-
Title
-
Eng
An Investigation Into the Relationship Between Environmental Consciousness and Attitudes Toward Evolution Among U.S. Christian Clergy
-
Date
-
2015
-
Creator
-
Eng
Aldridge, KT E
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSCIOUSNESS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD EVOLUTION AMONG U.S.
CHRISTIAN CLERGY
by
KT E. Aldridge
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2015
©2015 by KT E. Aldridge. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
KT E. Aldridge
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Professor Kevin Francis, Ph. D.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
An Investigation into the Relationship Between Environmental Consciousness and
Attitudes Toward Evolution among U.S. Christian Clergy
KT E. Aldridge
The purpose of this thesis is to better understand the relationship between current
science-based issues (specifically the environment and evolution) and Christian beliefs in
the United States. This study tests the hypothesis that another variable—acceptance of
scientific authority— may exert more influence on a person’s attitudes toward evolution
and environmentalism than adherence to biblical doctrine. A quantitative analysis of 666
surveys completed by U.S. Christian clergy members was conducted. The survey
employed four dimensions of environmental consciousness (Cognitive, Affective,
Dispositional and Active) and three dimensions of attitudes toward evolution
(Acceptance, Perception of Conflict with Religion, and Knowledge). A multivariate
correlation between the seven dimensions was performed, as well as demographic
correlation analysis and a comparative analysis using general public poll data. Results
determined that a 77% correlation exists between environmental consciousness and
attitudes toward evolution in this sample group, which supported the hypothesis. A high
correlation was found between acceptance of evolution and the view that no conflict
existed between science and religion. In addition, it was found that pro-environmental
behaviours were more closely linked to environmental values and intentions than to
ecological knowledge. Significant differences between demographic groups were found
in all factors tested: denomination, region, age, gender, education level, rurality and
affiliation. When compared to the public, the Christian Clergy that were surveyed
believed that there was less conflict between science and religion than the general public.
The positive findings of this thesis highlight the importance of third variable studies
regarding religion and socio-political issues. Future research is needed to investigate the
theory that scientific authority has critical influence on religious and social matters, and
what factors affect acceptance or rejection of scientific authority.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................
Preface ...................................................................................................................
Introduction ..........................................................................................................
Literature Review ................................................................................................
Part One: The Historical and Contemporary Relationship between
Christianity, Evolution and the Environment .........................................
Historical Christian Views of Nature .........................................................
Religion and Science..................................................................................
Issues of Contention between Science and Religion .................................
Christianity in the 20th and 21st Centuries ..................................................
20th Century Christianity and the Environment .........................................
21st Century Christianity and the Environment .........................................
Evolution and Christianity .........................................................................
Part Two: Review of Biblical Doctrine ...........................................................
Environmentalism in the Bible ..................................................................
Evolution in the Bible ................................................................................
Part Three: Review of Empirical Studies on Christian Environmentalism and
Evolution Acceptance .............................................................................
Studying Environmentalism.......................................................................
Evolution Polls ...........................................................................................
Literature Review Conclusion ...................................................................
Methodology .........................................................................................................
Participants .......................................................................................................
Collection Methods ..........................................................................................
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................
Results ...................................................................................................................
Demographic Results .......................................................................................
Analyzing and Interpreting the Results............................................................
Conclusion ............................................................................................................
Summary ..........................................................................................................
Application of Findings and Suggestions for Future Research .......................
References .............................................................................................................
Appendices ............................................................................................................
Page
9
10
12
15
15
16
21
22
29
30
34
37
47
48
52
58
59
64
71
72
72
73
81
84
84
85
117
117
120
123
139
v
List of Figures
FIGURE
Page
1. Design of Thesis ...............................................................................................
13
2. Official Church Position on Evolution .............................................................
46
3. Creationist and Evolution Beliefs (1984-2014) ................................................
66
4. Percentage of Disbelief in Evolution by Nation (ISSP, 2000)..........................
67
5. Church Attendance vs. Acceptance of Evolution (Newport, 2012)..................
69
6. Number of Respondents Divided by Denomination and Gender .....................
85
7. Multivariate Scatterplot of Environmental and Evolution Totals…………….
86
8. Environmental Dimensions - Religious Denomination ....................................
87
9. Evolution Dimensions - Religious Denomination ............................................
89
10. Demographic Correlations – Religious Denomination ....................................
91
11. Environmental and Evolution Totals by Gender and Denomination ..............
93
12. Environmental Question 2 , “Which of the following statements comes
closest to your views on Global Climate Change?”...................................
95
13. Environmental Question 5, “How concerned are you regarding the impact
of the following issues?”............................................................................
98
14. Environmental Question 18, “How often do you address environmental
issues with your church members?” .......................................................... 103
15. Evolution Question 2, “Which of the following statements comes closest to
your views on the origin and development of human beings?” ................. 105
16. Evolution Question 13, “Indicate whether you believe evolution is−definitely
true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false−as an explanation
for the origin and development of life on earth.”....................................... 106
17. Evolution Question 13, “Indicate whether you believe intelligent design
is−definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false−as an
explanation for the origin and development of life on earth.” ................... 107
vi
18. Evolution Question 3, “Please select the most accurate definition of
‘evolution.’” ............................................................................................... 108
19. Evolution Question 12, “Please indicate the response that is most accurate
regarding your view of the Biblical Creation Story in Genesis.” .............. 111
20 Environmental Question 21, “Are there any specific biblical passages
on which you base your view of the environment, or humanity's role in
nature?” ...................................................................................................... 115
21. Evolution Question 14, “Are there any specific biblical passages on which
you base your view of the environment, or humanity's role in nature?” ... 116
vii
List of Tables
TABLE
Page
1. Design of Thesis ...............................................................................................
53
2. State Population Type and City Population Range Criteria..............................
74
3. Dimensional Facets (Sanchez & LaFuente, 2010) ............................................
79
4. States Divided by Census Regions ...................................................................
84
viii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my professor and thesis advisor
Professor Kevin Francis for his guidance and patience throughout the journey of writing
my thesis. I am extremely fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn from so many
incredible educators: Professors Erin Martin, Jean MacGregor, Kathleen Saul, Richard
Bigley, Dina Roberts, Paul Pickett, Scott Morgan, Ted Whitesell, Gregory Stewart, and
Carri LeRoy. The knowledge, skills and experience I have gained during my two years at
The Evergreen State College has transformed my perception of the world and given me a
passion and confidence that will motivate me for the rest of my life. I am also grateful to
The Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, Michael Zimmerman, Ph. D., for
providing me with an extraordinary abundance of resources and insight into the field of
religion and evolution. Our conversations were instrumental in inspiring the topic of this
thesis.
Additional thanks are owed to MES Assistant Director Gail Wootan for her
tremendous contribution to keeping me up-to-date on registration, class events, and all
other “cohort happenings” during these past two years, and for her understanding and
assistance throughout the MES application process. My decision to attend The Evergreen
State College was heavily influenced by her assistance and enthusiasm during our first
conversations.
I cannot express enough thanks to my friends and family. First, to my wonderful
mother, Anet, thank you so much for your understanding of my blatant disregard for
regional time zone differences late at night, your epic wisdom and editing skills, and the
copious amount of vegan mac ’n’ cheese and chocolate you sent my way. Thank you to
my roommates Connie, Pongo, Chica and Wilson for providing me with a haven away
from home where I could both relax and rant depending on the day. To my classmate
Liz, thank you for being my movie-and-concert-going buddy and for your joviality…it
kept me sane. Lastly, thanks to my grandparents, Curt and Sylvia, and all my friends
who helped me during these last few months.
Thank you to all the Clergy across the nation whose participation made this
research possible, and whose interest, support and encouragement meant a great deal to
me during this process.
9
Preface
The motivation for writing this thesis came from a combination of various
personal experiences regarding nature, religion and people’s attitudes toward evolution.
While there isn’t enough time to divulge every encounter that has sparked or shaped my
interest and relationship with these topics, I would like to provide a brief look into some
of the critical influencing factors.
To begin, I grew up in the forested foothills of colorful Colorado in the company
of an extremely adventurous and energetic family. Outside was a veritable playground of
exploration regardless of the season. We hiked to the top of mountains, backpacked to
hidden lakes, went sledding, explored ghost towns, and watched forest fires crest from a
distance. My brothers and I played Zelda in the forest and built an assortment of treehouses that my mom named the “Ewok Village.” While many of our friends took
summer trips to Las Vegas or New York City––to us––“vacation” was just another word
for “taking-a-road-trip-to-hike-in-a-neighboring-state,” and frequently entailed stopping
by Yellowstone National Park…the epitome of nature’s majesty and mayhem. These
experiences granted me an immense appreciation of and fascination for nature and a
fervent desire to understand how our environment functions.
A second passion throughout my life has been the study of language, culture and
religion, which has been inspired and enriched by the plethora of diverse traditions I have
encountered. My maternal grandparents were raised a mixture of Southern
Baptist/Pentecostal and Presbyterian, but have attended primarily evangelical churches.
My paternal grandfather was a Masonic Grand Master and my step grandmother was high
ranking in “the Order of the Eastern Star.” In order to pay for college, my dad––a nonpracticing protestant––worked in the uranium mines in Monticello, Utah for seven years.
During this time he was introduced to the spiritual superstitions of miners, as well as the
myths and traditions of the Mormons and Navajos with whom he worked. My mom
considers church singing John Denver’s “Rocky Mountain High” in an aspen grove, and
my younger brother and I share an interest in the study of 7th century Northern and
Western European religions, as well as modern Buddhism. The accumulation of these
myriad traditions led to countless stories and imparted a deep respect for and interest in
religion and culture.
Regarding the origins of the universe, I must admit that it is a subject by which I
have never been particularly captivated. This is likely a result of a non-traditional
education and familial indifference. My K-12 schooling incorporated public school
classes and sports, academic co-op field trips and events, private enrichment programs,
community college courses, and at-home curricula. At no point during instruction was
“the Theory of Evolution” ever mentioned, nor was any specific rationale for existence
ever presented. The concept of a “divine creation” or “creating force” may have been
referenced in passing, but never directly discussed. Emphasis was always placed more
on the knowable past and present and possible future than on the incredibly distant and
unknowable past.
10
At the age of 12, I had my first encounter with “evolution”…although I didn’t
know it at the time. For several years during middle school and the first half of high
school my family attended a non-denominational community church. For one of the
youth productions, my class put on a skit of “History’s Heroes and Villains” in which
each person recited a rhyme explaining the “praiseworthy” or “malevolent” deed done by
his or her character. Some examples of characters included Abraham Lincoln and Lizzie
Borden. However, as the segments of history chosen included more men than women,
and the class contained more girls than boys, some girls were obliged to play men. I was
excited by the challenge and even chose the costume with the “crazy-scientist” bald cap.
It turned out that I was going to play villain “Darwin”…I had no idea who Darwin was.
When I asked what the guy had done to earn a place next to a homicidal ax murderer the
youth pastor responded, “He tried to use science to disprove the existence of God.” I
remember thinking how bizarre an endeavor that must have been given the impossible
task of quantitatively assessing something non-material. Years later I came across the
story of Darwin’s finches, and started reading into the evidence for micro- and macroevolution. This ignited a third fascination––not with evolution, as one might assume––
but with people’s varied interpretations and reactions to certain subjects based on their
religious and cultural backgrounds.
Given the importance of these experiences on my life, when given the opportunity
to do primary research I wanted to do a project that furthered knowledge and
understanding of these subjects. I had wondered for years whether any sort of
meaningful connection existed between Christianity and a person’s attitudes toward the
environment and evolution; I am extremely grateful to the MES program for providing
me with the freedom and resources to undertake this project and to all of the faculty and
students who supported me in this endeavor.
11
Introduction
Science and Religion play pivotal roles in American society, politics and culture
and frame the way in which we, as individuals and groups, gather and assess knowledge
throughout our lives. The knowledge we acquire informs our beliefs and behaviours
which exert a significant impact on the social, political, and ecological world around us.
Better understanding of the complexity and interactions between scientific issues and
religion is critical to creating cooperative and effective communication amongst
individuals in these fields, and discovering solutions to our domestic and international
social and ecological problems.
This thesis investigates the modern relationship between environmental
consciousness and attitudes toward evolution, within the context of Christianity, and
seeks to further understand the connection between the factors that comprise these
attitudes and beliefs and to determine whether differences exist amongst the various
denominations regarding these subjects.
The preponderance of literature and research concerning science and religion
(specifically environmentalism, evolution and Christianity) began in the 1960s and has
examined the influence of Christianity on environmental consciousness and the influence
of Christianity on views of evolution; these inquiries have yielded varying results. More
recently, empirical studies have begun to depart from a strict two-variable model and
started to hypothesize that a “third variable,” outside of adherence to Christian doctrine,
might be affecting beliefs. Therefore, instead of looking discretely at the each of these
subjects and their relation to Christianity, I hypothesize that a third variable—such as
acceptance or rejection of scientific authority—might hold more influence on a person’s
12
attitudes toward evolution and environmentalism than
adherence to biblical beliefs (Figure 1). Acceptance or
rejection of scientific authority is proposed as a possible
connecting factor as scientific evidence plays a critical
role in the fields of ecology and biological evolution.
While the connection between evolution and science
might be more apparent, I hypothesize that a person’s
attitude regarding the strength of scientific evidence for
environmental impacts may also exert influence over that
Figure 1: Design of Thesis
person’s views of nature and environmental behaviors.
In order to investigate this theory, 666 United States Christian clergy members
completed surveys containing questions related to four dimensions of environmental
consciousness (Cognitive, Affective, Dispositional and Active) and three dimensions of
attitudes toward evolution (Acceptance, Perception of Conflict with Religion, and
Knowledge). Answers were given weights and were averaged to produce a score for
each dimension. Higher scores were associated with greater pro-environmental attitudes
and greater “acceptance” of evolution. A multivariate correlation was performed between
all seven dimensions, as well as between overall environmental and evolution scores. In
addition to correlation analysis, responses to questions employed in other nationwide
surveys and polls were compared using percentage data, and a quantitative assessment
was conducted using responses to open-ended questions related to interpretation and
influence of biblical verses and themes on attitudes toward the environment and
evolution.
13
Analysis of results determined that a 77% correlation exists between
environmental consciousness and attitudes toward evolution in this sample group. This
link supports the hypothesis that these topics are likely independent from Christianity and
may be more strongly associated with an individual’s attitudes toward science or
scientific authority. In addition, it was discovered that acceptance of evolution was more
positively correlated with a person’s perception of philosophical conflict between
Religion and Science than on understanding of evolutionary principles. Similarly, proenvironmental behaviours were more linked to a person’s environmental values and
intention than to ecological knowledge. There were notable differences between the 12
denominations surveyed1. Episcopalian, Congregational, Methodist and Catholic
consistently ranked above average on pro-environmental and pro-evolution attitudes,
whereas, Non-denominational, Evangelical, Baptist and Pentecostal scored significantly
lower for both environmentalism and evolution categories. Lastly, when compared to the
public, the Christian Clergy surveyed, in general, believed that there was less conflict
between Science and Religion than the public.
This thesis is one of the first steps toward better comprehension of the
relationship between environmentalism and evolution within a religious Christian
mindset. Future research would benefit from a more detailed analysis of respondent’s
environmental and evolution knowledge as well as assessment of other factors related to
overall views of scientific authority. In addition, efforts should be made to ensure that an
equal ratio of progressive and conservative churches within all 12 Christian
denominations are represented.
1
Religious denomination was self-reported.
14
Literature Review
In order to provide a contextual background into the subject matter related to
questions investigated and discussed in this thesis, the following section includes three
discrete parts which explore topics central to discussion. Part One offers a brief overview
of the important interactions between Science and Religion, as well as past and present
relations between Christianity and environmentalism and evolution. Part Two examines
biblical text to determine whether biblical doctrine provides a consensus regarding
attitudes toward nature or creation. Part Three assesses empirical research studies that
have been conducted using the variables of religion (Christianity) and environmental
attitudes or behaviours, and religious-factors affecting opinions regarding evolution.
Part One: The Historical and Contemporary Relationship between Christianity,
Evolution and the Environment
The following information presented in this review was selected in order to
supply a contextual background of the complex field of Science and Religion, and to
situate modern perceptions and events that are vital to understanding the relationship
between Science and Religion. This historical review is meant to be neither exhaustive
nor conclusive, but, rather, provide an overview of the major interactions and perceptions
throughout history regarding Christianity, Nature and Evolution, as well as offer insight
into the philosophical rationale for these interactions. This chapter examines Russell’s
(2000b) account of historical Christian views of “Nature,” areas of contention, and
distinctions between Religion and Science. This brief background is followed by
15
discussion regarding environmentalism within the modern Christian Church, and analysis
of the historical and contemporary Christian response to Evolution.
Historical Christian Views of Nature
Throughout the millennia, the Christian European view of nature has been marked
by three fundamental shifts which have exhibited profound impact on societal, political,
religious and cultural structures of historic civilizations, as well as on contemporary
western societies. These three main views of nature are divinity, organism, and
mechanism. It is impossible to determine at exactly what point in time societal views, as
a whole, shifted from one paradigm to another, as there is considerable overlap and
difference regarding regional and individual beliefs. This historical review of the
changing Christian world-view of nature is not meant to provide a comprehensive review
of past events, but rather to illuminate the major changes in Christian and religious
thought that have influenced the modern relationship between Christianity and Nature.
Divinity
During the early periods of human history and the pre-Christian era, the
predominant world-view of Nature was that it was “divine” in its own right. To Egyptian
and Babylonian peoples and throughout Mesopotamia the heavenly bodies were not
regarded as a mere reflection of the creator, but as the creating power itself.
Mesopotamians worshiped “Anu” or “the heavens” as the highest ruler. Egyptians
worshiped celestial figures such as “Helitropis” and the all-powerful sun God “Ra,” along
with the earth God “Nintu,” which translates to “the lady who gives birth” (Frankfort &
16
Frankfort, 1951). In Egypt and Mesopotamia the heavens signified the mystery of the
divine mother through whom man was reborn, and the divine was comprehended as
immanent; the gods were in nature (Frankfort & Frankfort, 1951). The religious
pantheons of the pre-Christian Norse, Greek and Roman peoples reflect the prevalence of
the combination of nature and god-figures, such as “Zeus”, “Poseidon”, “Jupiter”,
Neptune”, “ Sol” and “Thor” whose names represented both the physical and mystical
elements of the sun, sky, and sea. However, following the Christianization of Europe (c.
4th century), the sentiment of a “divine” face of nature was replaced with tenets adhering
to the Hebrew Scriptures which denounced the “worship of ‘the queen of heaven’ and of
the gods of the forest grove” (Russell, 2000b), and, instead, called for monotheistic
worship of a singular creator “Yahweh.” Hence, monotheism became integral to the
Judeo-Christian tradition and worship focused on the “creator of nature and not nature
itself.” This concept appears in Psalm 29 of the Christian Bible which states, “the
heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Despite
dramatic and mostly successful efforts to replace polytheistic traditions with Christianity,
Greek pantheism persisted long into the Middle Ages (c. 5th-15th centuries) and continued
to affect European attitudes toward nature. In the 13th century, Aristotelian natural
philosophy−with its emphasis on the systematic explorations and explanations of natural
phenomena− rose to favor among European scholars and society. Although the
renaissance period of the 14th- 17th centuries saw a reemergence of Neo-Platonism
sentiments among Westerners which “gave rise to a philosophy that was in essence
pantheistic” (Russell, 2000b), future “deifications” of nature were more an attribution of
“spirit” than “divinity.” Today, this deification of the earth is still to be encountered in
17
many cultures that have been relatively untouched by the ideologies of the West (Russell,
2000b); however, following the 17th century “Nature” was effectively and permanently
de-deified in the Western mind.
Organism
Following the “de-deification” of Nature in Christian Europe, a new paradigm
prevailed for nearly 1,500 years which regarded nature not as divine, but as having a
separate inner life force or intrinsic “spirit.” Organism held that “the world was alive
with influences, occult forces, and mysterious powers” (Russell, 2000b). The Greek
philosopher Plato (c 427-347bc) embraced an organic view of nature that endowed the
universal cosmos and all things within with a “psyche,” which referred to a soul-like
energy that animates all objects with a life force. Theologian Origen (c. 185- 251 A.D.)
even stated that “heavenly bodies had their own ‘intelligences’,” for which he was later
condemned by the church in 553 A.D. Others still vacillated with the idea of organism
such as Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) who could not decide whether “this world of
ours is animate, as Plato and many other philosophers think,” but that “I do not affirm
that it is false…but do not understand it to be true” (Dales, 1980). The popularization of
Old Testament teachings had worked to remove divinity from nature, and the early
church was not entirely assenting to the idea of a life-force in the natural world even
though this was a widely accepted notion amongst philosophers and scholars. However,
throughout most of the middle ages the ideas of the Christian Church became almost
inextricably bound up with those of Aristotle and Plato, and this organismic view of
nature persisted at almost every level of European society (Russell, 2000b). In c. 1224,
18
Saint Francis of Assisi (1181-1226 A.D.) composed his famous song, “Canticle of the
Sun,” which praised the Christian God as well as personified nature as God and man’s
holy companion: “our sister waters, our brother fire and our mother the earth…bringeth
forth diverse fruits and flowers of many colors and grasses” (St. Francis, 1224). The late
middle ages and the Renaissance witnessed the re-appearance of the ancient
Mesopotamian term (c. 2000 B.C.) “Mother Earth,” which Assyriologist Thorkild
Jacobsen notes convey the notion of the earth as a “living and sexualized organism.” The
image of Mother Earth pregnant with every kind of embryo preceded the image of
nature”(Eliade, 1962). Even the physician to Queen Elizabeth stated once that “this
glorious earth” had a soul and “the impulse of self-preservation” (Gilbert, 1952). The
idea of the universe, the earth and nature as a changing, growing and living entity or
organism endowed with qualities of sentience, which had persisted through the middle
ages, was, henceforth, steadily replaced with the concept of “Mechanism.”
Mechanism
The arrival of “mechanism” amongst the European elite effectively eliminated the
concept of “spirit” from nature much in the same way that organism had excluded the
belief in nature’s “divinity.” Mechanism, as the name implies, took the viewpoint that
the universe did not “live” but instead “operated” like a mechanism or machine. It
involved the law-like behaviour of nature, of its openness to new kinds of rational inquiry
and the moral rectitude of investigating is for the glory of God and the relief of man’s
estate (Russell, 2000b). The “laws” observed in nature were regarded as an expression of
the will and providence of the divine creator. The scholars of the time rapidly adopted
19
this new model. In 1543, Copernicus wrote that “the machinery of the world, which has
been built for us by the best and most orderly Workman of all.” In 1605, Johannes
Keppler (1571-1630) switched his animistic viewpoint to that of a mechanism philosophy
stating that “to show that the celestial machine is to be likened not to a divine organism,
but rather to clock-work” (Westman & McGuire, 1977). Many Christians were readily
accepting of this concept as the presence of a “watch” necessitates and implies the
existence of the “watch-maker.” Catholic scientist Rene Descartes (1596-1650 A.D.)
regarded “the pursuit of mathematical and mechanical science a divine vocation”
(Russell, 2000b). Puritanism and the Royal Society established in 1660, promoted this
mechanical view of nature, and the field of “Natural Theology” emerged as a method for
better understanding the nature and will of God through the study of his creation.
Throughout the 1770s, other theological groups, Anglicans and dissenting academics
promoted Newtonian mechanism (Russell, 2000b). As advancements in scientific inquiry
progressed the idea that unexplainable phenomena were being directed by an intelligent
divine force became increasingly obsolete. With expansion of knowledge these “God
Gaps,” which had been used occasionally by scholars such as Isaac Newton (1643- 1727
A.D.), closed. By the 1850s this mechanical view of the universe was practically
ubiquitous in physics and was becoming ever-more present in biology, geology and
chemistry. However, this new paradigm was met with some resistance. Certain
philosophers such as Henry More (1614-87 A.D.) and Ralph Cudworth (1617-88 A.D.),
were fearful that the exclusion of a “mystic quality” to nature would lead to a
materialistic and reductionist view of a universe made up of law-bound atoms which
would inevitably lead to atheism. Neither Descartes, nor his critics, were necessarily
20
incorrect in their excitement or worry regarding the effect of mechanism on religion.
With time, mechanism was both a friend and a foe to Christianity. Although likening the
natural world to a machine did imply the presence of a “maker,” it also led to
speculations of a deterministic and self-sufficient universe that did not require divine
guidance. Furthermore, it was feared that perceiving the world as a mechanism could
lead to irreverence toward the sacredness of creation, as machines can be abused and
destroyed with impunity; whereas, something living merits respect and reverence.
Whether this shift in the view of nature led to environmental abuse or atheism in Europe
is debatable. However, it is clear that the mechanism period was a final step in the “deanimation” and “de-spiriting” of nature. Russell (2000b) notes that these three historical
views of nature have helped shape our current perceptions of the purpose and function of
nature; while historically these “three views of nature overlapped…they have only
become a competing problem in the 20th century.”
Religion and Science
Perception of Conflict
In the “The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition,” Ferngren
(2000) states that “the history of science has often been regarded as a series of conflicts
between science and religion (usually Christianity), of which the cases of Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882) are merely the most celebrated examples.”
Indeed, such conflict appears to be endemic in the historical process, and has become an
embedded perception in Western culture. This idea of a persistent struggle between
science and religion has been described as a “conflict thesis”, a “military metaphor” of a
21
“warfare model.” However, this “conflict thesis” was introduced into societal discourse
in the 19th century following the release of literary works such as “History of the Conflict
Between Religion and Science” (1874) by John William-Draper, “A History of the
Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom” (1896) by Andrew Dickson White
and later, “The Struggle between Science and Religion” (1925) by James Young
Simpson. For more than a century, “the Draper-White Thesis,” which supported the
notion of mutual hostility between science and religion, has become routinely utilized in
popular writing and the media and propagated throughout society as a whole. However,
is such a view of historical or modern conflict between science and religion accurate? To
respond to this question, it is necessary to examine the fundamental components of
contention and how science and religion interact.
Issues of Contention between Science and Religion
Primary Areas of Conflict
There are four common areas where science and religion are set at odds. The first
is the question of whether the epistemological difference between science and religion
can be integrated. When Copernicus (1473-1543 A.D.), and later Galileo Galilei (15641642 A.D.) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630 A.D.), published works supporting a
heliocentric model of the universe, this idea conflicted with the biblically-based worldview of a geocentric universe maintained by the Catholic Church. Other advances in
science were seen as a potential threat to the authority and infallibility of the church and
the Bible, especially where science had a historical content, such as geology or biology
(Russell, 2000a). This conflict was most notable following the publication of Darwin’s
22
Origins of Species in 1859 as it was seen to be in direct opposition with the Biblical
account of earth and human creation.
The second area concerns the methodology inherent in science and theology.
Science is based on factual evidence, whereas theology derives knowledge from faith and
spiritual revelation—except in the case of Natural Theology. This difference in
acquisition of knowledge was not as pronounced in the past. During the middle ages
when an otherwise inexplicable phenomena was encountered, an appeal to divine purpose
was frequently given as an explanation. This practice eschewed tension with the church
as deficiencies in scientific inquiry were seen as evidence for a divine force. However, as
these phenomena were explained, evidence for a guiding force decreased.
The third area involves ethics and the "application of science.” In Victorian
times, the church maintained opposition to Darwin’s theories on the grounds that such
information would lead to “the Law of the Jungle” and society would undergo an
abandonment of the ethical constraints that maintained a civilized order. In this way,
contemporary science has experienced friction with religion regarding scientific ventures
that involve elements of morality such as genetic engineering, nuclear power,
proliferation of insecticides, vaccination, anesthesia and more recently abortion and stemcell research.
The fourth area of conflict relates to the struggles over social power. Over the
centuries science-based ideologies were in contention with conservative political and
ecclesiastical forces (Russell, 2000a). This can be seen throughout the 19th century
British Anglican attacks on science as it undermined the church’s position of authority
that was granted through the knowledge of the Scripture. In response to this onslaught
23
many scientists, including Biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895 A.D.), sought to
overthrow English church hegemony through the furtherance of science in society.
Science first became professionalized in 1877 with the establishment of the Royal
Institute of Chemistry. Continued effort by scientists to improve the position of science
by moving science from the periphery to the center of English Life widened the polarity
between the sacred and secular in Catholic cultures in continental Europe (Heyck, 1982).
Although numerous philosophical differences and historical accounts seemingly support
the “conflict thesis,” it has been argued that the events on which the notion of conflict is
based have been over-exaggerated and the situations in which no conflict has arisen have
been omitted. Numbers (1985) notes that “the war between science and theology has
existed primarily in the cliché-bound minds of historians.”
Weakness in the “Conflict Thesis”
Several limitations to the idea that science and religion are diametrically opposed
have been noted, including the fact that throughout history science and religion have
displayed a multitude of relationships toward each other with differing degrees of
engagement. On numerous occasions it can be argued that both have been either largely
independent, or even encouraging of one another. Recent scholarship has demonstrated
the complexity of the issues at stake in even these cases, with ecclesiastical politics,
social change, and personal circumstances as relevant as questions of science and religion
(Russell, 2000a). Christianity played a vital part in impassioning and fostering
philosophical and scientific endeavors for scholars such as Francis Bacon (1561-1626
24
A.D.), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630 A.D.), Robert Boyle (1627-1691 A.D.), Isaac
Newton (1643-1727 A.D.), and Rene Descartes (1596-1650 A.D.).
Another complexity to the relationship that seems to be frequently overlooked is the
times when Christianity and scientific exploration operated in alliance. Galileo is quoted
as having said that “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed
us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, individuals such as Robert Boyle (16271691 A.D.), Isaac Newton (1643-1727 A.D.), Blaise Pascal (1623-62 A.D.), Marin
Mersenne (1588-1648 A.D.), Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655 A.D.), and Isaac Beeckman
(1588-1637 A.D.) integrated science and religion. This trend of integrating science with
elements of religion continued into the 19th century with scientists such as Michael
Faraday (1791-1867 A.D.), James Joule (1818-1889 A.D.), James Clark Maxwell (18311879 A.D.), William Thomson (Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 A.D.) and George Gabriel Stokes
(1819-1903 A.D.), who advanced scientific knowledge in their various fields with respect
to Christian theological teachings. The entire field of Natural Theology, which combined
elements of Christian theology with the natural sciences, led to extensive exploration
during the 16th -19th centuries.
