From:    Tyler A. Wunder
To:      All                                    May-08-94 12:01:34
Subject: Swinburne on evolution

G'day All:

I thought the following quotation might prove interesting to 
some. It's from Swinburne's "For the Possibility of Miracles", 
which appeared in the Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 18 (1968); 
I'm taking it from a reprint in E.D. Klemke's _To Believe or 
Not to Believe: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion_. I 
found it to be rather eloquent, and perhaps others might agree. 
Most importantly, I would recommend those who feel that 
Christian belief is incompatible with evolution to pay special 
attention. While I think it highly unlikely that the piece will 
actually convince Creationists of the compatible nature of 
Christianity and evolution, it is still a well-written essay 
concerning an issue which should be close to the heart of any 
Creationist, and many non-Creationist Christians and atheists 
as well.

"If the prophet's message is to be understood by a primitive 
culture... [it must reflect the historical and scientific 
suppositions -- which may be false -- of the prophet's day]. 
And unless one thinks that divine revelation can be given only 
to sophisticated peoples, that means that when a divine 
revelation is made to a primitive people, there is a 
distinction to be made between the prophet's message and the 
scientific and historical presuppositions in terms of which it 
is expressed. This distinction would need to be made by a later 
and less primitive society which knew a bit more about science 
and history, in order for it to see what was the religious 
message clothed in the false presuppositions. And of course if 
the later society was not sophisticated enough, it might fail 
to make the distinction, and so suppose the science and history 
to be part of the prophet's message. This could lead to 
rejecting the message on the grounds that the science and 
history were false (the rational reaction); or, worse (the 
irrational reaction) adopting the old science and history (and 
rejecting the alleged advances here of more recent times) on 
the grounds that the prophet's message was true. It will, I 
hope, be unnecessary to give many historical examples of such 
reactions.

"One all too sadly obvious modern one is the example of the 
different reactions to Darwin's theory of evolution. 
Christianity has regarded the Old Testament as in a sense and 
to a degree licensed by Christ. He took it largely for granted 
in his teaching, and the Church which he founded proclaimed it 
(with the exception of the laws about ritual and sacrifice) as 
God's message. The Old Testament in telling in Genesis 1 and 2 
the Creation stories seems to presuppose that animal species 
came into being a few thousand years ago virtually 
simultaneously. The theory of evolution showed that they did 
not. So some rejected Christianity on the grounds that it 
taught what was scientifically false, and others rejected the 
theory of evolution on the grounds that it conflicted with true 
religion. But it seems odd to suppose that the religious 
message of what is evidently a piece of poetry was concerned 
with the exact time and method of animal arrival on the Earth, 
or that that was what those who composed it were attempting to 
tell the world. Their message concerned, not the details of the 
time and method of animal arrival, but the ultimate cause of 
that arrival."

     Klemke, pp.546-7.