What Kind of Christian Would Satan Be?

There are many ways to distinguish yourself inside Christianity. Christianity is one of the most complex religions in the world, with thousands of denominations, theologies, sects, and cults. You can distinguish yourself as a liberal, a conservative, or a middle of the road Christian. The list of titles could go on and on, emerging church, Jesus movement, etc. One question I often ask, and I think many others do as well is, "If Jesus were here, how would He distinguish himself?" A question that we don't often ask however is this, "Who would Satan most easily associate with?"

Before I start in I want to place a qualifier here. Lies and evil avoid no group. There is no one sect of Christianity that you can associate with that will not be in danger of deception. Why is this? It is because every sect of Christianity has one big flaw, humanity. Mankind has a knack for turning truth in to error. A movement that starts out containing the truth often ends up persecuting those who come after with even more truth and light. In history, groups that had the truth ended up murdering those they deemed did not have the truth. Mankind will never cease to destroy and pervert that which was once the truth. That being said I believe there is one form of thinking that is most often used to turn people from the truth.

The real danger to Christianity is not the emerging church, or the One Project, or any such thing. The real danger to the church comes in the form of a resurgence in what I will call traditionalist ideals. Let me attempt to explain what this looks like. In this culture you are led to believe that God can only use you as much as you are faithful to him. If you have a bad day, say you are a salesman and your sales are down that day, it is almost certainly because you fell to temptation and broke your promise to God in some way, such as eating cheese on your Taco Bell instead of going vegan. The belief becomes this, “God only blesses those who are faithful.” It isn't done on purpose, the belief just kind of surfaces as these ideals are propagated. There is a story that was used once to support not eating at any restaurant that cooked with lard. A certain group of Christians went to a restaurant that cooked with lard, and they ordered their food and discovered that it had lard in it, so they canceled their order and went somewhere else. On the way back they saw the original restaurant had caught fire and burned down. Of course the thought was that because they were faithful to God in canceling their order and leaving, God spared them from potential disaster.

I don't mean to harp on any particular community and pick on them in particular, it is just this sort of thinking that typifies "traditional" thought. It is the general idea that if I do something for God, then God will do something for me. Nicodemus had a very similar understanding when he met Jesus for the first time. John chapter 3 describes this scene. Nicodemus had just watched Jesus cleanse the temple. He had seen the authority with which Jesus commanded the Pharisees to leave the temple. Nicodemus was actually a pretty righteous man. He had seen the commercialism of the temple and the robbery that took place and he inwardly abhorred it. He desired a change and had been fighting for years to curb the behavior of his fellow Pharisees. So Nicodemus comes to Jesus one night after the cleansing of the temple and he says to Jesus, "Jesus, you and I, we are the same! You have the same desires as me! We need to work together. If I bring my works to the table, and you bring yours, we can actually get something done in this place!" Nicodemus even gives Jesus the title of teacher. Nicodemus was twice Jesus' age, but he honors him with a title of equality with himself. Nicodemus had great respect for Jesus.

What was Jesus' response to Nicodemus though? Did Jesus say, "Oh, thank you Nick! I've been waiting for a righteous man just like you to help finish my work here!" Did Jesus accept Nicodemus' offer of co-partnership in the works of righteousness? No He didn't. He tells Nicodemus, "Nicodemus, you need to be born again." Nicodemus mocks Jesus here and says, "Can a grown man enter his mother’s womb?" You see, Nicodemus understood exactly what Jesus was insinuating. There was an idea in those days that a Jew was a trueborn son or daughter of God, and in order to be saved and enter the inheritance of God, a gentile had to be born again. Jesus was telling Nicodemus, "you are not good enough to help me in my work. In fact Nicodemus, you are just like the Gentiles, you are in need of baptism." Nicodemus thought he had something to offer Jesus. He had done all these good works; he had withstood the temptation to use his office to swindle others. He came to Jesus offering everything. He was offering a partnership with Christ. His works together with the works of Christ would accomplish the end. Yet Jesus says no.

