What clergy think about evolution

The Internet Monk asked his coterie of clergy the following question:

A pre-med college student in your congregation comes to you and says “I’ve been learning about evolution at school, and I can’t recall the subject ever being discussed or talked about here at church. I’ve never really asked if there was a conflict between evolution and being a Christian. Can I believe what I’m being taught, or do I have to oppose it because I am a Christian?

Interestingly, not one of the respondents said that a Christian had to reject evolution. Under the fold, some of the key responses.

Orthodox:

I, myself, see little conflict between many of the scientific findings with regards to evolution and our belief that God created. However, please realize that there are many who try to say that one must believe in evolution without a God or one is not being scientific. And there are many who try to say that one must believe that creation was in six literal days or one is destroying the unity of the Bible. These are the extremes that I talked to you about earlier. But, there are many fine Christian scientists in the areas of physics, cosmology, astronomy, mathematics, and genetics who believe that God created and is behind the evolutionary developments and see no contradiction between the two.

United Methodist (the least accepting of evolution):

I’m fine being skeptical of some aspects of evolution and find my acceptance of other aspects in no way conflicts with my complete and utter belief and experience with the Triune Creator who has fully revealed himself in Jesus Christ, crucified and resurrected. I hope that our church wouldn’t be an obstacle to honest pursuit of truth either theologically or scientifically.

Anglican (wishy washy, of course):

I am a pastor and a theologian, not a biologist. As such, I could not debate the individual claims of natural science on the merits of each, because I lack the resources to do so. I do, however, have enough insight into the discipline to say that there remains a lot of speculative work in evolutionary science. And, since there are credible scientists who question the suppositions of the mainstream evolutionists, it seems reasonable to me that my parishioner should – at the very least – approach the discipline with a well-defined hermeneutic of suspicion. Indeed, that is exactly the advice the biologist would (and should) give my parishioner if the tables were turned.

Eventually, I would urge my parishioner not to lose too much sleep over the matter. Scripture does not seek to provide an historical or biological account of human origins; rather it provides a theological framework for understanding humanity (and the universe) as the handiwork of God. On this point honest evolutionists will agree: natural selection does not disprove the existence of God.

The comment about “credible scientists” indicates that he was very correct to note that he lacked the resources to debate the topic.

Catholic:

Well, there are sort of two different questions here, and hence two different answers. “Can I believe what I’m being taught?” and “Do I have to oppose evolution (implied) because I’m a Christian?” Short answers: To a degree and No.

If the scientists and teachers of science who are teaching you stick to their science guns and don’t wander off track into the realm of philosophy, then you’re probably fine with what you’re being taught. We’re talking about evidence and theories derived from that evidence here – not a problem from a Catholic Christian perspective. Even when we get into the theory of evolution, that life forms adapt to their environments over time, that the earth is perhaps billions of years old and yes, that even the human life form has perhaps evolved from a less complex life form. Scientifically, not a huge issue.

Of course we get the usual thing about atheism…

Southern Baptist:

I’m going to have to begin my answer with a bit of a confessional preface: I’ve kind of instinctively distanced myself from the issue of evolution a bit because (a) I’m often embarrased by my fellow pastors who try to speak on the subject as if they’re scientists, (b) I’m often irritated by the mindless fundamentalism of pro-evolution advocates and, (c) I’ve heard and read so many conflicting variations from scientists and non-scientists alike on the philosophical and theological implications of evolution that I’ve put it on the backburner a bit instead of jumping into what seems to be a hopelessly muddled morass of shouting.

But he thinks there’s no conflict:

… some people say you can hold to all of these biblical tenets and hold to evolutionary theory as well. As I understand evolution, that’s problematic, but I admit to you that I have not studied evolution in depth so I am speaking from a perspective of relative ignorance on the issue itself.

Presbyterian:

No, you need not oppose what you are being taught in school simply because you are a Christian. …

Is the professor keeping within the bounds of science or is he or she trying to use evolution as a meta-theory to explain everything that we think, feel, or do? Sometimes even well-meaning scientists trip across the boundary between science and philosophy.

I’m somewhat appalled at the ignorance of these religious leaders. They clearly have no idea about the science, not even at the level high school graduates ought to have, which is no doubt a result of the dual factors of the very bad educational standards in the US on evolution, and also the sustained campaigns of the obfuscators and antiscientists there. But for all that, none of them explicitly stated that evolution and [their] religion were unquestionably opposed. This implies that the Clergy Letter Project is no fluke.

Now this doesn’t imply simple accommodationism is correct, nor that in fact (as opposed to the official claim) that these religions* and science actually are compatible – it seems to me that they all equivocate at various points, identifying the idea that evolution is unguided with the view that it’s all down to chance, which is a very bad leap of logic. While chance plays a crucial role, it is no more antitheist than the notion that chance plays a role in physics, and in both domains there is lawful behaviour at the appropriate level.

But clearly, and in the light of the often-stated argument that if Christianity is not opposed to science, the clergy should say so, here is a case of the clergy saying so. They waffle a fair bit, but it’s nothing in the same area as ID or other creationisms.

* Religions plural. I think that religions are institutions, so if they exist as distinct institutions, and they do, they are as distinct as any two other religions or cults.