A final observation regarding weaknesses in the “conflict thesis” is the evidence
that during the periods when science and religion seemed to be at the height of tension,
disputes were rarely, if ever, universal between science and all of Christianity. Scientific
claims were met with a variety of responses. For instance, while the Roman Catholic
Church condemned Galileo and his teachings, protestant clergy remained largely
uninvolved in the dispute. Following the publication of Darwin’s Origins of Species, the
25
high and low denominations of the Anglican Church presented various responses to
Darwin’s theories. In brief, although the perception of conflict between science and
religion exist in the present collective cultural mind, this is largely due to an
oversimplification of philosophical complexities and an exaggeration and generalization
of certain historical events. Brooke (1991) notes that “the dependence of the conflict
thesis on legends that, on closer examination, prove misleading is a more general defect
than isolated examples might suggest.” To better understand the multi-faceted nature of
the relationship between science and religion, it is necessary that one not only analyze the
interactions between the two, but determine the elements that define science and religion.
Distinctions and Correspondences
The definitions inherent to Science and Religion can help explain the lack of a
consistent historical, regional, or denominational relationship between science and
religion. Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968 A.D.) stated that Science and
Religion—isolated from their cultural and traditional aspects− have different goals and
different objects of interest, study and worship. Science employs empirical and rational
investigation to study the natural world, whereas Religion relies on self-revelation and
supernatural observation to inform human knowledge. This epistemological difference
between Science and Religion has been widely accepted as a critical distinction and
referred to as the “fundamental” difference between Science and Religion by existential
philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855 A.D.) and Martin Buber (1878-1965
A.D.). “Scientific knowledge is impersonal and objective, whereas religious knowledge
is personal and subjective” (Meyer, 2000). Two models proposed to explain the
26
divergent qualities between Science and Religion include “compartmentalism” and
“complementarity.” The first concept, “compartmentalism,” was suggested by Søren
Kierkgaard and holds that the two fields are unrelated because they “inevitably offer
different types of descriptions of different realities.” This concept of separate domains
between was strongly echoed in Gould’s (1999) theory of “Non-overlapping Magisteria,”
which holds that Science and Religion exist in separate domains of “fact” versus
“values.” The second concept of “complementarity” put forward by Donald M. Mackey
in the 1970s proposed that while Science and Religion may sometimes speak about the
same realities, the two always describe reality in categorically different but
“complementary” ways. However, while adherence to these models would theoretically
circumvent friction in the Science and Religion debate, that has not always proved to be
the case; therefore, the limitations to these models must be discussed.
To start, both models deny the possibility of either conflict or specific agreement
between Science and Religion by arguing that they exist in completely discrete
circumstances. However, philosophers including Alvin Plantinga, Roy Clouser, and J.P.
Moreland have questioned the “strict separation” of the two fields and claimed that the
two cannot be thought of as operating in separate spheres (Russell, 2000a). One
prominent feature shared by Science and Religion is that they make “truth claims,” and
while many religious subjects do not concern natural science, there is substantial overlap
in certain areas where scientific theories may be taken as either supporting or
contradicting religious doctrines. Topics of agreement have included the Biblical history
of Israel being supported by archeological discovery, cosmological evidence supporting
theological conceptions of creation, and neuro-physiological evidence understandings of
27
human consciousness. However, topics of potential contention involve, for example, the
origin and nature of the cosmos, history of human cultures, and the nature of religious
experiences (Russell, 2000a). This overlap has led to opposition regarding certain topics,
the most prominent of which is the creation versus evolution debate (court cases
discusses on p. 41). This particular topic moved beyond a strictly theological versus
scientific discussion at the emergence of “creation science,” which attempts to gather
scientific evidence in order to “prove” or “support” the Genesis creation story. However,
at the 1981 Arkansas Trial involving the teaching of “creation science,” Michael Ruse (a
well-known philosopher of biology) provided five demarcation criteria as the basis for
excluding creationist theory from public education (Russell, 2000a). He asserted that in
order to be considered “science” a subject must be 1) guided by natural law, 2)
explainable by natural law, 3) testable against the empirical world, 4) tentative, and 5)
falsifiable. Under these criteria Creation Science might be true, but it could not be
labeled as scientific. Judge William Overton agreed to the opposition of teaching of
Creation Science on these grounds. Although Creation Science is not widely accepted as
scientifically valuable, since it reverses the scientific process by starting at a conclusion
and searching for supporting evidence for that conclusion, these five demarcation criteria
are not absolutely accurate qualifiers of Science. For example, both evolution and
creationism are historical theories about past causal events which are not explained
exclusively by natural law as “Descent with Modification” is a hypothetical pattern of
historical events that “could account for a variety of currently observed data” (Russell,
2000a).
28
This historical and contemporary adherence to a literal or even symbolic
interpretation of biblical passages has been countered with increasing Neo-Darwinism
and positivism tenets such as the idea that “the scientific method is the only means of
acquiring anything that can be called knowledge” (Coppleston, 1985) and that “Man is
the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind” (Simpson,
1967). Other scholars such as Francisco Ayala, Stephen Jay Gould, William Provine,
Douglas Futuyma, Richard Dawkins, and Richard Lewontin claim that creation was an
exclusively naturalistic mechanism with no direct intelligence as organisms only "appear"
to have been designed (Russell, 2000a). Overall, it is difficult to accurately articulate the
definitions of and distinctions between Science and Religion, especially as both are
central in modern culture. As Professor of Communication James Keaten once said,
“Definitions do not exist in books, they exist in people.” The complex nature of the
relationship between Science and Religion encompasses elements of compartmentalism,
complementarity, and conflict, yet, the latter seems to remain at the forefront of public
thought. To explain this phenomenon, Ferngren (2002) writes that, “the remarkable thing
about the whole ‘conflict thesis’ is how readily the Victorian propaganda, in all of its
varied forms, has become unconsciously assimilated as part of the received wisdom of
our own day.”
Christianity in the 20th and 21st Centuries
Into the 20th and 21st centuries, the interaction between Science and Religion
continues to be fraught with complexity and extreme variation. In 2012, 77 percent of
the United States population self-identified as belonging to a Christian denomination
29
(Newport, 2012), which makes the nature of the relationship between Science and
Religion (in this case Christianity) exceedingly important socially and politically.
Currently, in the United States, two of the most politically charged topics revolve around
Climate Change and Evolution, and religious appeals abound in the dialogue surrounding
these topics. Therefore, we−as a society−must be critical of the influence that religion
not only has on the acceptance of science, but also the influence that scientific data exerts
on Christianity.
20th Century Christianity and the Environment
As society progressed into the mid-20th century, concern regarding the
environmental devastation that was being observed grew drastically. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established in 1970 in response to Rachel
Carson’s ground-breaking book “Silent Spring” (1962), which exposed the ecological
dangers of U.S. toxic chemical and pesticide use. The first Earth Day was held on April
22nd in 1970 and overall awareness of negative effects humanity was having upon our
environment increased exponentially. Amongst the proliferation of discourse and
publications regarding concerns, solutions, responsibility and culpability, was Lynn
White’s 1967 publication “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” which
remains, to this day, one of the most significant and critical events in the ignition of the
discussion regarding Christianity and the environment.
In his publication, Lynn White blatantly attributes the Western ecological crisis to
the widespread dominance of Christianity, claiming that Christian beliefs have directly
led to the de-valuing and destruction of nature. White argues that the unrivaled level of
30
anthropocentrism in Christianity is the core cause for society’s environmentally
detrimental values and actions, along with Christianity’s establishment of a “dualism of
man and nature” and a “mastery attitude of dominion.” Following this claim, White calls
for a fundamental change in the Western dogma of indifference toward nature by saying
that, “more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present
ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one.” This idea that
Christianity has been the “root” cause of the West’s ecological deviation has become
known as “the White Thesis” and has sparked more debate and empirical inquiry into the
subject of Christian views of the environment than any other publication in the last 50
years. “The White Thesis” prompted immense interest and response from the public as
well as scholars. Much of this response and empirical research was supportive of the idea
that Christianity was anti-environmental in nature and, in the almost 50 years since its
original publication, hundreds of books and articles, most of them by eco-theologians,
have been written as a direct response (Riley, 2012). Francis Shaeffer (1970) described
White’s thesis as “a brilliant article” that he “believed it is completely right.” Arcitect Ian
McHarg (1969) wrote that “dominion and subjugating must be expunged as the biblical
injunction of man’s relation to Nature.” Conservationist Max Nicholson (1970) similarly
argued that, “the first step for responsible environmental care must be plainly to reject
and to scrub out the complacent image of Man the Conqueror of Nature, and of Man
Licensed by God to conduct himself as the earth’s worst pest.” Mac Oelschlaeger in
“Caring for Creation” wrote that “For most of my adult life, I believed, as many
environmentalists do, that religion was the primary cause of ecological crisis...I was a
true believer.” In 1990, Weiskel, at the Harvard Divinity School, stated that “A major
31
thrust of all three Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—is...an
emphasis upon a sense of exceptionalism. Whether grounded in covenant or confession,
these religious traditions emphasize their apartness ... from nature itself.” However,
although White’s thesis initially received support, it has since merited a considerable
amount of criticism. Glacken (1970) concluded that associating western religious
traditions with mastery over nature and eastern ones with harmony and union with nature
was overly simplistic. Sheldon (1992) summarized that “the consensus is that White’s
and McHarg’s scriptural analysis is deficient and thus their conclusions faulty. They
based their case primarily on the single passage in Genesis dealing with dominion and
failed to consider the numerous other scriptural teachings on the concern, love and care
of Creation.” In addition, White overlooked the fact that ecological damage existed in
pre-Christian Europe (i.e. Mediterranean deforestation), and there is also found "the idea
of man's mastery over nature in Marxist thought [and in] so much of contemporary
China" (Glacken, 1970) even though Christianity has never been the dominant ideology
of the region. White also fallaciously assumed that Biblical interpretation of the Genesis
Creation story solely promoted a view of dominion and mastery over nature. However,
in numerous instances it has been shown that varying interpretations of this passage can
lead to stewardship of the environment and attitudes of a “sanctified Nature,” which
provokes reverence and respect (Tarakeshwar et al., 2014).
The strategy of stewardship
appeals to biblical mandates to care for, watch over, cultivate, govern, and/or improve the
earth “on behalf of god.” (Reichenbach & Anderson, 1995). Stewardship emerged as a
discrete theological discourse in the 1980s, supporting a public Christian
environmentalism especially associated with evangelical Protestantism. (Jenkins, 2008),
32
and framed environmental issues and concern for environmental problems around
obligatory service to the creator, who entrusts to humans measured responsibilities for
creation (Jenkins, 2008).
In the decades following White’s publication, scholars were not the only group to
react. The 1970s through the 1990s saw an unprecedented number of religious
organizations publically declare concern for the environmental situation. After the
initiation of the North American Conference for Christianity and Ecology (NACCE) in
1986 (an organization dedicated to the Christian Environmental movement), Christian
theologies began to frame environmental problems on their own terms, sometimes at
variance with mainstream environmentalism, and to describe uniquely Christian forms of
response (Streiffert, 1989). One of the most vital initiatives was undoubtedly the 1983
establishment of the Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation Programme (JPIC) of the
World Council of Churches (Gosling, 1992). The JPIC’s addition of the need for
“maintaining the integrity of creation” to its programme of pursuing peace and justice, in
turn, provoked the meeting of clergy at the Au Sable Institute in 1992, which led to the
creation of the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) in 1993. The next year the
“Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation” (1994) was released. The
“Declaration” emphasized that the “Earth belongs to God and that we are responsible to
him for it,” set out five Christian affirmations revealing the “discernable violations of
creation,” identified four spiritual responses and ultimately calls upon “all Christians to
seek to apply these responses in specified ways.” By 1990, Carl Sagan and a consortium
of scientists had issued their “Open Letter to the Religious Community” which was an
appeal for joint commitment in science and religion (Jenkins, 2008). Leading evangelical
33
liberals and prominent mainstream figures, such as Billy Graham, pushed for greater
environmental awareness (Campolo, 1992). Catholicism began joining the
environmental movement with Pope John Paul II and leaders from the U.S. National
Conference of Catholic Bishops becoming increasingly outspoken on the environmental
responsibilities of both the faithful and their governments (Guth et al., 1995). The 1992
Bishops Conference joined hands with mainline Protestants to address environmental
concerns from an ecumenical perspective (Goldman, 1993). The majority of mainline
Protestant denominations in the National Council of Churches’ official policies on the
environment were released at this time (Guth et al., 1995). However, although great
strides toward solidifying a Christian stance of stewardship were made, many theologians
and church leaders responded variously to the movement with some embracing the
“environmental spirituality," while others have virtually ignored or even rejected
ecological concerns (Guth et al., 1995).
21st Century Christianity and the Environment
Despite the efforts of numerous Christian churches to set a precedence of
environmental concern and stewardship in the minds of the public, the generalized
perception that Christians are not concerned about the health and sustainability of the
environment persisted into the new millennia. The largest shift in religion was not that of
changing attitudes of perception, but that of changing religion. The late 20th century saw
the growth of a movement to revert to the idea of an organic or even a divine nature in
the face of increasing awareness of our environmental crisis (Russell, 2000a); a
movement whose roots can be traced back to the reevaluation of social norms and
34
changing mindsets of the 1960s. Kearns (1996) observed that “in a period both of church
declarations on social issues and of growing secular environmental concern, religious
ecological voices were present, yet few. Thus it became common wisdom that the
environment was a secular concern.” This paired with the “misrepresentation of the
Christian faith as uncaring of creation” played a part in diverting people toward other
belief systems – Eastern religions—that were supposedly “kind” toward nature, and New
Age in its various manifestations (Berry, 2000). In 2012, the U.S. Census Bureau
reported that between 1990 and 2008 Neo-Pagan religions were the fastest growing
religion in the U.S. with the number of self-identified pagan, wiccan or spiritualists rising
from 8,000 in 1990 to 390,000 in 2001 and 1,108,000 in 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2012). Sociologists have attributed this resurgence in “New Age” pageantry to the
perception during the 1980s and 1990s that Christianity is not a pro-environmental
ideology or community. However, recently, public image of the Christian Church as
anti-environmental has been shifting in the past few years in response to the election of
Pope Francis who, since his appointment in 2013, has been outspoken on numerous
progressive issues—notably, the environment.
Pope Francis, whose name reflects Saint Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of
animals and the environment, has made the promotion of environmental consciousness
and concern for Climate Change a predominant feature of his papal career. Throughout
his countless speeches are appeals to the protection of the environment with statements
such as, “creation is not a property, which we can rule over at will….Creation is a gift”
(Francis, 2014b), “Our failures in love and respect toward God….toward the whole of
creation” (Francis, 2013a), “our environment, which all too often, we exploit greedily, to
35
one another’s detriment” (Francis, 2013b) and “these days we do not have a very good
relationship with creation, do we?” (Francis, 2013c). Pope Francis’s words also reflect
aspects of the organism view of nature with many quotes personifying nature and
granting a feminine quality often seen in Earth-based systems: “we are losing the attitude
of wonder, contemplation, listening to creation” (Francis, 2013d) and “It is man who
continuously slaps down nature … We have lorded over nature, over Sister Earth, over
Mother Earth” (Francis, 2015b), and “God always forgives, we sometimes forgive, but
when nature – creation – is mistreated, she never forgives!” (Francis, 2014a). In addition
to personification of nature, Francis is noted for his strong criticism of government and
has stated that a “drafting of a new Climate Change Agreement … is urgently needed”
(Francis, 2015a), “an international Climate Change treaty is a grave ethical and moral
responsibility” (Francis, 2014c) and “threat to peace arises from the greedy exploitation
of environmental resources” (Francis, 2014a). Furthermore, Pope Francis has announced
that he is in the process of writing an “Encyclical” or “Papal Letter”− which is amongst
the highest levels of teaching authority for the Pope − concerning Climate Change and
humanity’s responsibility to the environment. This Encyclical is highly anticipated and
will likely be released in July of 2015. Due to Pope Francis’s progressive stance on the
environment and multiple other “liberal” issues, he currently has a global approval rating
of 60 percent and 84 and 78 percent in Europe and North America, respectively (Pew
Research Center, 2014). Pope Francis' popularity rating among U.S. Catholics is at 90
percent, which surpasses Pope Benedict XVI's best-ever popularity and rivals that of St.
John Paul II (Pew Research Center, 2015). Social commentary has noted that a large part
of Francis’ popularity is owed to his ardent stance of stewardship.
36
As with the previous centuries, the relationship between the environment and
Christianity is highly complicated, highly variant and ever-changing. In recent decades,
though, the establishment of religious organizations dedicated to the “care of creation,”
the publication of church commitment to stewardship and the election of an
environmentally conscious Catholic leader have worked to disseminate a portion of
Christianity’s anti-environmental reputation. However, conflict between Science and
Religion remains present in the cultural dialogue, especially regarding the science of
biological evolution.
Evolution and Christianity
Early Christian Response to Darwin
Charles Darwin published his findings on “Descent with Modification” in 1859 in
his most famous work the “Origin of Species.” Less than 20 years after the publication of
“Origin of Species” the preponderance of naturalists had adopted organic evolution as an
explanation for present species (Numbers, 2000). However, although the majority of the
scientific community and the Victorian intellectual elite were accepting of this new
information, skepticism persisted and the 1880s and 1890s saw a swell in anti-Darwinism
(Numbers, 2000). This resistance was mainly due to concerns that the belief in a creation
process lacking in divine guidance would give rise to immoral behaviour and ideologies.
Princeton theologian Charles Hodges (1797-1878 A.D.) stated that “Darwinism is
atheism” (Hodges, 1874). This sentiment continued into the 20th and 21st centuries.
37
19th to 21st Century Evolution Debate
While the Theory of Evolution gained popularity and support as time progressed
“the majority of late-nineteenth century Americans remained true to the traditional
reading of Genesis” (Numbers, 2000). One of the more notable groups of opposition
came from the “premillenialists” who held the conviction that the presence of one error in
the Bible would invalidate the entirety of its contents. In 1919, Baptist pastor William
Bell Riley founded the premillenialist organization “World’s Christian Fundamentals
Association.” Numerous publications released in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
sought to either disprove the science behind evolution or find a way to use Biblical text to
explain Darwin’s theories. For example, scientists Arnold Guyot (1884) and John
William Dawson (1890) accommodated science by saying each day of Genesis correlated
to a specific epoch in history. The Scofield Reference Bible (1909) became prevalent
among Biblical fundamentalists by endorsing the view that two separate creation events
occurred. The first creation occurred millions of years ago “in the beginning” and many
forms of life were created, and then subsequently destroyed, so that God could perform
the Adamic Creation. The Scofield perspective offered a perspective in which the fossil
records could be compatible with a “recent” human creation. Seventh Day Adventist
Ellen G. White (1827-1915 A.D.) proposed the idea that Noah’s Flood in Genesis
accounted for the fossil record on which the Theory of Evolution was based (Young &
Stearley, 2008). Still others sought to refute the scientific findings upon which evolution
relied. Publications such as “At The Death Bed of Darwinism” (Dennert, 1904),
“Illogical Geology: The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory” (Price, 1906), and “The
New Geology” (Price, 1923) highlighted problems with evolution such as not being able
38
to accurately determine the age of fossils. The struggle between supporters of evolution
and “strict” (literal Genesis creation) or “progressive” (symbolic Genesis Creation)
creationists continued at an even greater scale in the mid-to-late 20th and early 21st
centuries.
The Modern-Creationist Revival
Efforts in favor of and in opposition to evolution increased as Apologetics of
Creation shifted from founding arguments on Biblical text to increased appeals to science
in the 20th and 21st centuries. Proponents on each side became more and more concerned
with defending their view as both groups considered the “outcome” to be relevant to
more than just the strictly scientific components. Scientist Stephen Jay Gould (19412002 A.D.) once wrote, “Evolution is not a peripheral subject but the central organizing
principle of all biological science. No one who has not read the Bible or the Bard can be
considered educated in Western traditions; so no one ignorant of evolution can
understand science” (NCSE, 2008).
In 1961, Theologian John C. Whitcomb (1924-present) and “The Father of
Modern Creationism” Henry M. Morris (1918-2006 A.D.) published “The Genesis
Flood”, which upheld the “verbal inerrancy of Scripture.” The book quickly became a
best-seller in the fundamentalist world and polarized Evangelical opinion, although it was
ignored by university scientists and liberal Christians (McCalla, 2006). However,
because of the book’s scientific appearance, it initiated a renaissance of flood geology
which proved to be the “most impressive contribution to strict creationism since Price’s
New Geology” (Numbers, 2000). Following the 1961 publication, the “Creation
39
Research Society” was established in 1963, and was followed by Morris’ “Institute for
Creation Research” in 1972. However, the creationist revival of the 1960s garnered little
attention until the 1973 Willoughby v. Stever court case in which evangelist William
Willoughby took issue with the use of taxpayer money to create the “Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study” (BSCS), which included teaching evolution and, in his opinion,
promoted the “religion” of secular humanism, thereby violating the U.S. Constitution
Establishment Clause (NCSE, 2008). The California State Board of Education voted to
require public-school textbooks to include Creationism alongside Evolution (NCSE,
2008). This event contributed greatly in propelling the creationist movement past the
Darwinian debates of the 19th century toward the “Scientific Creationism” of the 1970s,
which pursued “equal time” for creationism in academics in the name of “balance”
(Numbers, 2000). In 1970, the “Creation Science Research Center” of the Christian
Heritage College in San Diego, California set out to prepare Creationist literature for
adoption in public schools. When the goal of widespread creationist teaching could not
be obtained, the Creationism movement concentrated their efforts on the cultivation of a
creationist counter establishment. Biologist Duane Gish and Philosopher Karl Popper
called the theory of evolution an “unscientific metaphysical research program” (Popper,
1988), which described the sentiment felt amongst pro-creationists. The Institute for
Creation Research developed conferences, journals, and even attempted to found a
graduate school; the latter, however, was denied certification by the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board in 2008. In 2007, the young-earth creationist ministry
“Answers in Genesis” opened the doors of its twenty-seven million dollar “Creation
Museum” in Petersburg, KY.
40
U.S. Judicial Decisions: Evolution and Creationism in Public Schools
“The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of
scientific inquiry.” - American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002)
In January of 1922 a serious attempt to enact a state-wide anti-evolution
legislation occurred in the Kentucky General Assembly after three time Democratic
presidential nominee, and former United States Secretary of State (1913-1915 A.D.),
William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925 A.D.) advocated the passage of an anti-evolution
statute at a joint session of Kentucky Legislature (Halliburton, 1963). The anti-evolution
measure (House Bill 191) was narrowly defeated. Bryan is quoted as saying, “The
movement will sweep the country” (Numbers, 2000), and although the bill in Kentucky
was never enacted, attempts to either prohibit the teaching of evolution or require the
teaching of creationism did sweep across the country. In the 1920s, 20 state legislatures
debated anti-evolution laws and three states (Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas)
officially banned the teaching of Evolution in public schools, while Oklahoma prohibited
adoption of evolutionary textbooks and Florida condemned teaching evolution (Numbers,
2000). Starting in the 1960s, the attention that was brought to the evolution-creation
debate provoked new legal disputes of which the most well-known cases are discussed in
the following.
In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated
the Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution as unconstitutional on the
grounds of the First Amendment. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, Segraves
contended that class discussion of evolution prohibited his children’s free exercise of
religion; however, the court found that the California State Board of Education’s Science
41
Framework, as written and as qualified by its anti-dogmatism policy, gave sufficient
accommodation to religious views. One year later, in 1982 in McLean v. Arkansas Board
of Education, a federal court decided that a “balanced treatment” statute for “creationscience” and “evolution-science” violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. The court additionally declared that “creation science” was not, in fact, a
science and determined that “theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence
or the presence of a creator” (NCSE, 2008). Although, the court’s decision seemed to
reflect increasing support for teaching evolution in schools, an informal poll of American
school-board members (Nelkin, 1982) at this time revealed that only 25 percent favored
teaching evolution exclusively. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the U.S. Supreme
Court overturned Louisiana’s “Creationism Act,” which prohibited the teaching of
evolution except when accompanied by “creation science” as the “religious belief that a
supernatural being created humankind” impermissibly endorsed religion. Around this
time, a group of creationists, not so closely allied with young-earth Creationism, sought
to repackage creationism in a way that would survive constitutional scrutiny (NCSE,
2008), and the result was dubbed “intelligent design” and introduced in “Of Pandas and
People” (Davis, Kenyon, & Thaxton, 1989). This concept became especially important
in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District,
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district prohibiting a teacher
from teaching “creation science” in order to enforce the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution does not violate that person’s religious beliefs because “creation science” is
a form of “religious advocacy.” This decision was echoed in 1994, in Peloza v.
Capistrano School District, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district
42
court finding that a teacher’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not
violated by a school district’s requirement to teach evolution. The court also rejected
Peloza’s argument that “evolutionism” should be treated as a religion. Peloza’s
sentiments toward the incompatibility of evolution and religion were not unique in
society. General population surveys found that 53% of both Protestants and Catholics in
the U.S. feel that “science and religion are often in conflict,” with 41% of that group
referring specifically to evolution as an area of conflict (Pew Research Center, 2009). In
1997, in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read
aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution that called into question the
validity of evolution. In addition to addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is
noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for “intelligent design” are
equivalent to proposals for teaching “creation science” (NCSE, 2008). In 2000,
Minnesota State District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney
LeVake v. Independent School District 656, et al. in which a high school biology teacher
argued for the right to present evidence both in favor and against evolution; however, the
court determined that the terms of free speech did not override the mandates of the
curriculum. In a similar case in 2005, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that an
evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al.
The Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either
orally or in written form. Lastly, in 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District
Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from
43
maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School
District writing that it was “abundantly clear that the Board’s ‘Intelligent Design Policy’
violates the ‘Establishment Clause.’” This was the first challenge to the constitutionality
of teaching “intelligent design” in the public school science classroom. Although, the
preponderance of recent legal proceedings have ruled in favor of the exclusive teaching
of evolution in public schools, discord remains today as many districts and states
continue to attempt to infringe on the teaching of evolution in public schools (NCSE,
2015).
Response to Evolution in the Religious Community
During the decades of legal debate over the validity of the Theory of Evolution, a
large number of religious organizations were established and/or asserted that–unlike
creationists in the field–Christian beliefs were not at odds with science or the teaching of
evolution and that such scientific knowledge was embraced by the religious community.
Just a few of the many notable organizations encouraging religion and the acceptance of
evolution include the American Scientific Affiliation (est. 1941), the Center for Theology
and the Natural Sciences (est. 1982), Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders (est.
1981), the Lutheran World Federation (est. 1947), and the United Church Board for
Homeland Ministries (est. 1962). In 2004, the Clergy Letter Project – “An Open Letter
Concerning Religion and Science”–was launched to illustrate the support for the theory
of evolution amongst Christian clergy. The Letter stated that the signing clergy members
1) “believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science
may comfortably coexist,” 2) “believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational
44
scientific truth” and 3) “urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the
science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core
component of human knowledge.” As of March 6th, 2015, the Christian Clergy Letter has
13,001 signatures.
Current U.S. Christian Denominations Official Evolution Statements
Despite the prominence of legal disputes over evolution in schools and public
opinion polls showing that religious belief is a negative predictor for the acceptance of
evolution (Barone, Petto, & Campbell, 2014), an informal survey of major Christian
organizations and denominations in the United States, based on publicly available
statements, indicates that in fact most Christian governing bodies view evolution as being
compatible with their faith (Martin, 2010). In this analysis, it was found that Protestant
groups are divided on the issue, with more “mainstream” denominations (e.g., Lutheran,
Methodist, Presbyterian) accepting evolutionary biology, and more fundamentalist or
Pentecostal groups denying compatibility or rejecting evolution. (Martin, 2010).
Following is a list of several of the official church statements regarding their
denominational position on evolution taken from the formerly-mentioned analysis. Not
all church denominations offer official statements of positions regarding science, faith
and evolution, and other positions are unclear (Figure 2).
45
Figure 2: Official Church Position on Evolution, Martin, 2010
It must also be noted that membership to a given denomination does not imply
that the individual supports the church’s position or is even aware of an “official” church
statement for their particular denomination. Additionally, churches within these
denominations may not necessarily follow the position of church leadership. A full list of
Church statements regarding their stance on Evolution is available in Appendix A.
Similar to the convoluted and varied relationship between the Christian church
and nature, the history between Christianity and the Theory of Evolution is equally as
complex and diverse. To date, a consensus regarding Christian attitudes is far from
applicable as there has been, and continues to be, a wide range of denominational,
46
organizational and individual responses to the Theory of Evolution within the Christian
community. However, it does appear –similar to the outpour of environmental
declarations–that church publications in support of evolution have increased since the
socio-political events of the 1960s and 1970s. Furthermore, despite numerous statements
of compatibility between science and religion across various churches, a large percentage
of the public maintains a view of incompatibility, especially regarding evolution (see Part
Three: Review of Empirical Studies). It remains to be seen whether Christianity as a
whole will reach an accord regarding evolution or remain divided.
Part Two: Review of Biblical Doctrine
This Review of Biblical Doctrine provides a framework of the verses that are
commonly referenced in the debate regarding God’s intended role for humanity in nature,
and biblical evidence supporting the differing types of creationist belief. The following
discussion includes only the most commonly cited verses, and focuses mainly on the
implications of these verses and not on overarching themes of environmentalism or
creation present in the Bible. Similarly, it is recognized that as biblical text is open to
individual interpretations, the following discussion does not attempt to include all known
or possible versions of interpretation, just the ones most prevalent in recent discourse. In
order to complete this basic review, all verses are consistent with the King James Version
of the Bible. A full list of the verses cited in this review is located in Appendix B.
