W. Doug Bolden

I can speak for no one. I can speak, honestly, for no Christian, no evolutionist, no intelligent design supporter in the sense that I would not put my life on the line and swear this is what they mean. I can only discuss what I have heard. And, what I have heard, is that the average Christian really, really hates evolution. Those who discuss it around here (here, for note, being Alabama) take it as a "possible theory" (and they bring out emphasis on the word "theory") or, equally as common, dismiss it with a "I will learn about it for a grade but put no truck in it". Meaning college or highschool classes will result in tests filled with answers disbelieved.

There is the other answer, which has two faces. The basic form is "God did it." This can either be summed up in the deistic "God started it to end this way" or the more recent, and generally more obnoxious, "God is still doing it." The latter is generally known as "intelligent design". The former, I have said from time to time, can be called "rational design".

But, in general, given a group of 100 Christians, I would say that you would find less than a dozen who would accept evolution without some major qualifiers. In fact, you would probably find more who grow angry at even being quizzed on such a daft, in their opinion and belief-paradigm, topic. Why do I think this is? Why do I think Christians hate the very idea of evolution?

I think the reasons are three fold. First, and possibly foremost, it is not mentioned in the bible. What is mentioned in the bible are two similar but different creation stories. In the first, God proceeds down the days and builds up distinctions as he goes. Land and the deep. Light and dark. Living and non-living. Eventually man (and woman) from the animals.

Then on the heel of making man and woman in "our" image (Yahweh and the hosts); the bible restarts and rebuilds. In this case, it is not precisely a series of divisions, more an acknowledgement. The reason this one is important is because it discusses the formation of the Garden of Eden, the lonely man, the later building of Eve. In other words, This second story is arguably more important to the founding of Christian faith, though it misses the division of the days. Most Christians seem to ignore this set of two stories, or claim that they are essentially the same thing. Which they are. There are differences, but let's not quibble.

What we can quibble about is the fact that neither story truly predicts evolution. Both can be said to be allegories leading to evolution, but neither one of them says, plainly, "And from out of the furry rodent came man".

Does the average Christian believe in evolution? According to a moderately recent Washington Times article - "Most Americans take Bible stories literally", about 60 percent take the origin of the universe as biblically laid out. This is noted as being on average out of 1000 (roughly) adults. 75 percent of Protestants, mind you, believed it, while fewer Catholics. Even people marked as being of "no religion" (I suppose meaning no particular denomination or faith, a sort of mutt of Christianity and generally undefined morality) are noted as having a decent percentage of belief in creation. This means that the idea that we came from somewhere seems to make sense to a lot of people.

Which brings me to my next point. Purpose. I think the need for us to have a purpose is a large factor here. If you were told that there was no reason besides "just because" to explain your life it might be hard to take. Even those of us who do not believe in a god who is controlling us to some teleological purpose often add in words of "to be a good person". People who know better talk about fate as a force. It seems better to suffer because of an angry god than it is to suffer "just because". (I know that some evolutionists have pointed out that suffering tends to be a sign of physical danger or imbalance, and therefore is absolutely necessary as a warning to the biosystem, but that's not so much a "why" as a "how come").

I would say it is reasonable to assume that the sort of person who is religiously inclined is also the sort of person who expects deep meaning in the cosmos. In fact, this need of a purpose-assigning agent seems to be the core to a lot of a religious drive. How else do you explain the large number of Christians who discuss conversion after some trauma, or while in prison, or talk about how some tragedy brought them "closer to God". Closer to god in this case means closer to saying there was a GOOD reason. The same is true about Muslims, those that subscribe to such things, who engage in holy wars and suicide runs. They are Norselike in their belief that embracing death and suffering purifies and makes them holier and closer to their god. Pastors are quick to note suffering. Dawkins, in his 2006 book The God Delusion brings up several cases of Christian pastors proclaiming how good it is to suffer, or see suffering, because it reminds of why we are Christians.

The last reason is one that I have personally had to deal with. Christians distrust things of the brain. They distrust knowledge that can be reached through daily experience (unless that daily experience is the recognition of some miracle it seems) instead of, in an echo of my first point, through godly revelation. In fact, some Christians have told me that intelligence is not equally meted out by god, and therefore is a sign that god puts no real faith in it as a tool. The reasoning makes some sort of, sick, sense. If god expected us to all be able to figure things out, then he would have given us all higher IQs. The fact that the majority of Christians have been unable, or unwilling, to dedicate the time to reading the bible (quite literally considered by fundamentalist Christians to be the sum total and basis of all truth) shows how little faith in put by Christians into figuring things out.

I think evolution smacks of "mental arrogance" to them, the idea that someone could sit around and find something out on their own without involving going blind or meeting a stranger on a road with a prophetic but surreal incantation about angels. Arrogance seems to be a common insult against promoters of evolution, though probably not quite as common as the "its just another question of faith". Though this claim is not as far off as evolutionists would like (just because in principle it is all provable and all the data is true, does not meant that it in practise is, which is often forgotten as a subtle but important distinction); it tends to show what is at the heart of the debate against evolution: Christians seem to think it might be another attempt to rebuild the tower of Babylon. Another attempt to second guess god. A faith in the self instead of in the holy host.

A short post-script. Another idea has occured to me since beginning this article. It is the idea of the Logos. The concept that you can control something by knowing its name. I think evolution, as a concept, gets dangerously close to that for too many people. It is too close to summing things up, breaking them down. Not only is it dangerously close, but is dangerously close to solving "mankind", the most importat creation of God's according to many Christians.