Explore

Feedback archiveFeedback 2014

Abandon YEC and reconcile the Bible to evolution?

Thomas Aquinas taught a young earth and 24–hour creation days

5 October 2014; updated 26 October 2017

Public domain Thomas-aquinas
Thomas Aquinas, leading medieval theologian/philosopher

Josh W of the USA criticizes the article ‘Just preach the Gospel!’ Or: how not to impress atheists. He argues in that we should not be defending biblical (‘young earth’) creation and should instead try to show how the Bible can be made to fit with evolution and billions of years. I.e. he implicitly argues that CMI should disband.

Josh proposes instead to substitute the ideas of Thomist philosophers, i.e. those who follow the method of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). However, Thomas himself supported the Bible–first YEC (Young Earth Creation) view on creation, as will be shown. He is just another example showing how the YEC is hardly a novelty, as many compromisers assert, but the traditional view of the church until the time of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin. Josh’s letter is first posted in full, then followed by the interspersed replies by Dr , the author of the original article.

I agree that “Just Preach the Gospel!” isn’t a guaranteed winning strategy for evangelism. Much of the force of Christianity is its ability to provide a coherent account of metaphysics, ethics, etc. all in one.

That said, I do think the CMI strategy of fighting two battles—one against the science of evolution and the other against allowing any other understanding of scripture different from YEC—is a really bad one and will certainly hurt evangelism.

This idea that quoting atheists (and the dumbest ones like Richard Dawkins to boot) about the contradictions between fundamentalism and modern biology to help make your case is absurd. Agreeing with Dawkins’ caricatures of religious thought and leaving the scientific details of biology the only space for disagreement is about the worst way that I can see to win the arguments. Much better, I think, to argue along the lines:

“We don’t think evolution is true. But even if it were, don’t despair. Nihilism isn’t all that is left, the message of the Gospel remains intact—there are theologically sound ways of understanding Genesis that don’t clash so seriously with modern science, while also not reducing Jesus’ life and death to meaninglessness.”

Your article quotes Paul as clearly understanding original sin as the result of actions taken by a historically real human being. Fair enough, but does that preclude any other understanding of what Adam was other than the YEC account of it? I don’t think so.

Here’s a couple of articles (with all kinds of links to places where the arguments can be seen in more depth) that make a case for this different way of understanding Adam [both from edwardfeser.blogspot.com; links deleted as per feedback rules]


Caleb Salisbury Thorns-fossil
Christians who believe God’s infallible Word (no thorns before sin) cannot also believe in man’s fallible ‘word’ (millions of years of thorns before people).
I agree that “Just Preach the Gospel!” isn’t a guaranteed winning strategy for evangelism. Much of the force of Christianity is it’s ability to provide a coherent account of metaphysics, ethics, etc. all in one.

Indeed so. Hence articles like Why use apologetics for evangelism?

That said, I do think the CMI strategy of fighting two battles—one against the science of evolution and the other against allowing any other understanding of scripture different from YEC—is a really bad one

But then, this is what we do, and we explain why, and we are not going to change. First, who says evolution has anything to do with real observational science, as opposed to a materialistic philosophy masquerading as science?

and will certainly hurt evangelism.

This is hardly our experience. Rather, it has been a very important help to evangelism, as we have documented repeatedly, e.g.

This idea that quoting atheists (and the dumbest ones like Richard Dawkins to boot)

They are still the most prominent ones. So we have to deal with them. For example, see the articles under Richard Dawkins, the ‘Apostle of Atheism’: how can he be answered? and The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution.

about the contradictions between fundamentalism and modern biology to help make your case is absurd.

Who says there are contradictions between real biology and the grammatical–historical approach to the Bible (as for example taught by Basil the Great who took Genesis straightforwardly)? Ph.D. biologist Dr David Catchpoole documents the huge scientific problems of biological evolution in the overview article Created or evolved?

Agreeing with Dawkins’ caricatures of religious thought and leaving the scientific details of biology

But people like Dr Catchpoole didn’t need Dawkins to explain the problems; as he realized, the problems between the Gospel and evolution/long ages were there as a matter of fact regardless of what Dawkins said (see A thorny issue).

the only space for disagreement is about the worst way that I can see to win the arguments.

