The Doorway Papers: Evolution or Creation?
Contents
Part 1: The Preparation of the Earth for Man
Chapter 1. The Concept of Supernatural Selection
Chapter 2. Two World Views: The Christian and the Naturalist
Chapter 3. The Fitness of the Earth
Chapter 4. Foresight and the Concept of Teleology
Chapter 5. The Setting of the Stage
Chapter 6. The Growing Evidence of Creative Activity
Chapter 7. Natural or Supernatural Selection
Chapter 8. Creation and Divergence
Chapter 9. Supernatural Selection: A New Name for an Old Concept
Chapter 10. Catastrophe and Reconstitution
Part 2: Primitive Monotheism and the Origin of Polytheism
Chapter 1. From Monotheism to Polytheism
Appendix: Additional Bibliography
Part 3. Convergence and the Origin of Man
Chapter 1. The Meaning of Convergence
Chapter 2. The Fact of Convergence
Chapter 3. The Implications of Convergence for Human Origins
Part 4: The Survival of the Unfit
Chapter 1. Evolution: An Irrational Faith
Chapter 2. Natural Selection: Fact or Fancy?
Chapter 3. The True Harmony of Natural Communities
Part 5: Is Man an Animal?
Chapter 1. The Uniqueness of Man
Chapter 2. The Human Brain: Its Size and Its Complexity
Chapter 3. The Erectness of Man
Chapter 4. The Ubiquity of Man
Chapter 5. Man the Culture Maker
THIS VOLUME contains two papers that are rather longer than usual, dealing with the earth's past geological history as it was being prepared for the introduction of man, and the unique constitution of man for whom the earth seems clearly to have been specifically designed. Three shorter papers deal with certain aspects of evolutionary theory to which not much attention is generally given in the literature of Christian writers.
In the first paper, "The Preparation of the Earth for Man," I have reexamined an older view of the earth's early history, which was actually in the process of being developed by some of the best minds in America and in Europe, and with great skill and clarity, when Darwin published his Origin of Species. Thereafter, unfortunately, this view was eclipsed by evolutionary thinking, because it advocated the twin concepts of divine intervention by direct creation and of providential planning and purpose, concepts which the scientific method was-and is-quite unable to accommodate. As our knowledge of the distant past increases however, this alternative view is seen to have more and more that should commend it for serious reconsideration; it can account for many geological phenomena otherwise quite unaccountable. This view and these phenomena are examined.
The second paper, "Primitive Monotheism and the Origin of Polytheism," gathers together some of the evidence now available which clearly indicates that man's religious history has not been marked by a gradual purification of his faith from animism to polydemonism to polytheism and finally to a pure monotheism; but by a trend in the opposite direction, representing rather degeneration than upward evolution.
The third paper, "Convergence and the Origin of Man," is a discussion of one aspect of the evidence from the fossil record and from the living world that similar needs and similar environmental pressures act upon living organisms to mold them along similar lines so that they tend to converge in structural form, and that this takes place in such a way as to present the appearance of genetic relatedness where no such relatedness has ever actually existed. The bearing of this on the argument for descent based on similarity of form is obvious. The extent to which convergence can be shown to have occurred is proving something of an embarrassment to evolutionists.
The fourth paper, "The Survival of the Unfit," provides some information on the large number of cases in Nature where cooperation and even self-sacrifice are found to be by no means uncommon among animals in the wild, both between members of a single species and between members of different species. Animals are seen to feed the wounded, guide the blind, help the disabled, and upon occasion even to sacrifice themselves for those in need of care. In Nature, the unfit by Darwin's definition, do indeed very often survive. His view of Nature as a ruthless battleground was really quite unrealistic.
The final paper, "Is Man An Animal?" is important because it shows that man is not merely quantitatively different from all other creatures, but qualitatively different. The differences are examined in some detail from a large number of less familiar sources. The conclusion is that man was created a unique creature because he was to become a "house" for God Himself to be manifested in the flesh as man, without violence being done to His own Person as God. It is seen that the Incarnation really demands a uniqueness in the constitution of man, which puts him in a category by himself completely separated from all other animal forms.
The final chapter of this last paper is, in some ways, a summation of the whole series of sixty Doorway Papers. It shows that in the final analysis the universe must have been made for the world and the world for man, and man was made specifically for God-not merely that he might worship and enjoy Him (because of his spiritual nature) but that God might redeem him by becoming one with him in his world of time and space (because of his physical nature), thus to demonstrate His love before the whole host of heaven in a way not otherwise possible.
It is all of a piece: herein is the meaning of reality and experience. Truly we are far too wonderfully and fearfully made for any blind evolutionary process to prove a sufficient explanation.
The reader will note that each of these papers was previously published separately by the author, and thus there is some duplication of material.
Through faith, we understand that the worlds were planned by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that do appear. (Hebrews 11:3)
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! (Psalm 139:14-17)
I beseech thee, my child, to lift thine eyes unto heaven and earth; and to see all things that are therein; and thus to recognize that God made them not of things that were, and that the race of men in this same way came into being. (2 Maccabees 7:28)
Preface
IF ANYONE who has read this paper concludes that I am, after all, merely presenting a kind of theistic evolution, the fault will be entirely mine in not having made clear what the fundamental difference is between my own views and this rather popular alternative. As I understand it, theistic evolutionists are essentially orthodox evolutionists-except that they believe God was behind it all, from the appearance of the first amoeba to the appearance of the first man. The term "evolution" is still taken to mean the gradual transformation of one species into another by natural means without any genetic discontinuities. These means are understood to be explainable in the terms of natural processes, the only supernatural element being the initiation of the process and the evidence of purpose throughout; the only intervention on God's part was a kind of nudging of events. In due course it is hoped to demonstrate this in the laboratory. When this happens we shall know "how God did it." The Creator started it all off, and then withdrew from any further direct interference in it except on very rare and special occasions when miracles occurred, having assured Himself, as it were, that it would end up as He planned.