You see, the so-called "Traditional" ideal is Nicodemus. A man committed to doing right, a man who would stand for the right though the heavens fell partnering with Christ to accomplish the work set before him. But that is not the desire of Christ. The desire of Christ is found in the very next chapter in John chapter 4. Jesus meets a gentile at a well and guess what, her response is identical to Nicodemus'. She meets Jesus' comments with scorn and sarcasm just as Nicodemus did. Jesus tells her that she has absolute need of him. She came to Jesus with something to offer just as Nicodemus did. She had the jar with which to draw the water, Jesus had nothing to offer but good company. When Jesus tells her that her works are useless that she actually needed him to give her the water her soul desired, she scoffs. Nicodemus and the woman at the well were the same. John put these stories back to back very deliberately. Both thought they had something to offer Jesus, both considered Jesus to be offering something equal to the amount of work they had put in, and Jesus tells both of them that they are in need of new life, a life supplied by himself and himself only. You see John is bringing our understanding to a point of recognition that what Jesus was offering was not some sort of partnership. Jesus didn’t care what they had to bring to the table. Jesus was not impressed or swayed by the works they had done, but instead offered the gift of life freely and without the input of their individual works.

The woman did something that Nicodemus did not however. She recognized her need and in her need she did the work of Christ. She did not go in to the town to alter the behavior of her fellow neighbors because of her righteousness. She went to them and declared, "Come see the man who told me everything I have ever done!" In other words, "Come see the man who knows my awful past and yet associated with me at the well anyway!" Jesus knew everything about her, yet asked her, “Come follow me.” Jesus did not judge her or try to alter her behavior with threats of damnation and hell, He simply associated with her, and in so doing accepted her as she was. This simple act of Jesus, to associate with a sinner and accept them as they were, altered that women's life forever. She became a disciple of the gospel and in so doing there was a change in her life.

A theological traditionalist would not accept this about Jesus' character though. The traditionalist’s mind screams at this injustice. How is it just of God to accept all alike no matter their life? How is it right of Jesus to refuse such a respected man as Nicodemus, he was righteous! There was nothing about his actions that Jesus found fault with except one thing, that he thought he had something to offer.

I believe if it were possible for Satan to join a movement he would join the traditionalists. Why? Because it is the goal of Satan to turn people from a knowledge of the love and beauty of the character of God; and what better way to do it then to create a standard for entering the kingdom of Heaven that no living person on earth can achieve? Traditionalism does not offer an abiding relationship with Jesus they offer a partnership. The Traditionalist teaches that if you do this, this, and this, Christ will abide in your heart and life. But if you do things such as watch movies, listen to "bad" music, and have a love for Worldly things such as money, cars, houses and a comfortable life, then Christ cannot abide in your life and you cannot enter the work set before you. In other words, unless you are like Nicodemus, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Yet Jesus refused Nicodemus. And that is why I believe this is a doctrine of demons; God rejects the traditionalist ideal because they do not know Him. If Satan had one goal in this world, that would be it, to cause all living things to misunderstand God.

Because Traditionalists do not understand the love and universal character of God, they create concepts such as the idea of us and them. A church that everyone has to join in order to be saved, it was the Traditional ideal in the days of Christ and it is the ideal now. You must belong in order to be saved. You must worship on a particular day or God will reject you at the end. You must be a male in order to lead God's people; you must only listen to organ music and piano because God does not accept any other forms of music as worship. If it has a beat it is from the devil. In other words they teach that you have to identify with a specific culture in order to be saved, primarily the culture of the 1800's. In other words, traditionalists teach that the Spirit of God is so delicate and arbitrary that the slightest thing not in "order" will cause Him to flee in terror. The Traditionalist’s god is weak and easily swayed by the actions of men.

