Giberson’s thesis
In Saving Darwin, Giberson argues that a forced choice between belief in creation or in evolution is a false alternative (215). He wants to convince creationists that the theory of evolution is a robust explanation for the origin and development of all life on earth (194), and that it is not incompatible with the idea of God as creator and sustainer of life (10). Using a historical and sociological approach, he demonstrates that the considerable opposition to evolution on the part of many American Christians is driven by cultural forces rather than by reasonable interaction with empirical data and theological arguments.
Response and critique
Giberson shines when he takes the reader on a tour of the history of evolution as an idea. He busts the myth that Darwin’s theorizing was motivated by personal anti-Christian sentiments (19). Much to the contrary, Darwin’s worldview was “solidly creationist” (27), and thus the weight of evidence he saw in favor of evolution generated considerable internal conflict as he wrestled for decades with its implications for biblical interpretation and theology (21).
No less revealing is Giberson’s recounting of the incriminating association between Darwinism and its “dark companions”—eugenics, Nazi anti-Semitism and social Darwinism (77). His masterful treatment of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial” exposes the “popular mythology” that has grown up around the event, seeded by H. L. Mencken’s sarcastic journalism and inflated by Hollywood’s rendition, Inherit the Wind (86). Giberson also makes a surprising connection between the ideas of Ellen White, the Seventh-day Adventist visionary, and early twentieth century American anti-evolutionary sentiment expressed in The Genesis Flood (58). This sweeping historical and cultural analysis forms the heart of Giberson’s argument that anti-evolutionary sentiment in the United States can be largely explained by its inconvenient bedfellows.
Giberson is relatively silent on the question of humankind’s special place in God’s created order, and excuses himself on this count with the comment that this discussion is “best left to theologians” (14). As all evolutionists must, he minimizes the differences between humans and animals, while highlighting the similarities, which include evidence for a moral compass in higher primates. He makes no attempt to interact with the “image of God” language in Genesis 1, but simply states that he sees no necessary contradiction between the idea of humankind’s “kinship with the primates” and Christian theology (14). To bring home his point, Giberson points to the theological and practical significance of embracing our interconnectedness with the animal world (14). One thing is certain: even traditional creationists with a high view of humanity need to come to grips with the sobering thought that we are made from the “dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7). Is this any less humbling than embracing the fact that we are genetic cousins of chimpanzees and the great great grandchildren of sponges?
While Giberson rejects a literalistic reading of Genesis, he offers no specific alternative hermeneutic. No doubt he was reluctant to wade into this quagmire, over which much ink has already been spilled. Even so, he misses a good chance for a culturally driven interpretation of Genesis when he discusses (134) the “canopy” of water envisioned by young earth creationists in 1:6-7. A brief mention of the affinity between Genesis and other Ancient Near East cosmologies could have offered some direction to inquiring readers here.
Throughout his book, Giberson rightly accuses both creationists and evolutionists of entrenched posturing and of using offensive language toward each other (141). But he is in danger of committing the same sins when he uses labels such as “crackpot” (147) or “mountebanks and charlatans” (148) to describe some traditional creationists; or when he uses caricature-like language to describe extremists within the National Association of Biology Teachers (167). While Giberson is an equal opportunity critic, he tends to ridicule traditional creationists more than evolutionists. If Saving Darwin targets an evangelical readership, as the subtitle would suggest, Giberson has run the risk of alienating a large segment of that group with his occasionally acidic prose.
Intersections with evangelical theology
One of Giberson’s intriguing ideas is the connection he makes between the theological concept of human freedom and the freedom “embodied in the natural order” (38). Are traditional creationists being inconsistent when they affirm the human ability to choose good or evil, yet deny that God infused the universe with similar possibilities for growth and decay? This is a question which revolves around the character of God, and would seem to open fruitful avenues for discussion. Just as freedom explains human sinfulness, it can also explain why nature is sometimes “red in tooth and claw.” Giberson borrows this phrase from Alfred Lord Tennyson (66), while using it to refer to the impressive amount of death and suffering inflicted by seemingly impersonal evolutionary processes. Belief in the inherent freedom of evolutionary development allows theologians to explain nature’s fallen state without resorting to a view of the Fall that calls for catastrophic changes in an idyllic world at the time of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. If we see sin primarily as selfishness, says Giberson, we can also understand the driving force of the evolutionary process, in which selfish creatures seem to thrive and unselfish ones die (12). At the same time, he points out that there is plenty of beauty in nature, including altruistic behavior in otherwise selfish human beings. Theology can help us to explain these contradictory coexisting currents in the universe and within ourselves.
Another promising field of inquiry is the relationship of the evolutionary development of humankind to Christian eschatology. For example, Romans 8:18-25 suggests that God’s plan for human salvation is intimately connected with the redemption of his entire creation. Theology has much to offer to the discussion of an integrated ecological perspective of life on planet earth.
Saving Darwin speaks repeatedly of the culture wars which drive the great American divide between science and religion. It is possible that, by revealing the childish ad hominem epithets wielded by both sides, Giberson wants to shame us into a more civil discourse. In his irenic conclusion, he suggests that questions of meaning, aesthetics, creativity and the limits of human understanding have the potential to create fruitful dialogue (209). Admittedly, the deliberate search for common ground is always more difficult than taking potshots at people with whom we disagree. However, Giberson’s final words give us hope that the perspective of a humble pilgrim can help us move beyond entrenchment and provincialism. This approach to life is just as applicable to diverse groups within the Christian community as it is for relationships in the society at large.