Lastly, because this thesis is concerned with social perception and not Biblical accuracy
or inerrancy, this review focuses solely on the influence of the interpretations based on
47
the English translation of the Hebrew Bible, and does not examine the disputes regarding
possible shortcomings in the translation.
Environmentalism in the Bible
Countless verses and parables in the Bible highlight themes of nature, humanity’s
role in and relationship to nature and God’s revelations to human kind through the natural
world. In the ongoing debate started by Lynn White in the 1960s, these passages have
been assessed as either leading to a mindset of anti-environment/“right of dominion” or
pro-environment/“stewardship.” The difference between these two viewpoints relies
somewhat on choice of verse(s) and heavily on the interpretation of said verse(s). In this
section, the main verses and interpretations thereof in favor of or against a religiouslybased eco-conscious attitude will be presented and discussed.
Anti-Environmental Attitudes and Biblical Justification
When discussing the Bible in terms of its environmental themes or references to
man’s role in Nature, those searching to support a more anthropocentric, or a “less ecoconscious” viewpoint, mention numerous biblical verses that fall into one of four
categories or “arguments.”
The first argument is the idea that the earth, and all it contains, was created by
God to serve the purpose of humans, “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S:
but the earth hath he given to the children of men” (Psalm 115:16). This sentiment is
further supported by the second, and the most common, argument that God gave human’s
“rule” or “dominion” over all of the animals and plants that reside in nature. Genesis
48
1:26 states “let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth” and is followed by verse 1:28 which echoes the text in verse 26, but adds
the terms “subdue.” Following the Great Flood, God, again, reiterates the rule of humans
over nature in stating, “into your hands are they [every beast of the earth] delivered”
(Genesis 9:2), “You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything
under his feet” (Psalm 8:6), and “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;
even as the green herb have I given you all things” (Genesis 9:3).
The third argument that is encountered is that humans have been given
“dominion” because humans are set apart from nature due to the endowment of logos
(John 1:9) and being created in the direct “image of God” (Genesis 1:27). The fourth
argument, though the least frequent, is nevertheless important to a contra-nature view,
and that is the belief that the earth is under God’s control and is not “destroyable” by the
actions of humanity. God promised to sustain His Earth and all its cycles (Genesis 8:22)
on which life depends by His own power (Beisner, 2010). Additionally, God’s covenant
to Noah and “every living creature of all flesh” promises “the waters shall no more
become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Genesis 9:15). The interpretation of these biblical
passages may lead to a biblical justified view of human superiority in the order of nature.
49
Pro-Environmental Attitudes and Biblical Justification
The field of combining environmental and nature-based issues with religion is
known as “eco-theology.” There are numerous tenets in this field that are regularly cited
to support a viewpoint of “stewardship” rather than that of “dominion.”
The first tenet is that the earth is “sacred” as God said it was “very good”
(Genesis 1:31) and holds intrinsic spiritual value as part of creation. Martin-Schramm
and Stivers (2003) wrote that “if the foundation of all doing is the relationship of the self
to God that inspires acts of love, then the beginning of environmental ethics is the
appreciation of Spirit in Nature.”
The Second tenet is God’s command to serve and protect creation (Genesis 2:15)
as “stewards” of God’s earth (Psalm 24:1). In undertaking the role of steward, God
warns against the excessive waste and devastation of Nature,”… thou shalt not destroy
the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou
shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life)…” (Deuteronomy 20:19).
Additionally, in Genesis 9 God makes his covenant, not just with Noah and his family,
but with “every living creature of all flesh” (Genesis 9:15), which denotes the
significance of plants and animals in the eyes of God.
A third tenet is that God commanded certain restraints to human productivity in
order to benefit wildlife and the land. In Exodus God sets forth an agricultural schedule to
benefit humans and animals, “the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the
poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like
manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard” (Exodus 23:11). This
schedule is again mentioned at greater length in Leviticus 25. God’s rest on the seventh
50
day of creation (Genesis 2:2-3) and the commandment to observe the Sabbath (Exodus
20:8) along with this agricultural model are seen as evidence of God’s intention that
humans consider and acquiesce to the needs of wildlife and the environment. In this
vein, God frequently voices his disapproval of greed, violence and disobedience which
leads to destruction of the land (Hosea 4:1–3; Zechariah 7:8–14), which displeases God,
“Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot,
they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness. They have made it desolate,
and being desolate it mourneth unto me; the whole land is made desolate, because no
man layeth it to heart.” (Jerimiah 12:10-11). In Revelation it is prophesized that the
faithful will be rewarded while those who destroy the earth, shall be destroyed
(Revelation 11:18). The fourth tenet is that, in the eyes of God, human and animals are
comparable and connected. This connection between “man and beast” is expressed in
Ecclesiastes 3:19, “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one
thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so
that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.” In Job 38-41, God
compares humans to the animals to humble Job and in Luke 12:24 it states, “Consider the
ravens…..how much more are ye better than the fowls? A final tenet present in ecotheology is the Eschatological (end times) visions of cosmic harmony (Hitzhusen, 2007).
In this harmony “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb” (Isaiah 11:6), “the lion shall
eat straw like the ox” (Isaiah 11:7), “dust shall be the serpent's meat” (Isaiah 65:25) and
“They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain” (Isaiah 11:9). Together these
passages and tenets may lead to a biblically justifiable attitude of environmental
consciousness.
51
Evolution in the Bible
There exist far fewer verses in the Bible that relate to Evolution than nature. The
principle Biblical evidence is not so much for or against evolution as it is in favor of
either literal or metaphorical creationism, which is widely considered an opposing view
to the Theory of Evolution. The vast majority of evidence supporting the varying
creationist views is found in the first book, Genesis. The interpretation of these verses
has led to much tension between those who interpret these verses literally versus those
who interpret them symbolically.
Biblical Support for Strict Creationism
While the term “Creationism” can be used to indicate that a deity had some level
of involvement with the creation process, it is most often used to mean “Strict
Creationism,” which assumes a “strictly literal” interpretive view of the Bible and
believes that God was the only power present in the creation of the universe. Strict
Creationism believes in a “fiat creation” meaning “out-of-nothing,” and adheres to the
notion that God created everything in its present-day form and did so in the manner
described in the book of Genesis.
Following a literal interpretation, there are three lines of reason found in biblical
text that are used to support a fiat creation performed by God. The first rationale in favor
of Creationism is that God created the universe and everything within it as illustrated by
the Genesis Creation Story. God as the ultimate creator is mentioned repeatedly
throughout the Bible, for instance, Isaiah 42:5, Hebrews 11:3 and John 1:3 “All things
were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made,” declare
52
that the entirety of the earth is God’s creation. In addition to creating the world, God is
responsible for the creation of humans which he did “in his own image” (Genesis 1:27,
5:1; Colossians 1:15). The term “image of God” is taken to mean that humans were
originally made in present-form and did not evolve from any other form as other animals
have not been endowed with the same “intellectual capacities.” The main argument in
favor of creationism, or more specifically against evolution, is that the chronological
events found in the Genesis Creation Story do not match the scientific evidence for
Evolution (Table 1).
The 6 Days
of Creation
Day 1
Light
Day 2
Firmament
Day 3
Plants, Trees
Day 4
Sun, Moon,
Stars
Day 5
Creeping
beings, Birds,
Fishes, Whales
Scripture says
Gen 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25; 1 Cor15:38,
39 Everything multiplies "after its own
kind"
Gen 1:3-19 Light was created before
the sun.
Gen 1:2 Oceans were created before
land.
Gen 1:7 Atmosphere between two
hydro-spheres
Gen 1:11 First life was land plants
Gen 1:11, 20, 21 Fruit trees were
created before fishes.
Gen 1:11-19 Plant life was created
before the sun.
Gen 1:14-19 The sun & stars were
created after the earth.
Gen 1:16 Stars were all created at once.
Gen 1:20, 21 Marine life was created
all at once.
Gen 1:20, 21 Birds & fishes were
created on the same day.
Gen 1:20-31 Birds & whales were
created before reptiles.
Evolution says
Life forms are in a continual state of
transition.
No light existed before the sun.
Land existed before oceans.
Atmosphere & hydrosphere
contiguous.
First life began in the waters.
Fishes existed before fruit trees.
Plants evolved after the sun.
Sun & stars existed before the earth.
Stars evolved at different times.
Marine life developed gradually, from
an organic blob.
Fishes evolved hundreds of millions
of years before birds.
Reptiles evolved before birds
& whales.
Man evolved from monkeys.
Gen 2:7 Man was made from the dust
of the earth.
Gen 2:5 Man was created before rain.
Rain existed before man.
Gen 2:21, 22 Man was created, then
woman.
Woman preceded man.
Table 1: Discrepancies Between Scripture and Evolution Principles, Dew, 1998
Day 6
Beasts, Man
53
Another discrepancy is found in Genesis 2:3 which affirms that on the seventh
day God’s work was “created and made.” However, evolutionary principles suggest that
“creation” is a continuing and ever-changing process. Furthermore, in order for evolution
to have occurred, reproduction and death must have occurred. Yet, Romans 5:12
establishes that death did not occur until after man sinned. When these passages are
interpreted in a literal framework, the Bible becomes incompatible with the Theory of
Evolution; however, a metaphorical or symbolic interpretation of these passages does not
necessarily oppose Evolution.
Biblical Interpretations for Symbolic Creationism
Several theories have been proposed that “accommodate” the science behind the
Theory of Evolution with the biblical account of creation and include Theistic Evolution,
Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory, Punctuated 24-Hour Theory, Apparent-Age Theory, and
Scientific Creationism. The arguments for and against these accommodation theories are
voluminous and exceedingly complex. This section briefly describes the foundational
concepts of these theories in order to provide a cursory understanding of the various
approaches to “Symbolic Creationism.”
Theistic Evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological
process called “evolution” and directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over
millions of years (Drews, 2000). This theory is sometimes referred to as "progressive
creation," with a slight difference being that, in this view, “God interjected occasional
acts of creation at critical points throughout the geological ages,” such as the insertion of
the human soul into a body that evolved from an ape-like ancestor (Morris).
54
“Gap Theory” or "Ruin-Reconstruction" contends that a “gap”—possibly lasting
millions of years− existed between the first and second verse of Genesis 1 where “God
created the heavens and the earth” and then the earth was “without form and void.” It is
theorized that Lucifer was in charge of the world before this “gap” and after falling from
grace (Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28), God destroyed the first earth in a “Luciferian Flood,” later
remaking the world in six literal 24-hour days (Taylor, 2013). This theory accounts for
the usage of “replenish the earth” in Genesis 1:28 and allows for the earth to have existed
for billions of years, while still permitting a fiat creation of present life.
The “Day-Age Theory” focuses attention on the use of the word “day” in Genesis
1. The Hebrew word for day is “yôm” and is used in multiple ways throughout the Bible
including 1) the daylight period in the diurnal cycle (Genesis 1:5, 14, 16, 18), 2) a normal
24-hour period and 3) an indefinite time period (Psalm 90:10; 2 2 Peter 3:8) (Neissen,
n.d.). In this theory, it is believed that each “day” of creation represents a large period of
time of geological history and, thus, allows for evolution. A subset of the “Day-Age
Theory” is the “Punctuated 24-Hour Theory,” which argues that the creation events of
Genesis did in fact occur within a 24-hour period with long periods of time in between
the creation “days” ("Nine views of creation,” 2015).
The “Apparent-Age Theory” seeks to reconcile the biblical account of a “young”
earth with scientific evidence of an “old” earth by maintaining that the universe was
created recently with a “built-in appearance of age, and so it looks old by whatever means
of age measurement we apply to it, but in reality it is young” (Menninga, 1988).
The last theory is that of “scientific creationism.” This theory relies very little on
direct scripture and instead seeks to support the rationale of a “young earth” model by
55
attempting to invalidate scientific findings showing an “old earth” and employing Flood
Geology—the idea that all the materials that make up our fossil record were buried within
a year due to a world-wide flood thousands of years ago (Weber,1980).
Biblical Support for Evolution?
The overwhelming majority of literature discussing evolution and the Bible either
centers around the Bible supporting Creationism or dialogue on how the Bible does not
conflict with Evolution. Overall, there are very few verses that have been referenced as
directly supporting Evolution.
Arguments against the Fiat Creation in Genesis
Neyman (2005) argues that the Scripture references for the creation of plants and
animals seem to support evolutionary theory better than it does fiat creation. To start, in
the third, fifth and sixth day of creation God created plants, animals and human kind;
however, the terminology used in these passages does not exactly match the mechanisms
of creation that one would expect to find if all matter was created from nothing. In
Genesis 1:11 and 1:20 God said “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it
was so,” and God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that
hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” Unlike
in Genesis 1: 3, 6, and 9 where God created light, firmament and the waters by stating
“Let there be…,” here God said “Let the earth and waters ‘bring forth’ ” abundant life.
Regarding the creation of Adam and Eve, it states that “God formed man of the dust of
56
the ground” (Genesis 2:7) and “the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made
he a woman” (Genesis 2:22). In both cases, man and woman are shaped from already
existing materials, which is dissimilar to the concept of a fiat creation.
Problems with the “Kind” Argument
Strict Creationists will also argue that the kinds reproduce after their own kind,
thus eliminating the possibility of their evolving into other kinds; however, this does not
address reproduction which could lead to evolving creatures (Neyman, 2005). During the
Genesis Creation, the majority of verses use the terms “let there be” or “bring forth,” and
in these verses the life created is created according to its kind. Yet the only verse that
mentions reproduction is Genesis 1:22, “And God blessed them, saying, be fruitful, and
multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.” In this verse,
“kind” is not mentioned, which would lead to the possibility that reproduction was either
not intended to be strictly between “kinds,” or that it was known that reproduction could
create circumstances that would make staying within the “kinds” that were present at the
beginning impossible. On the other hand, when discussing plant life the term “kind” is
used as Genesis 1:12 states that “the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind.” This
difference would make sense in so far as an orange tree produces oranges, a tomato plant
produces tomatoes and the fruit of any fruit bearing plant at any point in time will have
been the same kind as its parent plant. However, there is no command for plants to
reproduce and fill the earth after their own kind, only that they already bear fruit of their
kind.
57
Other Biblical Support of Evolution
As previously mentioned, there are very few direct verses mentioning evolution.
In addition to the interpretation of the first story of Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3) in which
God creates animals before humans, some Christians mention Ecclesiastes 3:18 (“I said
in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them,
and that they might see that they themselves are beasts”) and a verse (19:19) in the
deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom (“this is just what happened—land animals became
aquatic, swimming ones took to the land”) as relating to evolution; however, their context
and interpretation can be disputed.
Conclusion
The influence of the Bible on a person’s environmental consciousness and
attitudes is contingent on that person’s interpretation of the numerous verses and parables
relating to nature. However, regardless of whether a person takes a dominion of
stewardship position, the Bible does place great significance on humanity’s involvement
with the land and wildlife. Regarding evolution, there is no direct mention of the
evolutionary process, thus, there is greater emphasis on whether the text in the Genesis
Creation Story precludes or permits the acceptance of scientific evidence relating to
human origin.
Part Three: Review of Empirical Studies on Christian Environmentalism and
Evolution Acceptance
The final section of this literature review discusses some of the most important
and well-known empirical research studies relevant to the topic of environmental
attitudes and behaviours and evolution acceptance amongst Christians. The first section
58
of this review examines the conclusions of studies conducted on various environmental
characteristics amongst Christians, while the subsequent section examines the past and
current state of evolution belief and disbelief using primarily statistical data.
Studying Environmentalism
Origins and Historical Development
In 1967, historian Lynn White, in his now infamous publication “The Historical
Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” contended that Christianity has led to our present
environmental devastation by perpetrating anthropocentric values, creating “dualism”
between man and nature and justifying resource exploitation. This linkage between
Christian beliefs and anti-environmental dogma became known as “the White Thesis,”
and is widely regarded as the stimulus for decades of subsequent research regarding the
relationship between religion and the environment.
Following the release of “the White Thesis,” a debate formed on whether
Christianity could be unequivocally categorized as an enemy of nature and
environmentalism; this became the focus for socio-religious research during the 1970s
and 1980s. At the beginning, a large number of studies supported White’s theory;
however, at that time, scholars had difficulty empirically testing a claim that was based in
historical analysis and the inventories used to measure environmental attitudes were
underdeveloped and later refuted. As interest in this emergent field grew and research
continued throughout the 1990s and 2000s, successive studies revealed both positive and
negative correlations between religion and environmentalism and a preponderance of
research achieved mixed results.
59
A simple linkage that had been so clearly and fervently asserted has since
developed into an intricate and multifaceted issue. The question of whether Christianity
is inherently counter-environmental has progressed to a level that seeks to illuminate
supplementary factors affecting a person’s attitude toward nature. It is hoped that these
third variable studies will help explain the complex web of socio-political, educational,
cultural, and personal values that shape environmentalism within a religious context.
Empirical Evidence: Environmentalism
The first direct empirical study of “the White Thesis” was conducted by Hand and
Van Liere (1984) who hypothesized that “individuals more committed to the JudeoChristian tradition would more strongly accept the dominance of nature doctrine and
subsequently have lower levels of concern for environmental problems.” The study
found that Christians displayed higher commitment to a “mastery-over-nature”
orientation than non-Christians and were less concerned with environmental issues such
as pollution control. Other studies at this time (i.e. Weigel, 1977; Kellert & Berry, 1980;
Shaiko, 1987) found similar “dominance over nature” acceptance among Christian
respondents and this measure was assumed to be an indication of low environmentalism.
However, it was concluded that a “mastery over nature” orientation is not an accurate
gauge for environmental behaviour, as it can lead to attitudes of “stewardship” and high
environmental concern (Shaiko, 1987; Biel & Nilsson, 2005). In addition, later studies
found that dominion is not a belief that is reinforced by religious affiliation or doctrine
(Woodrum & Hoban, 1994; Eckberg & Blocker, 1996; Wolkomir et al., 1997a, 1997b;
Hitzhusen, 2007).
60
A dominance orientation was not the only measure of environmentalism. During
the1980s and early 1990s, religious sociologists used belief in biblical literalism (Eckberg
& Blocker, 1989; Greeley, 1993; and Woodrum & Hoban, 1994; Guth et al., 1995),
regularity of church attendance (Kanagy & Nelsen 1995), being born again (Sherkat &
Ellison 2007), frequency of prayer, and “personal religiosity” (Boyd, 1999) to test
environmental concern and commitment (Berry, 2013). The majority of these studies
yielded mixed results. For instance, Eckberg and Blocker (1989) and Guth et al. (1995)
determined that biblical literalism or “belief in the Bible” was a predictor of low
environmental concern while other authors (i.e. Wolkomir, et al, 1997a; Greeley, 1993;
Klineberg et al., 1998 ; Shultz et al., 2000) found little to no difference between biblical
and non-biblical literalists in the amount of pro-environmental behaviours performed;
however, Schultz et al.’s (2000) study revealed that Christian beliefs were negatively
related to eco-centrism and positively related to anthropocentrism, indicating that
Christian beliefs lead to more concern for people than animals and plants.
Certain studies have demonstrated a negative effect when correlating proenvironmental spending behaviours with Christian beliefs. For example, it was shown
that individuals displaying strong Christian beliefs are less likely to support spending for
environmental protection (Kanagy et al., 1994; Klineberg et al., 1998; Truelove &
Joireman, 2009), perform fewer pro-environmental political behaviours (Truelove &
Joireman, 2009) or “culturally green” behaviours such as eating organic produce or
reducing driving habits (Eckberg & Blocker, 1996). Several studies attributed
inconsistency in the findings to religious fundamentalism stating that "the negative effect
of Christian 'theology' seems to be largely an effect of fundamentalism" (Eckberg &
61
Blocker, 1996) and proposed that while religious fundamentalism negatively predicts
environmentalism, “religious affiliation strength has positive effects on individual
environmental concern” (Woodrum, & Wolkomir, 1997).
When religious fundamentalism is excluded, research has pointed to a possible
positive effect of religion on pro-environmental attitudes (Haluza-Delay, 2000;
Hitzhusen, 2007) due to the tendency of Christians to believe nature is “sacred” (Eckberg
and Blocker, 1996; Dietz et al., 1998; Greeley, 1993; Kempton, Boster, & Hartley, 1995).
It has even been argued that Judeo-Christian tradition is a main cause of proenvironmental behaviour (i.e. Naess, 1989; Whitney, 1993). In 1995, Kempton et al.
claimed that in the United States, “the most common sources of environmental values are
spiritual and religious” after discovering an “openness to religiously motivated
environmental concern” among respondents. The idea that “it is wrong to abuse God’s
creation” was supported not only by Christians, but also by 68 percent of the nonreligious respondents and 47 percent of atheists. In a similar fashion, Hawthorne and
Alabaster’s (1999) study in the United Kingdom ranked “religious affiliation as a highly
influential factor in environmental citizenship behaviour” and some studies have even
concluded that religious Americans behave in more pro-environmental ways than secular
people (Kanaby & Willits, 1993; Shibley & Wiggins, 1997).
Conversely, numerous studies have concluded that Christian religious beliefs have
no effect on a person’s likelihood to be more or less environmentally concerned (Ester &
Seuren, 1992; Black, 1997; Dekker et al., 1997; Kim, 1999) and are weak predictors of
environmentalism (Boyd, 1999). Kanagy and Nelsen (1995) found Christians to be less
environmentally supportive in some measures, but effects diminish with the addition of
62
controls. Hayes and Marangudakis (2000) concluded that “overall, religious
identification is a relatively weak and inconsistent predictor of environmental attitudes
and behaviour across nations" and "there is no significant difference between Christians
and non-Christians concerning environmental attitudes" (2001).
The divergent results obtained by sociologists and religious researchers since “the
White Thesis” may be partly due to contrasting values in Christian doctrine. Christian
teaching embraces values that promote the welfare of people and nature, as well as values
that legitimize the exploitation of nature (Biel & Nilsson, 2005). Therefore, these
contradictory views can be partially attributed to specific parts of the Bible being
emphasized in creating causal links between religious values and environmental concern
and behaviour (Gardner & Stern, 1996). A second confounding issue may lie in the
methodology used to assess beliefs and attitudes. For instance, certain studies have
neglected to control for important variables (i.e. Eckberg & Blocker, 1989), while others
have used a single or ambiguous measure of environmental concern (i.e. Greeley, 1993)
(Biel & Nilsson, 2005). Additionally, other studies employed questions that were not
adequate measurement for pro-environmental attitudes or behaviour (i.e. Greeley, 1993;
Hayes & Marangudakis, 2001). This methodological concern is especially relevant in
light of research that has found that the relationship between Christian beliefs and
environmentalism is contingent on the way in which environmentalism is measured
(Klineberg, McKeever, & Rothenbach, 1998). However, to fully gain an accurate
understanding of the relationship between environmentalism and religion and explain
these inconsistent results, research is needed that moves beyond simply testing the
63
Christianity–environmentalism relationship and instead investigates the mechanisms
underlying this relationship (Truelove & Joireman, 2009).
Evolution Polls
The “Evolution Debate” has proved to be a persistent and impassioned topic in
the U.S. education system and American culture in general. Since the late 1970s, various
research organizations have been assessing and tracing the public’s acceptance of and
attitudes toward the Theory of Evolution. Although not extensive, some research has
been conducted as to the factors influencing a person’s level of acceptance.
In 2005, a Gallup poll showed that the majority of Americans are interested in the
origins of the human race with 76 percent of respondents reporting that they contemplate
the various explanations for human existence a moderate to great amount, and “which
theory is correct” greatly matters to 66 percent (Gallup, 2014). Overall, surveys
measuring acceptance of evolution in the U.S. have shown a consistent two-to-one
acceptance to rejection ratio. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center analysis, six-inten Americans say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” while a
third reject the idea of evolution, saying that “humans and other living things have
existed in their present form since the beginning of time” (Pew Research Center, 2013).
In 1993, 1994, and 2000, the General Social Survey (GSS) asked ‘‘how true’’ is the
statement: ‘‘Human beings evolved from earlier species of animals,’ and 53 percent
called the statement definitely or probably not true (Mazur, 2005). In a study done by
GfK Public Affairs & Corporate Communications (2014), only 31 percent were
extremely/very confident that “human beings evolved through a process of natural
64
selection” whereas 24 percent were somewhat confident and 42 percent were not at all
confident. Similarly, a 2013 Harris poll indicated that 47 percent of respondents believed
in evolution, 29 percent don't believe in evolution, and 25 percent were not sure. In the
same study, longitudinal results since 2005 revealed that believers in "Darwin's Theory of
Evolution" gained five percent and believers in creationism lost three percent, which is
not a significant change (Harris, 2013). A study by the Pew Research Center (2013)
asked respondents who believed that humans evolved over time for their views on the
processes responsible for evolution. Roughly a quarter of adults (24%) said that “a
supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans
and other life forms,” while about a third (32%) said that evolution is “due to natural
processes such as natural selection.” Additionally, Gallup polls have shown barely any
shift in the percentage of Americans believing that ‘‘God created human beings pretty
much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so’’ (Newport,
2014). Since 1982, Gallup has conducted 12 general population surveys asking
participants
questions related to
the origins of
humans. In the
latest poll (Gallup,
2014), 31 percent
of respondents
agreed that
“humans evolved
Figure 3: Creationist and Evolution Beliefs (1982-2014),
Gallup, 2014
65
with God guiding,” 19 percent agreed that “Humans evolved, but God had no part in the
process,” and 42 percent agreed that “God created humans in present form.” In addition
to illustrating that an overwhelming majority of the U.S. believes God had a role in
human creation (73%), it also shows the consistency of these opinions over time with
percentages varying less than 10 percent in each category ( “God guiding process” range:
31%-40%, average: 36.5 %; “God not involved” range: 9%-19%, average: 12.9%; “God
created humans” range: 40%-47%, average: 44.4%) (Figure 3).
Furthermore, this disbelief in evolutionary principles is not a global constant.
Citizens of the U.S. are less likely than are citizens of Europe and several non-European
nations to believe that humans evolved from an earlier species (Mazur, 2005). A 2001
“Euro-barometer” poll composed of true-false questions reported that only 17 percent of
Europeans denied that humans
‘‘evolved from older animal
species’’ (Directorate-General for
Research, 2001). In 1993 and 2000,
the International Social Survey
Programme (ISSP; ISSP Research
Group, 1995 & 2003) asked 30
nations the GSS’s evolution
question and in both years the
United States comprised the largest
population of disbelief at 54 percent
Figure 4: Percentage of Disbelief in Evolution
by Nation, ISSP, 2000
(Figure 4).
66
Several theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon, including the
association of creationist belief with conservative political views, regional culture
(Southern), lifestyle influence (rural), minority subcultures or closed
mindedness/resistance to scientific evidence (Mazur, 2005); however, the most popular
theories attributes Americans’ anti-evolutionary stance to “strong religion and weak
education.” In this 2005 study, it was found that religious belief is the “primary
correlate”—and may be the chief determinant—of Americans’ attitudes toward the lifesciences claim that humans evolved from earlier species (Mazur, 2005), and that
measurement of religiosity explains far more variation in evolutionary belief than do
education and age. This theory may explain the trend of American disbelief, seeing as
creationism (including intelligent design) is predominantly a Protestant and
predominantly a U.S. phenomenon (Martin, 2010), although complete disbelief in the
evolutionary process differs among denominations.
A 2005 Gallup poll asked about the relationship between science and religion,
and 24 percent said the two “agree with each other,” 35 percent said they “conflict” and
36 percent said they are “not related” (Gallup, 2014). In the most recent Gallup poll
(2014), when asked whether “the Theory of Evolution is consistent or inconsistent with
your religious beliefs” the responses were equally divided (consistent: 46%; inconsistent
46%). Evolution appears to be a pivotal issue in creating this schism between science
and religion. Fifty-three percent of both Protestants and Catholics in the U.S. feel that
“science and religion are often in conflict,” with 41 percent of that group referring
specifically to evolution as an area of conflict (Pew Research Center, 2009). Protestant
groups are divided on the issue, with more “mainstream” denominations such as
67
Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian accepting evolutionary biology as being
compatible with their faith, and more fundamentalist or Pentecostal groups denying
compatibility or rejecting evolution (Martin, 2010). A Pew Research study (2008),
measuring acceptance of evolution among religious denominations, asked whether
“Evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life” and 35 percent of
protestants, 58 percent of Catholics, and 55 percent of orthodox practitioners agreed.
Agreement amongst atheists, agnostics, secularists was 87 percent, 87 percent, and 77
percent, respectively.
Not only have trends between Christian affiliation or denomination and rejection
of evolution been associated, there is evidence to suggest that the extent to which a
person practices Christianity may determine his or her likelihood to accept evolution.
Mazur (2005) found that Christian religiosity was the strongest correlate of disbelief in
evolution, and other research confirms that, across many religious traditions, the more
highly committed tend to be less likely to believe in evolution (Pew Research Center,
2008). Among the public overall, nearly two-thirds (63%) of those who attend religious
services at least once a week reject the idea of evolution, compared with only a third
(33%) of those who attend less often (Pew Research Center, 2008). These findings were
upheld in
the 2012
Gallup Poll
that found
nearly 60
percent of
Figure 5: Church Attendance vs. Acceptance of Evolution, Newport, 2012
68
Americans who attend religious services weekly chose the creationist alternative,
compared with 25 percent of those who say they seldom or never attend church (Figure
5) (Newport, 2012). An in-depth study by Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU)
revealed numerous associations between science and religiosity. Similar to Gallup and
Pew Research, VCU found those who were somewhat religious tended to believe that
“God guided the process” (38%) versus those that were moderately to highly religious
(28% and 20%) or not religious at all (15%) (Funk & Huff, 2010).