All these things are not the teachings of Jesus though. Jesus taught that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike equally. Jesus taught that the abiding relationship with God is not conditional but is with all who desire a relationship and friendship with him, even if they don't know that is what they are seeking. Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven is full of those who do not deserve to be there and indeed did not even work to achieve it. Jesus taught that those who think they deserve the kingdom will not be there because heaven would be to them a place of terror because they do not know the character of God.

Jesus did not call people in to a certain religion or culture. Jesus did not go to the Gentiles and teach them they must become a Jew and eat only meat prepared by Jews. Jesus called people where they were and in the cultures they associated with and invited them to follow him. Jesus was not calling people into a church, but rather into an understanding of His character. Jesus did not preach the Seventh-day Sabbath, but rather he acted out its purpose, to get to know people and take time to care and spend time with them. Jesus acted out the law, and preached a message of character and not laws. Jesus preached a message of a change in the life. He promised that a relationship with him would change your life. He preached that knowledge and understanding of the character of God would change the heart and cause you to love your neighbor as yourself. These were the teachings of Jesus. They were radical and contrary to every teaching taught during that day. The conservatives of that day wanted to kill him, the ungodly wanted to silence him, the liberals could not handle his unassuming and uncompromising way of life, but those who truly sought a new life full of joy and happiness, those people found it.

This is not the message of any specific group inside of Christianity. It is the message of truth, truth that transcends culture and time and crosses borders. It ignores the culturally derived stigmas that place people in boxes. It ignores the headship created by a culture of war that associated power with males. It ignores color and people groups, it looks beyond culturally relevant and irrelevant music alike. It looks past the writings of the Bible, it looks beyond humanity and its narrow focus and it looks beyond this world and its cares. This truth looks forward to the future of where God desires to lead us. Where there are cultures they will cease, where there is music it will change, where there is science, it will grow, where there is theology it will progress.

We are on a course set by the creator of existence to learn the purpose of existence itself. God desires to be known, that is the truth. The truth is the pursuit of an understanding of love. The 28 fundamental beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists are not the end of truth, nor are they the beginning, but rather a part of man's endeavor to discover. My own set of 23 fundamentals found on my blog are not a start nor a beginning to truth either, rather they are just a feeble effort to place one more piece in the puzzle of God’s character.

Error is working in every culture, every belief, every sect of Christianity and religious cultures of the world to turn people from the path of truth, and foremost in turning people from the truth is the traditionalist culture conflicting the truth about Gods character. This is the case in every religion, ISIS for instance. I ask you, are you seeking truth, or are you seeking a method of belief that gains you some sort of reward? Are you trying to gain heaven, or are you creating heaven here and now? Jesus says in Luke 17:20-21, "Some of the Pharisees asked Jesus, "When will God's kingdom come?" Jesus answered, "God's kingdom is coming, but not in a way that you can see it. People will not say, 'Look, God's kingdom is here!' or 'There it is!' No, God's kingdom is here with you." Jesus didn't preach a message of attainment, but a message that declared the reward already given. God has already given our reward. Will you seek truth, or will you stubbornly stand by the theology created by humanity in order to place themselves in a position of power over others. The choice is yours.

Evolution and Ethics

LLU School of Religion

Evolution and Ethics

Thomas Henry Huxley

Timothy Prewitt

RELE 588 Explorers of the Moral Life

David R. Larson, DMin, PhD

May 19, 14

Introduction

Self proclaimed “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley is known today for his staunch support of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. He spent much of his life researching the relationships animals have with each other. His primary study was on invertebrates and later vertebrates. He worked to classify animals into groups that were previously not well understood. He also spent much of his time in the study of human relationships to apes, and is also well know today for his theory that birds have evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs. What many people don’t know about Huxley is that he also added much to the study of ethics in light of the evolution of man, writing a series of lectures termed, “Evolution and Ethics”. These lectures were combined in to a single volume of the same title.

