If there was only a metaphorical Fall, why do we need a literal salvation? Perhaps a metaphorical salvation is sufficient? Some Christians may be able to take this step, but even those who read Genesis metaphorically will have trouble reading the Gospels as metaphors. This is, perhaps, not an entirely insurmountable problem, but it would be very close to one for many Christians. It seems that Christians need to see the Fall as not being entirely metaphorical in order for the atonement to be retained as literal.
If that is not so, Ruse does not explain how or why. If it is so, Ruse does not address how that isn’t a problem for devout Christians who seek to reconcile their religious beliefs with the findings of evolution. Either way, it is an important question which Ruse does not touch on.
Ruse certainly admits that achieving such a reconciliation isn’t always easy, and aside from the absence of the above point, his arguments are generally solid — solid enough that he considers his project to be successful:
- “Is the Darwinian obligated to be a Christian? No, but try to be understanding of those who are. Is the Christian obligated to be a Darwinian? No, but realize how much you are going to foreswear if you do not make the effort, and ask yourself seriously (if you reject all forms of evolutionism) whether you are using your God-given talents to the full.”
However, because of what is lacking, I don’t think that he is entirely successful. He wouldn’t agree with that conclusion, but he would agree he hasn’t provided the final word on how Christianity and Darwinian evolution can achieve a more peaceful relationship. He has, at least, provided a good starting point, and future efforts will have to take his work into account.
« Back...
