All Comments for: Augustine's Origin of Species | Christianity Today

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

This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th of the publication of his On the Origin of Species. For some, such as Richard Dawkins, Darwinism has been elevated from a ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 69 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

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.

Jeremy

Posted: May 18, 2009 5:35 PM


Jesus Himself said that in the begining God created them male and female (Matt. 19:4), quoting directly from text that relates a history of God creating them in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1:26-27). Did God evolve too? Is that why we can believe that His image is not static? I believe Jesus knew what He was talking about. He was there, after all.

Philip

Posted: May 17, 2009 8:06 PM

I see two HUGE distortions in these posts: 1) Those claiming that Christians who view the days of Creation as being long periods of time are either affirming or are sympathetic to evolution and naturalism; 2) Those claiming that Christians who believe the Creation days are long periods are simultaneously denying that Adam and Eve were created instantly/miraculously (and were the results long evolutionary processes) and that they do not believe that the Bible characters were real, historical people or that its events were actual as well as historical. These claims are both completely false, and are typically made by young earth creationists. Millions of evangelicals believe the universe is ancient, that the days of Creation were long (many millions of years, each), and that both the characters and events of Genesis were actual, historical, and that they absolutely were NOT the results of long evolutionary/naturalistic processes, but the instant and miraculous Creations of Almighty God!

Boob	Posted: May 17, 2009 7:28 PM


Why not look at something like _City of God_ instead since it seems to reflect his more mature views. He wasn't Darwin, but he was open to the idea that species adapt over time. This would appear to be another example of CT's cherry picking the theological record for views that coincide with it's political agenda.

Troy Nunley

Posted: May 17, 2009 5:01 PM

Thanks to McGrath for another thoughtful article. One point to ponder. I am concerned about the point on p. 4 which attributes to Darwinism the view that variations tossed up for natural selection are "random" in a deeper sense than merely "unpredictable." Although I am no fan of Darwinism, it does not seem to me that this notion of real (as opposed to merely apparent) indeterminacy is a part of the theory. That 'add-on' is a bit of philosophy, not science. Thus, Darwinism (minus the atheistic-naturalist baggage that often gets attached to it) is quite consistent with Augustinian views as well as with Intelligent Design.

Susanna

Posted: May 16, 2009 10:55 PM

The calling of a Christian is not to judge others (Lk 6:36-37), but to be their neighbor (Lk 10:29-37), and love God and all people (Mk 12:28-31). The Gospel is Jesus (Jhn 14:6); not the Old Testament, or Paul, who was just a Christian himself. It's not about scientific, metaphysical or political ideas, but about loving Jesus and trying to love like he did (Jhn 14:15.23). The Bible is a book of Life not science.

PC	Posted: May 16, 2009 9:50 PM


An excellent piece. Prof. McGrath's is the kind of voice we need today to both challenge and engage in an informed and stimulating debate.

Michael Oldt

Posted: May 16, 2009 9:01 PM


I suggest that viewers go to answersingenesis.org and really contemplate the implications of the meaning of "death" by meditating on scripture before they let secular scienentist influence their worldview. That goes for Francis Collins for that matter.

Cephas

Posted: May 15, 2009 12:15 AM

Andrew, you say "These 'absurdities'... miracles... are no more or less absurd than the straightforward reading of the creation account." A straightforward, strictly literal reading of the account of our origins says that mankind was deceived by a literal talking snake, a mere cunning animal among the other beasts of the field (Genesis 3:1), which was then condemned to slither on its belly. The symbolic reading is that the serpent was an elegant allegory for Satan. Lo and behold, Revelation 20 tells us that Satan is the ancient serpent. The Bible is screaming at us to interpret the origins account figuratively, but so-called "literal Creationists" elevate their own traditions of men to the level of doctrine. thetruthproblem.info/figurative.html

Dr. James Willingham

Posted: May 14, 2009 10:14 PM


Suggest the author study Social Darwinism in History to get a view of the evils engendered by this approach which is about as unscientific as one can get while using the dry language of the lab. Was the real purpose as one the Huxley's said, to get them off the hook for their immorality?

Mary Wrucke

Posted: May 14, 2009 8:12 PM


Instead of debating about "scientific" issues, why not look at the myriad creations in the world, and ask yourself, how could they exist without a Creator? picture book for children, "Timmy the Tadpole" puts the lie to the theory of evolution. Only the Vreator could produce such a creasture, plus all the other mat bels He has created.

fundamentalist

Posted: May 14, 2009 1:49 PM

Some really great Christians present and past have held to theistic evolution. I challenge people to read Francis Collins’s biography and testimony. Collins headed the Human Genome Project. Nevertheless, we should not sacrifice fundamental truth for peace. Augustine is great! But hermeneutics is a better guide for interpreting Genesis. Some general questions about theistic evolution follow. If the creation story is allegorical, is the story of sin and the fall also allegorical? Was Christ’s death symbolic? Why not? At what point to you jettison the allegorical method? Only when it makes you uncomfortable? If theistic evolution is true, then we have billions of years of death, both of animals and quasi-humans before Adam and Eve appear. Does that agree with the general Biblical proposition that no death occurred before Adam and Eve sinned, not even the deaths of animals? Why should we give precedence to biological science over the science of hermeneutics?