Thomas Huxley was born in 1825 to a middle class family. Huxley’s father was a mathematician at the local school, but when Huxley was 10 years old the school was shut down due to financial trouble and Huxley’s father lost his Job. As a result, just 2 years after starting school, Thomas was forced to withdraw due to financial difficulties at home. All of Thomas Huxley’s subsequent education was self-taught. He taught himself German, and is said to have been the primary translator for Charles Darwin when he read scientific material in German. He also taught himself Latin and understood enough Greek to read all of Aristotle in its original language. His studies in biology were also self-taught and he became an expert on invertebrates and vertebrates. Huxley studied medicine as well, tutoring under two of his brother-in-laws, and later studied at the Charing Cross Hospital. At the age of 20, the Royal Navy accepted him as an assistant surgeon based on references and experience alone even without his degree. It was during his time as a surgeon with the navy that Huxley began his work on invertebrates.

During his time in the navy Huxley won many prestigious awards for his studies in biology, and upon resigning from the navy in 1854 he became Professor of Natural History at the Royal school of Mines. During his life he was also Fullerian Professor at the Royal Institution, Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, President of the Royal Society, Inspector of Fisheries, and President of the Marine Biological Association. To state that Huxley’s resume was impressive would be an understatement.

Huxley is known as one of histories great debaters. The very first debate he ever took part in was the debate with Samuel Wilberforce. Wilberforce was the Lord Bishop of Oxford at the time and had a long history of opposition to the theory of evolution. Though not much survives about the debate it did however stir the population and revealed that evolution could not be so easily swept under the rug as most religious persons formerly thought. It also inadvertently caused there to be a shift from a literal interpretation of the Bible in England and possibly begun the long history of creationism verses evolution debates that have persisted even today. It is interesting to note that Huxley never saw a contradiction between creationism and evolution, and in fact wrote extensively on this subject throughout the book Evolution and Ethics.

Not only was Huxley an expert in the sciences but was also well versed in theology and religion. For instance, Huxley spent a lot of effort on reforming the educational system in Britain, and the current curriculum used by schools across the globe today was widely influenced by him. It might be surprising to note then, that Huxley supported the reading of the Bible in schools. He stated, “"I do not advocate burning your ship to get rid of the cockroaches".[1] Thomas Huxley believed that the Bible was an important work for the modern world, both in its use of language and in its excellent moral teachings. He did, however, propose editing out everything not scientifically accurate contained in the Bible, which was immediately voted down.

Though a strong supporter of evolution and science, Huxley did have a belief in God. Huxley coined the term Agnostic, in describing his beliefs on God. The word agnostic comes from the Greek term Agnost which means incapable of being known.[2] Huxley believed that on the subject of God, it was impossible to know whether or not God existed, since he does not reveal himself and cannot be tested or explored. It is safe to assume then, that had he won his case to alter the Bible, not much of the current Bible we know today would have been left for his school children to read.

Evolutionary Ethics

In 1893 Thomas Huxley wrote a series of lectures entitled, Evolution and Ethics. This book looks at how ethics might have evolved with the evolution of man. The first part of his manuscript starts with a description of evolution and it’s processes. Huxley early on lays down his belief of how God fits in to the evolutionary processes, not only the processes of our world, but the evolutionary processes of the galaxies as well. Huxley believed that space, and everything contained in it, follows its predetermined path of evolution. Huxley states,

“As a natural process, of the same character as the development of a tree from its seed, or a fowl from its egg, evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention.”

He then goes on to explain that if it turns out that indeed a supernatural being did create the universe, then everything inside of it, including its processes, such as evolution, are created by the supernatural agent and are not interfered upon by the creator because the universe has been created to operate by these fixed laws. Not that a god could not interfere, but that he wouldn’t simply because he would not need to. This argument comes from the idea that God has created the universe to run a certain way, had he desired it to run differently He would have created it that way in the first place.

