Glass's Integration of Evolutionary Theory and Christian Faith

Introduction

The objective of this study is to examine the work of Bruce Glass entitled Exploring Faith and Reason: The Reconciliation of Christianity and Biological Evolution, published in 2012 by DBG Publishing. According to Glass, the world's religious leaders and their followers have been skeptical of the theories posited by Charles Darwin in his work On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. Glass argues the reason for this skepticism is that Darwin's theory greatly conflicted with the creation stories of the Bible—stories that are, according to Glass, "far too fundamental to be casually brushed aside." In fact, Glass states that the creation stories of the Bible are among the most widely known passages because they lay the foundation for much of what follows in the rest of the biblical narrative, while also providing "a rather satisfying explanation for the existence of the world, its diversity of creatures and humankind's place within it."

Glass's central thesis is that evolution and Christian faith need not be in opposition. Rather, with careful theological interpretation and a proper understanding of the relationship between scientific and spiritual knowledge, the two can be reconciled. This paper examines Glass's argument and evaluates the theological and philosophical foundations upon which it rests.

The Christian View of Creation

If the fundamentalist Christian view of creation is to be held as ultimate truth, then God created everything on earth with purposeful intent and was actively involved in the process. However, the Book of Genesis, read literally, depicts God speaking the world into existence and relating the order in which living things emerged during the seven days of creation. There is evidence within the text that God was not directly involved in a minute-by-minute fashion during the process of creation. By the time Adam and Eve were created, all other living forms were already on earth, beginning with sea life and simpler organisms, progressing to creatures that emerged from the waters and moving toward the animals that populate the earth.

According to the biblical account, once Adam and Eve existed, they went about naming the animals and living in paradise. This peaceful progression continued until the Serpent in the Garden persuaded Eve to eat from the "Tree of Knowledge." The fruit caused Eve to become aware of something previously unknown to her. Adam also ate of this fruit, and the result was that both were cast out of God's garden. The Garden of Eden may be understood metaphorically as a place where Adam and Eve lived in freedom and safety, like children in the constant presence of God. However, once they betrayed God's trust and ate the forbidden fruit, their circumstances changed dramatically.

Understanding Genesis Through Theological Tradition

The theory of evolution proposed by Darwin describes something very different from this biblical account. It is a theory based on natural selection of species—an impersonal and non-intentional progression of life on earth. These two beliefs appear to be contrary to one another, at least until Glass attempts to bring reconciliation between them.

Bruce Glass draws on the work of Augustine of Hippo, the fourth-century theologian, and his treatise The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Augustine expressed the idea of multiple depths of understanding Scripture when he asked whether Scripture, in certain passages, speaks "as is its habit, in a weak and simple style to the weak and simple, and yet all the same suggesting something more profound for those to grasp who have the capacity." Despite his rather direct manner of speaking, Augustine wisely expressed the importance of not overlooking greater depths of meaning than those deduced from merely a literal reading of many scriptural passages. In other words, God provides those with less knowledge of his kingdom and with less discernment a simpler version of a greater truth, according to the capacity of each individual to comprehend what is being communicated.

Glass also references Tertullian, a third-century theologian, who wrote of Jesus: "The Son is to God the Father just as a ray of sun is to the sun. When a ray of the sun is projected from the sun it is a portion of the whole sun; but the sun will be in the ray because it is a ray of the sun; the substance is not separated but extended. So from spirit comes spirit and God from God as light is kindled from light." Glass also cites the Gospel of John, in which Jesus states that he and the Father "are one" (John 10:30) and that whoever has seen him has seen the Father (John 14:9).

Glass explains that "Son" is the word chosen to describe Jesus because he was "begotten by God the Father" and therefore was not created in the same manner as physical universe creations. It is of critical importance, Glass argues, to remember the difference between the "begotten" Son and the Son incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth. Glass also notes that multiple authors wrote the books of the New Testament and Old Testament. The Old Testament traditionally references the Mosaic authorship of the Torah, and according to Glass, "Given the way ancient Scripture was handed down over many years and through many generations, we can easily imagine that perhaps both are actually true."

Reconciling Evolution and Divine Creation

In Genesis, it becomes clear that God's acts of creation are indirect. God simply allows creation to proceed as he commands: "Let..." certain things happen. In Genesis 2, humankind is described as the product of "the dust of the ground"—an observation that aligns with what science has shown. This indirect model of creation opens the possibility that God's creative work occurred through natural processes rather than direct intervention at each stage.

Glass cites the work of Pittinato (2014), which quotes Albert Einstein: "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." This statement reflects a perspective in which understanding creation is fundamentally about grasping divine intention rather than mere mechanical process. Pittinato also references the work of Ashley Miller, who examines Darwin's evolution and creationism, stating: "I do believe that the implications of the Darwinian understanding and the biblical account of creation can be brought together in a unified understanding because evolution does not completely eliminate a divine entity if you think outside the box. Yes, in a strict literal sense one could say it completely closes off any chance for a Creator, but what if evolution was the creating force and God was an artistic aid?"