Moreover, only 18 percent of moderately to highly religious people supported the
Theory of Evolution, while this percentage rose to 57 percent among non-religious
people. Responses of participants with varying levels of daily religious commitment
(high, medium, low, none) had no significant difference regarding how much attention a
person pays to scientific developments and perceived societal benefit from science.
However, those whose daily lives were highly influenced by religion were less likely to
view “scientific research as essential for improving human quality of life” and more
likely to see science as “not paying enough attention to moral values.” Regarding
compatibility, 56 percent of highly religious participants felt that evolution conflicts with
their beliefs, and 30 percent felt religion and evolution were compatible; this rose to 46
percent among moderately and somewhat religious people (Funk & Huff, 2010). Lastly,
a survey conducted by Lifeway (2012) asked 1,000 American Protestant pastors to
respond to the statement, "I believe God used evolution to create people" where 73
percent of pastors disagreed (with 64% strongly disagreeing) and 12 percent each
somewhat agreed and strongly agreed (Roach, 2012). Evangelical pastors were more
likely than their mainline colleagues to strongly agree that Adam and Eve were literal
69
people (82% vs. 50%) (Roach, 2012). Only 36 percent of pastors teach on creation and
evolution more than once a year, 26 percent teach on it once a year, and 29 percent rarely
teach, and eight percent never teach on creation or evolution (Roach, 2012).
Conclusion
The overall trends of these polls reveal that 1) the U.S. is a global leader
regarding disbelief in evolution, 2) a majority of Americans believe in divinely-guided
human development process and do not fully accept the Theory of Evolution, and 3) the
more religiously active a person is, the more likely he or she will be to reject evolution.
These results have shown minimal changes over time, and reinforce the notion that a
Christian belief system may negatively impact a person’s willingness to accept the
Theory of Evolution.
Literature Review Conclusion
Review of the available historical, doctrinal and empirical information regarding
environmentalism and evolution within the Christian sphere illuminates the exceedingly
complex and varying relationship between these fields. The variation of views present
throughout the past—and which has been seen in contemporary research—might be
caused by divergent interpretations of scripture, differences in denominational values,
and/or regional, political, and other social factors. A majority of these socio-political
factors have been investigated in regard to environmentalism or evolution and
Christianity, and an impressive amount of knowledge has been gained. However, these
studies have approached research in the framework of how socio-political or religious
70
factors affect understanding and behaviours toward the environment or evolution, and not
how these two science-based fields might be related more directly to one another than to
specific Christian principles or religious behaviours.
The remainder of this thesis strives to illuminate the potential link between a
positive or negative environmental stance and a positive or negative view of evolution
within the Christian mindset. By conducting the following survey research with the help
of nationwide Christian clergy, it is hoped that a correlation between pro-environmental
attitudes and acceptance of evolution can either be supported or rejected. Either outcome
will help to inform knowledge regarding how science-based political issues and Christian
beliefs interrelate. In addition, assessment of the effects of denominational, demographic
and doctrinal interpretation discrepancies on these two attitude variables will be
performed.
71
Methodology
Participants
Clergy
In order to test the relationship between the acceptance of evolution and proenvironmental attitudes within the context of Christianity, clergy members nationwide
were selected for participation. The rationale to focus exclusively on Christian clergy
members to test these two variables and not the general public, or church attendees, was
decided based on four factors. First, there is greater accessibility to contact information
for church leadership than church goers. Second, a comparable level of moderately-high
to high religiosity amongst participants was desired as numerous studies have shown that
level of religious commitment and disbelief in evolution are positively correlated. In
these religion/evolution polls, religious commitment levels were determined by frequency
of attendance and/or frequency of prayer. Participants who attended church weekly or
almost weekly, and who reported praying one or more times per week were considered to
be moderately-high to highly religious. Considering these criteria and choice of vocation,
for the purpose of this study, it was assumed that clergy members have a moderately-high
to high level of religious commitment. This assumption allowed for a larger number of
survey questions regarding environmental and attitudes toward evolution by
circumventing the need to test the religiosity of the respondent and eliminate surveys
where a lower level of religious commitment was indicated. Third, it was also assumed
that clergy would have read the Bible in its entirety versus reading completion of the
general public (20%) or practicing Christians (61%) (Barne, 2013). This greater
familiarity with the Bible would allow for inquiry regarding whether Biblical tenets and
72
specific verses influence the respondent’s attitudes toward Nature and the origins of
human creation. Last, a fairly high response rate was expected from clergy due to
greater potential interest in research pertaining to their field of work and study.
Collection Methods
Random Selection
Six cities in each of the 50 U.S. states were chosen for the collection process.
The cities selected were geographically dissimilar (>75 miles apart, and/or in different
counties) and representative of the varying range of city population size according to the
“State Population Type.” The State Population Type is a measure and designation of a
state’s population range and was created for this study. After analyzing city population
trends in numerous states, five categories of state population types were devised using the
most appropriate combination of the following city size designations: Metropolitan
(MET, 1,000,000+), Densely Urbanized Area (DUA, >250,000 and <1,000,000),
Urbanized Area (UA, >50,000 and <250,000), Urbanized Cluster (UC, >10,000 and
<50,000), Dense Rural (DR, >2,500 and <10,000) and Rural (R, >1,000 and <2,500).
For states not containing a Metropolitan or a Densely Urbanized Area, multiple
Urbanized Clusters or Rural city designations were applied with smaller ranges (i.e. UC=
>10,000 and < 50,000, but UC1 =>25,000 and < 50,000 and UC2= >10,000 and <
25,000). Table 2 below shows the city designations and population ranges for all five
state categories.
73
MET
DUA
UA
UC
DR
R
DUA
UA1
UA2
UC
DR
R
UA
UC1
UC2
DR
R1
R2
Type Five
Type Four
1,000,000+
DUA1
>500,000 and <1,000,000
>250,000 and <1,000,000
DUA2
>250,000 and <500,000
>50,000 and <250,000
UA
>50,000 and <250,000
>10,000 and < 50,000
UC
>10,000 and < 50,000
>2,500 and <10,000
DR
>2,500 and <10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
R
>1,000 and <2,500
Type Three
Type Two
>250,000 and <500,000
UA1
>100,000 and <250,000
>100,000 and <250,000
UA2
>50,000 and <100,000
>50,000 and <100,000
UC1
>25,000 and < 50,000
>10,000 and < 50,000
UC2
>10,000 and < 25,000
>2,500 and <10,000
R1
>1,000 and <2,500
>1,000 and <2,500
R2
>1,000 and <2,500
Type 1
>50,000 and <100,000
>25,000 and <50,000
>10,000 and < 25,000
>2,500 and < 10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>1,000 and <2,500
Table 2: State Population Type and City Population Range Criteria
Utilizing state population information from the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, states
were given a “State Type” according to the total population of their most populated city.
After assessment, there were six Type Five states, 16 Type Four states, 10 Type Three
states, 13 Type Two States and five Type One states (list of state designations is available
in Appendix C). It must be noted that several states were given a dual state type with a
combined/modified city population range scale based on the unique city population
spread for that state. In all cases this was due to the state having a very large population
in one city which was disproportionately large compared to the rest of the cities in that
state. This caused the particular state to be placed in a larger state type category although
cities with populations fitting the second and sometimes third designations for population
range were not present. These states were New Mexico, Massachusetts, Maryland,
Oregon, Tennessee, Hawaii, Idaho, Alaska, and Vermont.
74
After six cities with appropriate location and population size were selected for all
50 states, a combination of chamber of commerce local business listings, Yahoo!, Google
and Church.org database searches were used to locate Christian churches. Mormon,
Jehovah witness, Mennonite and Jewish churches were omitted from collection, as these
branches exclude portions of the Bible or use additional religious materials or doctrines
to inform their beliefs and practices. In order to be selected for distribution, the church
had to have a functional web-site with a direct e-mail address to the church leader (i.e.
pastor@churchname.org, or a personal e-mail address pastorbob@gmail.com or
Bob123@hotmail.com). General church e-mails (i.e. info@churchname.org) were
included only when it was indicated as the best method for contacting the clergy member.
An average of 70 churches per state and a total of 3,578 e-mail addresses were collected
between the dates of February16th and 22nd, 2015. Effort was made to collect a
comparable number of churches from each denomination for each city and state.
However, due to extreme variation in the prevalence of certain denominations in certain
regions, this could not be accomplished for all states. As a result, a representative sample
was taken that reflected the available denominations in each of the six cities chosen for
the state except Utah. It was found that all selected collection cities for Utah, save for
Salt Lake City, yielded fewer than five non-Mormon churches with contact information.
In order to obtain a larger number of churches for the state, the entire state, and not
individual cities, was searched for churches.
75
Targeted Selection
In addition to the general random distribution, three groups whose position on
evolution was already confirmed were contacted. These groups were incorporated into
the study in an attempt to ensure that data were gathered from participants whose beliefs
regarding evolution spanned across the range of acceptance, which may have been
missed in the general distribution. The groups selected included a pro-evolution group,
an intelligent design group, and a creationist group.
Pro-Evolution
The Clergy Letter Project was established in 2004 by biologist and Provost for
The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA, Michael Zimmerman, in order to
demonstrate the support of evolution by U.S. clergy members. The Christian Clergy
Letter (Zimmerman, 2004) states that “the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries
of modern science may comfortably coexist” and that” the theory of evolution is a
foundational scientific truth.” As of March 2nd, 2015, a total of 13,001 clergy members
had signed the Letter. Using the names and church addresses listed on the Evolution
Weekend web-site, 178 direct e-mail addresses of signers were retrieved from the
respective church web-site.
Intelligent Design
In 1991, Bruce Chapman and George Gilder founded the Discovery Institute in
Seattle, Washington. The organization focuses on “the role that science and technology
play in our culture” and “supports the advancement of free markets, and illuminates
76
public policy” and is a proponent of intelligent design. Although a list of churches
subscribing to the Discovery Institute Ideology could not be located, a list of 59 addresses
for churches across the U.S. who co-hosted the “Science and Faith” Simulcast in 2014 (a
Discovery Institute event) was found via the Discovery Institute web page. Of the
churches listed, 48 had functional church web-sites with e-mail addresses available, and a
total of 70 surveys were sent out (numerous churches had co-pastors with direct e-mails).
Creationism
The Creation Letter (Breeden, 2008) was created by writer and creation advocate,
Tony Breeden, in response to Michael Zimmerman’s pro-evolution Clergy Letter. The
Creation Letter “affirms the literal, historical truth of God’s Revealed Word” and as of
March 3rd, 2015 had 76 signers. Due to the signers not being limited to clergy, lack of
church web-sites and several signers not posting their affiliated establishment, a total of
13 e-mails were collected from the addresses posted on the creation letter web-site.
Distribution
Between February 24th and 26th, 2015 3,839 e-mails were sent to the selected
clergy members using the SurveyMonkey e-mail distribution function with a one week
delayed reminder to unresponded recipients. The anticipated response rate was five
percent.
77
Survey Measurement
The questionnaire for this study consisted of 37 questions (five demographic, 21
environmental measures, 11 evolution measures), and was created using SurveyMonkey
software. A complete copy of this survey is located in Appendix D.
Environmentalism Measurement
Four Dimensions
In order to evaluate the participant’s level of environmentalism, the survey design
incorporated the four dimensional indicators proposed by Sanchez and Lafuente (2010)
as a standard measurement of “Environmental Consciousness,” which is defined as
“specific psychological factors related to individual’s propensity to engage in proenvironmental behaviours” (Zelezny & Shultz, 2000). The dimensional indicators include
“Affective” (perception about environmental conditions), “Cognitive” (level of
information), “Dispositional” (attitudes toward action) and “Active” (engagement in proenvironmental behaviours). This four measurement model has been defined and tested
in various other studies such as Kaiser et al. (1999a, 1999b) whose measures included
Knowledge (EK), Values (EV), Intention (EBI) and Responsibility Feelings (RF).
Furthermore, in their paper “Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement
Issues,” Dunlap and Jones (2002) compare two historical measures of environmentalism.
The first, the “Policy Approach”(Heberlien, 1981), uses the criteria of “Cause/
Responsibility (Solutions), Seriousness, Support (intention) and Behaviour” to assess an
individual’s attitudes toward environmental policies. The second, the “Theoretical
Approach,” uses a four dimensional criteria of “Cognitive, Affective, Conative and
78
Behavioural” from the psychology and attitude theory (Ester, 1981) to focus on
individuals’ expression of concern. However, Schaffrin (2011) argues that these two
measures (i.e. “Policy Approach” and “Theoretical Approach”) can be combined based
on the “similarities between the components,” as both contain an aspect of Knowledge,
Emotive/Evaluative, Policy Support and Action. The latter mentioned four aspects are
comparative to both Sanchez and Lafuente’s, and Kaisers’ measurement dimensions.
Additionally, questions testing for these four dimensions in varied ratios can be located in
international questionnaires such as the International Society of Sustainability
Professionals (ISSP; 1995, 2003, 2012) and the Commitment to Environmental
Sustainability Scale (CESS) (Cotton & Alcock, 2012).
In addition to defining a four dimensional model, Sanchez and Lafuente outlined
sub-categories, or “facets”
within these dimensions
that comprised the
dimension (Table 3). In
order to assess these
“facets” questions were
either borrowed from the
ISSP, the CESS, Pew
Research Center and the
Revised New
Environmental Paradigm
(NEP) or self-written and
79
tailored to the specific participant group. Overall, eight questions assess the Cognitive
Dimension, six assess Affective, three assess Dispositional and four assess Active.
Consideration of Other Measurements
The Revised New Environmental Paradigm
At present, the most widely applied measure of pro-environmental orientation is
the Revised New Environmental Paradigm, frequently referred to as simply “the NEP” or
“the Revised NEP.” The original NEP was created by Dunlap and Van Liere in 1978 and
contained 12 statements that attempted to determine a population’s transition from the
“dominant social paradigm” (DSP) to a more environmentally conscious world-view.
The NEP was later revised and expanded to 15 questions in 2000 by Dunlap et al. in
order to 1) tap a wider range of facets of an ecological world-view, 2) offer a balanced set
of pro- and anti- NEP items and 3) avoid outdated terminology. However, the Revised
NEP has received criticism in three main areas as discussed by Anderson (2012). First, it
has been argued that the scale is missing certain elements of a pro-ecological world-view.
Second, certain research has found that links between pro-environmental NEP results and
pro-environmental behaviours are weak. Third, although Dunlap and Van Liere claim
that the NEP scale only measures the one dimension (i.e. endorsement of a pro- or antienvironmental world-view), studies have shown that the NEP may capture more than one
world-view. For this particular study, it was decided that a design that measured worldview, as well as behaviour, values and awareness, would be the most affective to
accurately determine the respondent’s pro-environmental consciousness.
80
Evolution Measurement
Respondents’ attitudes regarding the “Theory of Evolution” were assessed using
primarily questions from national and international polls. Peer-reviewed literature
regarding specific approaches used for gauging attitudes toward evolution could not be
located. Instead, this section was informed mainly by analyzing survey layout, standard
terminology and recurring question format throughout evolution questionnaires
distributed by Harris Interactive (2009), Pew Research Center (2005, 2006, 2007, 2013),
National Opinion Research Center (Bishop, 2006), Virginia Commonwealth University
(2010), Louisiana State University (2009) and Gallup, Inc. (2005, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2012, 2014), the latter of which has been surveying attitudes toward evolution since
1982. After review, three assessment criteria were established which included 1)
understanding of evolutionary processes, 2) perception of conflict with religion and 3)
general acceptance of evolution. Staple questions were borrowed from the formerlymentioned polls and additional questions were developed to assess specific issues related
to religion and science. The evolution section contained six Knowledge questions, two
Perception of Conflict questions and three Acceptance questions.
Data Analysis
Quantitative Analysis
Multiple Choice Responses
Data was exported from SurveyMonkey to Excel in both a text and numeric value
format. Likert scale questions were designed with answer weights of one to five. All
answers to the other non-Likert scale questions were given a numeric value of one to five.
81
A score of one indicated the lowest measure of environmental knowledge, behaviour,
values, etc. and low evolution acceptance, knowledge, etc. while a five indicated the
highest measure. Questions were categorized according to their respective dimension
(Environment: Cognitive, Dispositional, Affective, and Active; Evolution:
Understanding, Perception of Conflict with Religion and Acceptance) and the scores
were averaged to produce a “total” for each of the seven dimensions. Scores for the
environmental and evolution dimensions were averaged to produce an overall
“environmental total” and “evolution total.”
JMP statistical software was used to perform a multivariate correlation analysis
between each of the four environmental and three evolution dimensions, as well as a
correlation between the environmental and evolution totals.
Open-ended Responses
Two optional essay/comment-style questions (ENV Q21, EVOL Q14) were
included which asked clergy to discuss any biblical passages used to inform their view on
environmentalism or evolution. Responses citing specific Bible verses were grouped
according to “Book” and compared against the respective environmental and evolution
total of that clergy member in order to determine whether a trend was present between
certain verses and total score.
Comparative Analysis
Environmental and evolution totals were analyzed according to each demographic
factor (i.e. religious denomination, U.S. region, gender, age, education level, affiliation
82
with pro- or anti- evolution groups, and rurality) to determine whether totals were
significantly different between demographic groups. The data were tested for equal
variance (Levene’s Test) and normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk’s Test). Because all
demographic data failed to meet these assumptions (i.e. data contained unequal variances
and non-normal distribution) p-values for significant difference were conducted using
Monte Carlo Resampling in Excel-Resampling 2007 for age, gender, rurality and
affiliation. Due to a greater number of demographic categories, significant difference
between dimensions for U.S. region and religious denomination was determined using a
non-parametric Steel-Dwass All Pair comparison analysis in JMP.
For all non-open-end survey questions, visual graphs of data were produced using
Excel 2007. Data for environmental questions Q9, and Q14 and evolution questions Q1,
Q2, Q4, Q6, Q9 and Q13 were compared against available poll data from Pew Research
(ENV Q9, Q14) and Gallup (EVOL Q1, Q2, Q4, Q6, Q9, Q13).
83
Results
SurveyMonkey collected 666 responses between February 16th and 22nd. After
elimination of respondents with incomplete or missing data (55) and those indicating a
religious denomination outside the scope of this study (i.e. Unitarian, Mennonite,
Mormon, etc.), a total of 601 surveys were analyzed. A complete list of data figures is
located in Appendices E-H.
Demographic Results
Of the 12 religious denominations surveyed, Episcopalian/Anglican had the
highest percentage of responses at 14%, followed closely by Lutheran (13%), Baptist
(13%) and Methodist/Wesleyan (13%). Non-denominational and Presbyterian both made
up 10 percent of responses, while Congressional/Reformed and Catholic were both nine
percent. The fewest responses were collected for Evangelical (5%),
Pentecostal/Charismatic (4%), Restoration (1%) and Orthodox (1%).
Regarding regional location of
church, South Atlantic (16%),
Mountain (15%), East North Central
(15%), West North Central (14%) and
West South Central (11%) each
comprised more than 10 percent of total
responses, whereas Pacific (9%), New
England (8%), Mid-Atlantic (6%) and
Region
States
DE, FL, GA, MD, NC,
SC, VA, DC, WV
AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV,
Mountain
NM, UT, WY
West North Central IA, KS, MN, MO, NE,
ND, SD
IL, IN, MI, OH, WI
East North Central
West South Central AR, LA, OK, TX
AK, CA, HI, OR, WA
Pacific
CT, ME, MA, NH, RI,
New England
VT
NJ, NY, PA
Mid-Atlantic
AL, KY, MS, TN
East South Central
Table 4: States Divided by Census Regions
South Atlantic
East South Central (4%) were less than 10 percent.
84
The largest age group to respond was 55 to 64 (38%), followed by 45 to 54
(21%), 35 to 44 (17%), 65 or older (13%) and 25 to 34 (11%). The sixth age bracket
(under 25) only received one response, and was, therefore, excluded from comparative
analysis.
Reported education level of respondents was as follows: 68% held a Graduate
degree, 22% held a Doctoral degree and 8% had at least a Bachelor’s degree. Those with
a High School diploma or G.E.D. or Associate degree accounted for two percent and one
percent, respectively. Respondents were not asked what type of degree they held.
The majority of respondents were male (79%) with females making up less than a
quarter (21%). In addition, gender ratios within the denominations were highly
disproportional,
except for
Episcopalian/Ang
lican where
response rates
from men and
women were
equal (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Number of Respondents Divided by Denomination and Gender
Analyzing and Interpreting the Results
Environmental and Evolution Correlations
This thesis set out to determine whether there is a significant relationship between
environmental consciousness and attitudes toward evolution, and to investigate the nature
85
and compositional factors of this relationship. In order to respond to this query, a
multivariate pairwise analysis between the Environmental and Evolution Totals of the
respondents as well as between all seven dimensions totals was conducted and revealed
several notable relationships. Note that for the following results the “r” correlation factor
(r=0.000 to 1.000) indicates the strength of the correlation with r=1.000 signifying a
perfect positive correlation and r=0.000 indicating no correlation.
The correlation between all environmental
dimensions (Environmental Total) and all
evolution dimensions (Evolution Total) was
r=0.769 (Figure 7). The strength of this
correlation factor supports the hypothesis that a
significant relationship does exist between a
person’s views on the environment and evolution,
and that this relationship is positive and linear. In
Figure 7: Multivariate Scatterplot
of Environmental and Evolution
Totals
addition, there appears to be a polarized composition of the scatterplots in Figure 7, with
a higher concentration of respondent totals falling in the upper right and lower left
portion of the line. These groupings illustrate that, while the relationship is linear,
attitudes are not evenly distributed across the spectrum, but instead tend to separate
toward opposite ends. These polarized groupings are not surprising given the political
nature of environmentalism and evolution.
Because this analysis illustrates that the environmental and evolution beliefs of
highly religious Christian individuals fall along a spectrum and are not unified regarding
one perspective, it is, thusly, concluded that a person’s devotion to the Christian doctrine
86
should be used as a general predictor of that person’s stance regarding these issues.
However, the positive and linear correlation between pro-environmental and pro-attitudes
toward evolution and vice versa might be more related to a person’s general underlying
attitude toward scientific authority regardless of religious affiliation or religiosity.
Dimension Correlations
In addition to the overall correlation between the environmental and evolution
totals, the four environmental dimensions (Cognitive, Dispositional, Affective and
Active) and three evolution dimensions (Knowledge, Perception of Conflict and
Acceptance) were correlated with each other to establish how these components of
environmentalism and attitudes toward evolution interrelate to one another.
Environmental Dimensions
Figure 8: Environmental Dimensions - Religious Denomination
87
Among the environmental dimensions, the strongest relationships were between
Dispositional Total and Affective Total (r=0.849) and Dispositional Total and Active
Total (r=0.789). Additionally, Active and Affective Totals had a high correlation at
r=0.744. These high correlation factors between the Dispositional, Affective and Active
scores suggests that the respondent’s intention/disposition toward pro- environmental
consciousness is strongly tied to the likelihood that (s)he will hold pro-environmental
values and exhibit pro-environmental behaviours and vice versa. However, Active Totals
(2.01-3.41) were consistently the lowest scoring dimension across denominations (Figure
8), demonstrating that a person who values the environment may not behave in an ecoconscious manner at the same rate.
Cognitive and Active Totals had the weakest correlation (r=0.544) between any
of the environmental dimensions, followed by Cognitive and Affective (r-0.567) and
Cognitive and Dispositional (r=0.561). The low correlation between Knowledge and the
three other dimensions indicates that attitudes and actions regarding the environment are
more strongly influenced by the value that a person places on the environment rather than
his/her direct scientific knowledge of environmental function. It might also be the case
that the questions used to assess the respondent’s knowledge of nature were too simplistic
and/or too few to accurately gauge the environmental literacy of this highly educated
sample. However, it must also be noted that the low correlation of the Cognitive
dimension with the other dimensions does not necessarily thwart the notion of scientific
authority as an underlying variable. The Cognitive questions in this instance sought to
determine the respondent’s personal knowledge regarding ecology, not his/her attitudes
toward the knowledge provided by those in the scientific community. The low Cognitive
88
correlation may even support the idea that a person’s environmental values, intentions
and behaviours can be influenced by acceptance or rejection of scientific authority
regardless of personal knowledge level.
Evolution Dimensions
Figure 9: Evolution Dimensions - Religious Denomination
Between the evolution dimensions, there was a high correlation between
Acceptance Total and the Perception of Conflict Total (r=0.8031). It must be noted that
in this thesis a high score for “Perception of Conflict” indicates that the person perceives
“no” conflict between religion and science, while a low score indicates that there is
perceived conflict. The high correlation between accepting the Theory of Evolution and
seeing no conflict with Biblical tenets implies that acceptance of evolution may be
contingent on the belief that evolutionary science does not conflict with or is unrelated to
religious scripture. This notion is further supported by the fact that Knowledge stayed
89
relatively stable (4.38-3-34; Figure 9) and had a weaker link to Acceptance (r=0.723) and
Perception of Conflict (r=0.662) than Acceptance had with Perception of Conflict
(r=0.8031). Similar to the Environmental Dimensions, this suggests that acceptance of
evolution may be more strongly tied to the presence of lack of perceived conflict between
the Bible and evolutionary principles than to general knowledge of evolution. However,
as with the Cognitive dimension, the questions used to assess Knowledge of evolution
may have been overly limited or insufficient given the education level of the respondents.
In addition, the Knowledge questions utilized in this study were aimed at determining
personal scientific understanding of evolution concepts and not the respondent’s
understanding of the scientific evidence offered by the science community. Again, this
finding may support the idea that an individual’s Acceptance of evolution or Perception
of Conflict may be influenced by perception of scientific authority despite having low or
high personal knowledge.
Environmental vs. Evolution Knowledge
Lastly, high or low knowledge of evolution did not necessarily correlate to high or
low environmental knowledge (r=0.578). This could be a result of the environmental
knowledge assessment questions being less difficult than the evolution knowledge
questions, environmental information being more widely publicized or perhaps those
interested and well-versed regarding one of these fields may not necessarily be interested
or well-studied in the other.
90
Demographic Correlations
The following results section reviews the seven demographic categories that were
included in this study (religious denomination, region, gender, age, education level,
rurality, and organization affiliation) in order to determine whether demographic trends
are present and how these trends compare to other research.
Religious Denomination
Figure 10: Demographic Correlations – Religious Denomination
Among the 12 surveyed Christian denominations, the scores for those with at least
10 respondents were compared for significant difference (Figure 10), which excluded the
Orthodox/Eastern (n=3) and Restoration Denominations (n=7). Although efforts were
made to collect an even sample number of denominations, Orthodox/Eastern and
Restoration were underrepresented due to either lack of presence on the internet or in the
cities selected for surveying.
91
Episcopalian, Congregational and Methodist were the highest scoring
denominations for Environmental Total (3.67 – 4.10) and there was no significant
difference between them. Episcopalian, Congregational, Methodist plus Catholic were the
highest on Evolution Total (3.86-4.27) with no significant difference. Evangelical,
Baptist, Non-denominational and Pentecostal had the lowest scores regarding both
Environmental (2.91-3.33) and Evolution (2.64-3.10) Totals and did not differ
significantly.
Additionally, these four lower scoring denominations displayed higher
Environmental Totals than Evolution Totals, while the six higher scoring denominations
all displayed higher Evolution Totals relative to their Environmental Totals. This is
believed to have occurred due to Evangelical, Baptist, Non-denominational and
Pentecostal having Perception of Conflict and Acceptance scores that were substantially
lower than the six other denominations.
Region
New England scored the highest in Environmental Total (3.82), but this score was
only significantly higher, statistically, than the West South Central (3.34) and Mountain
(3.25) regions, which were not significantly different from the remaining six regions.
New England also scored highest in Evolution Total (3.87). However, there was no
statistically significant difference between any of the regions.
92
Education
Respondents who indicated they held a Graduate or Doctoral degree scored
significantly higher (p ≤0.001) on both Environmental and Evolution Totals than those
holding a Bachelor Degree. However, Totals between Graduate and Doctoral degrees
were not significantly different. The High School Diploma or equivalent (n=9) or an
Associate’s Degree (n=6) categories were not analyzed due to having too few
respondents.
Gender
Additionally, Environmental and Evolution Totals for the women were
significantly higher than the men’s Totals (p≤0.001). These findings are supported by
previous research. Numerous studies on environmental concern have consistently found
that women have modestly stronger pro-environmental values, beliefs, and attitudes than
Figure 11: Environmental and Evolution Totals by Gender and Denomination. Note that
female Totals for Catholic, Evangelical, Baptist, Non-Denominational, and Pentecostal
were not calculated due to having fewer than five respondents each.
93
men (Xiao & McCright, 2013; Davidson & Fre udenburg, 1996 ; Zelezny et al., 2000;
Dietz et al., 2002; Arnocky & Stroink, 2011). Regarding attitudes toward evolution,
Price and Bohon (2012) found that women who believe in evolution are the group with
the greatest level of environmental concern.
However, because women within the Episcopalian denomination accounted for
34 percent of total female respondents, a comparative analysis of means was conducted
including both gender and denomination in order to test whether Episcopalians scored
highest due to 50 percent of respondents being female (Figure 11). Because both
Episcopalian men and women had the highest Environmental and Evolution Totals for
their gender group, it is concluded that the high ratio of Episcopalian female
respondents—relative to other denominations—did not cause the Episcopalian
Environmental and Evolution Totals to be artificially high.
Age, Rural and Affiliation
Between age groups, the only significant difference was between the Evolution
Totals between 45-54 and all other age groups [not including under 25, which was not
analyzed (n=1)]. It is unclear as to why the 45-54 group scored lower regarding
evolution than the other groups, and why the Environmental Total for this group was not
different. One potential factor might be that 45-54 olds would have been in school during
the 1970s and 1980s when some states and counties were prohibiting the teaching of
Evolution. However, it is unknown whether these specific respondents for this age group
were affected by this event.
Scores for Environmental and Evolution Totals for rural and non-rural
respondents showed a significant difference with respondents living in cities with a
94
population greater than 10,000 scoring an average of 0.34 and 0.43 points higher,
respectively.
