Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The gospel reading for today, courtesy Christian Darwinism …


In “Dissolving the Fall,” a chapter in his Saving Darwin, theologian Karl Giberson argues that Darwinian evolution created humans selfish; there was no actual fall of man.

Selfishness … drives the evolutionary process. Unselfish creatures died, and their unselfish genes perished with them. Selfish creatures, who attended to their own needs for food, power, and sex, flourished and passed on these genes to their offspring. After many generations selfishness was so fully programmed in our genomes that it was a significant part of what we now call human nature. (P. 12)

Political scientist John West notes in God and Evolution that

Giberson’s repudiation of the traditional doctrine of the fall is obscured by his continuing usage of the term “fallen” in his book and public talks. Yet it is clear that for him the term “fallen” merely means that humans continue to be sinful, just like they were from the beginning. There was no actual “fall” in his view, as he frankly acknowledged during his appearance with me at Biola University in 2009: 

John West:Why do you continue to even use the word “fall”? … Isn’t your use of the word “fall” … importing a theology that in fact you reject because there is no fall [in your view]? In your book you seem to say we’re sinful to begin with: Selfishness drives evolutionary process so there wasn’t a fall from anything—that’s how we were originally developed, so the creation was flawed and sinful to begin with. Is that your view?

Karl Giberson: Yeah, no that’s a fair description of my view. I was trying to be sort of consistent with the way theological language is used. There are a great many theologians -I remember reading essays by Karl Barth and Emil Brunner kind of arguing about original sin, and they talk about Adam and Eve and the fall in ways that sound almost fundamentalist, but neither of them accepted Adam and Eve as actual historical characters or the fall as an historical event. But that’s theological language that has a particular meaning apart from what the English word itself entails.

(John G. West, “Nothing New Under the Sun,” in God and Evolution, Jay Richards, ed. (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2010), p. 48-49.)block2

Note: Some members of the Committee for Liturgy Revision have proposed moving the reading from Brother Giberson to form the second reading for Evolution Sunday, but this change is still under consideration.


Evolutionists have been writing rubbish like this for 150 years. Darwinism seems to dissolve their brains. Vladimir Krondan
My best guess would be that you're out of luck. GilDodgen
And in the event the designer is not the Judeo-Christian God, then what? Muramasa
How would Intelligent Design explain the scenarios you describe? From my perspective as a former militant atheist: Made in the image of God, but in a fallen state. This is what makes most sense to me from what I observe, and that is why I converted from Dawkins-style militant atheism to Christianity. This also comes from reflection concerning my own personal nature. I am not "basically good," and this should be obvious to anyone who is honest with himself. Any honest person will recognize his fallen state, and admit that within his own power he has no possibility of overcoming it. The question is not, Why do people do evil? This is our fallen nature and comes naturally. The essential question is, Why do some people do good? Goodness, honesty, and selflessness are an aberration. GilDodgen
Gil: How would Intelligent Design explain the scenarios you describe? Muramasa
Selfishness drives the evolutionary process, but then how is it that others claim that altruism is also a sign of evolutionary theory (in that it favors the supposedly stronger genes of cohesive groups of people)? You can't have it both ways. Barb
So powerful has been Darwinian indoctrination that it leads some people to become completely irrational, even people who are thoroughly rational in other ways. Natural selection created both selfishness and altruism, and it created parents who protect their children at risk to their own lives, but also parents who train their children to commit suicide. No matter what the scenario -- selfishness, altruism, self-preservation, suicide -- natural selection selected them all to perpetuate our selfish genes. What a wonderful, all-encompassing "theory" that explains everything, but how utterly ridiculous. GilDodgen

Leave a Reply