Augustine's Origin of Species | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > May

Christianity Today, May, 2009 |

Augustine's Origin of Species

How the great theologian might weigh in on the Darwin debate.

Alister McGrath | posted 5/08/2009 11:06AM

4 of 4

Augustine would have rejected any idea of the development of the universe as a random or lawless process. For this reason, Augustine would have opposed the Darwinian notion of random variations, insisting that God's providence is deeply involved throughout. The process may be unpredictable. But it is not random.

Authority or Interpretation?

Unsurprisingly, Augustine approaches the text with the culturally prevalent presupposition of the fixity of species and finds nothing in it to challenge his thinking on this point. Yet the ways in which he critiques contemporary authorities and his own experience suggest that, on this point at least, he would be open to correction in light of prevailing scientific opinion.

So does Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis help us engage with the great questions raised by Darwin? Let's be clear that Augustine does not answer these questions for us. But he does help us see that the real issue here is not the authority of the Bible, but its right interpretation. In addition, he offers us a classic way of thinking about the Creation that might illuminate some contemporary debates.

On this issue, Augustine is neither liberal nor accommodationist, but deeply biblical, both in substance and intention. While his approach hardly represents the last word, it needs to be on the table.

We need patient, generous, and gracious reflection on these big issues. Augustine of Hippo can help us get started.

Alister McGrath is Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King's College, London, and holds a D.Phil. from Oxford University in molecular biophysics. This article has been adapted from his 2009 Gifford Lectures, newly published as A Fine-Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (Westminster John Knox).

Related Elsewhere:

A Fine Tuned Universe is available at ChristianBook.com and other book retailers.

Other articles on origins include:

At Origins' Margins | Michael Behe wonders how much Darwinism can really explain. (March 27, 2008)

Living with the Darwin Fish | Why the discovery of yet another 'missing link' doesn't destroy my faith. (March 12, 2007)

The Art of Debating Darwin | How to intelligently design a winning case for God's role in creation. (September 1, 2004)

Intelligent Design: Searching for a Blueprint | Discovery Institute reshapes the orgins debate. (November 15, 1999)

first page |

4 of 4

share this page

May 2009, Vol. 53, No. 5

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment

Reader Reviews are below

Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.

Click here for international orders

2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Displaying 1 - 3 of 69 comments.

See all comments

sfg	Posted: May 21, 2009 4:51 PM

Prof McGrath, I feel the need to point out that your use of the word 'random' as a 'lawless process' is very different from the very specific definition of the word that scientists use. In science and specifically in my field of statistics, random is defined as a "circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). A probability distribution describes the range of possible outcomes that a circumstance or event can attain and the probability that a any given outcome or subset of outcomes will occur. So in the scientific sense an event that is random is unpredictable (as you assert yourself), but if it's probability distribution is known, it's possible to quantify the amount of unpredictability. Surely with your background in molecular biophysics you were taught this. Why do you feel the need to play with semantics regarding the word 'random'?

Rocket

Posted: May 20, 2009 6:57 AM

A sensible and fine article. The prophecy of Augustine that believers will be regarded with scorn by intelligent non believers if they insist on an overly 'literal' interpretation of Genesis, HAS ALREADY COME TRUE. The propaganda of so so called "Creationists" has, in my country (Australia) led to a common and widespread justification of unbelief. Students refuse to consider the claims of Christ on their lives, not because they cannot believe in a Creator, but because they think that in becoming a believer they have also to become a mindless 'creationist'. So they justify their unbelief, using a false theory of creation. The Church should be firmer on this issue and clearly identify Creationism as a heresy. Firstly, because it deliberately misinterprets the beginning of Genesis as prose not poetry (as the author intended), and, secondly because it ignores the vast scientific evidence that Creation itself has always been creative itself. To be blunt: Creationists are Flatearthers.

Redfox

Posted: May 19, 2009 9:46 AM

A reality that must be faced – if Christianity cannot co-exist with science Christianity will disappear. No dark threats warning against the shaky ground of compromise, no amount of fervourant hope, no thundering from the pulpit and no amount of self-delusion will protect Christianity from extinction. Only a clear understanding that the bible is not a scientific text book written to explain ‘how things work’, and rather that the bible is a record of man’s attempts to understand and meet God (and the reverse) will achieve this. If we seek to uphold the bible by defending every ‘jot and tittle’ we will fail to defend the whole also. I cannot get beyond the first few chapters of Genesis without realizing that a literal meaning is not intended, I am surprised that many Christians do not see the ambiguity, and more amazingly call those who do not agree ‘atheist’. Believing in Jesus Christ as savior does not require a complete understanding of the relationship between the bible and science.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

[Browse More Christianity Today]