THE THIRD REASON
Unlike the first two reasons, the third reason I think Christians will love Darwin and the Big Bang Theory has to do with evangelism. The importance of evangelism is found in Matthew 28:16 – 20: 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (NIV).
The words are pretty clear yet, by and large, Christians tend to have a problem following through. In my experience, nothing makes Christians, even committed ones, squirm in their seats more than when they are reminded of the importance of evangelism: it gets lots of lip service, but often not a good deal of follow through.
Unfortunately, the problem is getting worse, not better, especially when it comes to evangelizing the well educated. Committed Christians seem more than willing to invest in efforts to evangelize in Africa and Asia, but they largely ignore their neighbors, especially well educated ones.
Why do Christians have such a hard time sharing the message of the gospel with well educated neighbors? I haven't researched this, but I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that the well educated are especially resistant. Why? Because a high percentage of them have grown to develop a healthy skepticism of Christianity, particularly of the Bible. It's the skepticism about the Bible that may be creating the greatest challenge, but Darwin may actually provide an unusual, and unexpected, solution to the problem. Let me explain.
My book develops the argument that Christians ought to embrace all of the science of Darwin and the Big Bang, with one notable exception: Christians believe that God pre-existed the Big Bang while atheists reject the idea of God. Thus, with the respect to the "cause of the Big Bang", Christians believe that God was the author of the Big Bang whilst atheists tend to believe either that it "just happened", or that all matter and energy has always existed. In other words, Christians believe the source and first cause was God, whereas atheists don't offer a specific first cause, but likely deny there is any cause.
With that in mind, let's go back to the problem that evangelists have, particularly today. All of the arguments that evangelists make are based upon the Bible. That certainly makes good sense, except when the person being evangelized tends to reject the Bible as "hocus pocus", something more and more people, especially the well educated, do.
So what is the Christian evangelist to do when he or she is trying to evangelize the person who thinks the Bible is simple rubbish? If the person being evangelized thinks the Bible is without merit, likely every statement the evangelist makes will fall on deaf ears. Well, that's where Darwin and the Big Bang might play an unexpected role. Here's how. The first task of the evangelist, much like anyone who is trying to persuade another person to change his/her mind, is to establish rapport. Anyone who has ever been involved in sales knows this is essential: if you can't establish rapport, you'll never persuade someone to buy your product. My theory is that Christian evangelists can utilize Darwin and the Big Bang as the way to establish rapport, especially when the person being evangelized is highly skeptical of the Bible itself. Here's how.
I'm suggesting to committed Christians, and all evangelists, that they should embrace Darwin and the Big Bang. Thus, the Christian evangelist can establish rapport with a non-Christian by pointing out a common belief in Darwin and the Big Bang. Having done this, the evangelist can then ask the other person, "if Darwin is correct, and you and both believe he was correct, why do we still seem to have so many flaws as humans; and why haven't many of these flaws been eliminated through natural selection?" This question may or may not start a discussion. The Christian evangelist can then proffer the theory of pleiotropy that I advance in the book. There isn't enough room to discuss that theory in detail now, but I will in an upcoming blog. Pleiotropy is an accepted concept in biology, the idea that given genes perform multiple functions. Paired with this is the concept of "antagonistic pleiotropy", also an accepted scientific concept. The essence of the "antagonistic pleiotropy" argument is that bad traits don't disappear because they simultaneously offer benefits to humans: a given trait offers simultaneous benefits and drawbacks to humans. There are lots of examples of antagonistic pleiotropy in the natural world. The book cites sickle cell anemia as an excellent example: sickle cell anemia is a terrible disease, but it doesn't disappear, as Darwin's theory would expect, because it simultaneously confers the benefit of resistance to malaria. Thus, the disease of sickle cell anemia has the seemingly peculiar characteristic of being simultaneously bad and good.
My argument is that antagonistic pleiotropy provides an excellent metaphor for the behavior of mankind. Like sickle cell anemia, humans have evolved a set of traits that are simultaneously good and bad: the "good" side of each trait is what has helped humans to survive and evolve; and the "bad" side of each trait is what we call sin. When considering the sickle cell anemia analogy, the benefit of resistance to malaria is the "good" side while the terrible effects of the disease are the bad. In the case of humans, for example, there is evidence that lying and deception can be simultaneously good and bad: we all know when lying is bad, but don't realize that all kinds of animals use deception as a strategy to survive. It is evolutionarily beneficial.
The person being evangelized can certainly understand, and most likely accept, the concept of antagonistic pleiotropy, as well as idea that human traits can have both positive and negative sides. From there, the evangelist can use the antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis to explain the Garden of Eden. The atheist and the Christian can agree that man evolved from lower mammals. They can also agree that non-human mammals display the same type of behavior that we describe as sinful in humans, but with some important differences:
- While humans evolved from lower mammals, because of their larger brains, possessed certain capabilities that lower level mammals lacked, in particular, the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, as well as the ability to make decisions
- Humans had the ability to make a bad choice, even though they knew that the choice was wrong.
From there, the evangelist can present the story of the Garden of Eden. Assuming the non-Christian accepts the idea of the evolved differences of humans, it should then be quite easy for the non-Christian to understand the meaning of the Garden of Eden.
The non-Christian and the Christian evangelist can then agree that humans are different than their non-human mammalian forebears. The question then becomes, what can humans do about their faults? Increasingly, the modern narrative is that humans can overcome their weaknesses, possibly even "perfect" themselves. However, "antagonistic pleiotropy" suggests otherwise; and the evangelist can ask the other person, if the "bad" traits and behaviors are the flip side of the coin from the positive behavior, intimately intertwined with the "good" traits, how can a person possibly hope to eliminate them?
The evangelist can then describe the traditional Christian narrative: the only way mankind can overcome its sinful nature is through God, specifically the atonement provided by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The narrative and conclusion for the evangelist is the same as before, but the science on which both the evangelist and the evangelized agree, it can become a "bridge" to a positive evangelistic experience. Because of the skepticism of the person being evangelized, it is important to provide Darwinian science as "the bridge". Absent that "bridge", the evangelist is very unlikely to "connect" with the person being evangelized.
The "bridge" is made possible by the Christian's embrace of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, as well as the Big Bang Theory. Darwin and the Big Bang are not a substitute for the Bible, merely a "bridge" to understanding.
Thus, these theories provide another unexpected benefit to committed Christians.