Yet it has been the best way in our experience. Contrary, appeasing evolution the way Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler has been a disaster, for much the same reasons.

Much better, I think, to argue along the lines, “We don’t think evolution is true. But even if it were, don’t despair. Nihilism isn’t all that is left, the message of the Gospel remains intact—there are theologically sound ways of understanding Genesis that don’t clash so seriously with modern science, while also not reducing Jesus’ life and death to meaninglessness.”

But as shown, the theological appeasement of evolution has sacrificed a lot, including what was mentioned in my brief article. For more, see Response to the evolution appeasers.

Your article quotes Paul as clearly understanding original sin as the result of actions taken by a historically real human being.

Yes, and the citations from his epistles explain why. He clearly affirmed that Adam was a real man, made from dust (not from an ape–like creature), and that his sin brought physical death into the world (so death had not existed for millions of years).

Fair enough, but does that preclude any other understanding of what Adam was other than the YEC account of it? I don’t think so.
Wiki commons neville-chamberlain
Neville Chamberlain, whose disastrous appeasement emboldened Adolf Hitler

Yes it does, as we have repeatedly documented. For example, a common blind spot among long–age apologists such as William Lane Craig and John Lennox is human death before sin, as implied by ‘dating’ methods they implicitly accept. That is, undoubted Homo sapiens fossils have been to ‘dated’ to 200,000 years old, and some more recently have been ‘dated’ as even older: 330,000 years. This is long before any plausible date of Adam’s Fall. Further, many of these anatomically and culturally modern humans were killed by sinful means such as cannibalism. You really should have searched our site before writing.

Here’s a couple of articles (with all kinds of links to places where the arguments can be seen in more depth) that make a case for this different way of understanding Adam [both from edwardfeser.blogspot.com; links deleted as per feedback rules]

I know about Dr Feser, and I have cited him before with approval, in In the beginning God created—or was it a quantum fluctuation? [refutation of Lawrence Krauss]. However, he is a philosopher, not a biblical scholar. Also, it’s ironic that as a Thomistic philosopher, he contradicts Thomas Aquinas himself.

For example, Thomas taught along with Basil that God created the plants before the sun, and that this was a refutation of sun–worship.1 It’s notable how he approached this—he listed objections, then he would often cite Scripture as authoritative, then reply to the objections:

On the contrary, The authority of Scripture suffices. …
On the contrary, It is said (Genesis 1:12): “The earth brought forth the green herb,” after which there follows, “The evening and the morning were the third day.”2

Of course, the creation of plants before the sun throws out long–age and evolutionary ideas. Thomas also clearly accepted that Genesis 1 taught normal–length creation days:

Thus we find it said at first that “He called the light Day”: for the reason that later on a period of 24 hours is also called day, where it is said that “there was evening and morning, one day.3
The words “one day” are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of 24 hours. Hence, by mentioning “one”, the measure of a natural day is fixed. Another reason may be to signify that a day is completed by the return of the sun to the point from which it commenced its course. And yet another, because at the completion of a week of seven days, the first day returns which is one with the eighth day. The three reasons assigned above are those given by Basil (Hom. 2[8] Hexaem.).4

Thomas also denied that mankind was made from already–living creatures, because he affirmed that the first man was made from inanimate matter:

On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:7): “God made man of the slime of the earth.”5

The word “slime” instead of dust was following the Vulgate, “formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo [slime, mud] terrae”).

Thomas also taught that the first woman was made from the first man’s rib, again contrary to evolution:

On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:22): “God built the rib, which He took from Adam, into a woman.”
I answer that, It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man.6
First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither “use authority over man,” and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man’s contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet.

Thus it seems that some Thomists are more Thomistic than Thomas, by over–emphasizing the Aristotelianism in his philosophy and under–playing his frequent appeal to biblical authority.

