at present — are right about this. If He was not, Christianity is a fraud — no salvation, no heaven, no nothing.5
Yes, Ruse understands, all right, at least with his mind. But, in his heart, he refuses to believe, because he knows that his precious evolutionary “birthright” logically would have to be renounced, along with all worldly fame.
It is remarkable, on the other hand, that so many professing Christians feel that they can somehow accommodate evolution in their Christian faith, when the evolutionists themselves (at least the leaders, rather than the followers, of evolutionary thought) practically all say it can’t be done.
A current leader in the field of evolutionary philosophy, Dr. David Hull, a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, says:
The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain, and horror.6
With respect to the character of any “god” who would use evolution as his process of evolution, Hull goes on to observe:
The God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history . . . is not a loving God who cares about his productions. He is . . . careless, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.7
Charles Darwin himself long ago recognized this diabolical character of evolution.
Darwin himself commented most forcefully upon the inefficient and basically unpleasant character of his process, writing to his friend Joseph Hooker in 1856: “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering law, and horribly cruel works of nature!”8
Why is it so difficult for theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists to see the complete incompatibility of the idea of a billion years of suffering and death among billions of animals (including presumed pre-Adamite “men”), as supposedly documented in the fossil record of the evolutionary ages of geology, with the biblical revelation of an omniscient, loving Creator?
It is not because the scientific evidence requires them to believe in these long ages of evolution. Even Darwin’s real reason for developing his theory of evolution was not to explain the scientific evidence, but rather to get away from the Christian idea of God, the God of the Bible.
Although he originally studied to be an Anglican clergyman, Darwin began to have serious doubts about Christianity long before he wrote The Origin of Species. Here is his testimony.
Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. . . . I can indeed hardly see how anyone could wish Christianity to be true, for if so . . . my father, brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.9
And so Darwin traded his birthright, what he called the “damnable doctrine” of the saving grace of Christ, for the pottage of what he called “the horribly cruel works of nature.” This was not because of his science, but because of his deliberate and arbitrary rejection of God’s Word.
The same seems to be true of Michael Ruse. His low view of Christianity is set forth in the following diatribe.
Some of the problems of Christianity strike me as being so blatantly rational-belief-destroying that there is almost a sense of farce in seeing its devotees trying to wriggle from under them. Chief among these is the problem of explaining how somebody’s death two thousand years ago can wash away my sins. When you combine this with the doctrine of the Trinity and the implication that the sacrificial lamb is God himself (or itself) and that this therefore makes things all right with this self-same God, the rational mind boggles.10
Perhaps Dr. Ruse’s mind boggles at the saving gospel of Christ, but there have been millions of men and women of rational mind throughout the Christian era who have found profound mental — as well as spiritual — peace only in this great redemptive revelation of God. Rather than bringing the Bible into disrepute, Ruse is fulfilling one of its ancient prophecies: “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).
At least Michael Ruse does have a realistic insight concerning the impossibility of trying to merge the Christian and evolutionary world views.
I have a loathing of attempts to meld science and religion which entail the trimming of religion in such a way that it fits with science, but at the cost of gelding it of real content and mystery — attempts which include the traditional varieties of evolutionary humanism, based all too often on so-called “noble lies” or just plain bad arguments.11
Again, we would urge our evangelical brethren not to yield to the increasingly powerful temptation to trade away their noble biblical, creationist, Christian birthright for an insubstantial (yet toxic) mess of evolutionary pottage.
No Need for God
In addition to accusing God (unintentionally, no doubt, but nevertheless in reality) of cruelty and involving themselves in dishonesty (and all to no avail!) such fence-straddling in effect, does away with God altogether. Dr. William Provine, a widely known and very influential professor of the history and philosophy of science at Cornell University, has noted this point. First, however, he stresses the atheistic character of evolutionary theory and its advocates.
The conflict is fundamental and goes much deeper than modern liberal theologians, religious leaders, and scientists are willing to admit. Most contemporary scientists, the majority of them by far, are atheists or something very close to that. And among evolutionary biologists, I would challenge the reader to name the prominent scientists who are “devoutly religious.” I am skeptical that one could get beyond the fingers of one hand. Indeed, I would be interested to learn of a single one.12
Having made this point, Dr. Provine goes on to expose the utter inconsistency of Christians who try to impose God on the evolutionary process.
A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up, and works through the laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that his action is undetectable. But that kind of God is no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, “Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?” This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality nor foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion.13
In the same vein, James Rachels, a professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama, points out the redundant character of such a God.
Suppose God is somehow involved in the process that evolutionary biologists since Darwin have been describing. This would mean that he has created a situation in which his own involvement is so totally hidden that the process gives every appearance of operating without any guiding hand at all. . . . But if it is reasonable for us to believe that, then it is reasonable for us to reject the theistic interpretation.