Lastly, as expected, respondents who signed the pro-evolution “Clergy Letter
Project” (9% of total) scored significantly higher than “unaffiliated respondents” (89%)
whose scores were significantly higher than those affiliated with the pro-intelligent
design “Discovery Institute” (2%). Because only one response was collected from the
group signed onto the “Creation Letter,” a correlation was not conducted for this
category.
Analysis of Dimension Questions by Religious Denomination
In addition to considering the correlations among the religious denominations
using Environmental and Evolution Totals, individual survey questions were analyzed to
more closely examine the denominational variation within the four environmental and
three evolution dimensions. The following results section also compares responses of
Clergy with research conducted by Gallup and Pew Research on the general public.
Environmental Dimensions
Cognitive
To begin, when respondents were asked to select the statement closest to his or
her views on Climate Change (Figure 12), more than 50 percent from six of the
denominations (51%, Catholic- 85%, Episcopalian) indicated that Climate Change is the
result of anthropogenic changes to the environment and fossil fuel combustion.
Evangelical (61%), Baptist (70%), Non-denominational (79%), and Pentecostal (68%)
95
Figure 12: Environmental Question 2 , “Which of the following statements comes closest to your
views on Global Climate Change?”
had high percentages indicating naturally occurring processes as the primary cause of
Climate Change. Those stating that Climate Change is “not occurring” accounted for zero
to five percent of each denomination, except for Pentecostal at 14 percent.
These percentages were similar to responses given on whether there is “a
consensus among climate scientists regarding the current rate of Global Climate Change
being human-induced.” More than 60 percent (64%, Evangelical – 91%, Episcopalian)
believe there is a consensus that current Climate Change is “human-induced,” while more
than 30 percent of Catholic (30%), Baptist (36%), Pentecostal (37%) and Nondenominational (44%) believe there is “no consensus,” and zero to five percent
(Pentecostal) of respondents believe there is consensus that “earth is not experiencing
Climate Change.”
96
Respondents were prompted to self-report how “informed they felt on issues
related to the environment.” An average of 16 percent (4%, Evangelical – 28%,
Presbyterian) felt “highly informed,” an average of 48 percent (23%, Pentecostal – 53%,
Episcopalian) felt “informed,” 31 percent (19%, Episcopalian – 55% Pentecostal) felt
“moderately informed,” nine percent (4%, Evangelical – 16%, Non-denominational) felt
“somewhat informed” and an average of less than one percent (0%, - 5%, Pentecostal)
felt “not informed.” These self-reported knowledge levels were compared against the
average of their corresponding Environmental Cognitive scores to determine whether
self-reported knowledge was an accurate predictor of environmental knowledge. It was
found that those who reported being “Informed” (3.95), or “Moderately Informed” (3.85),
on average, scored higher than those who reported being “Highly Informed” (3.83) or
“Somewhat Informed” (3.79). This non-linear association further substantiates the
speculation that the knowledge questions employed in this survey were not well-suited to
assessing the breadth or depth of respondent knowledge on environmental subjects.
Four of the six Environmental Cognitive assessment inventories asked specific
science-based questions pertaining to processes and factors affecting the atmosphere and
environment. The respondents’ scores were consistently high with 87 (Congregational)
to 100 (Catholic and Pentecostal) percent stating that “Trees and other plants reduce CO2
levels through photosynthesis” was “definitely/probably true,” and 65 (Baptist) to 96
(Congregational) percent stating that the “loss of biodiversity has no impact on the
human population” is “definitely/probably false.”
The following two questions were taken from Pew Research surveys of the
general public. On both of these questions clergy chose the correct answer for “what gas
97
is most present in the Earth’s atmosphere” (47%, Presbyterian – 73% Nondenominational) and “what resource is extracted by ‘fracking’” (84%, Evangelical –
99%, Episcopalian) at much higher rates than the public (20% and 51% correct), which is
likely due to the high rate of college and post-college education amongst the clergy
surveyed.
Affective
Clergy were presented with nine general environmental issues and asked to select
how concerned they were about each issue (Figure 13). The issue of water pollution
(470), air pollution (430) and toxic chemicals (428) were of greatest concern, most likely
Figure 13: Environmental Question 5, “How concerned are you regarding the impact of the
following issues?”
98
due to their immediate, negative effect on human, plant and animal health. Soil erosion
(230), waste disposal (204), and population growth (203) were of moderate concern,
while population growth (140) and Climate Change (105) were the least concerning. The
low concern for population growth may result from the belief that either population
growth will not adversely affect the environment or that having more people exist is
worth any potential environmental detriment. Also, it should be noted that while
population growth was the lowest scoring in the “highly concerned” category, Climate
Change had the third highest score in this category. This suggests that concerns related to
or acknowledgement of Climate Change is polarized.
Respondents were asked to report “how concerned” the people were in their
region regarding environmental issues. These responses were compared against
Environmental Totals for the nine regions. New England (81%), Pacific (66%), and
Mid-Atlantic (46%) had the highest portion of “highly concerned/concerned” responses
which correlated with Environmental Totals of 3.82, 3.73 and 3.71—on both scales these
regions ranked first, second and third. East North Central (66%), East South Central
(61%) and West North Central (57%) scored highest for “moderate concern,” and were
ranked sixth (3.54), fourth (3.59), and seventh (3.34) for Environmental Totals—all three
regions were within two ranks between regional perception and score totals. However,
the region with the greatest discrepancy between perceived environmentalism and actual
environmental score was Mountain, which was ranked fourth in both the “highly
concerned” and “not concerned” categories, yet was ranked last (9th) in Environmental
Total.
99
To further assess the environmental values of clergy, respondents were asked
whether they agreed or disagreed with Pope Francis’s stance that “humans have failed in
our duty to protect God’s creation.” The majority, at an average of 78% (45%,
Pentecostal – 99%, Episcopalian), strongly agreed or agreed with the statement.
Catholics were second highest at 92% agreement, and Non-denominational (22%),
Pentecostal (18%), Baptist (12%), and Evangelical (12%) were all above 10 percent on
strong disagreement or disagreement. Catholics were second lowest in disagreement at
two percent.
Three questions for assessment of environmental values were taken from the New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP) assessment survey. The first two questions asked
whether respondents agreed with the statements “People worry too much about human
progress harming the environment,” and “Humanity cannot continue on its present course
without detrimental ecological consequences.” The strongest agreement was displayed
by Episcopalian (93%, 95%), Congregational (88%, 90%), Presbyterian (83%, 83%) and
Methodist (82%, 83%). Non-denominational (36%, 26%), Baptist (31%, 19%),
Pentecostal (24%, 24%), and Evangelical (21%, 20%) indicated the lowest levels of
agreement for these statements. When respondents were asked whether they supported
the idea that “Modern science will solve our environmental problems with little change to
our way of life,” the majority of the denominations showed high disagreement (69%,
Baptist-92%, Episcopalian). The denominations agreeing the most with this idea were
Non-denominational (10%), Presbyterian (10%), Lutheran (9%) and Methodist (8%).
100
Dispositional
Three inventories were included in the survey to gauge respondent’s intention
toward environmental consciousness, which asked whether the respondents would “be
willing to pay higher prices” to protect the environment, whether the government “should
implement stronger regulations” to protect the environment and whether they, as a
“spiritual leader,” feel that (s)he have a “responsibility to ensure that those in the church
are environmentally aware.”
Episcopalian (88%, 86%), Congregational (67%, 80%), Presbyterian (65%, 69%)
and Methodist (62%, 72%) were the four highest on willingness to pay higher prices and
supporting stronger government regulation. Similarly, Congregational (92%),
Episcopalian (87%), Presbyterian (81%) and Catholic (80%) were the highest on their
agreement with the statement that spiritual leaders have an environmental responsibility.
On the questions of “regulation” and “responsibility”, Non-denominational (54%, 29%),
Pentecostal (52%, 27%), Evangelical (29%, 17%), and Baptist (49%, 16%) had the
highest levels of disagreement and lowest levels of agreement. Pentecostal (36%), Nondenominational (28%), Baptist (24%) and Catholic (14%) were the least willing to pay
higher prices for environmental protection.
Active
Clergy were asked to indicate how often “concern for the environment”
influenced six different areas of potential personal pro-environmental action. “Waste
reduction” and “daily energy conservation practices” scored the highest on “frequently to
almost always” at 78 and 68 percent, while “method or frequency of transportation” was
101
only 32 percent for this category, but was the highest for “occasionally to rarely” at 51
percent and “never” at 16 percent. “The products/where you buy” and “the food you
eat/where you purchase the food” scored relatively high for “occasionally to rarely” (both
42%) and “never” (10%, 11%). These percentages regarding environmental action may
not accurately reflect the areas of the most concern, but rather the areas in which people
have the most personal control or availability. For example, while someone might be
highly concerned about air pollution and fossil fuel consumption, alternative
transportation methods other than driving a personal vehicle may not exist or be easily
accessible in their city or state of residence. Likewise, eco-conscious retailers and
restaurants may not be present in numerous regions. Conversely, actions to reduce waste
and conserve energy can be easily and quickly performed by individuals regardless of
region.
Regarding environmentally conscious personal efforts performed in the last two
years, an average of 26 percent (4%, Evangelical/Pentecostal - 63%, Episcopalian) had
“given money to an environmental group,” an average of 37 percent (13%, Pentecostal 67% Episcopalian) had “signed a petition about an environmental issue,” only an average
of nine percent (0%, Non-denominational/Pentecostal – 33%, Catholic) had “taken part in
an environmental protest, or hearing” and 43 percent (7%. Catholic – 75%, Pentecostal)
had not personally performed any pro-environmental action in the past two years.
Additionally, the four denominations having the highest percentage of “no action” were
Pentecostal (75%), Non-denominational (67%), Baptist (58%) and Evangelical (54%).
As noted previously, the ability to perform these actions may be somewhat limited by
availability in certain regions. Concerning interactions with congregation members
(Figure 14), more than 50 percent of Episcopalian (58%) and more than 30 percent of
102
Figure 14: Environmental Question 18, “How often do you address environmental
issues with your church members?”
Congregational (44%), Lutheran (43%) and Methodist (36%) reported addressing
environmental issues “frequently to very frequently.” Whereas, more than 70 percent of
Evangelical (75%), Baptist (73%), Non-denominational (71%), and Pentecostal (71%)
discussed issues “occasionally to rarely” and these latter four denominations were also
above 10 percent on “never” addressing environmental issues. While the previous two
behavioural questions are somewhat reliant on regional availability, the similarity of
results with this question indicate that the outcome of the previous questions may not be
as affected by availability as by personal eco-conscious motivations.
Regarding methods of discussing these environmental issues, the majority (53%)
indicated communicating issues during the sermon (39%, Baptist – 71%,
103
Congregational), and during one-on-one conversations (51%; 27%, Catholic – 65%,
Lutheran), while communication through church e-mail or newsletter (27%; 3%, Nondenominational – 54%, Congregational) and church participation in or donations to
environmental causes (19%; 3%, Pentecostal – 37%, Episcopalian) were less prevalent.
Environmental Dimensions Conclusion
Overall, clergy members from all denominations were more knowledgeable
regarding environmental issues and ecological processes than the general public, which is
most likely a result of higher attained education levels. Episcopalian, Congregational,
Presbyterian and Catholic clergy tended to respond more pro-environmentally on
dispositional, Affective and Active questions, while Non-denominational, Pentecostal,
Evangelical and Baptist tended to respond in a manner that is indicative of lower
environmental consciousness. After consideration of the responses to the behaviour
assessment for all denominations, it is likely that this dimension was the lowest of all
seven dimensions due to regional or opportunity limitations.
Evolution Dimensions
Acceptance
Research conducted by Gallup (2014) found that 31 percent of the general public
believe that “humans evolved, but God guided the process,” 19 percent believe that “God
had no part in the process” and 42 percent believe that “God created humans in present
form” (Figure 15). Amongst clergy surveyed, all denominations had greater percentages
than the public regarding the belief that “God guided the process” (57%, Evangelical –
104
Figure 15: Evolution Question 2, “Which of the following statements comes closest to your
views on the origin and development of human beings?”
91%, Catholic), except for Baptist (25%), Pentecostal (14%) and Non-denominational
(6%). These three denominations were the only denominations to be more favorable to
the belief that humans were created in “present form” at 73, 86 and 94 percent than the
public (42%). All denominations had a smaller percentage (0%, - 9%, Evangelical) in
favor of the belief that “God had no part in the process” than the public (19%).
Comparably, when asked whether (s)he agreed or disagreed with the statement
that the Theory of Evolution is “based on an overwhelming body of scientific evidence,
which confirm its key ideas,” more than 50 percent of Episcopalian (93%),
Congregational (81%), Catholic (76%), Presbyterian (70%), Methodist (70%), and
Lutheran (61%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed.” Conversely, more than 50 percent of
Non-denominational (81%), Baptist (71%) and Pentecostal (67%) “disagreed” or
“strongly disagreed” with the statement.
105
To further measure acceptance of evolution, respondents were asked how true or
false the following three theories for the development of life were: 1) evolution, 2)
creationism and 3) intelligent design, and the responses were compared against those
Figure 16: Evolution Question 13, “Indicate whether you believe evolution is−definitely true,
probably true, probably false, or definitely false−as an explanation for the origin and
development of life on earth.”
collected in a 2007 Gallup poll. Episcopalian (97%), Catholic (93%), Congregational
(85%), Methodist (82%), Presbyterian (80%), and Lutheran (61%) indicated “definitely/
probably true” at a higher rate than the public (53%); and Evangelical (67%), Baptist
(72%), Non-denominational (83%) and Pentecostal (85%) indicated that evolution was
“probably/definitely false” at a higher rate than the public (44%) (Figure 16). These
results were mirrored by the responses for creationism, where Pentecostal (95%), Nondenominational (94%), Evangelical (84%), and Baptist (77%) indicated
“definitely/probably true” at a higher rate than the public (66%), while Lutheran (44%),
Presbyterian (49%), Catholic (58%), Methodist (62%), Congregational (76%) and
Episcopalian (88%) were higher than the public (31%) in indicating “probably/definitely”
false.
106
There were no comparative data available regarding public opinion on intelligent
design; however, belief that intelligent design was “Definitely/probably true” averaged
75 percent (41%, Congregational – 100%, Pentecostal) across the denominations.
Response rates for “definitely/probably true” were greater than rates for
“probably/definitely false” for all denominations except for Congregational (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Evolution Question 13, “Indicate whether you believe intelligent design
is−definitely true, probably true, probably false, or definitely false−as an explanation for
the origin and development of life on earth.”
Although “intelligent design” is frequently considered to be a guise for “creationism,”
the high rate of agreement amongst both pro- evolution and creationist denominations
may indicate that intelligent design can be used to signify “creationism” as well as
indicate a belief that, even though life likely developed through evolutionary processes, a
divine entity was involved or at least present.
Lastly, clergy were surveyed as to whether they “favor or oppose” evolution,
creationism, or both evolution and creationism being taught in public schools. These
responses were compared against responses from the 2005 Gallup poll in which 75
percent favored teaching evolution only. Several denominations were more in favor of
teaching evolution only than the public: Episcopalian (97%), Congregational (90%),
107
Presbyterian (90%), Methodist (89%), and Catholic (86%). In contrast, three
denominations (Baptist, Non-denominational and Pentecostal) opposed exclusively
teaching evolution or creationism. Moreover, these three denominations had the largest
ratio of support among respondents for teaching both evolution and creationism in
schools.
Knowledge
Figure 18: Evolution Question 3, “Please select the most accurate definition of ‘evolution.’”
On average, slightly more than half (53%; 33%, Evangelical – 69%,
Congregational), of respondents correctly indicated that evolution is defined as “a process
that results in heritable changes in a population over many generations” (Figure 18). The
second most common answer at 38 percent (27%, Congregational – 48%, Evangelical)
indicated that evolution was “development from a primitive to a complex state,” followed
108
by the “idea that humans developed from apes” at seven percent. More than 10 percent of
Evangelical (14%), Non-denominational (12%), Baptist (10%), and Pentecostal (10%)
selected this response. When asked whether “evidence of evolution is widely accepted
within the scientific community,” a majority (78%; 43%, Pentecostal – 96%,
Episcopalian) indicated that they believed it was accepted, while 25 percent believed that
scientists have “serious doubts.” Among those who were skeptical, Non-denominational
(49%), Pentecostal (38%), Baptist (38%) and Evangelical (30%) were all above 30
percent.
The self-reported knowledge level for evolution was compared against the
average knowledge scores in these categories—as was done with the Environmental
Cognitive scores. However, unlike the self-reported environmental knowledge levels—
the higher self-reported knowledge level for evolution correlated with higher knowledge
scores. Those who indicated they had heard or read a “large amount” had an average
score of 3.99, while the scores for “moderate amount” were 3.85, a “small amount” was
3.72 and “little to none” was 3.14. This may be due more to inclusion of more
challenging evolution Knowledge questions compared to the environmental Cognitive
questions.
In addition, the response rates for clergy were compared to percentages from
Gallup. All denominations had higher percentages (39%, Methodist – 61%, Baptist) than
the public (34%) in the “large amount” category, Presbyterian (48%, Non-denominational
(49%), Methodist (52%), Catholic (54%), and Evangelical (57%) had higher percentages
than the public (47%) for a “moderate amount,” percentages for all denominations (0%,
109
Evangelical – 10%, Episcopalian) were smaller than the public (11%) for a “small
amount” as were the percentages (0%, - 5%, Pentecostal) for “little to none” (6%, public).
Three questions incorporated specific knowledge of biological and scientific
definitions and processes. The first included three true-false style questions: 1)
“Evolutionary mechanisms can explain why the overuse of antibiotics leads to antibiotic
resistant bacteria,” 2) “Evolution occurs in populations and not individuals,” and 3)
“Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.” For every denomination the percentage of
total correct answers for the “antibiotic” questions were highest (47%, Baptist – 91%,
Episcopalian), while the percentages of correct answers for the “origins” question had the
smallest range of correct answers (32%, Pentecostal – 64%, Presbyterian). Episcopalian
had the highest combined average of 74 percent, followed by Congregational at 70
percent and Presbyterian at 65 percent. Baptist (40%), Pentecostal (41%), and Nondenominational (48%) were all below 50 percent for average total correct.
Although only half of respondents selected the correct definition for “evolution,”
a very large portion (88%; 79%, Pentecostal – 92%, Congregational/Lutheran/Methodist)
accurately chose the correct definition for “natural selection”—traits possessed by
organisms that survive to reproduce will increase in the population. Correspondingly, an
average of 91 percent (80%, Baptist/Pentecostal – 100%, Congregational/Episcopalian)
of clergy agreed that “the reproduction of animals and plants that are best suited to the
environment cause subsequent generations to be better suited to the environment,” was
“definitely/probably true.” A question prompting respondents to identify the correct
definition of “evolution” followed by questions focusing on the processes involved in
evolution were intentionally included in this survey in order to explore people’s
110
understanding of the mechanics of evolution when separated from the term “evolution.”
More than 80 percent of Baptists, Pentecostal, Evangelical and Non-denominational
supported the biological principles characterizing evolution, yet fewer than a third of
respondents in these denominations indicated that evolution was “definitely/probably
true.” This discrepancy suggests that a person’s initial response when asked about
evolution may be more tied to the politics surrounding the term than agreement with the
scientific principles of which it is comprised.
Perception of Conflict
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they believed that the Biblical
creation story found in Genesis was “a poetic narrative, but not a scientific historical
account”, “a symbolic narrative of the creation events,” or “ an accurate account of the
Figure 19: Evolution Question 12, “Please indicate the response that is most accurate
regarding your view of the Biblical Creation Story in Genesis.”
creation events” (Figure 19). More than half (56%) indicated that Genesis offers a
“poetic narrative of creation,” followed by 29 percent who believed the Creation Story
was “an accurate account” and 16 percent who say it is “symbolic.” The preponderance
111
of Episcopalian (88%), Congregational (84%), Catholic (82%) and Methodist (70%)
respondents viewed the Genesis account as “poetic,” and were the least likely to indicate
that it was “an accurate” account (0%, Catholic – 11%, Congregational). Methodist,
Lutheran, Presbyterian and Pentecostal were not as strongly inclined toward a “poetic”
interpretation, although a larger percentage in these denominations still favored “poetic.”
On the other hand, Evangelical, Baptist and Non-denominational viewed the Genesis
account as “accurate” at 44, 64 and 70 percent respectively, and these numbers were
much higher than those favoring a “poetic” or “symbolic” view in these denominations.
Clergy were asked to indicate whether they thought that “In general, the ‘Theory
of Evolution’ conflicts with their religious beliefs.” Their answers were compared with
the 2014 Gallup poll percentages. The public was evenly split as to whether evolution
was in “conflict”(46%) or “mostly compatible” (46%) with their religious beliefs. The
majority of denominations—including Catholic (100%), Epsicopalian (100%),
Congregational (92%), Methodist (86%), Presbyterian (79%), Lutheran( 67%), and
Evangelical (55%)—stated that the two were “mostly compatible,” whereas, 81 percent
of Pentecostal, 80 percent of Non-denominational, and 72 percent of Baptist saw the two
as being in conflict.
This general view of compatability was echoed in the responses regarding the
respondent’s view as to the “relationship between science and religion,” which was also
utilized in the 2005 Gallup poll. Less than a quarter of the public (24%) believed that
science and religion “generally agree with each other” while the responses from clergy
averaged 83 percent (71%, Pentecostal – 91%, Catholic). More than a third (35%) of the
public felt the two “generally conflict with each other” whereas, this percentage was six
112
percent for clergy ( 0%, Evangelical – 19%, Pentecostal). Lastly, the largest portion of
the public (36%) felt that the two were “not related to each other in any significant way,”
while this number dropped to an average of 11 percent for clergy (4%, Nondenominational – 19%, Episcopalian).
Evolution Dimensions Conclusion
As demonstrated in this section, denominations viewing Genesis as “poetic” or
“symbolic,” showed more support for evolution being taught in schools, perceived
evolution as more accepted by the scientific communmity, correctly selected evolution
definitions and had overall higher acceptance. These observations are reflected by the
high correlation factor between Acceptance and Perception of Conflict Totals, and reveal
that interpretation of the Bible—specifically the creation narratives—may play the largest
role in determining a christian’s beliefs regarding development of life and attitudes
toward evolution. Lastly, denominations displaying more favorable attitudes toward
evolution were more environmentally conscious (Episcopalian, Congragational,
Methodist and Catholic) and denominations having the least support for evolution were
less environmentally conscious among respondents in this sample (Non-denominational,
Pentecostal, Evangelical and Baptist).
The rationale for this division amonst Chrisitian denominations regarding
environmental and attitudes toward evolution may be related to these denominations
adhering to a more liberal or fundamental dogma, or containing an unequal proportion of
socially or politically progressive or conservative church branches or church leaders.
113
Analysis of Biblical Influence
Two optional open-ended, comment/essay-style questions were included
in the survey in order to determine whether respondents of differing environmental or
evolution beliefs informed their views with distinct biblical passages or whether the same
biblical passages were cited. The first scenario would suggest that either those with a
specific view of the environment or evolution are more strongly influenced by specific
passages, or that they are more likely to choose passages that coincide with alreadyexisting beliefs. Conversely, if the same verses were cited as having influence, it would
indicate that either the respondent’s personal views regarding these topics affect
interpretation of certain verses, or that the meaning inferred by these passages during the
respondent’s initial introduction influenced his or her beliefs in regard to the environment
and evolution. However, it was determined that due to the preponderance of responses
including only the names of biblical books, and the vast number of verses/chapters cited
within books, a correlation of specific verses would not be possible. Instead, the overall
composition of responses was organized according to the biblical books in which the
verse(s) appears, and a correlation between scores and books was performed. A full list of
responses for this section is located in Appendices I and J.
Biblical Text influencing Environmental Consciousness
When asked whether there are any “specific biblical passages” on which clergy
base their “view of the environment or humanity’s role in Nature,” 246 clergy gave
responses, of which 86 percent indicated Genesis (1, 2, 8) as having significant influence.
The second most prevalent book cited was Psalms (20%), followed be Romans (12%),
114
and Revelation (4%). Passages from 12 additional books were mentioned at a rate of one
to three percent (Figure
20). The Environmental
Total scores for clergy who
cited one of the five
biblical books with the
most responses (Genesis,
Psalms, Romans,
Revelation and
Figure 20: Environmental Question 21, “Are there any
specific biblical passages on which you base your view of the
environment, or humanity's role in nature?”
Deuteronomy) were collected and ranked from lowest to highest to analyze distribution.
For each book the scores displayed an equal distribution from the lowest to the highest
score. Additionally, there was a considerably large range between the lowest and highest
score for each book, with Genesis having the greatest range at 3.46 and Revelation
having the smallest at 1.90.
Biblical Text influencing Attitudes toward Evolution
The second open-ended question asked whether there were any “specific biblical
passages” on which clergy base their “view of the origins of humanity, or the world in
general?” Appreciably fewer clergy responded to this question with only 142 responses
in this section. Similar to the environmental responses, mention of Genesis (1,2, 8)
accounted for 87 percent, followed by Psalms (23%), John (13%), Romans (13%) and
Exodus (8%) (Figure 21). The Evolution Total scores for clergy were gathered according
to verse for the top five books and analized for distribution and range. Again, an equal
115
distribution of scores was present for each book, and the ranges were observably large,
with Romans having the
smallest range (2.98) and
Genesis having the largest
(3.13).
Given these
numbers, it is evident that
interpretation is a
significantly greater factor
Figure 21: Evolution Question 14, “Are there any specific
biblical passages on which you base your view of the
environment, or humanity's role in nature?”
regarding viewpoint than book or verse selection. However, because clergy were not
compelled or prompted to explain why they chose the selected verse or book, how they
interpret its meaning or how it influences their beliefs specifically, it is impossible to
distinguish whether pre-existing attitudes influenced interpretation, or whether other
factors encountered during biblical study shaped current beliefs.
Clergy noted a more varied range of verses and books as informing their views for
the environment than evolution. This is understandable given the nearly ever-present
theme or mention of nature (especially in Psalms) throughout the Bible, whereas,
narratives regarding the creation of humans and animals are fairly limited. In addition, it
is interesting to note that the books of Genesis, Romans, and Psalms placed in the top
four for influencing books for both environmental and evolution views. This observation
may provide further evidence for the theory that environmental consciousness is
somehow linked with attitudes toward evolution.
116
Conclusion
Summary
Religion and Science have exerted powerful influence in shaping the knowledge,
beliefs, policies, and motivations of individuals, groups, and nations across the globe
throughout our history and present day. Nineteenth century scholars such as James
Simpson, John Draper, and Andrew White helped to popularize the idea that Religion and
Science are intrinsically contentious. Although this assertion of conflict, now known as
“the Draper-White Conflict Thesis,” has been shown to be based on an overly simplistic
and selective view of historical events and attitudes, nonetheless perceptions of conflict
have continued and are frequently reinforced by debate surrounding modern political
issues.
Currently, in the United States, the debate regarding the increasing rates of
environmental destruction and the impending effects of Global Climate Change has
become progressively polemic. While evolution continues to be a controversial subject.
Both of these topics exert significant socio-political, religious and scientific impact in the
public and private spheres. Since Lynn White’s 1967 publication, which condemned
Christianity as the primary driver in our historical and contemporary environmental
destruction, discussion of “environmentalism and Christianity” has intensified. The
publication of “the White Thesis” provoked immense debate and empirical research on
the subject of environmentalism and religion. With regards to Christianity and Evolution,
there has been relatively less direct empirical research, but arguably more political strife
as numerous historical writings and events have led to the idea that “Darwinism is
atheism” (Hodges, 1874) and, therefore, Christianity and evolutionary biology must be at
117
odds. This idea has been bolstered in the social zeitgeist by the numerous court hearings
that have taken place in an effort to prohibit or eliminate the teaching of evolution in
public schools. The first attempt to enact legislation against the teaching of evolution
occurred in 1922 when former United States Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan
proposed House Bill 191 to the Kentucky state congress. Although the bill was defeated,
soon after Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Florida adopted antievolution policies in schools. These evolution-creation debates gained momentum in the
1970s and, even though most states today teach evolution, debates, legal proceedings and
a perception of a negative relationship between Christianity and Evolution still exist.
However, historical and empirical research reveals the complex and often poorly
understood associations between Christianity and environmentalism and Christianity and
Evolution. It is due to this shortcoming, and my own personal experience and
observations that I decided to conduct further research into this field. Unlike the majority
of previous studies testing correlations strictly between Christianity and
environmentalism and Christianity and Evolution, this thesis took a different approach. I
hypothesized that “general attitudes regarding both evolution and environmentalism
might be more heavily influenced by an individual’s underlying acceptance or rejection
of ‘scientific authority’ than to particular Christian values.” Additional questions of
interest included whether there was significant attitude and behaviour discrepancies
between denominations and other demographic factors, how U.S. Christian clergy
compare to the general public regarding specific issues of national interest, and whether
Environmental consciousness and Attitudes toward evolution are more strongly tied to
selection or interpretation of certain biblical passages.
118
Quantitative survey methodology was employed in order to satisfy these
enquiries. A questionnaire was developed that incorporated questions related to the four
dimensions of environmental consciousness that have been routinely employed
(Cognitive, Affective, Dispositional and Active), and three dimensions of attitudes
toward evolution (Acceptance, Perception of Conflict with Religion, and knowledge)
which were developed for use in this study. Questionnaires were distributed using
SurveyMonkey. A total of 666 surveys were collected during a two-week period in
February of 2015, and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and JMP statistical software.
Multivariate analysis of results revealed that a 77% correlation exists between
environmental consciousness and attitudes toward evolution in this sample group, which
supports this thesis’s hypothesis that these subjects may be more related to a person’s
attitudes toward “scientific authority” than to a Christian belief system. Additional
relationship factors revealed in this analysis include the discovery that acceptance of
evolution is more correlated with a person’s perception of conflict between Religion and
Science than on actual understanding of evolutionary principles. Similarly, the likelihood
that an individual acts in a pro-environmental manner may be more linked to that
person’s environmental values and intention than to ecological knowledge. This seeming
lack of significant connection between the Cognitive or Knowledge dimensions and the
five other dimensions may indicate that a person’s environmental values, intention and
behaviour or acceptance of evolution might be more affected by the conclusions provided
by the scientific community than to personal knowledge levels regarding specific
scientific information.
