Why is Creation complaining?

This post was originally published on November 24, 2009 – the 150th anniversary of Origin of the Species. Wrestling with origins is likely something people will do until the return of Jesus, however the discussion over historical Adam seems to have created more interest in this topic so thought I would repost.


Darwin’s Origin of Species was published 150 years ago today sparking debate over the origins of man. So I thought it fitting to post some thoughts on origins today. Darwin himself seems to have struggled with the First Cause…

But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide.

Life and Letters Vol. 1 (page 306-307)

He goes on to say in later reflections…

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

Life and Letters Vol. 1 (page 312-313)

One of my favorite theology blogs has recently [it was recent in 2009] analyzed the various views one might have relating to creation and evolution. [but their is this recent post on that topic] has As I reflect on these options as well as what Darwin has written I turn to Romans 8 and have to wonder what creation is groaning about if chance and natural selection are the basis of our origins.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:19-25 ESV)

For if God did use evolution (macro/common descent) and natural selection to create man then what was creation subjected to and when?

It would seem that subjection to bondage and corruption would require a state of creation that existed prior to its being subjected. And that state must be something different than what exists today. But in theistic evolutionary views the earth is required to be essentially the same for the 4.5 billion years (give or take) of its existence because the “7 days” of creation in Genesis 1 are where the work of natural selection processes were at work culminating in the evolution of man.

But if that is the case then what freedom and state is creation aspiring too? What does that look like? And what affect does this have on our own hope in the future since our hope and that of creation seem to be intertwined with restoration at Jesus return?

Science Roundup: Dawkins, Doubt, and Probability

Several interesting articles were published over the last few days that deal with science and origins. Since exploring that topic, based on the release of Enns new book, was a popular series here I thought I would share these.

On February 23rd 2012 Professor Richard Dawkins debated the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams on the ‘nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin’. The moderator was Sir Anthony Kenny.

The debate is available on You Tube, though I have not watched it as of yet.

The report from the Guardian was that the bout did not live up to the hype.

In normal boxing matches, the duty of the referee is to keep the fighters from gouging and biting; but when you get a theologian and a scientist in the ring together, the referee’s job is get them to try to hit each other and not flail at the air. …

With such a formidable referee there was some chance that the contestants might land some blows on each other, and the Sheldonian theatre in Oxford was packed for this intellectual bloodsport. They would be disappointed, despite all Kenny’s best efforts.

Dawkins explained his view:

The laws of physics have conspired to make the collisions of atoms produce plants, kangaroos, insects, and us.

yet also admitted in the same debate:

the world’s “most famous atheist” now says he is not 100 percent sure that God doesn’t exist — but just barely.  … the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was “6.9 out of seven” certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.

xkcd: The Difference

Dawkins comments came out around the same time as the NYT book review on Lawrence Krauss’ new book – “A Universe From Nothing”, which claims the opposite:

Scientists may be at least theoretically able to trace every last galaxy back to a bump in the Big Bang, to complete the entire quantum roll call of particles and forces. But the question of why there was a Big Bang or any quantum particles at all was presumed to lie safely out of scientific bounds, in the realms of philosophy or religion.

Now even that assumption is no longer safe … science can explain how something — namely our star-spangled cosmos — could be born from, if not nothing, something very close to it.

According to Krauss that something isn’t God but “randomness”.

Maybe in the true eternal multiverse there are truly no laws …

Maybe indeed randomness is all there is …

Maybe. But that does not sound certain to me, and something close to nothing is still not nothing.

Lastly, the neutrino that broke the light speed barrier and therefore the theory of special relativity may have been the result of a faulty conductor according to Guardian.

So it looks like neutrinos respect the speed limit after all. At least, the OPERA experimentalists announced a couple of days ago that they have found one problem (with a connector in their experiment) which could have led to a faulty timing measurement. When they run again with this fixed, they may well get a result compatible with the speed of light.

Something Discover pointed out right away:

So don’t let your imagination run away with this just yet. This result will, in my opinion, probably turn out to be incorrect for some reasons dealing with measurement. Faster than light travel is still a dream, even though I wouldn’t say it’s impossible… just very, very, very, very unlikely.

Here the author raises the issue regarding the possibility of particles that are faster than light, reminding us that, however unlikely, even the theory of special relativity’s claim, that the maximum speed achievable is the speed of light, is not  “certain”.  The Guardian does offer an interesting question? Should the results about the neutrino have been published and would we be questioning the results as much if it did not contradict a widely held theory.

Experimentalists get ignored if they are right, and hugely cited if they are wrong.

Theorists get ignored if they are wrong, but a Nobel Prize if they are right.

When the “most famous atheist” is willing to admit that science cannot disprove the existence of God, even if he thinks it is highly, highly improbable and scientists may have observed particles that are traveling faster than light it reminds us that the scientific conclusions on origins and cosmology,which are based on inductive reasoning of current observations and experiments can not be “proven” with error-free certitude. They can only be considered in degrees of probability. Something to keep in mind when wrestling with the claims of both science and theological interpretations.

Life is not Fair (Being Elite Part 2)

Challies has written an excellent post exploring the “Entitlement Generation”. One of the examples in the post describes a professor who asked his class – what do want the federal government to do to help you achieve your dream. Here was the result:

8 out of 10 students said they wanted free health care, they wanted the government to pay for their tuition. They want the government to pay for the down payment on their house. They expect the government “to give them a job.” Many of them said they wanted the government to tax wealthier individuals so that they would have an opportunity to have a better life.

