A threat to the narrative

The hostile reaction to Charles Darwin’s theory spurred arguments that it opposed the truth of scripture and denied that God created the world. Even though there are areas of scripture most people believe weren’t literal events (prophetic books come to mind), the creation story is one with which a large part of Christianity is unwilling to compromise. The sheer force of the hostility can’t be explained by biblical literalism alone, even though that’s where most of the arguments happen.

It also can’t be explained away by how it swept an argument out from under the Christian apologetics. Prior to this time, if someone challenged the existence of an omnipotent God, someone need only point to their own existence as proof. Still, proof of a uniquely Christian God didn’t exist, and your average person didn’t spend all day arguing with nonbelievers about their faith, anyway. This wasn’t the full cause of the reaction.

The truth is, people didn’t get mad at Darwin because he challenged individual verses of scripture. People were angry because evolution challenges the structure of the Christian Narrative as it has existed for thousands of years. If humans did evolve from more feral, undeveloped species of primate, then there was never a time during  which we were perfect sons and daughters of God. If there was never a time man was perfect, there was no fall. If there is no fall, there is no “redemption.” If there is no redemption, we are no longer pitiful, hopeless worms lost in the world without the light of Jesus. What did Jesus even die for, in that case?

Most people respond by adapting the narrative to fit evolution. A few others are prepared to abandon the traditional narrative altogether in favor of one in which Adam is the pre-human and Jesus is the post-human, rather than one where both Jesus and Adam are perfect sons of God. If Adam and Eve, one could argue, were already capable of sin before eating the forbidden fruit, they were not, by definition, perfect. On the other hand, if what they did was not evil because they did not yet know evil, then their act was innocent and did not contaminate us with original sin. This idea feels weird if we believe God created everything in 7 days. If we believe God created us over a longer period of time through evolution, however, this interpretation fits perfectly. Pre-human hominids were social, but largely driven by instinct and without a good understanding of what God did, then we learned good from evil and became responsible for our actions.

Darwin gets my vote as a representative of creation. However, he deserves some credit for challenging the fabric of the grand narrative itself. Darwin didn’t renounce his faith, but instead, like Descartes, revived the power of doubt instead of blind adherence to tradition as a tool for understanding God.