119
Concerning denominational differences, those belonging to Episcopalian,
Congregational, Methodist and Catholic denominations consistently ranked above
average on pro-environmental and pro-attitudes toward evolution whereas, Nondenominational, Evangelical, Baptist and Pentecostal scored significantly lower for both
environmentalism and evolution categories. When compared to the general public, the
Christian Clergy surveyed for this study generally perceive there to be significantly less
conflict between Religion and Science.
Finally, no correlation was found between selection of influential biblical books
and overall Environmental or Evolution Total score, which suggests that interpretation of
Biblical text is highly variant and, thus, use of specific verses should not be used as an
indication of belief regarding these topics.
Application of Findings and Suggestions for Future Research
The findings of this thesis help provide further insight into the combined field of
religion and science, specifically U.S. Christianity and environmental and evolution
science, and should be used to inform social and educational dialogue. For instance, the
large number of Christian clergy who responded with strong support for proenvironmental values and actions contribute to the perspective that Christianity can lead
to sentiments of stewardship and responsibility toward nature, and that one’s Christian
affiliation should not be automatically associated with indifference toward environmental
and climate health. In the same vein, the high number of clergy who supported Evolution
and the exclusive teaching of Evolution in schools should similarly dispel the
presumption that “Christian” signifies “creationist.” Christian leaders domestically and
120
internationally have played an important role in assisting with progress regarding
numerous social, eco-justice, and environmental issues, and their support should continue
to be sought, accepted and publicized. Regarding the denominations, educators and
activists working toward greater environmental awareness and protection, or better
understanding and acceptance of evolution, may benefit from discussion and
collaboration with churches belonging to more progressive denominations such as
Episcopalian, and Congregational.
Most importantly, this thesis should be used as motivation and as a starting point
for future inquiry into the topic of Christianity and scientific authority. Because this
thesis was—to my knowledge—the first study to look at these three variables
concurrently, additional research is critically important. This thesis, although effective in
laying groundwork, experienced certain limitations that should be considered when
designing future studies. First, due to time constraints, the survey created for this study
was relatively short and simple. Future studies would benefit from the addition of a
greater number of questions, specifically, those seeking to establish knowledge of topic.
A wider range of questions difficulties would help better establish knowledge thresholds.
Second, the inclusion of questions aimed at determining the respondent’s understanding
of other scientific subjects and methods used by the respondent to acquire personal
knowledge could prove helpful in defining the person’s relationship with scientific
knowledge. Third, this study included the 12 major Christian denominations in the U.S.,
and, while certain denominations are regarded as more progressive or conservative,
within each denomination are church branches that tend toward one alignment or another.
It would be advantageous to separate out these branches in order to ensure that each
121
denomination contains an equivalent representative sample of its conservative and
progressive sectors. Fourth, the results of this thesis may have been influenced by
limiting distribution to churches with an on-line presence and direct e-mail addresses.
Fifth, response bias favoring those who were more environmentally concerned may have
occurred. Future studies may benefit from using different data collection methods or
ensuring that those with low or limited interest in the topics are included. Lastly, studies
investigating the relationship between environmentalism and attitudes toward evolution
among Christians, members of other religious traditions and the general public would
provide insight about the existence of such patterns in the broader population, and be
useful in determining whether the findings of this thesis are applicable across broad
religious demographics.
122
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2002). AAAS: On intelligent
design theory. Retrieved from
http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=432
Arnocky, S, & Stroink, M. (2011). Gender differences in environmental concern and
cooperation: the mediating role of emotional empathy. Current Research and
Social Psychology, 16, 1-14.
Assemblies of God. (2014). Doctrine of creation. In AG Position Papers and other
statements. Retrieved from
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/PP_The_Doctrine_of_Cr
eation.pdf
Barne Group. (2013, June 04). The books Americans are reading. Retrieved from
https://www.barna.org/barna-update/culture/614-the-books-americans-are-reading
Barone, L., Petto, A., & Campbell, B. (2014). Predictors of evolution acceptance in a
museum population. Education Outreach, Retrieved from http://www.evolutionoutreach.com/content/7/1/23
Berry, E. (2013). Religious environmentalism and environmental religion in America.
Religion Compass, 7(10), 454–466. doi: 10.1111/rec3.12065
Berry, R. (2000). The care of creation: Focusing concern and action. Leicester, England:
Inter-Varsity Press.
Biel, A., & Nilsson, A. (2005). Religious values and environmental concern: Harmony
and detachment. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 178-191. doi: 10.1111/j.00384941.2005.00297.x
Bishop, G. (2006). “Polls apart on human origins.” Public Opinion Pros, 1-4. Retrieved
from http://www.publicopinionpros.norc.org/features/2006/aug/bishop.asp
Black, A. (1997) Religion and environmentally protective behaviour in Australia, Social
Compass, 44(3), 401–412.
Boyd, H. (1999). Christianity and the environment in the American public. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 38, 36-44.
Breeden, T. (2008). Creation Letter: About us/press kit. Retrieved from
https://kcsg.wordpress.com/about/
Campolo, Tony. (1992). How to Rescue the Earth Without Worshipping Nature.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
123
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Church of God. (1980). Creationism (1980) (58th A, 1980, p. 51). Retrieved from
website: http://www.churchofgod.org/resolutions/creationism-1980
Coppleston, F. (1985). A history of philosophy. (Books 3 ed., Vol. 8). New York, NY:
Doubleday.
Cotton, D., & Alcock, I. (2012). Commitment to environmental sustainability in the UK
student population. Pedagogic Research Institute and Observatory, 38(10), 14571471.
Dales, R. (1980). The de-animation of the heavens in the middle ages. Journal of the
History of Ideas, 41, 531-550.
Davidson, D., & Freudenburg, W. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A
review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behaviour, 28(3):
302-339.
Davis, P., Kenyon, D., & Thaxton, C. (1989). Of pandas and people. Richardson, TX:
Foundation for Thought and Ethics.
Dawson, W. (1890, 2009). Modern Ideas of Evolution as Related to Revelation and
Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dekker, P., Ester, P. & Nas, M. (1997). Religion, culture and environmental concern: an
empirical cross-national analysis, Social Compass, 44(3), 443–458.
Dennert, E. (1904). At the deathbed of Darwinism. Burlington, IA: German Literary
Board.
Dew, D. (1998). Creation vs. evolution what saith the scriptures?. DianeDew.com,
Retrieved from http://www.dianedew.com/creation.htm
Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. (2002) Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social
Science Quarterly, 83, 351-364.
Dietz, T., Stern, P., & Guagnano, G. (1998). Social structural and social psychological
bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behaviour, 30, 450–471.
Directorate-General for Research. (2001). Eurobarometer 55.2: Europeans, science and
technology. Brussels, Belgium: Directorate-General for Press and
Communication. DOI: Eurobarometer 55.2, Europeans, Science and Technology
(Brussels: European Commission, 2001).
124
The Discovery Institute (September, 2014 09). Churches and other groups co-hosting
“science and faith” simulcast on Sunday, sept. 21, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.discovery.org/a/2348
Draper, W. (1874). History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. London,
England.
Drews, C. (2000). Theistic evolution: An essay. Christianity and Evolution, Retrieved
from http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html
Dunlap, R. & Jones, R. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement
issues. In In Dunlap and Michelson (Ed), Handbook of Environmental Sociology
(p. 482-542). London: Greenwood Press.
Dunlap, R., & Michelson, W. (eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociology, (p. 482542). London: Greenwood Press.
Dunlap, R., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm: A proposed
measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental
Education, 9(10), 10-19.
Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the
new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),
425-442.
Eckberg, D. & Blocker, T. (1989) Varieties of religious involvement and environmental
concerns: testing the Lynn White thesis, Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 28(4), 509–517.
Eckberg, D. & Blocker, T. (1996). Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical
problem of fundamentalism, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(4),
343–355.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
Eliade, M. (1962). The forge and the crucible. New York, NY: Harper.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. (Ed.
228, 1968)
Ester, P. (1981). Environmental concern in the Netherlands. In O’Riordan, T. & Turner,
K. (eds.). Progress in Resource Management and Environmental Planning, 81108. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
125
Ester, P. & Seuren, B. (1992). Religious beliefs and environmental attitudes: An
empirical test of the Lynn White hypothesis in fourteen nations, Sociale
Wetenschappen, 35(1), 20–39.
Evangelical Environmental Network. (1994). Evangelical declaration on the care of
creation. In R. Berry (Ed.), The care of creation: Focusing concern and action.
Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.
Ferngren, G. (2002). Science and religion: A historical introduction. Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Frankfort, H., & Frankfort, H. A. (1951). The emancipation of thought from myth.
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997)
Funk, C., & Huff, T. (2010). National public opinion survey conducted for VCU life
sciences by the VCU center for public policy national public. VCU life sciences
survey 2010, Retrieved from http://www.vcu.edu/lifesci/images2/survey2010.pdf
Gallup. (2014, May). Evolution, creationism, intelligent design. Gallup: Religion and
social trends. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolutioncreationism-intelligent-design.aspx
Gardner, G., & Stern, P. (1996). Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
GfK Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. (2014). The ap-gfk poll: A survey of
the American general population (ages 18). Associated Press, Retrieved from
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf
Gilbert, W. (1952). De magnete. Trans by P.E. Mottelay, Great Books of the Western
World,. Vol. 28. 1600. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britanica.
Glacken, C. (1970). Man against nature: An outmoded concept. In. Harold W. Helfrich,
Jr. (ed.), The Environmental Crisis. (pp. 127-142). Cambridge, MA: Yale
University.
Goldman, A. (1993, October 09). Environmental movement gains interfaith allies. New
York Times
Gosling, D. (1992). A new earth: Covenanting for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of
Creation. London, England: Council of Churches of Britain and Ireland.
126
Gould, S. (1999). Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York,
NY: Ballantine Publishing Group.
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. (1996). A theology of nature: An introduction.
Retrieved from http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8045
Greeley, A. (1993). Religion and attitudes toward the environment, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 9-28.
Guth, J., Green, J., Kellstedt, & Smidt, C. (1995). Faith and the environment: religious
beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy. American Journal of Political
Science, 39, 364-82.
Guth, J., Green, J., Kellstedt, L., & Smidt, C. (1995). Faith and the environment:
Religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy. American Journal of
Political Science, 39(2), 364-382. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111617
Guyot, A. (1884). Creation: The biblical cosmogony in the light of modern science. New
York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Hall, A. (2009, December 15). What People Do and Do Not Believe in. The Harris Poll.
Retrieved from
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris_Poll_2009_12_15.pdf
Halliburton, R. (1963). State-wide legislation banning teaching of evolution. Tahlequah,
OK: Northeastern State College. Retrieved from
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v43/p190_198.pdf
Haluza-Delay, R. (2000). Green fire and religious spirit. The Journal of Experiential
Education, 23, 143-150.
Hand, C., & Van Liere, K. (1984). Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental
concern. Social Forces, 63, 555-70.
Harris. (2013, Dec 16). Americans' belief in god, miracles and heaven declines: Belief in
Darwin's theory of evolution rises. Harris: News Room. Retrieved from
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/arti
cleId/1353/ctl/ReadCustom Default/Default.aspx
Hawthorne, M. & Alabaster, T. (1999) Citizen 2000: Development of a model of
environmental citizenship, Global Environmental Change, 9(1), 25–43.
Hayes, B., & Marangudakis, M. (2000). Religion and environmental issues within AngloAmerican democracies. Review of Religious Research, 42,159-74.
127
Hayes, B. & Marangudakis, M. (2001). Religion and attitudes toward nature in Britain.
British Journal of Sociology, 52,139-55.
Heberlein, T. (1981). Environmental attitudes. Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik, 2, 241-270.
Heyck, T. (1982). The transformation of intellectual life in Victorian England. London,
England: Croom Helm.
Hitzhusen, G. (2007). Judeo-Christian theology and the environment: Moving beyond
skepticism to new sources for environmental education in the United States.
Environmental Education Research, 13 (1), 55-74.
Hodge, C. (1874). What is Darwinism?. New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and company.
Retrieved from: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19192.
ISSP Research Group (1995): International Social Survey Programme: Environment I ISSP 1993. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA2450 Data file Version 1.0.0,
doi:10.4232/1.2450
ISSP Research Group (2003): International Social Survey Programme: Environment II ISSP 2000. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA3440 Data file Version 1.0.0,
doi:10.4232/1.3440
ISSP Research Group (2012): International Social Survey Programme: Environment III ISSP 2010. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5500 Data file Version 2.0.0,
doi:10.4232/1.11418
ISSP Research Group. (2003). International Social Survey Programme: Environment II ISSP 2000. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA3440 Data file Version 1.0.0,
doi:10.4232/1.3440
Jenkins, W. (2008). Ecologies of grace: Environmental ethics and Christian theology.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
John E Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F. 3rd 517 (1994)
Jones, J. (2005, October 13). Most Americans engaged in debate about evolution,
creation. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/19207/MostAmericans-Engaged-Debate-About-EvolutionCreation.aspx?utm_source=evolution&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tile
s
Kaiser, F., Ranney, M., Hartig, T., & Bowler, P. (1999a). Ecological behaviour,
environmental attitude, and feelings of responsibility for the environment.
European Psychologist, 4(2), 59-74. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.9353&rep=rep1&t
ype=pdf
128
Kaiser, F., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999b). Environmental attitude and ecological
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19. Retrieved from
https://home.zhaw.ch/cahu/dateien/Kaiser-Woelfing-Fuhrer99.pdf
Kanagy, C. & Nelsen, H. (1995) Religion and environmental concern: challenging the
dominant assumptions, Review of Religious Research, 37(1), 33–45.
Kanagy, C. & Willits, F. (1993). A greening of religion? Some evidence from a
Pennsylvania sample. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 674-683.
Kanagy, C., Humphrey, C., & Firebaugh, G. (1994). Surging environmentalism:
Changing public opinion or changing publics? Social Science Quarterly, 75, 804819.
Kearns, L. (1996). Saving the creation: Christian environmentalism in the united states.
Sociology of Religion, 57(1), 55-70.
Kellert, S. & Berry, J. (1980). Phase III: knowledge, affection and basic attitudes toward
animals in American society (Washington, DC, US Department of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service).
Kempton, W., Boster, J. S. & Hartley, J. A. (1995). Environmental values in American
culture (Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Kim, D. (1999). Environmentalism in developing countries and the case of a large
Korean city, Social Science Quarterly, 80(4), 810–829.
Klineberg, S., McKeever, M., & Rothenbach, B. (1998). Demographic predictors of
environmental concern: It does make a difference how it’s measured. Social
Science Quarterly, 79, 734-753.
Louisiana State University. (2009, April 01). Spring 2009 Louisiana survey. The Public
Policy Research Lab. Retrieved from
https://sites01.lsu.edu/wp/pprl/files/2014/07/LA-Survey-2009.pdf
Martin, J. (2010). Compatibility of major U.S. Christian denominations with evolution.
Evolution Education Outreach, 3, 420-431. doi: 10.1007/s12052-010-0221-5
Martin-Schramm, J., & Stivers, R. (2004). Christian environmental ethics: A case method
approach (ecology and justice series). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Masci, D. (2007, August 27). “How the public resolves conflicts between faith and
science.” Pew Research Center Publications. Retrieved from
www.pewforum.org/2007/08/27/how-the-public-resolves-conflicts-between-faithand-science/
129
Mazur, A. (2005). Believers and disbelievers in evolution. Politics and the life sciences,
23(2), Retrieved from
http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Contents/Contents-2004-9/poli-23-020055.pdf
McCalla, A. (2006). The Creationist Debate: The Encounter Between the Bible and the
Historical Mind. London, England: Continuum International.
McHarg, I. (1969). Design with Nature. New York, NY; Natural History.
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 (1982)
Menninga, C. (September 1988). Creation, Time and “Apparent Age.” Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith. 40(3), 160-162.
Meyer, S. (2000). The demarcation of science and religion. In G. Ferngren (Ed.), The
History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition (pp. 17-23). New York,
NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Mohler, A. (2005, April 15). Evolution incompatible with Christianity, Mohler says in
Time. Baptist Press. Retrieved from http://www.bpnews.net/21375
Mohler, A. (2009). Evolution and Christianity impossible to reconcile, says evangelical
theologian. Christian Post. Retrieved from
http://www.christianpost.com/news/evolution-and-christianity-impossible-toreconcile-says-evangelical-theologian-36978/
Morris, H. (n.d.). Evolution and the bible: Evidence for creation. Institute for Creation
Research On-line, Retrieved from https://www.icr.org/article/53/
Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, community, and lifestyle: An outline of an ecosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NCSE. (2015). ICR concedes defeat over its graduate school. National Center for Science
Education On-line. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/news/2010/09/icr-concedesdefeat-over-its-graduate-school-006160
Neissen, R. (n.d.). Theistic evolution and the day-age theory Institute for Creation
Research On-line, Retrieved from https://www.icr.org/article/164/
Nelkin, D. (1982). The creation controversy: Science of scripture in the schools?. New
York, NY: Norton.
Newport, F. (2008, June 20). Republicans, democrats differ on creationism. Gallup.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differcreationism.aspx
130
Newport, F. (2009, February 11). On Darwin’s birthday, only 4 in 10 believe in
evolution. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/DarwinBirthday-BelieveEvolution.aspx?utm_source=evolution&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=til
es
Newport, F. (2010, December 17). Four in 10 Americans believe in strict creationism.
Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-AmericansBelieve-StrictCreationism.aspx?utm_source=evolution&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=
tiles
Newport, F. (2012). In U.S., 46% hold creationist view of human origins: highly religious
Americans most likely to believe in creationism. Gallup Poll News Service:
Religion and Social Trends, Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx
Newport, F. (2012). In U.S., 77% identify as Christian. Gallup Polls On-line. Retrieved
from http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx
Newport, F. (2012, June 01). In U.S., 46% hold creationist view of human origins.
Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-CreationistView-HumanOrigins.aspx?utm_source=evolution&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles
Newport, F. (2014, June 02). In U.S., 42% believe creationist view of human origins.
Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationistview-humanorigins.aspx?utm_source=evolution&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles
Newport, F. (2014, May 11). Evolution, creationism, intelligent design. Gallup. Retrieved
from http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-IntelligentDesign.aspx?utm_source=evolution&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles
Newport, F. (2014, Nov 19). Third of Americans say evidence has supported Darwin’s
evolution theory. Gallup Poll News Service: Third of Americans Say Evidence
Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/third-americans-say-evidence-has-supporteddarwins-evolution-theory.aspx
Neyman, G. (2005, August 29). Evolution and creation science: Evolution - the Bible
taught it first!. Old Earth Ministries, Retrieved from
http://www.oldearth.org/evolution_bible.htm
Nicholson, M. (1970). The Environmental Revolution. London, England. Hodder &
Stoughton.
131
Nine views of creation. (2015). Blue Letter Bible, Retrieved from
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/creation.cfm
Numbers, R. (1985). Science and religion. (Osiris 2nd ser. ed., pp. 58-80).
Numbers, R. (2000). Creationism since 1859. In G. Ferngren (Ed.), The History of
Science and Religion in the Western Tradition (pp. 313-319). New York, NY:
Garland Publishing, Inc.
Oelschlaeger, M. (1994). Caring for Creation: An ecumenical approach to the
environmental crisis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Paulsen, J. (2004). Affirming our position on creation. College and University Dialogue,
Retrieved from http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/21_2_paulsen_e.htm
PCUSA. (1969). General assembly statement. Retrieved from
www.pcusa.org/theologyand worship/science/evolution.htm
PCUSA. (2002). No contradiction between evolution and Bible-PCUSA. Answers in
Genesis. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/god-andevolution/no-contradiction-between-evolution-and-bible-pcusa/
Pew Research Center, & Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2008). U.S. religious
landscape survey: religious beliefs and practices: Diverse and politically
relevant. Washington, D.C. : Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2005, September 28). Reading the polls on evolution and
creationism. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.peoplepress.org/2005/09/28/reading-the-polls-on-evolution-and-creationism/
Pew Research Center. (2006, August 24). 69% say liberals too secular, 49% say
conservatives too assertive. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2006/08/religion-politics-06.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2009). Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the press, Retrieved from
http://www.upf.edu/pcstacademy/_docs/Pew-Science_Survey_2009.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2013). Public’s Knowledge of Science and Technology. Pew
Research Center, U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.peoplepress.org/2013/04/22/publics-knowledge-of-science-and-technology/
Pew Research Center. (2013, Dec 30). Public’s views on human evolution. Pew Research
Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
132
Pew Research Center. (2013, December 30). Public’s views on human evolution. Pew
Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publicsviews-on-human-evolution/
Pew Research Center. (2014). Pope Francis’ image positive in much of world. Pew
Research Center, Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/12/11/popefrancis-image-positive-in-much-of-world/
Pew Research Center. (2015, March 05). In U.S., pope’s popularity continues to grow.
Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2015/03/05/inu-s-popes-popularity-continues-to-grow/
Pew Research Center, & The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
(2009). Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: public praises
science; scientists fault public, media. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center
for the People & the Press Retrieved from
http://www.upf.edu/pcstacademy/_docs/Pew-Science_Survey_2009.pdf
Pope Francis. (2013a, March). Celebration of Palm Sunday of the passion of our Lord.
World youth day , Saint Peter's Square XXVIII Retrieved from
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papafrancesco_20130324_palme.html
Pope Francis. (2013b, March). Audience with the diplomatic corps accredited to the holy
see. Address of Pope Francis, Sala Regia. Retrieved from
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/march/documents/papafrancesco_20130322_corpo-diplomatico.html
Pope Francis. (2013c, March). Audience with representatives of the churches and
ecclesial communities and of the different religions. Address of the holy father
Pope Francis, Clementine Hall. Retrieved from
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/march/documents/papafrancesco_20130320_delegati-fraterni.html
Pope Francis. (2013d). Department of justice, catholic social teaching on care for
creation and stewardship of the earth. In Peace and Human Development.
Retrieved from http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-anddignity/environment/environmental-justice-program/upload/EnvironmentalPrimer.pdf
Pope Francis. (2014a, January). Address of his holiness Pope Francis to the members of
the diplomatic corps accredited to the holy see. , Sala Regia Retrieved from
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/january/documents/papafrancesco_20140113_corpo-diplomatico.html
133
Pope Francis. (2014b, May 21). Pope at audience: If we destroy creation, it will destroy
us - see more at. Official Vatican Network. Retrieved from
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-at-audience-if-we-destroy-creation-it-will-de
Pope Francis. (2014c). Pope's message to UN Convention on Climate Change. In Zenit.
Retrieved from http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-message-to-unconvention-on-climate-change
Pope Francis. (2014d, October 14). Francis in the pontifical academy of sciences
emphasizes the responsibility of humanity in creation. Official Vatican Network.
Retrieved from http://www.news.va/en/news/francis-in-the-pontifical-academyof-sciences-emph
Pope Francis. (2015a, January). Address of his holiness Pope Francis to the members of
the diplomatic corps accredited to the holy see, Sala Regia. Retrieved from
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/january/documents/papafrancesco_20150112_corpo-diplomatico.html
Pope Francis. (2015b, January 15). Papal press conference en route to manila. Pope
Francis on Care for Creation. Retrieved from
catholicclimatecovenant.org/catholic-teachings/pope-francis/
Pope John Paul II. (1996, October 22). Message to the pontifical academy of sciences:
On evolution. Retrieved from
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm
Popper, K. (1988). Darwinism as a Metaphorical Research Program. In M. Ruse (Ed.),
But Is It Science? (pp. 144-155). Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus books.
Price, C., & Boron, S. (2012). Gender intersections and environmental concern. Center
for the Study of Social Working Papers. Retrieved from
http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_cssjpapers/1/.
Price, G. (1906). Illogical geology: The weakest point in the evolution theory. Los
Angeles, CA: The Modern Heretic Company.
Price, G. (1923). The New Geology. Oakland, CA: Pacific Press.
Reichenbach, B. & Anderson, E. (1995). On behalf of god: A Christian ethic for biology.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Rev. Thomas, J. (2008). A new voice arising: A pastoral letter on faith engaging science
and technology. United Church of Christ. Retrieved from
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/unitedchurchofchrist/legacy_url/1489/past
oral-letter.pdf?1418424941
134
Riley, M. (2012). Rethinking Lynn White: Christianity, creatures, and democracy. In A
Spiritual Democracy of All God’s Creatures: Eco-Theology and Lynn White’s
Animals. Retrieved from http://fore.yale.edu/files/Matt_Riley.pdf
Roach , D. (2012, January 09). Poll: Pastors oppose evolution, split on earth's age.
LifeWay Research. Retrieved from http://www.lifeway.com/Article/ResearchPoll-Pastors-oppose-evolution-split-on-earths-age
Russell, C. (2000a). The conflict of science and religion. In G. Ferngren (Ed.), The
History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition (pp. 12-16). New York,
NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Russell, C. (2000b). Views of nature. In G. Ferngren (Ed.), The History of Science and
Religion in the Western Tradition (pp. 38-44). New York, NY: Garland
Publishing, Inc.
Schaffrin, A. (2011). No measure without concept: A critical review on the
conceptualization and measurement of environmental concern. International
Review of Social Research, 1(3), 11-31.
Schick, E. (1965). Evolution. In Vol. I of J. Bodensieck (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the
Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House.
Schultz, P., Zelezny, L. & Dalrymple, N. (2000). A multinational perspective on the
relation between Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and attitudes of environmental
concern, Environment and Behaviour, 32(4), 576–591.
Scofield, C. (1909). The Scofield reference Bible: The holy bible, containing the old and
new testaments. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Segraves v. California, Sacramento Superior Court #278978 (1980)
Shaeffer, F. (1970). Pollution and the Death of Man. London, England: Hodder &
Stoughton
Shaiko, R. (1987). Religion, politics, and environmental concern: a powerful mix of
passions, Social Science Quarterly, 68(1–2), 244–262.
Sheldon, J. (1992). Rediscovery of creation: A biblical study of the church’s response to
the environmental crisis. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Sherkat, D. & Ellison, C. (2007). Structuring the religion-environment connection:
identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 71-85.
135
Shibley, M. & Wiggins, J. (1997). The Greening of Mainline American Religion: A
Sociological Analysis of the Environmental Ethics of the National Religious
Partnership for the Environment, Social Compass, 44(3), pp. 333–348.
Simpson, G. (1967). The meaning of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Simpson, J. (1925). The Struggle between science and religion. London, England:
Hodder & Stoughton.
Snachez, M., & Lafuente, R. (2010). Defining and measuring environmental
consciousness. Revista Internacional de Sociologia, 68(3), 731-755. DOI:
10.3989/ris.2008.11.03
SSP Research Group. (1995). International Social Survey Programme: Environment I ISSP 1993. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA2450 Data file Version 1.0.0,
doi:10.4232/1.2450
St. Francis. (1224). Canticle of the sun. Retrieved from
http://www.franciscanfriarstor.com/archive/stfrancis/stf_canticle_of_the_sun.htm
Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Streiffert, K. (1989). The earth groans and Christians are listening. Christianity Today,
33, 38-40.
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688 (2005)
Tarakeshwar, N., Swank, A., Pargament, K., & Mahoney, A. (2014). The sanctification
of nature and theological conservatism: A study of opposing religious correlates
of environmentalism. Review of Religious Research, 42(4), 387-404. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3512131
Taylor, P. (2013, June 02). Closing the gap. Answers Magazine, Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/gap-theory/closing-the-gap/
The Episcopal Church. (1982). Resolution 1982-d090: Reject the dogma of creationism.
67th General convention, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolutioncomplete.pl?resolution=1982-D090
The Episcopal Church. (2006). Resolution 2006-a129: Affirm evolution and science
education. 75th General convention, Columbus, OH. Retrieved from
www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolutioncomplete.pl?resolution=2006-A129
136
The Holy Bible, King James Version. Cambridge Edition: 1769; King James Bible
Online, 2015. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/.
Truelove, H., & Joireman, J. (2009). Understanding the relationship between Christian
orthodoxy and environmentalism: The mediating role of perceived environmental
consequences. Environment and Behaviour, 41(806), doi:
10.1177/0013916508328905
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). United states census bureau abstract on self-identified
religious populations. Population: Religion, Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf
United Church Board for Homeland Ministries. (1992). United church board
affirmations. . Retrieved from http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2399
United Methodist Church. (2008a, May). Resolution 80839-c1-r9999: Evolution and
intelligent design . Retrieved from
https://idexposed.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/united-methodist-church-evolutionand-intelligent-design/
United Methodist Church. (2008b, May). Petition 80050-C1-160.E: Science and
technology. Retrieved from
http://calms.umc.org/2008/Text.aspx?mode=Petition&Number=50
Weber, C. (1980). The fatal flaws of flood geology. Creation Evolution Journal, 1(1),
24–37. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology
Webster v. New Lenox School District, #122, 917 F. 2d 1004 (1990)
Weigel, R. (1977). Ideological and demographic correlates of pro-ecology behaviour, The
Journal of Social Psychology, 103(1), 39–47.
Weiskel, T. (1990). Cultural values and their environmental implications: An essay on
knowledge, belief and global survival. Annual meeting of the American
association for the advancement of science, New Orleans, LA.
Westman, R., & McGuire, J. (1977). Hermeticism and the scientific revolution. Los
Angeles, CA: Clark Memorial Library, University of California.
Whitcomb, J., & Morris, H. (1961). The genesis flood. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian &
Reformed Publishing.
White, A. (1897). A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Vol
2. New York, NY: Appleton.
White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis, Science, 155(3767),1203-07.
137
Whitney, E. (1993). Lynn White, eco-theology, and history, Environmental Ethics, 15(2),
151–169.
