According to a recent 2012 Gallop poll, thirty-two percent of Americans believe in theistic evolution. This is the view that humans did in fact evolve, but that god also helped to guide the process. While this is a minority view (with 46% of Americans believing god created humans in their present form), is this a logical position to take? I would answer this question with a resounding, “No.”
I firmly believe this for a few reasons. The bible contains not a hint of anything that could be interpreted as describing the process of evolution. Man and woman, along with all of the other species on earth, were clearly created fully formed. Genesis 1:21 says, “So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abound, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” Later, in Genesis 1:24-25, god creates all of the land animals, and in Genesis 1:26-27 god crates man and woman. Where is the slow march of time? Second, where are the intermediate forms that evolution requires, since the bible believes that every “kind” of animal is a totally separate form and not related to each other? If the bible is supposed to be the word of god, as many Christians have claimed, such as John Wesley who wrote in 1745, “I receive the written Word as the whole and sole rule of my faith,” what changed? The over whelming evidence of science is what changed, with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859. Over time Christians have changed their beliefs time and time again. While I applaud their reasonableness, I believe it is a disgrace to their religion that they have moved away from the basic tenets of their beliefs. For centuries prior, Christians have viewed the bible as the last word on their beliefs but over time Christians began to move away from the bible with the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, and began to accept the facts of life that science began to uncover.
While I am glad that many Christians are more accepting of science, they are at the same time being hypocritical because they are ignoring centuries of Christian dogma. I believe it was Richard Dawkins who once said something about giving kudos to the Christian fundamentalists because, unlike many Christians who accept evolution, at least the literalists are consistent! I firmly agree with this.
Despite this sound reasoning, I’ve encountered some atheists who dislike such views and call them “fundamentalist” as if they’re trying to simply dismiss this criticism without rationally examining it first. These atheists often ask, “Why can’t Christians accept evolution? Shouldn’t we be grateful that there are at least some Christians who aren’t entirely closed to the facts that science has uncovered?”
I can appreciate those scientists and atheists who believe that we need to be more accepting of science-savvy Christians because they can be an ally in the fight against the biblical literalists and Creationists. I can understand this reasoning, but my objection is not a political one. It is simply one of consistency and logic. In my mind, sure, atheists can befriend more accepting Christians. I have no problem with this. My only gripe is that these Christians are simply being inconsistent and are moving farther and farther away from the original beliefs of their faith.
I don’t view this as a form of “fundamentalism.” In fact, I don’t see how any rational person could call this viewpoint “fundamentalist.” I see it as accepting the reality that most Christians do not adhere to the original tenants of their belief system.