Huxley gives a description of a cultivated garden, describing how its beauty and design can only exist because the human has kept the native weeds out. The only reason why the garden can still live is because an intelligent being has worked against the natural progression of nature that select for that which grows best. This selection does not often select for what we consider to be the most beautiful combination of things, or the most meaningful design. Obviously, one cannot make up such an allegory without plainly seeing its implications for the existence of man. Natural selection and the progression of evolution does not select for a highly ordered system. Nature is order because of a constant battle between the disordered selections of species. Thus the evolution of man, and indeed any complex organism is the equivalent of Huxley’s exotic garden arising on its own without the need of a cultivator, in other words, it is impossible. In Huxley’s own thought process the creation of man is not likely to happen because nature selects for that which works best in a given environment. A highly ordered, highly complex system that does not follow the laws of natural selection can only come from something with autonomy, such as Huxley’s human gardener.

Huxley points out that human society is not a mimic of evolutionary progression. Inside society the fit can just as easily become unfit because of the way in which we construct our system. The thief does not come from the best, or the worst of society. The majority does not rule, but in fact supplies the ability for a minority to rule. The prowess of a shroud banker can just as easily land him in debtors prison as it can in riches. The politician can just as easily find himself at the execution block for his brilliance instead of in power. This is because our system is like the garden that is constructed by humanity, and we disobey the rules.

Huxley describes the evolution of human society with the perfect ruler determining all. In order to have a perfect system this ruler has to decide who lives and who dies based on their fitness to survive and contribute to the whole. The perfect society works much like a beehive, the fit survive and the unfit die and all work together for a perfectly ordered system. Huxley states though, that controlling society on the grounds of evolutionary progress, although the most efficient system, is an impossible task, because there never will exist a mere human who can determine who should survive and who should die. No man has the mental ability to be that discerning. Not to mention that at some point or another we would all find ourselves unfit for survival. If any politician should look far enough back in his history, for instance, he would find that at a given point in time his ancestors should have met with death rather than life, such as the possibility that Hitler had Jewish and African ancestry. Huxley argues for the need of ethics within an understanding of the evolutionary process. He states that strict observance of the natural laws of evolution cannot be used in society because it would mean banning everything that our societies are constructed on, such as the practice of medicine and healing, since to heal goes against the process of natural selection.

Ethics is a creation of this man made system. It is the product of society, constructed to order the unordered. The Ethics of society goes as far as to exterminate those that nature would deem the most fit, and to condemn those actions that provide for the most success in the animal kingdoms. Those passions that humanity shares with the tiger or the monkey we staunchly suppress as immoral or unethical. This position is needed if society is to successfully create an ordered system in an unordered world. Ethics is necessary and thus the discussion of ethics often closely follows the discoveries of science and the progress of culture. According to Huxley, humanity recognized that in order to live the most fulfilled existence possible they had to create a system contrary to that of the natural process. Foremost in this system is the identification and agreement on issues of justice. For instance, like in a wolf pack, while they pursue their pry there is an unspoken agreement that they should not attack one another during the hunt, so it is with us as we pursue our hunt for a fulfilled life, we generally agree not to destroy each other in the process.

Huxley spends some time discussing the stoics and Buddhists and comparing and contrasting their beliefs about good and evil. Both appealed to nature to describe what was good and what was evil. The Buddhists say that there is no “good” thing; there is just the Brahman, the collective whole. A devout Buddhist who is intent on enlightenment will forsake certain things in life such as food or comfort, in hopes of becoming one with the Brahman. A Stoic believes that the key to enlightenment lies in rejecting all that is evil and becoming a morally right person, because what is good comes from the collective whole, and practicing that which is good will bring you in to harmony with the natural process of reality. Huxley argues that though both systems approach the issue from different perspectives, they arrive at the same idea. Neither one is right because both that which is good and that which is evil evolved alike equally. Because both are a product of evolution, we cannot actually appeal to evolution to ascertain that which is right or wrong, since the ideas of right and wrong were created by us to describe two natural processes. If both evolved equally, evolution cannot help us determine which is most correct, that is like trying to pick which one of your kids is most related to you.

