The Middle Way

The following was written by the prophet Ezekiel as an allegory about Jerusalem, but it also seems to fit this discussion very well:


"Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices ... On the day you were born, your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed in salt or wrapped in cloths. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born, you were despised.

"Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, 'Live!' I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels."

Let's get this straight up front. I am a pro-lifer. I believe that life begins at conception, and that any abortion or discarding of human fetal tissue is wrong.

However, this belief does not call for a total ban on stem-cell research. Killing embryos for stem cells is wrong, but embryonic research is not the only option. Most pro-lifers are on-board in favor of what is called adult stem-cell research, such as with bone-marrow stem cells; but research into umbilical cord stem cells, which may have some of the properties of embryonic stem cells, should be aggressively pursued; since there is no question that the umbilical cord was intended to be discarded following the birth of a child.

I do not pretend to fully understand the ethical issues; but I also think we need to calm down and carefully consider all available options; then choose those which are ethical and which are scientifically promising. Those who are faithful to the Lord should not be setting up unnecessary roadblocks to scientific research, because we are also called to heal those who would benefit from this research. However, we do have a responsibility to guide decisionmakers in the way this can be done that respects human life and dignity.

Following are some links to sites that may help you to clarify the issues:

From religioustolerance.org: What are stem cells?

From CNN: Elizabeth Cohen discusses the ethics of stem cell research.

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.

Last night, my men’s Bible study group entered into a spirited discussion on the validity of evolution. One argued that a man could not be faithful to Christian doctrine and accept evolution as a scientific theory, because it conflicted with the account of the Creation in Genesis 1.

I am greatly saddened that this issue persists eighty years since one John Scopes was hauled into a humid Tennessee courtroom for teaching evolution in his biology class.

The truth is, there is no conflict between the Biblical account of the Creation and the theory of evolution, if each is properly understood; however, it requires the Christian to apply reason in his understanding of the Bible, which of course for some is itself a dangerous doctrine.

The Bible and scientific theory each addresses a different view of reality. The Bible describes the how and why of our spiritual relationship with God. Scientific theory is nothing more than an attempt to explain observations that have been made. To say that one believes in evolution is to elevate a scientific theory to the status of a religious doctrine. To suggest that the Bible is scientifically accurate is absurd. The Old Testament Hebrews were among the most mathematically and scientifically illiterate people in the ancient world. To cite just one example: in I Kings 7:23, it is written, “He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring 10 cubits from rim to rim and 5 cubits high. It took a line of 30 cubits to measure around it.” In other words, the Hebrew value for π was exactly 3; otherwise, the line of 30 cubits would have been too short. We know now that the value of π to the fourth decimal place is 3.1416 – most ancients knew it as 3 1/7 (3.1414) – so to other ancients, the circumference of the Sea would have required a line of 31 3/7 cubits. Atheists will use a fact like this to argue that the Bible is false, and too often, we let them get away with it.

On the other hand, some fundamentalists argue that to state that the Creation did not literally take place in seven days is taking liberties with interpretation, since the theory of evolution is based on observation of events that the evidence suggests took millions of years to take place. I have two arguments against this line of thinking:

First, Moses said, “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4). So even the greatest of the Old Testament prophets acknowledged that time is a figure of speech when taken from God’s frame of reference.

Secondly, we need to consider the definition of a “day.” A day is one rotation of a celestial body around its axis. We can only be aware of that rotation by using a celestial reference point, the sun or a star. The “lights in the expanse of the sky … [to] serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years” (Genesis 1:14) were not created until the fourth day (1:19). So if we are to insist that science should conform to Scripture using the accepted definition of “day,” we have to acknowledge that the first three “days” of the Creation were of indeterminate length. It should be noted, however, that the order in which creatures evolved, and that of the creation of animals in Genesis 1:20-27, are virtually identical.

Ah, but there are two more objections: Isn’t evolution just saying that either the Universe emerged from chance occurrences (denying that God even exists) or that God put the pieces together, wound it up and let it run? Evolution says neither, because, again, it is not a religious doctrine, nor is it a form of speculation. Evolution says nothing more nor less than that from the rocks and fossils and bones we have seen and our understanding of how they are dated, earth’s creatures started with microorganisms, moving up to bacteria then simple multicellular organisms, later to fish then reptiles, then birds, then mammals. Then came then great apes and finally, man. There is nothing in evolution that states that creation ended at any particular point in time – in fact most scientists will say that evolution is an ongoing process.

Well, then, isn’t it contrary to Genesis 1:26 to suggest that our ancestors were apes, since God said man was made in His own image? Let’s look at this two ways. First, the evidence shows that over a period of approximately one million years, an apelike creature evolved into the Australopithecus, then to Homo erectus, and finally Homo sapiens. This is the evolutionary argument for how we developed.

Now, consider one more thing from the Creation point of view. Man is unique in all of creation in his power to think and to reason. Some apes can make crude tools, and great whales have sophisticated languages, but only man can put it all together. Only man is self-aware and is capable of a relationship with God. We don’t know when this change took place, but to state it allegorically (with a little help from Michelangelo), we can say that an apelike man acquired spiritual existence when God’s finger touched his. At that moment, he became Adam, as the Bible says.

So, returning to our original question: why are we still arguing about evolution? I suggest it is because two groups have an interest in keeping the argument going – the atheists and the Evangelicals. The atheists, because it lets them say that God cannot be proven on the basis of science and therefore does not exist. The Evangelicals because they want to promote “creation science,” a Trojan horse for preaching their doctrine in the public schools, contrary to the legal doctrine of separation of church and state.

If you want your children to go to a school that teaches religion, then enroll them in a Christian or Roman Catholic school. If you want other children to learn religion in school, then raise money to pay their tuition in a Christian or Roman Catholic school. If you cannot do either, then take on the responsibilities of a parent and teach them yourself.

We cannot promote spiritual Truth by distorting observed truth. After eighty years, it’s past time to move on.

Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.