I'm a Mom who homeschools my children.  I recently came across an article in "The Old Schoolhouse" magazine for homeschoolers entitled, "What About Theistic Evolution?"  In the article, Darren Nelson argues that evolution, even if directed by God, is anti-biblical and that it lacks "intellectual integrity" and "a respect for the things of God."  Thoughts?

As a parent of homeschooled children I am well aware of the cultural milieu of the typical homeschooled child - I refer specifically to the scientific curricula that dominates the homeschooling literature.  It's extremely difficult to find quality curricula regarding progressive creationist positions let alone theistic evolutionary positions.  But nevermind this difficulty.  Your concern regards Nelson's article against the inconsistency of theistic evolution with the account given in Genesis.

I want to emphasize up front that I neither defend evolutionary theory nor subscribe to it.  My concern here is simply to thwart the scientific naïveté associated with this controversy that is often left unchecked by noble homeschoolers who want nothing but an optimal and open education for their children.  The problem essentially is that we (as Evangelicals) typically offer only one side - the young universe creation model - and dismiss any of its rival positions.  And neither do we train our students to properly understand what the dominant view (evolution) actually is.  For example, it is not part of evolutionary theory to think that human beings descended from apes.  But this myth is perpetuated on an ongoing basis. Nonetheless, does Nelson offer us any good reasons to think that theistic evolution lacks “intellectual integrity” and “a respect for the things of God” (Summer 2008 edition, p. 98)?

I don’t think that he does, despite his obvious good intentions.  There is a prevalent fear that ceding evolutionary theory in a Christian paradigm suddenly entails that one has abandoned the Bible as a reliable corpus.  Nelson (and many others unfortunately) tell us that even a flirtation with any views opposed to the rigid young-earth creationist position make “God a liar” and such views “[deny] the inspiration of Scripture” (ibid.).  The fear is unwarranted for one simple reason … Genesis’ primeval history was not written as a scientific treatise on the biological and terrestrial origins of the human race.  Rather, it was written as a theological treatise against the competing creation stories of Israel’s pagan neighbors.  It was thought that there was a god for everything associated with creation – a sun god, a moon god, a god of the sky and water, etc.  But Genesis de-mythologizes those accounts in order to establish that there is only one God and He created all things for His own purpose and will.  To excavate anything else from Genesis 1-2 is to go beyond the intent of its author(s).  Now we’ll take a brief look at Nelson’s case against the potential consistency of theistic evolution and Genesis.

(i) “Evolution simply and emphatically is not found in the Bible in any form, hint, or insinuation” (p. 97).  At worst, it’s trivially true.  Neither does the Bible suggest any other methods of creation “in any form, hint, or insinuation” apart from the fact that He did it.  But this seems overplayed by Nelson.  Days 3, 5, and 6 of Genesis tell us, not that God necessarily directly created vegetation and animals but, rather:

“Let the earth …Let the waters ... ” entail some sort of natural unfolding under the direction of God.  Now one need not believe that God used evolution as a process, but it is most assuredly not true that such is not even an “insinuation” of this feat.

(ii) “[E]volution … is random, cruel, thoughtless, violent, and wasteful” (ibid.).  Of course suggesting that evolution is “random” and “thoughtless” forgets that it’s theistic evolution we’re talking about, not naturalistic Darwinian evolution.  As for “cruel … violent, and wasteful” these are judgment calls about what one might expect if they were responsible for creation.  We tend to view how everyone works with a sense of “efficiency” in mind.  But efficiency only applies to those with limited resources and a finite amount of time in which to work.  But God possesses neither of these handicaps and so charges of waste or inefficiency are unwarranted.  As to “violent” this would be a neutral observation.  For example, when Jews observed the Passover in the first century they slaughtered young lambs.  This is violent.  But neither is it morally inappropriate.  Mere violence is not enough to show an immoral element.  As for “waste”, this is also a matter of perspective.  For an engineer, it might be a waste to use too many supplies or take too many steps when building a project.  But for an artist the decision to “take the long route” or to graft several “drafts” before settling on an original is part of the artistic expression.  A musical artist could conceivably have written their song to be only two minutes long, but many want to repeat and extend certain elements of their performance to be three, four, or five minutes long.  Perhaps God is not so much of an engineer as He is an artist.

(iii) “[Evolution] requires death and suffering … [but] the Genesis account concludes with God surveying all He has made and pronouncing it ‘very good.’”  As with (ii) above, I’m unsure what is supposed to be not good about death (if we mean moral goodness as such).  Death may not be the original intention but it doesn’t follow that it’s therefore immoral.  For example, God granted human beings the right (to the chagrin of PETA no doubt!) to kill animals for food.  Is this then not good?  Even worse, in a young-earth scenario the presence of death is still a reality prior to the Fall.  Adam and Eve were permitted to eat the vegetation.  But the live vegetation breaks down (dies!) within three hours of consuming it.  Is that bad?  Some are simply concerned that the Fall is the only source of death in creation and, hence, could not be present until after Adam and Eve’s sin.  Notwithstanding the problem just mentioned with plant death for young-earth creationists, the fact of the matter is the Bible only speaks merely of human, spiritual death with the advent of the Fall (Romans 5).

(iv) The days of creation in Genesis, if not literal 24-hour days, entail that the “Genesis account of Creation is therefore seen in an allegorical sense … [questioning] the integrity of God and the Scriptures.”  This accusation subsists only because of a short-sighted view of biblical interpretation.  It’s not that one must interpret a book or a passage entirely one way or the other.  Rather, you have to appreciate the context of the passage of each bracket of the narrative.  For example, sometimes the psalter in Psalms refers to historical data and sometimes he speaks poetically.  In the Gospels, sometimes Jesus speaks matter-of-factly and sometimes He speaks using parabolic language.  It would be like saying “Look, if you’re telling me when Jesus says ‘I am the Vine’ and we don’t take that literally, then you have to take all of the Gospel as allegorical!”  I think you can see the error here.  It should be noted that “literal” as a genre doesn’t mean “precisely as described” it means “as it was intended.”  In that sense I take the Bible literally and not as, say, myth.

Nelson proffers some other mistakes, but I perceive the ones he notes as secondary to this issue.  Again, my point here is not to defend evolution (I think it’s replete with problems) but to explain why this approach of inconsistency with Genesis is not the correct route to take.