According to Huxley, man creates Ethics in his natural development. Ethics is not a product of the natural process of evolution, but rather a product of our own making. Ethics does not conform to evolution but rather is mans way of fighting against the natural processes. What is ethical, then, does not stem from an understanding of what is “good” or “bad” according to evolution, but rather stems from discerning what the natural course would be and then to work in the exact opposite direction.

To bring this idea into my own field of dentistry lets make up an example. Lets say that a man comes in to my office telling me that he has $10,000 to spend on his mouth and is willing to do whatever I say he needs. Upon examination, I discover that he only needs a cleaning and one filling totaling around $300 worth of work. What am I going to do? Do I prescribe extra work that he does not need simply to benefit myself? Huxley would tell me that I should find out what the natural response would be. According to evolution I ought to do that which is going to further me the most and provide for my own survival, which would mean being deceitful and telling the man he needs more work than he actually does. Because cheating the man is the “natural” thing to do, I ought to do the exact opposite, suppress my desire for self assertion and care more for the person than I do my own survival.

Huxley describes this process in the following quote:

“As I have already urged, the practice of that which is ethically best—what we call goodness or virtue—involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence.”

            Huxley goes on to explain that evolutionary ethics isn’t so much worried about the survival of the fittest, but the fitting of as many as possible to survive. Instead of self-assertion, we should have self-restraint, and instead of taking advantage of those around us, we should have compassion for our fellow humans. The primitive man is concerned only with his own well-being and it is appropriate for him to take what ever appeals to him or to kill whomever opposes him. The ethical man is quite the opposite; his ideal is to limit his freedom so that his actions do not interfere with the freedom of others. This closely aligns with the ten commandments of the Bible. They are structured to protect the freedom and rights of others. Thou shalt not steal is a command to protect other peoples rights to own property, thou shalt not kill respects the freedom of others to live.

            Hitler appealed to natural selection as a reason for exterminating the Jews, Blacks, and many more races of people, but this argument would never work under Huxley’s interpretation of evolutionary ethics. Neither would Huxley agree with the Utilitarianism of Peter Singer. Ethics based on an evolutionary point of view does not lead us to support those most likely to survive, or most likely to excel in life, but rather seeks for the betterment of all alike. Evolutionary ethics, such as that proposed by Peter Singer, is based on a system devoid of developed society. Since we do in fact live inside a constructed society (our very own large-scale garden) different rules apply than would apply in the jungles among the wild animals. This protection of the weak is what separates us from being merely savages. Huxley states:

“Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.”

            Huxley did propose population control however. His population control would not take the course of some who suggest the euthanasia of the disabled baby or the unwanted. Huxley believed that life should be protected, no matter how feeble the individual was. It is societies way of keeping the cosmic struggle at bay. However, unchecked population growth threatens to reinsert the struggle for existence in to our garden sanctuary that is society. Uncontrolled population inevitably leads to a shortage somewhere, which leads to the struggle for those goods. The perfect society to Huxley then, is that society that can supply to all according to their needs. It does not mean that all will be equal, but that all will have what is needed for life so that the struggle for existence never mimics the natural world.

Like all ethical systems, Huxley’s version of evolutionary ethics has its inherent problems. It may be noted that determining what is and isn’t the natural response to certain things may often be difficult to discern. For instance, if I have the choice between saving a child, that has a 20% chance of survival, from a burning building or saving an adult’s life that has a 90% chance of survival, which do I choose? My instincts tell me to save the child. That response is a built in response supposedly put there by evolution to protect the young. However, my instincts also tell me that the adult is much more likely to survive and could possible contribute more to society than a burned child could. If I fully commit to fighting the “cosmic process” I would be forced to leave both to fend for themselves, since to choose either one would leave me obeying the laws of nature. Yet even in leaving them to themselves I would be following a natural response. To choose any of the options would force me to obey the laws of nature in some aspect. It could be a trivial point that is grasping at straws, but Huxley never discussed the dilemma of what to do when faced with two equally valid options.