Are these expectations fair? Should citizens be entitled to a government subsidized house, education, and job?

Responding to the idea that it is not fair that a child born to a poor woman has less chance for success than a child born into a wealthy family, Thomas Sowell points out fundamental problems with how we define “fairness”:

To ask whether life is fair — either here and now, or at any time or place around the world, over the past several thousand years — is to ask a question whose answer is obvious. Life has seldom been within shouting distance of fair, in the sense of even approximately equal prospects of success. …

More fundamentally, the question whether life is fair is very different from the question whether a given society’s rules are fair. Society’s rules can be fair in the sense of using the same standards of rewards and punishments for everyone. But that barely scratches the surface of making prospects or outcomes the same.

A look at Elite Faith and Fairness

Jesus was amazed at the faith of three people a Canaanite women, a centurion, and John the Baptist. The post from Challies helped me to look at the Canaanite women from a different perspective for the series on greatness. Let’s examine the ideas of fairness and entitlement through this woman of great faith in Matthew 15:21-28 (NASB).

Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.”

The woman is a Canaanite living in the Gentile region of what is modern day Lebanon. She has come to find Jesus, whom she acknowledges as the Messiah of Israel who was to come from the line of David.

Having had the amazing chance to meet Jesus, who had come to this area to share some quiet and private time with His disciples (Mark 7:24-25) she makes a request. What does she ask for? She doesn’t want a seat at the right or left seat of Christ in glory, or power to lord over others, or to be served? Nor does she demand the “better life”. She wants her daughter to be well. At the very heart of that appeal is the absence of any sense of entitlement. The basis for her request is not that she deserves help. She is begging for mercy and compassion.

23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” 26 And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

However Jesus does not initially respond to her request. As the account unfolds Jesus calls this woman a dog and tells her she did not deserve to be helped? This should catch the careful reader off guard, not only because these seem like cold  responses from Jesus, but it is such a contrast to how Jesus has been responding to similar requests. This narrative is surrounded by two accounts of Jesus healing many people (Matt 14:34-36; 15:29-31). The difference is the people being healed in these accounts are in areas surrounding the Sea of Galilee in Israel and are primarily Jewish.

Jesus explains first to the disciples and then the woman that His mission is focused on Israel.

  • I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel
  • It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs

In the latter quote, Jesus is saying in effect: it is not right to give the children’s food to the pets. Theologically the children are Israel, the pets are the Gentiles, and the bread is the offer to be part of the kingdom. This plan for reaching the lost is explained again in Acts when the disciples are told to be witnesses first in Jerusalem (the capital of Israel) and then ultimately to the outer most parts of the world. And again in Romans by Paul who tells us that salvation was first for the Jew, then for the Gentile (Rom 1:16).

But is that being fair to the woman?

Is it fair that she was born a Gentile and not a Jew?

Is it fair that she lives outside of Israel’s borders?

Is it fair that her daughter is sick?

Take a moment to reflect on how you might respond to Jesus at this point? If I am honest with myself, I don’t think I would respond the way the woman does.

27 But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once.

The woman shows incredible patience and humility as she continues to plead her case and beg for help. Her persistence is clearly aggravating the disciples, always the model of compassion, who just want her to go away. But despite their complaints and Jesus’ initial rejection she never claims she is entitled to the healing that Jesus can give or that its not fair that He heals Jews. She humbly admits that she is willing to take whatever He is willing to offer out of grace and mercy. She is asking for the table scraps that would be thrown out or given to the pets. She is willing to take the left-overs from the Messiah that Israel does not want.

Compare that to the Pharisees who believe that they are entitled to the kingdom by virtue of their special heritage as descendents of Abraham (Matt 3:7-10). They test Jesus demanding signs (Matt 16:1) then call Him demon possessed (Matt 12:24) and ultimately reject Him as the Son of David (Matt 12:23), and plot to kill Him (Matt 12:14). Their sense of entitlement has destroyed their humility and given them an inflated sense of worth. They are not joyful at the arrival of their King and Savior because they feel they deserve great places in the kingdom already.

The Pharisees were likely incensed to learn that many Gentiles would be granted entrance into the kingdom, but they were not entitled to enter, let alone have seats of glory (Matt 8:11-12).

The series of posts is exploring greatness by exploring what the criteria are for being an elite Christian? More important than what we might say if asked if we were elite is how Jesus would answer it. The response of this woman amazes Jesus and elicits the remark: You have great faith!
Jesus has just let this woman know that she is elite because of her faith.

Understanding Jesus’ initial response is difficult. Was Jesus testing her faith, trying to teach the disciples a lesson on faith and the heart (15:17-18), or trying to show them the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Matt 15:7-8) as well as their own lack of compassion. Probably all of the above are involved in how Jesus handled the situation.

Whatever conclusion one draws it is clear that Jesus gives us a lesson on being elite. If we want to be great in the kingdom it requires a humble recognition that life is not fair and we don’t deserve all that we think we do. Most importantly we need to recognize the need for a Messiah because we are not entitled to a place in the kingdom because of who we are or what we have (or have not) done. Until we start to let that sink in we are not going to be great in the eyes of our Savior.

[Continue reading through the series: part 3]