COMMENTS ON THE "CONFLICT" BETWEEN EVOLUTION
AND THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION

by James W. Grier

Preliminary notes:

1. These comments were excerpted, modified and revised from a college
   textbook that I wrote on animal behavior (Grier, J. W. 1984. Biology
   of Animal Behavior. Times Mirror/Mosby, College  Publishing. St. Louis.).
   I dropped the matter from the second, 1992, edition of the animal
   behavior book because the issue was  no longer of  concern or interest
   to many students (although evolution itself remains a central theme of the
   book). [The book on animal behavior and other Mosby biology books were
   subsequently acquired by different publishers, most recently by McGraw Hill.]
2. The original references have been retained, even though most are
   now outdated, as I have had neither the time nor interest to update them.
   There obviously has been much discussion on the subject since this was
   originally written and there are numerous new popular books available (e.g.,
   see references below). Also, perhaps it is time to move on to other issues, such as
   environmental protection and its connection between religion and science (e.g.,
   see Baker, B. 1996. BioScience 46:475-478).
3. I thank several colleagues, pastors, students and others for discussions and
   input for my thinking plus reviews and comments on draft versions.
4. New material, hopefully providing some clarification, was added 10/7/99. It
   follows the text below, which was posted on this web page 9/30/99.
5. An additional link, following a subsequent newspaper column that I wrote, was
   added 7/28/2006 (see bottom of this page for link).

The current biological view of evolution is that organisms change over time, usually
involving many generations and lengths of time that are beyond normal human
comprehension. Various species (including humans) and larger groupings arose by
changes in previous species. Those changes result from accumulated genetic changes
partly as a result of environmental pressures (i.e., natural selection) and partly from
other things such as chance events. Except for the earliest organic molecules, all life
comes from previus life. Present-day species did not always exist (although some have
been around for hundreds of millions of years) and different species appeared at
different times during the Earth's long history.

Most biologists consider the existence of such change to be fact (1). The evolutionary
theory, which attempts to explain how these changes occurred, is only a theory but it is
none-the-less one of the strongest and most accepted theories in all of science. However,
not all persons have understood, accepted, or agreed with the facts and theory of
evolution. There has been a particularly long and continuing problem between the theory
of evolution and one interpretation, special creation, of the biblical accounts of creation in
Genesis. The history of the controversy is reviewed by Numbers (2).

Special creation states that all species were created uniquely with their full sets of
characteristics during a short period of time (days). That view, however, simply has no
supporting evidence in the geological and fossil record (except that the length of time for
changes to occur can vary from relatively long to relatively short on the geological time
scale). The bones and other traces of earlier forms of life exist, can be seen and handled
in various museums and laboratories, and must be reckoned with. Furthermore, contrary
to what some opponents of evolutionary theory have stated, transitional forms between
different species exist and, in fact, there are numerous examples. It seems very unlikely
that, as was once proposed, God put those fossils there just to confuse us! The fossil
evidence points quite clearly to changes and the appearances (and disappearances) of
new species and groups of organisms over very long periods of time.

Does that mean that evolution and a belief in creation by God are mutually exclusive
and that we must deny either one or the other? No. Special creation (or, more recently,
"creationism") has been closely allied with Judeo-Christian religion, and the biological
view of evolution often is considered atheistic. Neither of these views is completely tenable.
Special creation definitely conflicts with evolution but special creation is not the only
possible interpretation of the creation account in Genesis and, in my opinion, is not the
best or even a good interpretation of what the Bible says. I would prefer to drop the topic
at that, but in my experiences with many students, non-biologists, and even some biology
colleagues, the subject refuses to be ignored and go away. Thus, I will briefly address the
issue further, then allow each reader to draw his or her own conclusion.

Special creation appears to be a relatively recent (probably within the last 1500 years)
biblical interpretation. Persons alive when the creation account originally was written and
up until the last 1500 years or so apparently were not concerned with scientific accuracy in
the same sense that persons today are (3). The special creation interpretation made sense to
persons who were not aware of the vast expanses of geological time. The idea that species
suddenly appeared from nowhere prevailed both in religious as well as nonreligious contexts.
In a nonreligious context, for example, one could find a similar notion called spontaneous
generation. That idea arose from the familiar experience of seeing such things as mice appear
in grain sheds and maggots in meat. Unfortunately, once a special creation view appeared
and became popular, it was passed on and developed a cultural momentum which has
carried it up to the present day. Special creation is often presented as the only valid view
and forced into other issues such as public education. It also often carries the implication
that one is not a Christian unless that viewpoint is accepted. As a consequence, many people
are either turned off or confused by the matter.

However, a careful reading of the Bible shows that Genesis does not require the special
creation interpretation. In fact, Genesis can be viewed as being just as compatible with
evolution! In the first chapter of Genesis (any translation, including King James), the Bible
states, "Let the earth (verse 1:11) and waters (1:20) bring forth ...," "[organisms] yielding fruit
each according to its kind" (1:11). The phrase "each according to its kind," which forms the
basis of the special creation view, is clearly referring to reproduction (yielding fruit) the first
time it is used (verses 11, 12) rather than the original appearance of the species. It is
reasonable to assume the same in subsequent verses (1:21, 24, 25). If so, the only part that
differs from a modern biological view is the sequence of appearance of different organisms,
with flowering plants, for example, coming before aquatic creatures. That seems to me like a
minor problem relative to the rest of the debate.