Reflections On Evolution

Huxley’s description of evolution is excellent. He describes a world that obeys certain natural processes. Evolution describes behavioral patterns in man and animal alike, and has revealed much about the development of species. It seems to me that Evolution is a great theory. It may not be a complete theory, but the very fact that man has recognized the natural progression of things in nature is a leap in scientific understanding. Just as most theories are too narrow to explain the whole, so is evolution to narrow to explain all there is to know about our development and purpose in this world. I think that we as Christians are often too afraid of theories. We do not recognize the importance of questions, no matter what form they may take. If it challenges our understanding of our faith it should not be counted a bad thing, but as an opportunity to re-examine our understanding and realign our beliefs according to new knowledge.

Huxley himself goes in to great detail in describing how evolution fits in to understanding our origins in terms of supernatural creation. He never states the creation story as a fact, which I believe is actually very wise, we do not actually know the exact method used in bringing life into this universe, but he goes as far as to say that an original cause is actually needed in the theory of evolution. Huxley stated that specific creation in terms of supernatural involvement might play its role in evolution. He even stated a theory that said that man might have been created separately from the development of other creatures. I find it rather hard to believe myself that humanity arose from the slow evolution of a single celled organism over millions and millions of years. To me it seems highly unlikely; the evidence for it just doesn’t appear to be there. However, Huxley’s point is not necessarily that we all came from single celled organisms, though he was not scared of exploring that theory, but rather that the diversification of the species is a real event that has been observed and tested.

On the other hand, the 6-day creation story is a description of the mechanics of our origins, but it does not actually tell all there is to know about creation. Evolution is a description of the process of creation as well, but it does not tell all there is either. Perhaps, as is often true, the truth does not lie with either separately, but rather both together. Could it be that life was started by spontaneous generation of a fully functional animal and then over many years small changes and adaptations have occurred to give us the great diversity we have today? For the staunch evolutionary atheist I would ask this, is it any less believable to think that humanity was created functional, in a spontaneous generation, than to believe that the entire universe came about in an instant and all of the complexity of the universe expanded and settled in a single event that we term the Big Bang? Both are ex nihilo (out of nothing) and both create massive amounts of complexity. It seems to me that in denying this possibility we may be placing ourselves in a position of trying to fit our observations in a box that cannot contain them.

For the Staunch creationist I would ask this, is it possible that perhaps the Bible story only describes a very simplistic understanding of creation? Is it not possible that God, in all his wisdom and love of beauty, freedom, and diversity, would design in to creation the ability to change and adapt? Is it not also possible that God would use methods of creation already designed in to the universe? May there be a scientific explanation for the creation we see around us that we can actually study and question and find? Something tells me that both sides of this argument would have a hard time denying the possibilities.

I believe that evolution and the idea of the survival of the fittest has much to teach us about our own decisions, morality, and ethical ideas. Evolution reveals many things about what we call sin. The self-assertion, desire for dominance and selfishness of humanity can be explained in terms of the survival of the fittest. We believe that God intended humanity to live in a perfect garden home, that place of sanctuary, in which nature was bent to our will, everything living in perfect harmony, while the cosmic struggle for life was kept out. This idea, combined with the understanding of the progression of nature can lead us to a clearer understanding of our duty to each other, our duty to the natural world around us, and the development of our own ethical system. The simple elegance and simplicity of Huxley’s system, though it may be lacking in areas, may hold keys to helping us discern the validity of other, less obvious and more abstract ideas of ethical systems.

---

[1] Critique and Adresses p90. 1873

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic