss of faith). And I also wonder if Creationists and Evolutionists have such fundamentally, structurally incompatible worldviews that it's often not even possible for them to speak comprehensibly to each other.

Nonetheless, I fervently wish that Christians didn't have to divide and fight over this issue, one on which I believe no-one's salvation need depend. I also wish that in their legitimate concerns over some of the implications of evolution, Creationists did not have to set themselves up - and Christianity by implication - as such easy targets for scornful atheists.