Why Christian scientists are evolutionists, revisited

When I posted the poll, “Why do Christian scientists often profess belief in human evolution?”, originally under this post and since then in my sidebar, I resolved that I would write a follow-up after a certain amount of time if any interesting results came out it. Six months and 100 votes later, this is that post. [Note: the two extra votes were both for Option 1.]

Here are the results:

 Loading ...

An understandably high number of evolution supporters have made their way to my blog and voted for Option 1. The more interesting results come from the dissenters. So here are my comments on the responses of the evolution skeptics.

Option 4: Other [4 votes]

I was hoping those who voted for this would contribute some helpful comments nuancing some of my options. I was afraid it would become a catch-all of “I don’t want to vote for the others, regardless of how close any of them really come to it,” and unfortunately, my fears proved well-founded. Of the two Option 4 voters who did comment, neither actually presented an alternative, “an option should have been…” explanation.

Option 1: Because they are convinced by the evidence. [? votes]
Unstated subheading: “They do not feel they can deny the scientific evidence, even over possible theological objections.”  A not especially unbalanced view of science and theology but a conviction that scientific evidence overwhelms creationist theology.

Of course, it’s possible that no creationists voted for this option at all. If so, the idea that only 16 creationists in six months voted would imply that creationists didn’t like my poll and boycotted it, despite a reasonable spread of options and the sure bet of Option 4, “Other”. But under the supposition that more than sixteen creationists voted in the poll in the six months it’s been in my sidebar, we would have to conclude that at least one of them voted for Option 1.  For all I know, 43 (half of the 86) votes for Option 1 were from fair-minded creationists.

Now, if you voted for Option 1 under the interpretation, “They believe it because of misleading scientific evidence,” you are in effect admitting that enough scientific evidence appears to support evolutionary theory that this would explain the majority of Christians who accept evolution as the best explanation for the evidence. But notice what that implies: the science is in favor of evolutionary theory and against special creation. How someone could believe that and still maintain belief in special creation is beyond me unless 1) they consider most Christian scientists incompetent and incapable of accurately analyzing the scientific data or 2) they believe that God planted evidence to cover His tracks and hide His involvement from all but the Elect.  Can anyone come up with another analysis?

Option 2: They are immature believers, not grounded in their faith. [2 votes]
Unstated subheading: “If they knew more about the Christian faith, they’d reject what scientific evidence they think they found and look for creationist-friendly scientific evidence.” A high emphasis on science, without requisite attention to theology.

This was my own position before I accepted evolution: the evidence for evolution appeared sound enough to convince many Christians young or shallow in their faith who were unaware of the need to check out the contrary evidence that supported the Bible. There were only two people who voted for this, which is the more remarkable given the alternative for which most of the Christian creationists apparently voted. And which option was that?

Option 3: They are compromisers, searing their consciences with what they know is a lie because they are afraid to do otherwise (their careers, reputations, etc.). [10 votes]
Unstated subheading: “They are fully of the belief that evolution is bad science and contradicts traditional Christian theology, but are too weaselly to admit it.”  Low regard for both science and theology, high regard for self-interest.

I purposely phrased this option in a frank manner so as to give creationists a chance of distancing themselves from such outrageous hubris. It’s actually the sentiment I hear most often, and so I shouldn’t be as surprised as I am that 10 out of the 16 verifiable creationists who voted on my poll chose this option; even factoring in 4 creationist votes for Option 1, that’s half of the creationist respondents who chose this option over a more modest and fair .

Hearing this mentality over and over again was one of the first things that made me seriously question my own creationism. It was also part of the inspiration for my post, “Why creationists are creationists”. Of all the options, this was the least charitable to the majority of believing scientists working in the field. Your own interpretation of the Bible and ad hoc, makeshift science as promulgated largely by non-specialists is so unchallengeable that your Christian brothers and sistersalmost have to be consciously living a lie? This is so infuriatingly smug, arrogant, and spiteful that words almost fail me. Almost.

When I say that you creationists are creationists because you think you’ve got to be in order for your interpretation of the Bible to hold, this is not an indictment on your character, but on your philosophy. Is it so hard for you to be civil enough to entertain the notion that we are evolutionists because we think we’ve got to be in order to make sense of what the scientific disciplines are telling us?

I am not saying, as is often alleged, that Christians who accept evolutionary theory decide to choose science over the Bible. It’s not that scientists trust science and theologians trust the Bible. I’m saying something radically different: we trust the best scientists’ interpretation of scientific facts over certain theologians’ interpretation of the Bible, particularly theologians who don’t take science seriously enough when interpreting. We don’t confuse the Bible itself with the creationists’ interpretation of the Bible, not least because the latter does not consistently take into account scientific observation. By “consistently”, I refer to the fact that even most creationists interpret Joshua’s sun standing still as phenomenological language because of the relatively recent scientific observation that this does not make sense literally. In short, we reject the notion that observation, including scientific observation, should have no appreciable bearing on our deciding what the Bible is telling us.

It is that sort of antagonism toward evolutionary theory that is relied upon to keep young Christians on the reservation. Apparently my parents and teachers at church didn’t try hard enough to brainwash me into believing that only compromising, backslidden, Satan-blinded sellouts could believe what science says about anything other than physics, chemistry, and certain “safe” ideas in biology, geology, and astronomy. Bully for them.

Related posts:

1. Why are so many Christian scientists evolutionists? As a followup on my reason number two from Why the debate over creationism matters, wherein I state a couple sources underlying this question, I’d...
2. The creation of anti-evolutionists I’m going to review an atrocious article I just read, and I think you’ll agree that deconstructing it will be like child’s play. And not...
3. Would he be having a happy birthday? Two days shy of four months ago I posted a poll that asked Christians how important the faith/science debate is. I was going to wait...
4. Enemies united against an imaginary foe I’ve been quite vocal on this blog in pointing out my disagreements with the Christian critics of science (ID advocates and other creationists). Unfortunately, these...
5. How big a deal is this evolution thing, anyway? I get the impression from some I know that I spend too much time worrying about the creation/evolution controversy. So in case you didn’t notice,...