We have taken something of a detour the last several weeks, but I would like to get back to John F. Haught’s book Making
Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama of Life. One of the common complaints about evolution from the point of view of faith is its purported rambling waste and its meaningless wander. One of the aspects stressed by evolutionary materialists is its purposelessness and contingency. Haught suggests that both of these are off the mark and miss the beauty of God’s creative vision and power.
There is, Haught suggests, a direction and a purpose to creation, but we will not see the intent and direction at the level of chemistry and physics any more than we see the intent in To Kill a Mockingbird
If God is involved in evolution, in any case, this involvement can be expressed only in the language of analogy, symbol, myth, and metaphor. The nature and depth of God’s relationship to evolution, I suggest, is as inaccessible to the science of biology as the meaning on this page is to the equations of chemistry. … Understanding chemistry is helpful, …, but chemical expertise can tell you nothing about what the author is trying to say here. (p. 70)
The naturalist who insists that the be all and end all to life is found within the laws of chemistry and physics and the outcome of undirected natural selection is an expert in grammar who misses the plot and direction. Haught says it well:
Evolutionary biology and theology, analogously, may be looked upon as distinct levels of reading the drama of life. They are not rivals competing for your allegiance. Knowing that life is shaped by natural selection is one level, comparable to that of discovering the rules of grammar. Trying to understand what the story of life is about is another. And just as the meaning expressed on this page does not show up on a grammatical analysis, so any theologically interesting meaning the life-story might have cannot manifest itself in the formal concepts of Darwinian biology. Discerning any deeper meaning in the struggle, striving, success, and failures in life requires another kind of interpretative skill than that of expertise in scientific method. (p. 72)
What is the plot and direction of life? Is the concept of plot and direction even meaningful?
I think that Haught hits on an important point here. I am not a theist because I find gaps in the grammar and spelling that
require direct action of God – I am a theist because I believe in a
plot, purpose, and direction that transcends the nuts and bolts of
the grammar and spelling. There is more to life than the laws of chemistry and physics.
From the Christian side. But if the evolutionary naturalist misses
the boat by assuming that spelling and grammar are sufficient to
describe the plot of life – where do Christians often miss the boat?
Christians, Haught suggests, also miss the boat by overlooking
the importance of plot and progress. The story as it is generally told commences with the fall, without the fall there is nothing – no plot, no story. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the reading of Genesis 1-2. But we live in a world and a universe
with potential in the process of becoming. The story of of
Genesis 1-2 is the story of humans created with a purpose and a job, as part of
God’s mission. Humans are to rule over and “subdue” creation, to
cultivate the land, to be fruitful and multiply, to live in
relationship. Humans were not placed in a static, perfect place to exist and
to worship. Human freedom and creativity requires the power to become
and transform. Without this we cannot be created “in the image of God.”
Theology including evolution. Because of the plot and drift to life a theology that includes evidence of evolution can be constructed. Haught’s book tries to do this.
According to Haught a theology of evolution will note (p. 73):
(1) [T]he general drift of life has been in the direction of increasing complexity, consiousness, and freedom.
(2) [T]heology may attest that in its
overall advance, that what this drama is about is the liberation of
nature from an endless imprisonment in lifeless and mindless
determinism.
(3) [S]ince the God of boundless love
revealed in Jesus influences nature by way of attraction rather than
force, a Christian theology of evolution may assume that God enlivens
and gives meaning to the world not by pushing it forward from the past,
but by calling it into the freshness of an always new future.
(4) [T]he “purpose” of the evolutionary
drama consists, at the very minimum, of the intensification of
creation’s beauty, a beauty that, to the Christian faith, is
everlastingly sustained and patterned anew within the life of God.
The final meaning to the drama and
unraveling of the story of life is, as yet, unknown. We have only hints
and glimpses. It is not retreat to some perfect static Garden, but
greater and more profound. Haught suggests that beauty and aesthetic
transformation is part of the direction. The hope for the future allows
us to participate fully in the drama of life.
A final thought. Now this discussion (and no doubt the
whole of Haught’s book) won’t answer all of the questions about a
theology that embraces evolutionary creation, but it provides a start
and a number of interesting ideas. I don’t think that there is anything
in the biblical narrative from Genesis to Revelation that should lead us
to envision a “perfect” initial creation. Perfection has no future, no
becoming, no direction. Genesis 1-2 presents us, from the very
beginning, so it seems to me, with a vision of creation with a future. Haught’s view of God in this process seems a bit impersonal. I think a theology of creation should put more emphasis on a personal God and on the incarnation. Perhaps Haught will get to this later in the book.
What do you think is the purpose and direction of creation in Genesis 1-2?
How does this influence your understanding of the Biblical story and your view of evolution as consistent or inconsistent with Christian faith?
If you wish to contact me, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.
Read Previous Post