Even much later in Feser's own Roman Catholic Church, the need for a historical Adam was realized, e.g. in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis (The Human Race), 12 August 1950:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. [citing Romans 5:12]

Earlier last century, the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) rulings on the interpretation of the book of Genesis affirmed both “The special creation of man” and “The formation of the first woman from the first man”.7

Likewise, the special creation of Adam and Eve was taught much earlier than Thomas’ time. E.g. Pelagius I (Pope 566–561) made a solemn profession of faith in relation to the Last Judgment:

I confess … that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand “before the judgment-seat of Christ,” together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man ….8

A more detailed critique of misuses of Thomas’ teachings to support evolution comes from the Catholic priest and chaplain Fr. Michael Chaberek.9,10 It’s also notable that Feser has come under fire from other Aristotelian–Thomist philosophers for his attacks on intelligent design, e.g. Marie George argued that William Paley’s watchmaker analogy is rather close to Thomas’ ‘Fifth Way’.11,12 And ID supporter ‘vjtorley’ wrote a detailed critique of Thomist anti-ID people, backing it extensively with quotations from Thomas himself.13

Explanatory note

Some may wonder why we should be interested in interpreters throughout the ages in church history (and Jewish interpreters for that matter). Some may argue, “Isn’t the Bible all we need? Don’t you realize that interpreters can err?” Indeed, the correct view must be obtained from the Bible alone. But then, modern exegetes are not the first who have known about the original languages and cultures of the Bible.

The onus is on those proposing a novel interpretation to prove their case. As we have shown, many of the currently popular explanations of Genesis are novelties. If long–age interpretations had always been popular, then a case could be made for assuming that the Bible hints at this. But if they were absent until they became popular in ‘science’, it’s more likely that such interpretations were motivated by trying to reconcile the Bible with ‘science’.

It’s also notable that Thomas himself strongly affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture and how crucial this belief is:

“It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ.”14
Published: 5 October 2014

References and notes

  1. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae/Theologica > First Part > Question 70. The work of adornment, as regards the fourth day. Return to text.
  2. Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 69: On the work of the third day; bold in online version at newadvent.org. Return to text.
  3. Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 69: On the work of the third day. Return to text.
  4. Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 74: All the seven days in common. Return to text.
  5. Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 91: The production of the first man’s body; bold in online version at newadvent.org. Return to text.
  6. Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 92. The production of the woman; bold in online version at newadvent.org. Return to text.
  7. The Testimony of the Magisterium from the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission, Catholic Origins, catholicorigins.com, 2011. Return to text.
  8. Pelagius 1, Profession of Faith in an epistle to the Frankish Merovingian King Childebert I, 3 February 557; the Profession was repeated in the epistle Vas electionis that was addressed to the whole Church soon afterwards. Thanks to personal communication from Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D., Associate Professor of Theology, Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, also in his paper Did woman evolve from the beasts? A defence of traditional Catholic doctrine—Return to text.
  9. Chaberek, M., Thomas Aquinas on Creation, and the Argument for Theistic Evolution from Commentary on Sentences, Book II, “Dominicans & the Renewal of Thomism” Conference, Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., 1–5 July 2013. Return to text.
  10. Chaberek, M., Thomas Aquinas and Theistic Evolution, Evangelical Philosophical Society, 2015. Return to text.
  11. George, M.I., An Aristotelian–Thomist responds to Edward Feser’s “Teleology”, Philosophia Christi 12(2), 2010. Dr George is Professor of Philosophy, St. John’s University, Queens, New York. Return to text.
  12. George, M.I., “Intrinsic” and “Extrinsic” Teleology: Their Irrelevance to Aquinas’s Fifth Way and to Paley’s Argument from Design, Evangelical Philosophical Society, 2015. Return to text.
  13. Torley, V.J., St. Thomas Aquinas and his Fifteen Smoking Guns (reply to Professor Tkacz), angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/thomas1.html. Return to text.
  14. Thomas, Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 110: The vices opposed to truth, and first of lying > Article 3 > Reply to Objection 1. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Refuting Compromise
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
US $17.00
Soft cover
15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History
by Dr Don Batten, Dr Jonathan D Sarfati
US $4.00
Booklet
The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
US $10.00
Soft cover
The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
US $10.00
mobi (ebook) download
The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
US $10.00
epub (ebook) download