Wolkomir, M., Futreal, M., Woodrum, E. & Hoban, T. (1997a). Substantive religious
belief and environmentalism, Social Science Quarterly, 78(1), 96–108.
Wolkomir, M., Futreal, M., Woodrum, E. & Hoban, T. (1997b). Denominational
subcultures of environmentalism, Review of Religious Research, 38(4), 325–343.
Woodrum, E. & Hoban, T. (1994). Theology and religiosity effects on environmentalism,
Review of Religious Research, 35(3), 193–206.
Woodrum, E. & Wolkomir, M. J. (1997). Religious effects on environmentalism,
Sociological Spectrum, 17(2), 223–234.
Xiao, C., & McCright, A. (2013). Gender differences in environmental concern:
Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the U.S.A. Environment and
Behaviour, doi: 10.1177/0013916513491571
Young, D., & Stearley, R. (2008). The Bible, rocks, and time: geological evidence for the
age of the earth. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic.
Zelezny, L., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-457.
Zelezny, L. & Schultz, P. (2000). Promoting environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues,
56, 365-371.
Zimmerman, M. (2004). Evolution weekend: The clergy letter project. Retrieved from
http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
138
Appendices
Appendix A
Official Church Statements Regarding Stance on Evolution
Roman Catholic Church
In 1996, Pope John Paul II at the annual meeting of the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences stated that “Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical,
new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”
More recently, Pope Francis (2014d) during an address at The Pontifical
Academy of Sciences stated that “The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin
of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The
evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution
presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
“The created order is a space–time process, or rather a procession, orderly and
sequential, journeying through life from something to something. Life is an important
aspect of that procession from origin to perfection; it is through the evolution of life that
the procession moves forward” (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 1996).
Episcopal/Anglican Communion
“…the House of Bishops concurring, That this 67th General Convention affirm its belief
in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the
rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement, and be it further resolved.” (The
Episcopal Church, 1982).
“Resolved, that the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific
explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of
origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution
is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith…” The Episcopal
Church, 2006).
139
Southern Baptist Churches
“Evangelical Christianity and evolution are incompatible beliefs that cannot be
held together logically within a distinctly Christian world-view” (Mohler, 2005).
“There is no way for God to intervene in the process and for it to remain natural.”
Yet he is also quoted there as saying that “No Conservative Christian should deny there is
a process of change that is evident within the animal kingdom. And there is even a
process of natural selection that appears at least to be natural” (Mohler, 2009).
Methodism
Resolution (80839-C1-R9999): Evolution and Intelligent Design. “Therefore
be it resolved that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record
as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent
design into the science curriculum of our public schools” (UMC, 2008a).
Petition 80050-C1-160.E: Science and Technology. “…science’s descriptions of
cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology….
We find that as science expands human understanding of the natural world, our
understanding of the mysteries of God’s creation and word are enhanced” (UMC, 2008b).
Presbyterianism
“Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the
Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility
of evolution as a scientific theory.” (PCUSA, 1969)
“Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human
origins and the doctrine of God as Creator” (PCUSA, 2002).
Congregationalism
“We acknowledge modern evolutionary theory as the best present-day scientific
explanation of the existence of life on earth; such a conviction is in no way at odds
with our belief in a Creator God, or in the revelation and presence of that God in Jesus
Christ and the Holy Spirit” (UCBHM, 1992).
“Evolution helps us see our faithful God in a new way. Evolution also helps us
see ourselves anew, as creatures who share a common origin with other species” (Rev.
Thomas, 2008).
140
Lutheranism
“In whatever way the process may be ultimately explained, it has come about that
an idea which has been most thoroughly explored in the field of biology (lower forms of
life evolving into higher) has by means of organismic analogy found universal
application. Phenomena thus accounted for range from physical realities (evolution of the
atoms and expanding galaxies) to man and his social experience (the evolution
of cultural values) including his understanding of time and history (the evolutionary
vision of scientific eschatology)” (Schick, 1965).
Pentecostalism
Assembly of God. “Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account
should be taken literally,” and that, “ any evolutionary theory, including theistic
evolution/evolutionary creationism, that claims all forms of life arose from a common
ancestry is thereby ruled out” (AOG, 2014).
Church of God. “WHEREAS secular humanism and anti-God philosophies are
being taught in our public educational systems; and WHEREAS there is a need for God’s
people to unite against the teaching of evolution as a scientific fact; THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that we give our full support to the principle that where evolution is taught
in our public schools, provision be made for teaching the Biblical alternative of creation”
(COG, 1980).
Restorationism
“We strongly endorse the document’s affirmation of our historic, biblical position
of belief in a literal, recent, six-day creation” and “We reaffirm the Seventh-day
Adventist understanding of the historicity of Genesis 1-11: that the seven days of the
creation account were literal 24-hour days forming a week identical in time to what we
now experience as a week; and that the Flood was global in nature” (Paulson, 2004).
141
Appendix B
Bible Verses (King James Version)
Genesis
1:2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of
the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters.
1:7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one
place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:11. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and
the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it
was so.
1:12. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and
the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was
good.
1:14. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon
the earth: and it was so.
1:16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth,
1:18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the
darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
142
1:20. And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
1:21. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which
the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters
in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their
kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was
good.
1:26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
2:2. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
rested from all his work which God created and made.
2:5. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the
field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there
was not a man to till the ground.
2:7. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to
dress it and to keep it.
2:21. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:
and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
143
2:22. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman,
and brought her unto the man.
5:1. This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created
man, in the likeness of God made he him;
5:2. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
Adam, in the day when they were created
8:22. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and
summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
9:2. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the
earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all
the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
9:3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb
have I given you all things.
Exodus
23:11. the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy
people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou
shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy olive yard.
20:8. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Leviticus
25:2. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, when ye come into the
land which I give you, then shall the land keep a Sabbath unto the LORD.
25:3. Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy
vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
25:4. But in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath of rest unto the land, a Sabbath
for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.
25:5. That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap,
neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.
25:6. And the Sabbath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for thy
servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth
with thee,
25:7. And for thy cattle, and for the beast that are in thy land, shall all the increase
thereof be meat.
144
25:18. Wherefore ye shall do my statutes, and keep my judgments, and do them;
and ye shall dwell in the land in safety.
25:19. And the land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat your fill, and dwell
therein in safety.
Deuteronomy
20:19. When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take
it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest
eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to
employ them in the siege:
Psalms
8:6. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast
put all things under his feet:
24:1. (A Psalm of David.) The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the
world, and they that dwell therein.
90:10. The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of
strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut
off, and we fly away.
Ecclesiastes
3:18. I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might
manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
3:19. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing
befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a
man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
Isaiah
11:6. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with
the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall
lead them.
11:7. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down
together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
11:8. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned
child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
145
11:9. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall
be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
14:12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art
thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
14:13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the
sides of the north:
14:14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
14:15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
14:16. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee,
saying, is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
14:17. That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that
opened not the house of his prisoners?
14:18. All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his
own house.
14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the
raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of
the pit; as a carcass trodden under feet.
65:25. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like
the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my
holy mountain, saith the LORD.
Jeremiah
12:10. Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion
under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness.
12:11. They have made it desolate, and being desolate it mourneth unto me; the
whole land is made desolate, because no man layeth it to heart.
Ezekiel
12:12. Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto
him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in
beauty.
146
12:13. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy
covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the
sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of
thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
12:14. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou
wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the
stones of fire.
12:15. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till
iniquity was found in thee.
12:16. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with
violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of
God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
12:17. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy
wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before
kings, that they may behold thee.
12:18. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by
the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it
shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that
behold thee.
12:19. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou
shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
Luke
12:24. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have
storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?
John
1:3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made.
Romans
5:12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Corinthians
15:39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
147
Colossians
1:15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
1:16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him.
Hebrews
11:3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of
God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
2 Peter
3:8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Revelation
11:18. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the
dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants
the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and
shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Wisdom
19:19. This is just what happened - land animals became aquatic, swimming ones
took to the land.
148
Appendix C
Listing of U.S. State by State Type Designation
State Name
Arizona
California
Illinois
New York
Pennsylvania
Texas
Colorado
Florida
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Washington
Wisconsin
State Type
5
4
Maryland
4/1
Massachusetts
4/3/1
New Mexico
4/1
City Type
City Criteria
MET
DUA
UA
UC
DR
R
1,000,000+
>250,000 and <1,000,000
>50,000 and <250,000
>10,000 and < 50,000
>2,500 and <10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
DUA
1
DUA
2
UA
UC
DR
R
>500,000 and <1,000,000
DUA
1
UA
UC1
UC2
UC3
R
DUA
1
UA1
UA2
UC
DR
R
DUA
1
UA
UC1
UC2
DR
R
>500,000 and <1,000,000
>250,000 and <500,000
>50,000 and <250,000
>10,000 and < 50,000
>2,500 and <10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>50,000 and <100,000
>25,000 and <50,000
>10,000 and < 25,000
>2,500 and < 10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>500,000 and <1,000,000
>100,000 and <250,000
>50,000 and <100,000
>10,000 and < 50,000
>2,500 and <10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>500,000 and <1,000,000
>50,000 and <100,000
>25,000 and <50,000
>10,000 and < 25,000
>2,500 and < 10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
149
Oregon
4/3/1
Tennessee
4/3/1
Georgia
Kansas
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
Virginia
3
Hawaii
3/1
Idaho
3/2
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Iowa
Mississippi
Montana
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Rhode island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
2
DUA1
UA1
UA2
UC
DR
R
DUA1
UA1
UA2
UC
DR
R
>500,000 and <1,000,000
>100,000 and <250,000
>50,000 and <100,000
>10,000 and < 50,000
>2,500 and <10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>500,000 and <1,000,000
>100,000 and <250,000
>50,000 and <100,000
>10,000 and < 50,000
>2,500 and <10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
DUA
UA1
UA2
UC
DR
R
>250,000 and <500,000
>100,000 and <250,000
>50,000 and <100,000
>10,000 and < 50,000
>2,500 and <10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
DUA
UC1
UC2
UC3
R1
R2
DUA
UA2
UC1
UC2
R1
R2
>250,000 and <500,000
>25,000 and <50,000
>10,000 and < 25,000
>5,000 and < 10,000
>2,500 and <5,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>250,000 and <500,000
>50,000 and <100,000
>25,000 and < 50,000
>5,000 and < 25,000
>2,500 and <5,000
>1,000 and <2,500
UA1
UA2
UC1
UC2
R1
R2
>100,000 and <250,000
>50,000 and <100,000
>25,000 and < 50,000
>10,000 and < 25,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>1,000 and <2,500
150
Alaska*
2/sub 1*
Delaware
Maine
West Virginia
Wyoming
1
Vermont
Sub 1
UA1
UC2
UC3
R1
R2
R3
>100,000 and <250,000
>10,000 and < 25,000
>5,000 and < 10,000
>2,500 and <5,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>1,000 and <2,500
UA
UC1
UC2
DR
R1
R2
UC1
UC2
DR
R1
R2
R3
>50,000 and <100,000
>25,000 and <50,000
>10,000 and < 25,000
>2,500 and < 10,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>1,000 and <2,500
>25,000 and <50,000
>10,000 and < 25,000
>5,000 and < 10,000
>2,500 and <5,000
>1,000 and <2,500
>1,000 and <2,500
151
Appendix D
Copy of Survey Distributed to Clergy
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Appendix E
Graphs of Respondent Demographics
161
162
163
164
Appendix F
Demographic Correlation With Environmental and Evolution Totals
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
Appendix G
Graphs for Environmental Questions
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
Appendix H
Graphs Of Evolution Questions
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
Appendix I
Graphs for and List of Open-Ended Environmental Responses
192
Are there any specific biblical passages on which you base your view of the
environment, or humanity's role in Nature?
Gen 1:28 I believe we are to be good stewards of God's creation. I do not agree with
unscientific hype. I believe that real issues are air and water pollution, not CO2. I believe
as pastors we are to teach the word of God as we see God as a creator we will naturally for
the correct reasons seek to protect the creation He has given us. Many of these questions
have the bias that if we spend more money the environment is protected and that the
environment is the idol.I would use DDT to kill mosquitos that cause Malaria because I
know how harmful malaria causing mosquitos are, the real evidence for the harm DDT
causes is lacking.
Genesis 1:26
Genesis 1-3, Psalm 8, Genesis 9,
Gen. 1
Genesis 1 language is most often translated as "dominion" and "subdue". Their
interpretation has led to a wrong-headed relationship between humans and the rest of
creation - of which we are stewards.
Lots - especially Genesis
Far and away the most important is the creation story (really stories) and the concepts of
creation as diverse, what it means to have dominion, and the privilege of stewardship.
The passage in Genesis that is traditionally translated as taking dominion over creation, but
as more accurately translated to take stewardship. Many passages related to creation
revealing God's glory Paul referring to creation groaning until the Day of Redemption.
God rhetorically asking Job where he was when God was creating the universe. Genesis
1 having God say creation is good and very good. Many passages saying that God
delights in nature, frolics with the sea monsters, etc.
Psalm 8, Genesis 1
Genesis 1 & 2, several Psalms, John 1, Romans 8
Psalm 8
I think there are several but the most basic is in the creation stories of Genesis.
Genesis 1:26 Leviticus 25:23-24 Ezekiel 34
John 3:16-17
Genesis 1, 2, Psalm 24, and Revelation 21
Romans 1:25 - we need to be more interested in worshiping the creator than we are
creation. 2 Peter 3:10 - this earth is going to burn up anyway our job as preachers is to care
for people's souls which will live forever.
In Genesis we are told to be stewards of creation. The idea of "having dominion over" does
NOT give us license to do what we want without regard to consequences
Not just the basic creation story and incarnation story, but also the protestant ethic of
personal responsibility in life - that emerges from Paul's writings.
Genesis 1-2, Psalm 8, Ephesians 1, Colossians 1, John 1, to name but a few.
Genesis 1
Creation, where humans are charged with taking care of God's creation
john 6:8-9
Genesis 2
Genesis 1:28-31
The Earth is the Lord's (Genesis), and we are to be stewards of the earth from Creation
when God called it "good". People were entrusted with stewardship (not dominion 193
misreading) of God's earth. It doesn't belong to us. Also, note that the most major
denominations speak as Pope Francis from a biblical perspective to environmental issues
see the United Methodst Social Principals and Resolutions on the protection of the
Environment. Theologian Sally McFague says, the earth is the "body of God".
Genesis: creation narrative
noah & flood Romans: all creation is groaning &
awaiting salvation
Genesis 1-2
The Creation mandate found in Genesis
A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and those who
dwell therein,
Genesis 1:26-30 KJV
Genesis 1:28-30
Genesis 1:26-31 God made man have dominion over creation but as good stewards we are
to exercise care for His creation. There has to be a balance to our stewardship.
Genesis 1:28-31
Genesis 1.26, 28; 2.15
No~ I don't quote Scripture to make a modern day point. I say that we are here to care for
creation, but I don't throw Scripture at people to prove anything.
Genesis 1 - we are stewards, which means taking care of, rather than exploiting.
Genesis 2, 3, Romans 8, Colossians 1, Revelation 22:1-5,
Genesis 9...Noah
Genesis 1.1-2.4
Genesis 1-2, Psalm 19, Roman 8:18-22, 2 Peter 3:8-13
Genesis 1:26 - We humans are responsible. Made in God's image, we take the
responsibility for creation.
Our responsibility as co-creators expressed in Genesis
1). I believe we are called to be stewards over the earth, which includes the environment,
but this is not primary.
2). As a pastor, I believe my primary role is for people's souls.
In Matthew 10:28, Jesus places the value of the soul over the body, and everything else
that's material. We can spend our lives making the environment better, but if it means soul
is lost to hell, what difference does it make?
Again, I'm not saying that the environment
doesn't matter, just that my focus as a pastor shouldn't be on making sure people care for the
planet better, but that they should care for their souls better.
Genesis chapters one through two illustrate how God created men and women and gave
them a special role in creation. Humanity is to steward the gift of creation in a way that
preserves the harmony goodness with which God created the earth. Part of what it means to
be human is to graciously cultivate and unfold the potential latent within God's good
creation.
Genesis 1:26
1. The creation story....God created and it was "good." 2. Romans: The whole creation is
groaning in travail 3. Many of the psalms..the trees clapping their hands, etc.
The Creation stores - the idea that God made everything and called it "good" and created
human beings as stewards of creation; also the Noah stories and God's covenant with
humans and the animals after the flood; Paul's letter to the Romans in chapter 8 - the idea
that all creation is groaning and will one day be restored/redeemed
Genesis 1-2
194
Colossians 1:16-17. All things were created by him and for him. He is before all things and
in him all things hold together. Psalms 104:25, 27. Animals, both small and great.. they all
wait for thee to give them their food in due season.
Psalm 24:1; Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 15:28; Ephesians 2:14-18
Genesis 1:28
I don't care to add a Biblical passage here, what I would like to add is that the nature of
these questions and answers will cause misleading results. While I do not agree with the
politics or ideology of environmentalist, I do believe that God has called us to care for his
creation. So I am very concerned with the environment at that level. I do know want to see
the earth, air or water polluted, and we should take measures to ensure that it isn't.
However, that does not mean that I wish to give the Government more authority and power
than it already has. But nowhere in your survey did you allow people to express why they
answered the way they did. I believe that the reasons behind the answers are just as
important, and maybe more important that the answers themselves.
Genesis 1
from Genesis, Psalms, Prophets, stewardship discussion in New Testament
Gen 1
Genesis 1:28-30 We are to have "dominion" which in my mind means to be stewards of the
fruits of creation−plants and animals alike.
Genesis 9:1-7 Genesis 1:28
Genesis 8:22 - "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and
summer, and day and night shall not cease.”
Luke 16 2 Peter 3 Man is not going to destroy earth God is but He holds man responsible
for any and all sinful acts which can only be forgive by confessing your sins and believing
Jesus died for your sins.
Genesis passages on being caretakers of creation, and Jesus' statement on the greatest
commandments being loving God and loving neighbor.
Gen 1:28, 2:15
Pope Francis has no relavance in my life. I left the catholic church when i was 18 becuase i
did not agree with anything they taught. So i do not listen to what any of the Pope's have to
say. Theologically people cannot harm God's creation, they can only harm what we have
together created. God is existence! The Substance from which all life comes, the atoms that
make up the universe, as the Apostle Paul said in Acts 17:27&28. People will long for God,
even grope for God, although God is never very far away from anyone of us, for it is in God
that we live move and have our being!"" Why do we keep putting God out there beyond the
clouds, when God is the essence and life that feels us. As JC Said in John 4:16 God is Spirit
- The Breathe of Life. We can pollute this breathe and kill our self with the toxic we have
created, but that won't do anything to effect God. It's time to stop fighting our Essence and
learn to cherish it.
Genesis 1-2; Deuteronomy 8; Psalm 19, 24; Acts 17:22ff; Rom 8:18ff
Genesis, chapter 2
Genesis 1 - we are entrusted as God's stewards of creation
Genesis chapter one
Genesis 1-3
Deuteronomy 20:19 Romans 1:19-20; 8:22
Genesis 1:26
195
Genesis 1.26-31 (though let me be clear, I see "dominion" as loving caretaking)
Genesis 2−God wants us to "tend the garden" Romans 8:19−creation 'groans' in expectation
of renewal
The cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28 basically makes humans stewards of God's wonderful
creation. As stewards responsible to God, it is human's duty to bring order to chaos, to care
for what has been entrusted, and to make good use of it. Environmental Stewardship,
taking care of the planet and using resources wisely, is in keeping with the cultural
mandate.
Genesis 2:15, 3:17-19
Psalm 8 and Psalm 24
Gen 1-2
Genesis 1-2
Genesis chapter 1
Gen. 3:17-19 17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your
wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you
were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
There is a theme running through Scripture holding that men and women were created to be
the stewards of Creation, cultivating it in a way that furthers the Lord's creative work in
bringing about order, complexity, and beauty so as to prepare the Creation as a Temple to
receive the full measure of the Lord's glory. "Fill the earth and subdue it (wisely and
lovingly)" is spoken to men and women at their creation, lived out by Adam and Eve in the
garden, reiterated to Noah, and finally takes the form of a promise to Abraham and his
family ("I will make you exceedingly fruitful and kings of peoples will come forth from
you"), his family being called to take up the fundamental human vocation. Gardening (and
thus farming) is then the archetype of this good work, and is marked by offering Creation
up to the Lord in gratitude−the central Christian disposition. The problem with modern
approaches to environmentalism (that seem to be reflected in this questionnaire) is that they
are so narrow, reflecting the modern ailment of specialization that dissects human life into a
thousand pieces. This modern impulse (as Wendell Berry so powerfully depicts) is a major
culprit in environmental issues today, and current movements to counteract the problems
facing our Lord's creation fail to reckon with the needed transformation of character and
cultivation of virtue (through liturgy, mainly) that necessarily must precede any right and
responsible livelihood.
Genesis 2:15
Genesis 1:26-31
Creation stories in Genesis and implications in the Gospel of Jesus
My perspective is that God is disrupting the climate to make clear as Psalm 46 teaches: Be
still and know that I am God. He has used man's irresponsibility. We are stewards of the
creation and must do what we can to be responsible, but ultimately nothing man does will
stop God's judgments that will result in the destruction of this world by fire. II Peter 3,
Matthew 24, Revelation 8-19.
Genesis (dominion over- with great power comes great responsibility), Love God and
neighbor (intertwined in all that we do)
196
we are stewards of God's creation
Genesis 1
Genesis 2, psalm 104, Job 39-40, *Deut. 20:19, Ex. 23:10-11 (and consequences for not
giving rest to the land 2 Chron. 36:20-21)
Genesis 1:28 Mandate to steward the earth
Genesis: God gave humans stewardship over creation.
Genesis 2:15. I had to look up reference.
too many it is a constant, ever present theme.
Genesis - I believe we are called to be stewards of creation.
Genesis 1:1- 2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25
Psalm 136
It's not just about so-called "green" passages, but rather anything that speaks the way we are
to be in relationship by definition speaks to the environment.
The creation narrative, God calls us to be stewards of creation.
Genesis 1 and 2; John 3:16
Genesis 1-2, Colossians 1:20, Revelation 21-22
Genesis 1: 26
Genesis 1
Genesis 1, especially verses 28 - 31.
Romans 8
Genesis chapters 1 and 2
In broad strokes, Genesis 1-2, the creation narratives, and Revelation 21-22, the recreation
narratives of the new heaven and new earth.
Deuteronomy 8:6-10
The first chapters of Genesis where creation is described as "good" and humans are
entrusted with the task of caring for it.
Creation stories in Genesis, Psalms 19, 104, etc.
Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 8:18-25
Genesis chapter 1
Genesis 1 & 2: if God is the Creator then the Creation is sacramental
Psalm 8
Genesis 9
The two biblical ideas of creation and stewardship require us to be faith caretakers of a
creation that does not belong to us, but to the Creator. We are stewards of creation, and we
must be faithful. (1 Corinthians 4:2)
Genesis 2:15 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work
it and keep it.
Genesis:1 28-31.."Have dominion (some scholars would say "stewardship")...meaning
"take care of creation"
Genesis opening chapters Book of Psalms
I seriously hope you are more concerned about never dying souls than any earthly or
environmental issue.
Genesis 1-3 Psalm 24 Psalm 8 Job 38-42:1-6 Romans 8:22-25 John 3:16 Colossians
1:15-20 Revelation 21:1-5; Revelation 22:1-5 I Corinthians 15:58
Genesis 1 and 2
197
Gen 1:28−"Fill the Earth & subdue it" Psalm 8 Psalm 29
Gen. 1:24-26
Genesis - "...and God saw that it was good."
The creation narrative from both Genesis and the Gospel of John. Also many of Jesus'
parables about the kingdom of God.
Romans 8:22−The cumulative sins of humanity contribute to the groaning and suffering of
all creation.
Genesis 2
Passages that talk about Adam and Eve being "over" creation. We have a responsibility to
care for the earth.
Genesis Psalms
Genesis : stewardship of creation/ caretaker sometimes translated as "dominion" −not to
"dominate" but to be responsible to creations integrity
Genesis (creation); Christ (and the Church) as the new Adam.
Genesis 1:27-31
Revelation 11:18 Genesis 2:15
Psalms 104:25,30. In wisdom you made them all, the earth is full of your creatures. There is
the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number - living things both large
and small... When you send your Spirit, they are created and you renew the earth. John
1:3. Through him all things were made: without him nothing was made that has been made.
Colossians 1:16-17. All things were created by him and for him. He is before all things and
in him all things hold together. God has a Relationship with All of His Creation Psalm
96:10-13. The Lord reigns... Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad, let the seas
resound and all that is in it; let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the
trees of the forest will sing for joy, they will sing before the Lord for he comes, he comes to
judge the earth. Isaiah 43:20-21. The wild animals honor me, the jackals and the owls,
because I provide water in the desert and streams in the wasteland, to give drink to my
people, my chosen. Deut. 32:1-2. Listen, Oh heavens, and I will speak, hear, Oh earth, the
words of my mouth. Let my teaching fall like rain and my words descend like dew, like
showers on new grass, like abundant rain on tender plants. Job 37:14-18. Listen to this,
Job. Stop and consider God's wonders. Do you know how God controls the clouds and
makes his lightning flash? Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him
who is perfect in knowledge? Psalms 104:25, 27. Animals, both small and great.. they all
wait for thee to give them their food in due season. Matt 6:26. Look at the birds of the air,
that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns and yet your heavenly
father feeds them. And are you not worth much more than they? God's Power is Seen in
Nature Joshua 2:11. For the lord your God is God in heaven above and on earth below.
Romans 1:20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal
power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been
made, so that men are without excuse. Psalms 104:24. How many are your works, O
Lord! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the
sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number - living things both large and
small. God Calls All of His Creation to Worship Psalm 19:1. The heavens are telling of
the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Isaiah 55:12-13.
The mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will
clap their hands. All this will be a memorial for the Lord, a sign that for all time will not be
198
cut off. Nehemiah 9:6. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens and all their
starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You gave life to
everything and the multitudes of heaven worship you. Psalm 8:3-8. When I consider your
heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have set in place, what
is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man. I Chron. 16:7,30-34. Tremble before
him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. Let the heavens
rejoice. Let the earth he glad; let them say among the nations, "The lord reigns!" Rev
5:13. Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea,
and all that is in them, singing "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb, be praise
and honor and glory and power for ever and ever." Job 9:5-10. But how can a mortal be
righteous before God? Though no one wished to dispute with him, he could not answer him
one time out of a thousand. His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted
him and come out unscathed? He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns
them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes it pillars tremble. He speaks
to the sun and it does not shine. God Teaches Humans through Nature Job 12:7-10. But
ask the animals, and they will teach you; or birds of the air and they will tell you; or speak
to the earth and it will teach you; or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these
does not know that the hand of the lord has done this. In his hand is the life of every
creature and the breath of all mankind. Romans 1:19-20. For what can be known about
God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the
world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood
and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse. Isaiah 11:9. They
will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. God Expects Humans to be His
Stewards with Nature Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and
let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the
earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Lev. 25:23-24. The land is
mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a
possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. Ezekiel 34:2-4. Woe to the
shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not the shepherds take care of
the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice
animals, but you did not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or
healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched
for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. Ezekiel 34:10. 0 shepherds, hear
the word of the Lord. This is what the sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and
will hold them accountable for my flock. Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it
not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture
with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest
with your feet? Isaiah 24:4-6. The earth dries up and withers, the world languished and
withers, the exalted of the earth languish. The earth lies under its inhabitants; for they have
transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore
a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a
fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you
made my inheritance detestable. Luke 16:2,10,13. And he called him and said to him,
"What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer
be steward. He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is
199
unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous in much. You cannot serve both God and
mammon. James 5:5. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton
pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. Mark 4:19. ...and the
worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in
and choke the word and it becomes unfruitful. Revelation 11:18. The nations were angry
and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and
your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying
those who destroy the earth. God Expects Us to Obey Him in our Lifestyle Luke
12:15,23,34. And He said to them, "Beware and be on your guard against every form of
greed; for not even when one has an abundance does life consist of his possessions. For life
is more than food, and the body more than clothing. For where your treasure is, there will
your heart be also. Leviticus 26:3-4,6. If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey
my commands, I will send you rain in its season and the ground will yield its crops and the
trees of the field their fruit... and I will grant peace in the land. God Expects Us to Obey
His Commands 1 Peter 3:17. It is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing
what is right, rather than for doing what is wrong. Psalm 37:34. Wait for the lord and keep
his way. Exodus 23:2. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. Hebrews 10:30-31. For
we know Him who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will
judge his people." It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Psalm 24:1 Genesis 1-3 Genesis 9 Leviticus 25:1-23; 26:1-9 Isaiah 24; 35; 40 Matthew
6:25-34; 14:13-25 //; 25 John 6 Romans 8:18-25 Revelation 21
Gen 1-2
The book of Genesis
Genesis 1:28-30, Psalm 19
Corinthians 10 and Psalm 24
God created (Genesis story)
Old and new testaments both begin with the words "in the beginning..." there was an order
to god's plan which we have thwarted
Genesis−be good stewards of God's creation
Gen. 1:26-28; 2:15; Ps. 24:1
Here are two papers I've written that answer this question:
http://jeremiahgriffin.blogspot.com/2011/05/scriptural-and-theological-defense-of.html
http://jeremiahgriffin.blogspot.com/2011/03/gratitude-remembrance-and-survival-in.html
Genesis
Genesis 1,2 Romans 8
Genesis 1-2 Several of the Psalms (24 stands out). Romans 8:18-23 Jesus never talked
about the environment as a major issue. Other issues regarding how we relate to God and
one another took priority for him.
Genesis
Psalm 34:8 Genesis: And God saw that it was good... Psalm 104
Gen 1:28-31
Book of Genesis chap 1 - 3
The stories of creation are good. The story of the flood and God's promise never again to
wipe out all living creatures (although we are trying pretty hard to do it ourselves)
The creation story to begin with, and many more.
