Both religion and science are connected with truth and with the practical consequences following directly from the truth. Hence, as truths cannot be mutually contradictory, religion and science cannot be antagonistic. This does not mean that there cannot be an apparent antagonism between religion and science, for obviously there has been for many years. The controversy which followed the publication of Darwin's scientific works. The Origin of the Species (1859), and The Descent of Man (1871), could scarcely be surpassed for the violence and acrimony of both sides.

Perhaps the most serious fault committed by both sides was to take the Bible as a literal historical record and force a choice between science and religion, between this new scientific theory and the truth of the account of creation as given in the Book of Genesis. To many it seemed that one could not be both a scientist favouring evolution and a Christian.

Christian leaders clinging to a literal interpretation of Genesis were lead in some cases to such absurb conclusions as that of Bishop Ussher who declared that creation began on the night preceding Sunday 23 October 4004 B.C.! At the same time many defenders of volution often made sweeping claims and hypotheses that went far beyond the evidence then (or now) available. It was a case of much bad science meeting much had philosophy and bad theology.

Although today scientists are nearly unanimous in accepting evolution, there are still dissenters and still many difficulties, e.g. the very serious gaps in fossil evidence; the difficulties in the formation of complex organs and systems of organs; and because the theory demands such long time periods, there is a lack of direct evidence. The points can be discussed and argued, but no matter what said, the important point here is that the theory of evolution explains the known facts better than any other that has so far been put forward.

For the moment, assuming evolution to be a proven scientific fact, are there any apparent contradictions with Christianity?

Firstly, does evolution contradict the Bible? The Bible, and especially the Book of Genesis has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. As Professor J. L. McKenzie in his '"Dictionary of the Bible" says: "This account is neither a scientific explanation of the origin of man. nor a history of the beginning of the race in the proper sense of the word." The first eleven chapters of Genesis (which contain the creation account) do not properly conform to the rules of historical composition used by the great Greek and Latin historians or by the historians of our own lime. Rather they are (pictorial—symbolistic) representations of factual historical events which truly occurred at the beginning of our humanity. Or as Cardinal Suhard says: "The chapters contain, in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people of simple culture . . , a popular description of the origin of the human race."

popular style

Genesis 2:7 says "God fashioned man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed a living being." Here as in much of Genesis, the author is obviously speaking anthropomorphicaly. (representing God acting in a human way), picturing God in a popular manner as working with clay, like a potter, and breathing as man would into the face of his modelled product.

Such anthropomorphisms are part of the author's popular style and need not be taken literally. This interpretation is confirmed by the similar popular way of describing the creation of man in an old Babylonian text in which "Mami". the mother-goddess, says: "Let him be formed out of clay, be animated with blood." A similar description is given in the Babylonian epic. Enuma Elish, where man is said to have been created out of the blood of the conquered god, Kingu: "Out of his blood they fashioned mankind."

With regard to the formation of the woman described in Genesis 2.20-24 the author's popular form of expression is obvious. From his anthropomorphic description of God leading the animals before "Adam" for "Adam" to impose names on them, the author passes to an equally anthropomorphic description of God taking a rib from "Adam" and "making" it into a woman.

no clash

Thus the Bible, and especially Genesis, does not clash with the theory of evolution. Genesis is a religious account, it is concerned with religious truths and nothing else.

A second field of apparent conflict has also appeared. What does the Christian think of polygenism (i.e. that 'Adam' was not the only ancestor of the human race), and monogenism (i.e. that 'Adam' was the only ancestor of man)? When the best modern scriptural and theological scholarship is summed up it seems that scripture and traditional theology do not decide either way. Many scholars have shown how the traditional Christian concept of the Original Fall can be reconciled with polygenism. (e.g. Renckens "Israel's concept of the Beginning"; or Alszeghy & Flick in "Gregorianum XLVII. 2"). With monogenism there is no problem. Theology, like science, is a subject which is always developing and on this particular subject of polygenism and the origin of man we need further thought, both as Scientists and as Christians.

Thirdly, there are some beliefs based on evolutionary theory that Christians must reject, not because of the scientific truth that may be beneath them but because of the philosophical and theological conclusions some scientists have reached. At this stage I do not wish to enter a discussion of the distinction between the material and spiritual. between Man's body and what has traditionally been called Man's "soul". They are both elements of the one thing, the human person. With regard to the evolution of man's body the Christian accepts or rejects theories according to the evidence, while not denying man's spirituality. No Christian can hold any completely materialist view of evolution. for this view makes man nothing but a complete and total material animal body who has sprung completely from an animal level.

Fothergill in Evolution and Christians says: "It is not a necessary unavoidable conclusion to draw, either from comparative anatomy, morphology and physiology, or from evolutionary evidence, that the mind of man is only a highly developed animal mind, or that it evolved from an animal mind. There is no evolutionary evidence of the gradual transition of an animal mind into a human mind, and no serious biologist would contend that there is. Although a great deal is known about the structure of the brain through which the soul works, and the normal and pathological status of many men has been studied. in effect there is still a very great deal about the human mind which we do not know. To prove that man's mind or soul has evolved it would be necesary to prove that this human immaterial soul is not different in kind from the sentient material mind of an animal. As this involves a contradiction, it could only be attempted either by proving that the mind is not distinct from the brain and thus solving the problem of mind and matter (N.B. a denial of the distinction, or of the existence of a problem, is not proof), or by denying and disproving the existence of what the theologian calls spirituality and intellectuality in man. Only a materialist would attempt to do this because a non-materialist realizes the futility of it."

The brain is the material vehicle through which the soul acts intelligently during life Thus one can hold that the human brain has evolved from a lower animal or whatever you like, but the spiritual element of man is individually created by God. The materialist evolutionist would here consider that if he shows the human brain has evolved then he has shown the mind or soul to have evolved too. But this position is forced on him by his initial postulate that only matter exists.

compatible

In this short article there has been no attempt to discuss all the problems or make the many distinctions that should be made. I have merely a tempted to indicate the lines along which it can be shown that there is no necessary incompatibility between the Christian and the Evolutionist—if the principles of theological and scientific opinion are correctly understood. On the contrary the Christian rejoices in the greater understanding of man given to him by all the modern sciences.