This is not my view at all, how ever much it may superficially seem to be. I believe that God acted creatively, in the most distinct and positive manner conceivable, throughout the whole of geological history, introducing new species as they became appropriate, and removing others when they ceased to be.
No laboratory experiment can ever hope to elucidate this creative process, as I understand it. But because God was graciously willing to permit us to see the unfolding of His designs, the geological record can be read as a more or less continuous one, with evidence of the fitness and appropriateness of things throughout the whole process, as the earth was prepared for the introduction of man.
Because science must, of necessity, reject any appeal to the supernatural, the scientific account must accordingly give only a partial view of the meaning of the earth's past history, and of the universe as a whole. Revelation is essential to make the picture complete, and part of revelation is the method by which God redeemed man, a method which throws light upon his origin, and has a direct bearing on the structure and functioning of the bodies of all other animals. If man is evolved, I believe it can be shown that he is not redeemable at all, for his capacity for redemption is dependent upon the nature of both his spirit and his body.
THE ISSUES in the conflict between science and Scripture with regard to the earth's earlier history during the ages which preceded the coming of man have become almost impossibly confused. On the one hand, we have the confirmed evolutionist who finds no place whatever for the supernatural in his scheme of things, and therefore no place for God. He holds that everything has happened purely by chance, and that the process has occupied an immense period of time to be measured in billions of years. He rigidly excludes anything that smacks of catastrophism, holding to Lyell's dictum that the present is the key to the past. The progressive change from simple to complex forms of life has neither involved unbridgeable discontinuities nor divine interferences. The apparent gaps in the record do not represent discontinuities in the great chain of life. At the other extreme are those who, as openly confessed creationists, believe that virtually all the past is in one way or another stamped with the hallmark of instantaneous creation. Everything that has existed-the universe, our solar system, the planets, trees, animals, and man-came into being by fiat creation not more than a few thousand years ago. They interpret the phenomena of stratified rocks containing fossils as evidence of a global catastrophe in Noah's time and are therefore commonly referred to as "flood geologists."
Then there are creationists who believe that evolution was God's way of "creating." This seems to me really an abuse of language, but those who hold this view look upon evolution as a kind of creative process in itself. But they would admit that fiat creation was probably involved in the origination of matter, of life, and possibly of man as well.
A fourth school, of which I count myself a member, holds that we simply do not know precisely how God ordered the world in geological times prior to man, whether by direct creative activity or by something akin to evolution. Those in this group believe, as I do, that something went wrong and a catastrophic judgment brought that older world to a disastrous end, leaving it ruined and desolate, as Genesis 1:2 describes it. Then followed a re-creation at a tremendously accelerated rate, over a period of six literal days, at the end of which, as for a jewel, the setting was reconstituted. Man was then created to be the star of the piece and to dominate the stage thereafter. Much of the geological evidence of catastrophism that has been commandeered by the flood geologists is believed, by this school, to belong between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Such a concept is anathema to those creationists who believe in a very young universe, not because it is catastrophic, but because it makes concessions to the concept of a very ancient world-and this invites an evolutionary interpretation of that world. On the other hand, it is almost as unpopular with theistic evolutionists who see no need for it and no evidence of it, because it does involve the catastrophic and badly conflicts with current uniformitarian philosophy among geologists.
So we have certain atheistic and theistic alternatives, all of which are held by people who honestly believe that the evidence entirely supports their own particular view. And it is no longer possible, it seems, for the protagonists to really communicate with one another usefully. But being the creatures we are, we each hold fast to the view that best serves to integrate the knowledge we have of the evidence, and this paper is merely one man's attempt to do just this from a biblical as well as a scientific point of view. Frankly, I think it can be shown that the direction in which geological theory was heading just before Lyell and Darwin turned the tide was very much that which I am proposing in this paper. The evidence now has accumulated to such an extent that I believe this older view should be brought forward again and reexamined. Certainly the Lyellian view of geology is beginning to show signs of bankruptcy, even as I think the Darwinian view of paleontology has done.
The informed Christian assuredly has two great advantages over the non-Christian. In the first place, he almost certainly will have a rather good idea of the data upon which the evolutionist rests his case, whereas the non-Christian evolutionist has probably read almost nothing of a serious nature from the Christian point of view. In this respect, he is likely to be seriously unaware of the weaknesses of his own position. In the second place, the Christian has the tremendous advantage of being willing to accept the light of Revelation which, by its very nature, supplies data that cannot be obtained any other way.
So here is the situation as I see it: We have four basic alternatives--the purely nontheistic evolutionary view, the theistic evolutionary view, the young earth or flood geology view, and the view to be explored in some detail in this paper, which argues for that particular form of catastrophism that sees a discontinuity between our present world and "the world that then was" (II Peter 3:6), which was disastrously overwhelmed and left a desolation as described in Genesis 1:2 and reconstituted in Genesis 1:3-31.
Online edition, January 14, 1997. Updated, May 19, 1997.
Special thanks to Shannon Pekary (spekary@best.com)
for scanning and file preparation.
Send corrections and comments to Lambert
Dolphin (dolphin@best.com)