Many scholars, Christians, scientists, and agnostics hold that evolution and creationism are opposed to one another. However, Glass argues the reverse is true. Science, while attempting many times to disprove God's existence, has resulted in providing a higher level of acknowledgement of God's existence. According to Glass, humankind has existed for approximately 14.5 million years, but to assign time to God's timelessness is problematic. The "seven days" of creation, as accounted in Scripture, present a conundrum because it is impossible to know the length of each day from God's perspective.

One could propose, however, that each day could represent one million years. If this were the case, then Darwin's evolutionary perspective would begin to appear more rational, even to the Christian. The progression of various life forms from the simplest organisms to the most intelligent could have easily occurred within such a timeframe. This would also align well with the idea that God was not actively participating in each and every stage of the world's species development and advancement. As Glass states: "Theologians and Biblical scholars have written countless volumes that purport to explain its meaning and lessons. We need not explore all of the many facets of the book or their various interpretations and implications here. It suffices to note that the fact that the creation stories in Genesis do not fully comport with what we now know about physics, cosmology, geology, and biological evolution does absolutely nothing to compromise the integrity of Biblical truth."

Glass notes that many writers and authors have gone to great lengths "in their attempts to discredit well-founded science because of what they perceive to be pernicious social and moral implications." He states that because the theory of evolution removes God from the equation, "this apparent denial of God has induced some, in defense of Christianity, to deny the legitimate findings of science."

The Relationship Between Science and Spiritual Knowledge

In an interview with Peter Enns (2013), Glass provides insight into his own perspective on the relationship between science and faith. Glass states: "Since I am agnostic I have no personal stake in Christianity's concordance with the findings of science. I have no reason to contort either of them to make them compatible. So hopefully, readers of all persuasions can conclude that the book provides an impartial analysis of the, often underappreciated, intellectual depth of the Christian faith as it is aligned with the natural world that we see around us."

Glass addresses many of the theological implications of evolution, including apparently "random" events occurring within a world under God's sovereignty, the idea of a "fallen world" with humans evolving as a population, and how evolution does not preclude the possibility of a higher order of moral reasoning that results from a direct, spiritual connection to a living God. Crucially, he discusses how the paths to spiritual knowledge and scientific knowledge are very different, and yet these two kinds of enlightenment can result in fully compatible layers of understanding our world.

Enns asks Glass about the Anthropic Principle, or "fine-tuning" of the laws of physics that permits the evolution of intelligent life, embraced by many Christians. Glass responds by stating that it is clear that "if God had intended for us to find 'proof' of His existence or telltale signs of his handiwork through empirical analysis of the natural world, then it would have been very obvious a very long time ago. The Bible tells us that faith doesn't really work like that."

Glass argues that while recognizing the precise quantitative values inherent in the laws of physics is useful, we should be wary of declaring empirical evidence of God's handiwork. "There are two reasons for this: The logic doesn't follow, and God doesn't mark His trail. Among the infinite number of possibilities, the likelihood that our universe would exist as it does (capable of evolving and sustaining life) is unfathomable. Such an outcome is most improbable. We might recognize, however, that each and every other possible outcome for a universe is equally improbable. The only reason we think our universe is so special is because we have a personal stake in the matter. Only a God capable of producing all outcomes could objectively prefer one to another."

Glass contends that founding faith "upon empirical evidence" results in one's faith being "precarious." Throughout history, people have pointed to misunderstood natural phenomena as evidence of God. During the "Age of Reason," claims of scientific evidence of God became commonplace. The unintended result was that as scientific discovery progressed, discrediting such claims became the first seemingly rational basis for atheism. However, not everyone fell into this trap, inadvertently set by great thinkers such as Descartes and Newton. The renowned mathematician Blaise Pascal, for example, insisted that Augustine and Aquinas had been correct in their claims that God is undetectable in nature. Martin Luther too frequently wrote of what he called the "masks of God" by which God makes Himself known spiritually while remaining hidden from direct observation. As Jesus explained to "doubting" Thomas: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

When asked whether the extraordinarily precise values of the laws of physics that enable human evolution represent recognition of God's imprint on nature and clear evidence of God's imposition of order on the universe, Glass answers: "Yes and no. I think it's important to recognize a clear distinction between spiritual knowledge and empirical or scientific knowledge. These two kinds of knowing can be thought of as distinct, but if rightly considered, fully compatible layers of understanding our world. Scientific understanding is gained through the study of nature by means of the scientific method, while spiritual insight is gained through tradition and revelation—through Scripture and an intrinsic spiritual connection to God. As Pascal and many others have noted, knowing God is not a matter for the head, it's a matter of the heart."

Conclusion

While the work of Glass may not bring full reconciliation between religion and science, it is certain that his work has given momentum to the conversation between the two. It is also certain that examination of Glass's arguments will be the source of much lively discussion and will motivate and advance further research in this area of inquiry. His framework, drawing on theological tradition and a careful distinction between empirical and spiritual knowledge, offers a thoughtful approach to a question that has troubled many believers and thinkers for over 150 years since the publication of Darwin's work.