I'm aware of some passages about caring for creation. I tend to see environmental
200
responsibility as an extension of loving our neighbors (which is about half of the Bible).
I'm less concerned about taking care of the planet for the planet's sake than for the sake of
others who suffer when the planet suffers. I feel that Climate Change and environmental
degradation are driven by the consumer lifestyles of wealthy people but cause the most
harm to people living in the margins (a major theme in the Bible, especially the minor
prophets).
Partially Colossians 1:16, and the whole Christ hymn that links all of creation into the body
of Christ. Then we too are put into that body, that is to say, we are called into the ongoing
creative acts of God who loves the world and calls it good.
Genesis 1:28-31
Genesis1.26-31
Isaiah 24 comes to mind often.
I believe a lot of our difficulty as a people of faith has been a misunderstanding of Genesis
1.28 ( God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth
and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and
over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”) I believe God calls us to tend to and
nurture the earth, not reign over it and use it all up as we might classically think of 'subdue'
and 'dominion'.
Psalm 104 Genesis 1 - creation story; it was good and human's stewardship interpreted for
"dominion"
Gen 1&2 - Man is given stewardship of the earth. Gen 3 - Man rebelled against God which
in turn corrupted the earth from its original goodness (Rom 8:19-22), and man's ability to be
a good steward. 2 Peter 3:5-12 - present earth is passing away, a new creation is coming,
and key focus of God's people is not the environment but the sharing of the good news of
Jesus' atoning death for our sins and resurrection for our life, and sharing this to all the
world, belief in which is the only way to God, holiness, godliness (2 Peter 3:11-12)
Gen 1-2
Genesis Chapters 1 & 2. Many of the Psalms Song of Songs
Genesis 1:27-31
Genesis 1-2
There is a clear call to care for and protect the earth in Genesis, and I do not believe Genesis
requires us to believe in a literal six day creation.
1. Genesis 1:28 - We are to be good stewards, hence, have dominion, not dominate the
earth. We are responsible to how we use it. 2. Genesis 2:15 - God intends for us to use the
earth and its resources for our good. It's a part his blessing to us, not a curse. 3. Genesis
1:1 - God created the heavens and earth; therefore, he owns it. Since he the Creator and
loves it, it is highly improbable that he will permit his creatures to have the power to
destroy it. 4. Romans 8:20-22 - Since humanity is fallen, we make a mess of things
including the earth. Pollution does exist. We do act irresponsibly. Yet, we lack the power to
permanently destroy it. We do have the responsibility to care for it. There is a definite
tension between God's provision and our responsibility.
Genesis 1-3
Genesis 1-2, specifically Gen 1:28; Psalm 104; Proverbs 12:10
Genesis 1:26-31
Genesis 1:26-28, Exodus 23:10-11, Deuteronomy 20:19, Psalm 89:11, Isaiah 24:4-6,
Matthew 6:26, Romans 1:19-20 Furthermore, many of the Psalms and the last several
201
chapters of the book of Job explain that the earth belongs to the Lord, the implication is that
we are to care for it as stewards, bearing his image and acting in ways that reflect his
character.
sorry, short on time
Genesis 1:28 - humans are responsible for earth. Genesis 2:15 - take care of the garden. I
believe a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 should prompt us toward better stewardship of
the environment. Evolution theory does not motivate me to be a good steward of the earth.
Genesis 1:27&28; Genesis 2:15; Genesis 9:1-3; Psalm 24:1&2; All of Psalm 8; Psalm
115:16; Proverbs 12:10; Nehemiah 10:31 and other verses on letting earth be fallow for a
year. James 3:7-8
The creation stories in Genesis; Deut 10:14 - heaven and earth belong to God; Leviticus
25:3-5 - letting the land rest every 7 years; 2 Corinthians 5:17 all things made new in Christ
Isaiah 24:5-6, Genesis 1 and 2, Isaiah 49:6, Colossians 1:20, Ephesians 1:10, Romans 8:2122, Psalm 148, Isaiah 55:12, Wisdom 12:1, Romans 1:20, Genesis 9:9-10, Ecclesiastes
18:13, John 3:16-17, Exodus 23:10-12, Leviticus 25:1-23, Numbers 35:33-34
Romans 8 Psalm 148
Genesis 1-2 Psalm 24:1
Genesis 2:15 Exodus/Deuteronomy regarding land usage and fallow years Matthew
22:37-40
"And God saw that it was good" which means that the purposes for which God created the
universe were appropriate to God's intention.
"It (the earth) was good (beautiful)"
Genesis 1, 2, 3
2 Peter 3:10-13 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the
heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat;
both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things
will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will
be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we,
according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness
dwells." Rev 8:7-11 "The first angel blew his trumpet, and hail and fire mixed with blood
were thrown down on the earth. One-third of the earth was set on fire, one-third of the trees
were burned, and all the green grass was burned. 8Then the second angel blew his trumpet,
and a great mountain of fire was thrown into the sea. One-third of the water in the sea
became blood, 9one-third of all things living in the sea died, and one-third of all the ships
on the sea were destroyed. 10Then the third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell
from the sky, burning like a torch. It fell on one-third of the rivers and on the springs of
water. 11The name of the star was Bitterness. It made one-third of the water bitter, and
many people died from drinking the bitter water."
Genesis 1 and 2
Romans 8 Creation groaning as it waits for redemption from our abuse.
Romans 1:19-20, Genesis 1, Leviticus 25:23-24,
Generally, I find the original mandate that humans act as caretakers of creation to be the
foundational passage on the issue (Gen 1,2).
Genesis 2:15
The Bible is not a rule book handed down by God, so using it to justify common sense is
202
not necessary.
Genesis 1 and 2
Genesis 1:28
Genesis, creation story Jesus' command to love one another includes loving creation
Christ is the one "through whom and for whom all things are made" (Colossians); Genesis
chapter 1; Genesis chapter with an emphasis on "caretaking:" Book of Job; Creation
centered Psalms; John 1 and incarnation generally; "your kingdom come on earth as in
heaven" (Lord's Prayer);
Gen 1
Genesis 1:26-31; Genesis 2:7-9,15; Genesis 3:17-19; Colossians 1:16-17, Romans 8:18-22;
2 Peter 3:3-13; Revelation 21:1
Genesis 2 - called to care for the garden; any of the prophetic voices that call us to speak for
the voiceless; Jesus' question in Matthew 25 - "when did you do this for the least of mine?"
For God so loved the world...
Genesis 1:26-28; 2:15; 8:22 Acts 3:21 Romans 8:19-25
Genesis 1-2 (dominion does not mean taking anything we want, but rather caring for); Gen.
9:8-17 (promise is for all creatures); Micah 6:8 (justice includes all of creation, not just
humans);
Genesis 2:15
Genesis 1 & 2
Genesis 1; Genesis 9; Jonah 4:11; Revelation 21:1-5
I don't believe we should call it "mother earth". Not a spiritual phrase... Earth is God's
creation for us to live and enjoy.
Psalm 8 Psalm 121
And Behold, everything that God made was good.
Genesis, chapters 1 & 2
Genesis 1, Romans 8
Genesis 1-3 Revelation 11:18, 21:1-7, 22:1-5 Jonah 4:11
Genesis 2:15-20
Genesis 1: 28
Genesis, chapters 1 and 2. Matthew 6: Jesus saying "consider the lilies of the field..."
There are also many, many passages that stress the importance of water.
Genesis 1-2
Genesis 2:15
Genesis 2
2 Peter 3:10; Genesis 8:22
Genesis 2:8
Genesis 1-2 We are creatures that are a part of creation, not separate from it. Pretending we
are separate from this planet, and not intrinsically connected to it, is what allows us to
degrade the environment and other life with whom we share it.
Genesis - and God said: it was good.
just the Genesis Creation story in general
Job−the voice in the whirlwind−who are we to think we understand creation better than
God?
Gen. 1:26-28; 2:8-20;
203
In Genesis we were given the charge to be stewards of creation. God made a rainbow
covenant with Noah AND all living things. Our bond with creation is not just physical but
spiritual. St Paul points out that ALL creation groans for salvation.
Creation Story
The numerous passages focused on Love of God & love of neighbor
Gen. 1:27ff
Psalm 24:1, Job 12:10, Psalm 135:6
Really just the stewardship idea in Genesis 1-2 and maybe the idea of creation groaning for
redemption in Romans 8
I'd advocate for a way of using Scripture that goes beyond citing a particular passage in
support of a view, and advocate for a much stronger and comprehensive vision for the
natural world that places God's restoration of the planet at the heart of a Scriptural vision of
God's desires for the world.
We should care for the earth (Gen.1:26-28). Government's role should be to support
programs that are good (Rom.13), but it can do this ONLY if policies are based on real
science.
Genesis, Ch. 2 - 2nd creation story Paul's concept of being in Christ calling us to taking
responsibility for the environment (based on several passages)
Genesis 1:28-30 and Genesis 2:15
Genesis 3 - Mankind ruins the harmony of nature with sin. Genesis 1-2 - God gives man
dominion over creation, not to "lord it over" but rather as a stewardship to take care of it.
Man is responsible for taking care of creation as best as he can, ultimately keeping in mind
how you can love ones' neighbor (Matthew 22:37-39). Romans 8:18-25 - creation is in
bondage to sin; while we care for it, only Christ can fully and completely set it free. 1 Cor.
4:2 - We are to be faithful with our stewardship of the earth. (Matt. 25:14-30; Ps. 24:1)
Gen 1 and 2 Ez 47 Psalm 8
Genesis 1-2 Our designed role is to be God's representatives, His caretakers of His
creation, this includes everything He created, including human beings.
Psalm 19:1
Gen. 1:28 ("dominion" is not ownership...it's stewardship)
Genesis 1 & 2
Genesis chapter 1
Genesis 1:26-28
Psalm 8
Gen 2:15, Gen 1:31, Gen 9:8-11, Rom 8:19-23 The entirety of Hebrew Scripture
establishes direct links between Humans, God, and the Land. All three must be in right
relationship with one another. When the relationship between Humans and the Land is out
of joint, then the relationship Humans have to God is also out of joint, and so on.
Psalm 24:1
Genesis 1-2
Psalms Genesis Leviticus 25
Mt 24:35, Rev 21:1
Genesis 2; Leviticus 25; Psalm 102:25-28; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 21
We are to be wise stewards of creation... see Gen. 2:15
Genesis 2
204
Genesis 1:28
Genesis 1:28-30; 3:17b-19
Genesis 1:1, 26-28, 3:16-19
Gen 2:15
Genesis 2:15
Genesis 1 and 2; Psalms 8 and 148
Genesis 1-2 calls us to be stewards of our environment. However the primary issue is not
science, but the human heart. As a pastor I am not an agent of environmental change, but
one of heart change. If people can view their world through the lens of God's Word and our
responsibility, then we will be good stewards. Science will help, but it is not the answer.
Genesis 1-11, interconnection and interdependence of the associated realms of the universe.
Genesis 1-2 show we are created to be stewards
Genesis chapters 1-2
Genesis 1-3 - We are stewards of creation.
Genesis stewards of the earth
Genesis 2 - we are called to be stewards of creation, even to the point of bestowing names
on our fellow creatures. Psalms - look at the works thy hands have made! Matthew consider the lilies of the fields - God takes care of them. (So shouldn't we?) Paul:
Consider others better than yourself (hard to reconcile with endless consumption for
personal comfort)
Gen 1:26-31
Luke 19:40
All of it. We are given responsibility for Creation in Genesis.
Psalm 24:1 - The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.
Also Psalm 8!
Genesis 1:31
Genesis 1:28f is a commission to man to be good stewards of what God has created. I think
greed is sin that has led to much of environmental problems.
Genesis 1,2. Humanity is to steward creation. Romans 8 - the creation will be renewed
Genesis 2:15, Genesis 3:17 paired with Revelation 22:3
Genesis 1:26-27
All of Genesis
Romans 8:19-22, Genesis 1:26, Daniel 7:27, Psalms 119:133, Isaiah 24:20,
Genesis 1:31; Number 3533-34; Romans 8:22;
Gen 1:26-30; Psalm 8
Gen 1:28 -30 speaks of stewardship of God's creation
Genesis 1:28
Mainly Genesis chapters 1-3 on the charge given to man to have dominion over the
creation. Yet, because we no longer live in a perfect place (Eden), death/erosion and decay
of God’s creation is inevitable. It's still our duty to be good stewards of what He has given
us but at the same time it's not our primary calling in this world.
Genesis - "it was very good" Dominion passage - has been misinterpreted in Genesis
Genesis 2; Genesis 9; Psalm 24
Genesis 1-2, psalm 8, land laws in Deuteronomy (Sabbath year).
Genesis 1:28-29
205
Appendix J
Graphs for and List of Open-Ended Evolution Responses
206
Are there any specific biblical passages on which you base your view of the origins of
humanity, or the world in general?
John 1:1-3
God created humankind in God´s image. This is to be treated not as a specific punctual
act by God but as the ethical basis for how we treat all human beings.
Genesis 1
Genesis 1-3,
Gen. 1
Concepts - in creation, the created is continually invited into the fluid process of
continuing the creation. I also think that forgiveness offers a sort of spiritual mirror of the
biological concept of evolution as much as they are both bringing life out of death. I
actually left seminary with an unfinished paper on the subject and keep wanting to return
to it...
Both creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2 indicate different messages being submitted by
different writers to teach the people of God about their faith.
Genesis 1 & 2, Psalms, Prov. 8:22, Sir. 1:4, Wisdom 9:9, John 1, Colossians 1:15,16,
Hebrews 1:1-3, etc. (Wisdom/Logos theology)
Book of Genesis
Genesis, as I mentioned before Psalms Gospel of John 1:1-5
Genesis 1:26-27
Gen chapters 1 and 2 Colossians 1:15-17 John 1:1-3 Nehemiah 9:6 Psalm 33:5 Isaiah
45:12 Isaiah 45:18 and about 50 more....
Genesis 1-2, John 1, Psalm 8, and others.
Genesis 1 and 2
Genesis 1-2
mt, 7:24-27
Genesis 3:19 "dust to dust" John 3:6 "born of flesh"
Origin of humanity and priority of humanity: Genesis 1-2 Job 7:17 Psalm 8:4
Genesis, woman and man are created in the image of God. See above.
themes that run throughout the biblical material more than isolated passages: creator God
& redeemer God; humanity's journey with God
Genesis 1 and 2.
Yes. The entire King James Bible is replete with God creating the universe out of
nothing, starting with Genesis Chapter 1 and ending in Revelation Chapter 22.
Genesis and the reflection of it in John's Gospel
No, just the overall nature of the Bible.
Genesis Chapters 1-3
Genesis 1.1: Colossian 1.16, 17
Genesis 1.27-28 Exodus 20.11 Exodus 31.17 Isaiah 40.21-24 2 Peter 3.3-7 Colossians
1.16,17 Psalm 33.6,9
There are way too many on the list to begin to answer this one. However, the prior
question should be one's approach to the Scriptures overall. To approach the Scriptures as
a human document colors everything else. This is the greater question.
The first three chapters of Genesis.
Genesis 1:1; Gen. 1: 26- 31; 2:4- 25;Acts 17:24-28; Romans 1:20; Hebrews 11:1-3
207
Genesis chapter one is not intended to be a scientific treatise. But I do believe this passage
is accurate in showing that an Personal and Absolute God is the creator of all things. He is
the origin and cause of all that is. Since he exists apart and independent from all of his
creation, he and he alone is the source of objective meaning and morality. While I affirm
aspects of evolutionary theory, I cannot subscribe to a cosmology that says everything
came from nothing. (Indeed, such attempts to reduce reality to matter in motion still end
up attempting to define nothing as "something"). Moreover, I think the first chapters of
Genesis are some of the most beautiful and profound words in all of literature. However, I
think Genesis is often misinterpreted by both Christian and secular people. The creation
account was never intended to answer the same questions that science tends to ask.
Science asks questions like "how?, what?, when?, and where?" Science answers these
questions very well, and in a way that Genesis was never intended to. However, Science
cannot answer the question of "why?" And it is this "why?" question that I think Genesis
answers profoundly well.
Genesis 1-3; 9:6 "God made Man..." It doesn't say, "God evolved Man." In fact, the
biblical account says God made everything in their separate, distinct and final forms and
interspeciation is not possible. Nor has science EVER seen one, single, observable
beneficial mutation when radiologically induced. No one has ever seen evolution;
adaptation, yes; evolution, no. Even National Geographic tells us sharks and alligators
have not evolved for millions of years. Either they evolve or not; you can't have it both
ways! If sharks haven't evolved over millions of years −as the fossil record indicates
−then nothing else has evolved either! At least unbelieving scientists should be consistent
in their application of evolution! Explain the un-evolved coelacanthe "fossil" fish, though
extinct millions of years ago, but caught alive off Madagascar? What of dinosaur and
human footprints concurrent in the same layer in Glen Rose, Texas and Palunxy River?
Many have switched their line of thinking to "punctuated equilibrium" as a fall-back
position when evolutionary theory starts to unravel...Why not just believe God and His
account in the Word of God, literally, just as it says.
The accounts of Creation in Genesis, but also the gospel of John, chapter 1, and the
Psalms (specifically Psalm 139)
Genesis 1-2; Many Psalms; Romans 1, Ephesians 1, etc
Genesis chapters 1-3
Genesis 1-2 Acts 17:26 Isaiah 40:28 et al
Genesis chapter 1 & 2
Genesis 1
Genesis creation describes the time humanity gained knowledge of self and concepts of
something beyond themselves. I think this demonstrates evolutionary growth.
Science will prove the existence of God long before religion does. Science search to
understand how God creates and works within the universe. Religion seeks to understand
God from an intellectual point of view based in the theory's that created by people who
were lost. What that's saying by Paul, Sleeper Awaken, awaken from the dead, so that
you can live in Christ because all things Come to life. The Word Christ Actually comes
from an Ancient Greek Teachings that refers to the Living Field that surrounds and
enfolds all things. God is the Living Field and Jesus was the first (according to Paul) to
awaken to this living field and called him Christ! The one who was aware of this field of
living energy that you and I call God. Evolution is a very viable and powerful teaching of
208
mankind’s unfoldment and awakening to the living field to God's Presence - it is both on
an individual process and global process. this is actually what the book of Revelation
actually teaches and what the bible overall share, humanity awakening to God as the
living Field which man kind in its ignorance is destroying. Creationism and Intelligent
Design are both very stupid teachings that not only lack any scientific rebalance but any
type of logic or intelligence, they should really be good Stupidity Design
see those listed before under the environmental section. God's declaration as creator is
foundational to our stewardship of His creation and our place in it. To those passages
listed
John 3
Psalm 100:3 Romans 1:18-32 Acts 17:22-28 Isaiah 40:12-15, 25-28 Psalm 24:1-2 Job,
chapters 38,39
Genesis 1; Ps. 19:1; John 1:1;Matt. 13:35; Heb. 4:3;2 Pet. 3:4
Genesis
genesis 1
Genesis account of creation
Genesis 1-3
Genesis chapter 1 and 2; 2:15
Isaiah 48:13. Genesis 1 and 2. Exodus 20: 11. Exodus 31:17. The word "day" in Genesis
means a literal 24 hour period.
The Lord formed man from the dust and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen.
2:7; cf. Psalm 103:13-16). This is extremely important, both in its openness to a material
description of human beings, and in its moral implications. We do not have life in
ourselves (contrary to the myth of an eternal soul). We will receive everlasting life as a
gift on the Last Day, when we share bodily in Jesus' resurrection (this is the centerpiece of
our ontology of the human being). Christian discipleship consists largely in embracing
that we are creatures, that we are finite and limited, that all our life is a gift to be received
in gratitude. In short, that we are dust and to dust we shall return. This means, as
Benedict instructed his monks, contemplating our death frequently (as we do during
Lent). It means fasting and prayer. But the main places we learn to embrace our
limitations as a gift is first in the Eucharist and then through friendship with the poor. It
also means resisting cultural liturgies (esp. technology) that trains us and our imaginations
to despise our limitations, to hate the dust of which we are made.
Genesis
Genesis ... the creation stories
Genesis 1 is backed up significantly by Exodus 20:9-11 and Hebrews 11:3 in addition to
John 1 and Colossians 1. If God did not create in 6 literal days, then Exodus makes no
sense in comparing creation and rest with our work week and day of rest.
Genesis 1 & 2
Genesis 1&2, John 1, and lots of Psalms
Genesis 1, Romans 4, 8, Mt 19:4-6,
Genesis 1-2
John 1: "without him, nothing was made."
Gen 1
Psalm 8, 104
Genesis 1,2; John 1, Psalm 139
209
Gen 1&2
Genesis 1; 2; Psalm 33:6
Again, Genesis teaches that 'God' is the author of Creation. It is NOT a scientific
explanation, it is a theological one.
Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19:4-6
Genesis 1-2; Matthew 19:4
Genesis
Jesus confirms the Genesis account in Mark 10. Mark 10:6-8 6 But from the beginning
of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father
and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and they shall become one flesh.' So they are no
longer two but one flesh.
It is not based upon one verse verses another but the total authority/sufficiency of all of
Scripture. I hope your view of Scripture has more honest theological integrity than your
questions seem to indicate here.
Genesis 1:1; Genesis 1:27 Psalm 24:1-5; Colossians 1:15-17
The book of Genesis
Genesis 1 Genesis 2 Proverbs 8 Psalm 33 John 1
Matthew 19:4-6. Jesus argued that lifelong marriage without divorce was God's plan for
humanity. He referred back to the Creation account.
Genesis account (first couple chapters)
Genesis Psalms
Genesis. The Psalms (e.g. 103/104)
Genesis 1
Book of Genesis.
Gen 1-2, Matthew 19, Romans 5:12-21, Job 38-42 (about creation generally)
Again the book of Genesis. Job Psalms
Genesis 1-2, Romans 1, Hebrews 1:10 & 11:3, Colossians 1:16, Exodus 20:11
Genesis 1
The accounts in Genesis specify "who" created but do not concern themselves with
"how".
Genesis 1, John 1
Genesis stories and the Psalms
AND GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
Genesis 1 and 2
Genesis 1-3, 6-9.
I see the creation stories as communicating truths about the experience of being human.
Genesis 1 Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6
Genesis and John 1
Many passages in the Bible convince me that all life comes from God. Nothing in the
Bible constitutes a scientific explanation of the process.
Genesis 1 and 2, in the Hebrew. I believe the Jewish Publication Society has one of the
clearest translations of the initial clausal indefinite article in Genesis 1:1, saying, "When
God began to create the heavens and the earth."
Genesis 1 and 2, Matthew 19.4-6
Gen 1&2 and various passages in OT and NT which refer to Gen 1&2.
210
Genesis 2 and 3
Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, Acts 17:25
Genesis 1-3
Genesis 1-3
Genesis 1-2, especially 1:11-12, 21,24-25; Exodus 20:11; I Chronicles 1:1; Hosea 6:7;
Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12-14; I Corinthians 15:21-22, 45; I Timothy 2:13-14; Jude 14
Rom 5:12-17
The first three chapters of Genesis, Job 38-42, John 1:1-13, Romans chapter 1. Most of
the Psalms and much of the Torah is predicated upon the understanding that God created
the world and its inhabitants, therefore we have an obligation to him.
Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus speaks of Genesis account as historical and accurate. 1
Corinthians 15:21-22, there was no death in creation until the fall of Adam. (evolution
requires millions of years of death and decay before humans arrive on the scene.)
Genesis chapters 1-3. God created a "grown up" world. Genesis 1:11, 12, & 29 the herb
and tree "yielding seed". Adam and Eve were told to multiply. They were created in an
adult state. I make mention of each of the 3 persons of the Trinity being part of Creation Gen. 1:2 - The Holy Spirit; Colossians 1:16&17 Jesus; Genesis Chaps1-3 The Father
John 1
Genesis 1:26-27 John 1:1-3
"In the beginning, God..." which is an open statement that says "God" (whatever that is)
acted (unstipulated) in creating (it doesn't tell us what that means except that God
somehow caused something) out of a non-time-bound "time." That is, the account of
creation itself is a narrative meant to give metaphoric language to an unknown so that
people have a way to talking about it. It is, in that sense, a mythic origin and is not
opposed to science but stands beside scientific reasoning and testing to give meaning to
life. Science tells us what happened; religion tells us why it should matter to us. They are
not the same but not incompatible because they address different questions.
Genesis 1,2, 3 Psalm 8
Genesis 1-2 Jn 5:46-47 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote
about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” -Jesus
Romans 1:19-22 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself
has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes—
his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he
made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither
glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him. Instead, their thoughts turned to worthless
things, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Though claiming to be wise, they
became fools"
Genesis 1 and 2
Genesis 1 as poetry
Definitely Genesis, and then the frequent references to Genesis in the rest of the Bible, the
occasional references to ecological damage found in the prophets, and the description of
apocalyptic, ecological devastation found in Revelation, along with the restoration of
creation written of in Rom 8 and Rev 20-21, etc.
To many to put down in the time I have right now :)
I believe God was involved in the beginning, whenever that happened to be. God's
involvement shapes everything we believe about who WE are as His creation. Whether
211
that happened over 24 hour days or 6 million year days doesn't matter as much as the fact
that God was involved and around 4 CE, sent Jesus to live and die as our sinless sacrifice
opening a way for sinful humanity to have a relationship with Holy God. THAT POINT is
sooooo much more important to me than the creation/evolution debate where both sides
say they have the right answer. I wasn't there. I can't guarantee anything, BUT the eyewitness accounts of those who actually witnessed Jesus' Resurrection speak for
themselves. That's the debate in which I'll involve myself. I'm a pastor, not a scientist. I'll
stick to what I'm good at.
No. The Biblical assumption is that God is creator of all that exists and there is a narrative
implied that God continues to create, so that creation is unfinished.
The two Genesis stories. Since there are two different stories, side by side, they must be
ready as poems or stories.
Genesis 1
Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different stories that conflict with each other - and so open
the window to a deeper, poetic understanding of the kind of foreshadowing of the rest of
the Biblical drama that these stories are doing.
Gen 1.1 −formless void, etc.
The above plus Psalms 8, 24 and 104, Romans 1:18-21 and Revelation 21:5
Genesis 1-2 tells us how we are related to God (God's creation, whether that happened in
7 days or over millions of years of evolution - God still created it)
Genesis 1:1
Genesis... "In the beginning God..."
Genesis 1:27
Genesis 1-2 Psalm 24:1-2
John 1:1-5
Genesis 1: 1, Exodus 20: 11, Nehemiah 9: 6, Job 12: 7-13
Genesis 1-3
Genesis 1 & 2
Genesis 1-3; Psalm 14:1; Exodus 20:11
Genesis: in the beginning was God
Genesis 1:1
Psalm 8
Genesis 1-3; Romans 5:12ff: Ps 8; John 1:1ff;
Genesis 1:20-25 "after its kind", "after their kind"
Genesis 1-2, Job 38-41, Psalm 139
Genesis 1-2 Exodus 20:11 Mark 10:6-9
Genesis 1:1, Psalm 90:2, Jeremiah 10:16, Romans 4:17, Hebrews 1:2, Isaiah 40:25-26,
Matthew 19:4, many more
Genesis 1-3; Romans 5:12-21; John 1; Exodus 20:8-11; Psalm 104, 136 (and several
Psalms with poetic depictions of creation); 1 Timothy 4:1-5; Matthew 19:4-5 (Jesus
speaks to the creation of people); Romans 8:19-23; Mark 7:14-23;
Again, Genesis 1-2. As well as many others which refer to God as Creator.
Genesis chapter 1
The prologue to the Gospel of John
The Bible as a whole sees God as Creator of all there is, including humanity.
212
Genesis 1+2
The first 11 chapters of Genesis lay the foundation for everything we see today in the
world as well as in humanity.
Genesis 1-3
Gen 1 & 2; Gen 5:2
Genesis 1,2; Genesis 7:14; Psalm 8, Psalm 139; Luke 3;
Genesis 1-2, Romans 4, Psalm 8, 19, 139.
Genesis 1, 2 Job 38-39 Psalm 139:13
Genesis chapter 1 & 2 Colossians 1:15-17 Psalm 102:25-27 John chapter 1
Genesis 1-2
Psalm 19, John 1
Genesis 1-3; Psalm 33:6,9; Hebrews 11:3; Exodus 20:11; Colossians 1:16
Genesis 1 and 2; Psalms 8 and 148
Genesis 1-3
Genesis chapters 1 and 2 John 1:1; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2 Ps. 104 All references
to God as Creator
Genesis 1: God created human beings in God's image
Yes - but what I mean by "origins of humanity" and what I think you're asking about are
two different things.
No; the Bible is not a science or history text but a collection of myths.
Genesis 1 & 2, as a poetic account, or "what God wants us to know, from a spiritual
standpoint, about the creation of the world and his relationship to us."
Genesis 1-2
Genesis 1-11 Jesus' dealings with Genesis as totally accurate.
Genesis 1-2:3; Exodus 20:11; Psalm 33:6,9; Psalm 124:8;Isaiah 45:1,2; Mark 10:6; 2
Peter 3:5,6; Hebrews 11:3; Job 31:15; Psalm 139:14; Psalm 19:1-4;Hebrews 3:4; Romans
1:20;
Genesis 1:1 - it's either true or it isn't. Faith in a Creator establishes fact, backed up by
science.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2; Luke 3: 23-38; Acts 2: 9-11; Romans 8: 18-23; Isaiah 11:1-9;
Isaiah 65: 17-25; Joel 2: 18-27; Revelation 21:1-5; Revelation 22:1-5;
Genesis 1-3, psalm 8, 19, 22, Isaiah 40, Romans 1,5,8,
Genesis 1-11
Genesis 1-11, Romans 8:18-25; Romans 3:9-20
To me, the most critical and non-negotiable concept in my view of origins is the "imago
Dei" (Gen. 1:26) - that we are made in the image of God. All of Scripture stands on that
premise. That is the primary reason why I am skeptical about the Theory of Evolution.
God saw that it was good
213