The "days" in Genesis were not likely 24-hour days. The initial origin of the universe
according to modern theory (4) took less than 24 hours and even less than 1 second.
Subsequent events, including the development of galaxies, stars, and systems such as our
solar system, have taken much longer. The Bible itself does not require that "day" means a
24-hour day. The original word which has been translated into the English "day" is used
elsewhere in the Bible in other contexts where it clearly does not mean 24 hours. And 2 Peter
3:8 states (King James), "... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day."

Similarly, the Bible does not require a strict literal interpretation in other aspects, contrary
to the claims of some persons. "In the image of God" does not necessarily mean a physical,
biological image. Even the story of Adam and Eve can be interpreted as literary prose that
describes the relationships among humans and God that apply to all humans rather than as a
scientific account of the first man and woman. In fact, it is plain that other people are present
in the story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 4:17, 4:19). Such prose was a common trait of the
Hebrew culture of the time and they often used puns and indirect meanings. The word "Adam,"
for example, simply means "man," not necessarily a specific individual. Christ himself spoke
figuratively much of the time and even said so explicitly (e.g., see John 16:25).

In other matters, even chance events, which play a significant part in the modern view of
evolution, are stated in the Bible to be one of God's tools (Acts 1:24-26). Furthermore, that
creation was not confined to one brief period in time is acknowledged by Christians who
believe that God continues to create anew in the hearts of his believers right up to the present.
So the "conflict" may not be so real after all. Furthermore, many people would argue that
science and religion are different aspects of human existence and it is a mistake to mix them or
apply the approaches of one to the other in the first place.

I conclude that it is possible to honestly adhere to either or both scientific and religious views.
Many people hold both. The Society for the Study of Evolution, the leading group of
professional biologists who study evolution, for example, includes members who share a
consensus on the validity of evolutionary theory and at the same time represent a cross section
of religious views, including Jewish, Russian Orthodox, Christian, and atheist. Many, if not
most, Jewish and Christian groups are willing to live with evolutionary facts and theory
(although most people, whether they believe in God or not, are not really familiar with or well
informed on the subject of evolution). One who believes in God may view the process of
evolution as the means by which God created organisms. Anyone who does not believe in
God is free to believe that it all just happened. There are many interpretations of the Bible and
how it relates to science. There are numerous discussions of the issue from diverse viewpoints
(for examples, see 3-7). Old arguments that attempt to draw sides seem to me to be a waste
of time whether one is agnostic, theistic, or a devout atheist.

REFERENCES

from original, 1984, version:

1. Wilson, E. O., et al. (several coauthors). 1978. Life on Earth. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
   Sunderland, Mass.
2. Numbers, R. L. 1982. Creationism in 20th-century America. Science 218:538-544.
3. Fretheim, T. E. 1969. Creation, fall, and flood. Augsburg Publishing HOuse,
   Minneapolis.
4. Gamow, G. 1952. The creation of the universe. The Viking Press. New York.
5. Fisher, R. B. 1981. God did it, but how? Cal Media, La Mirada, Calif.
6. Sagan, C. 1979. Broca's brain. Random House, Inc., New York.
7. Theiss, H. C. 1982. Life with God. Morse Press, Seattle.

a few additional:

1. Baker, B. 1996. BioScience 46:475-478
2. Gould, S. J. 1999. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of
   Life. Ballantine
3. Hawking, S. 1996. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books.

New section added 10/7/99:

Following an article that I published in the local Fargo-Moorhead newspaper (The
Forum, 10/3/99), a student talked to me and I received some letters that made me realize
that the issue is still confusing to some people and a few additional points might help clarify
matters.

People may be so used to (1) thinking of creation only in terms of special creation
(whereby all species are created specially and uniquely, essentially all at the same time [within
days as we know them] ) and (2) hearing repeatedly that there is a conflict between science
and religion, that they find it difficult to think otherwise. In addition, there are really two
separate issues that are getting tangled together and confusing the discussion.

The two issues are (1) whether or not one believes in God (as creator) and (2) whether
one believes that species originally appeared suddenly or more spread out, and from earlier
forms, over time. If the different views of the two different issues are combined, it is possible
to form four different overall viewpoints, as shown in the following table:

* This category currently has no name, as few people are used to thinking or talking about it.
    It could perhaps be called "evolutionary creation."

The important point in the book of Genesis, as I read it, is that God created everything, not
how He did it. Whether or not one believes in God is simply a matter of faith. There is no way
(that I know), either scientific or otherwise, of proving that God does or does not exist. One
has to determine one's belief in God through different means than science. (And, it is important
to realize that science involves only one aspect of human thinking and living. Science is
important but there are also other realms of human existence.)

The bottom line as I see it is that there is not necessarily a conflict between a belief in God and
a belief in evolution.

Additional material, on the role of ACCUMULATED CHANGES in evolution, was added 7/28/2006.

For that, click here.