Darwin and God: a response to Fabricius (1)

Over at Faith and Theology, Kim Fabricius has proven once again that the best online bloggers write every bit as well as columnists do in dead-tree journals of yore and now. His Ten Propositions on Darwin and Deity are informed, controversial, and designed for discussion. Here is a response.

Remark on Thesis #1. Beginning at age 10 I would read Stephen Jay Gould’s contributions to Natural History, and ever since I have praised God that Darwin became a biologist rather than a theologian. As a kid, it never even crossed my mind that Darwin (in the sense of the empirical foundations of his theory) and Genesis (in the sense of the cosmological truth it conveys) might be in conflict. That was the beauty of being raised in a liberal pietist environment.

Darwin never believed, so far as we know, in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He never knew, so far as we know, the God who called Abram and Sarai out of Ur of the Chaldees (Genesis 12),  tested Abraham and Isaac with a test the likes of which Kierkegaard, but few other moderns, are able to appreciate (Genesis 22), and wrestled with Jacob by night at the ford of the river Jabbok (Genesis 32).

But did Darwin lose his faith in “le Dieu des philosophes et savants” – as Pascal would have phrased it? I don’t think we know that he did. It's not much of a faith to begin with, but I wouldn't treat it as a non-entity, either.

Remark on Thesis #2. I have never accepted univeralism, nor could I. The arguments against it put forward by Ivan Karamazov in Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov are compelling. I am concerned about my surgeon, mechanic, and hair stylist’s salvation, and talk about it with them with naturalness, since salvation, healing, and deliverance are matters of universal concern. Univeralists come across as being ashamed of the gospel. A strike against them.

Where does that leave Darwin? Will he be among the “sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars” whose portion will be the lake of fire? Will he be among those whose tears God will wipe away in the new heavens and the new earth, for whose resurrected flesh the leaves of the tree of life will provide healing? The gates of the new Jerusalem, we are told, will be open 24/7, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. The Queen of Sheba will stand up on that day … perhaps Darwin will, too. It is possible to be a hard-bitten particularist, and still be hopeful about Darwin.

To be continued.

Darwin and God series

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

Comments

[Doug Chaplin]

Sorry. Your hair is "styled"? Or did the conversation about salvation have unfortunate repercussions.

(I'm just jealous that you've got some, really)

[JohnFH]

I'm just re-using Kim's examples. I really do talk about faith and salvation with those who cut my hair.

I would be a cad not to. Most of them are young mothers struggling with all kinds of things. They are pleased as punch to have a pastor chat them up, complement them in various ways, hear out their woes and troubles, talk with them about something beautiful and healing I saw on my rounds, ask them about their faith and their church, and tip them heavily at conversation's end.

[Ranger]

Thanks for an eloquent response to Kim. I loved the propositions, but the universalism quip in #2 bothered me because I do passionately care about Darwin's salvation and am pretty sure that Jesus would as well.

[smijer]

Came for the Darwin talk, stayed for the Universalism talk. Can you explain this statement?

The gates of the new Jerusalem, we are told, will be open 24/7, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. The Queen of Sheba will stand up on that day … perhaps Darwin will, too.

Does this imply a belief in after-life conversion?

[JohnFH]

Hi smijer,

Interesting blog you have.

Your question is:

Do passages like Revelation 21:24-26 and 22:2 imply belief in after-life conversion?

Read in conjunction with John 3:21, it is hard to exclude that possibility.

If someone whose deeds have been done in God and who has not heard the gospel, or only heard a distorted and false one, such that coming to the light doesn't happen here and now, is it possible that she or he will come to the light postmortem?

A plain sense reading of the passages in Revelation suggest that possibility.

[smijer]

Thanks for the reply! I've never known these passages to interpreted this way. That's very interesting.