MarkH

Posted: May 13, 2009 9:23 PM

There are a lot of really unlovely, unchristian, "holier than thou" comments being made here that should have nothing to do with the Christianity that God intends. I don't see much of "love thy neighbour as thyself" being expressed - how terribly sad and what a poor witness. I found the article to be very interesting and wish that more people would open their minds through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and actually see, hear and understand.

Douglas

Posted: May 13, 2009 7:35 PM


Allister, I think you need to read The City Of God also. Here Augustine deals with the already well known old-Earth notions of the Greek philosophers and firmly rejects them on scientific grounds. Evolution may be the religion of academia, but it wasn't Augustine's.

Dennis N

Posted: May 13, 2009 7:34 PM


Aren't you a famous apologist? And you still don't know that atheism and evolution are two different things? Are you ignorant of this or simply lying?

D101	Posted: May 13, 2009 4:33 PM


good points...the metaphor of the seed explaining potentialities...not the authority of the Bible, but its right interpretation...packed a lot of grist for the mill into a few pages...thanks

oldfuzz

Posted: May 13, 2009 2:40 PM

The author lost me with his calling ToE a "provisional scientific theory", whatever that means. That's like saying the possibility of the sun rising tomorrow. Of course it may not, but it has so far without exception. All scientific theories are provisional; i.e., accepted as scientific theories until tested and falsified. This misuse of scientific terminology, whether accidental or intentional, contributes to the myth that a scientific theory is just a theory. It's not. A scientific theory has a rigorous definition whereas a simple theory is often an opinion usually supported by anecdotal information, but not subjected to testing. As for the debate about the ToE there is sufficient scientific evidence supporting it and none refuting it... yet. And that uncertainty is the blessing and burden of science. While the detailed view of ToE keeps changing, the theory holds.

paula barnoskie

Posted: May 13, 2009 11:12 AM

Augustine was human, just as Darwin was. I don't understand why we cannot have a peace between scientific method and spirituality. One says How, and the other says Why. Whether evolution happened slowly over many eons or God made everything in literally six days, we are here now to live out God's divine purpose. At least Augustine's take on creation made much more sense than his views on women, sex, and education.

Glenn

Posted: May 13, 2009 10:56 AM

I learned from a seminary professor to read articles on origins of life by picking clues of the author's presuppositions, just as the author does in the following: "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." It seems that this author has read Augustine through the lens of theistic creationism. Perhaps someone well read on Augustine can weigh in on how well this article reflects the man.

Daniel

Posted: May 13, 2009 8:24 AM

To Donald, You are making a very big assumption in your post. You say that "Einsteins perspectives work anywhere and any time in the 13.4 billion year h(i)story of the universe". I was wondering what perspectives you mean?.... which I will assume are his theory of relativity, or . I don't know if you know actually that the theory breaks down when you consider the strong and weak forces in the particle physics. Thus the search to unify Einsteins theory to the latter one called the unification theory or the theory of everything. The same can be said for Darwins theory of Evolution by natural selection. The theory itself is not proven and Darwin died without proving it, even some evolutionists today do not consider natural selection as a valid theory, (see the late Stephen j Gould for example). You also have an idea that science is real discivery for the sake of discovery, which I will say that true science is done for economic reasons, not for discovery.

Roger Ramjet

Posted: May 13, 2009 6:27 AM

Andrew: No I don't believe in the virgin birth, water turned into wine etc. I don't believe in the existence of the supernatural either. The only way I consider that these events could have happened is if Jesus (I do believe that a man called Jesus walked the Earth 2000 years ago) might have been an alien who could do those things using advanced technology but not surprisingly my Christian friends reject that idea. Unlikely as it may seem, this explanation seems far more plausable to me than the supernatural. As I said, I consider myself a Christian sympathiser. Obviously I'm not a biblical scholar, but from what I know the teachings of Jesus on matters of how to live make great sense. If more people followed those teachings the world would be a better place. I try to adhere to the ten commandments, the sermon on the mount, "he who is without sin cast the first stone" etc. It's the supernatural aspect that doesn't wash with me.

Andrew Kulikovsky

Posted: May 13, 2009 5:48 AM

Roger Ramjet, Do you believe that Christ was born of a virgin? Do you believed He turned water into wine? Do you believe He died and was raised from the dead? These 'absurdities' (actually Christians call them the supernatural or miracles) are no more or less absurd than the straightforward reading of the creation account, but if you don't believe in these things then it is impossible for you to ever become a Christian.

Roger Ramjet

Posted: May 13, 2009 5:19 AM

It's long overdue for the Christian fundamentalists to face up to the reality that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life and the big bang for the origin of the universe. Vast amounts of observation, theory and prediction make this obvious. Some fundamentalists I have met insist that mountains as we see them today flashed into existence in their present form. If a piece of rock breaks off due to water in a crack freezing and expanding on a cold night then the mountain has changed due to a natural process. How can the mountain have always existed in it's present form without change? These people will tell you black is white and white is black. This line of thought is typical of fundamentalist thinking I have come across when it comes to science. They can't be taken seriously. This mentality is what keeps me away from churches. I consider myself a Christian sympathiser but I will never be a believer while I have to accept the absurd.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment