The Gazette's opinion polls certainly throw up some interesting statistics. According to a recent poll on the front cover of this esteemed publication, more people thought Darwin had got it wrong than right.
On the surface, that would seem to give creationists like us a lot of comfort; but in fact it gives me none at all.
I think there comes a time when we need to acknowledge that in some areas we are absolute amateurs; and although I have argued for in
telligent design creation instead of accidental evolution, I have no expertise in the science of evolutionary theory.
It could be argued, of course, that none is necessary; after all, faith in Scripture is faith in Scripture, and it does not require exhaustive knowledge of the contrary position to believe that, if it is contrary, it must be wrong.
But at that level we are not arguing that evolution is wrong, merely that in its most popular form it contradicts what the Bible says about creation, and that, therefore, makes it wrong.
However, we then leave ourselves open to the charge of simplistic argument, if not blind faith in the Bible.
It was precisely that struggle that left some of the great churchmen of the 19th century - Chalmers, Hodge and others - arguing that the problem was not with evolution but with purposeless evolution. After all, as Hodge puts it in his Systematic Theology, 'there can be no conflict between the teachings of the Scriptures and the facts of science'. But immediately he qualifies it: 'it is not with facts, but with theories, believers have to contend'.
My interest, however, is not so much in the creation versus evolution debate, but simply in the percentage polls that come out in favour of one or the other.
It is hardly surprising that a poll on Darwin among the readership of the Gazette should give evolution a thumbs down, but it is doubtful whether it would have had the same result had the poll been conducted in middle England.
Of course the views of the Western Isles readership of the paper are just as valid as the views of any other constituency; but they are not the final arbiter of truth. Indeed, they may not even be the best representation of truth; how do we know, for example, that there was not a faceless, secret campaign in the corridors of the Western Isles to bolster the anti-Darwin percentage?
Right - such things do not happen here. I still have a deep suspicion of all such polls. Maybe it's because I am a natural born cynic, but I never register in an online poll, or e-sign an online petition. I have a pathological distrust of who is using (or misusing) the technology, and I nurse many misgivings regarding this particular form of register.
A sheet of paper with signatures can be easily checked, but in the shady world of online everything, I am not convinced.
In a sense, however, that is a problem of method; my cynicism goes much deeper. Can truth be polled? Is it possible to establish the truth, either of science, or morality, or religion, or anything else, by voting on it?
If there are more Muslims than Christians in the world, does that make Islam more valid than Christianity?
If the majority of people prefer cohabitation to marriage, does that make it OK for unmarried couples to live together?
If more people go to Hampden than to the Free Church on a Sunday, does that legitimise Sunday sports?
If abortion is permitted in a democratic nation, does that make abortion right?
If more people vote for the Bible than for Darwin, does that make Darwin wrong?
On that last question, of course I believe that aspects of Darwin's teachings on the origin of the human species are wrong, but not because an online poll said so. I have a basic distrust of deciding issues of truth in this way.
That distrust grows out of my understanding of what happened at Calvary. My whole ministry, and, indeed, my whole Christian faith, is grounded in the events that took place in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth two thousand years ago. As Paul put it, we preach Christ crucified - the life and death of the Son of God as the only means of salvation.
Yet at a human level, the crucifixion was a travesty: trumped-up charges on the basis of false evidence were what secured the conviction.
Today's news bulletins would be full of the scandal of the miscarriage of justice; but in the pre-modern world of the New Testament, the Roman courts of justice held no review, and there was no posthumous pardon.
The first Pentecostal sermon pulled no punches. The crowd may have bayed for Jesus' blood; the will of the crowd was done, but the act was wrong. Peter's preaching was a devastating expose of the sin: 'this Jesus … you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men'. Paul himself reflected that had the rulers known what they were doing, 'they would not have crucified the Lord of glory'.
At that level, Jesus should never have been crucified. His life was without blemish, stain or ill-repute; his presence in the world, to use Warfield's great description, was like a plumb-line which showed what men really ought to be.
Perhaps that was the rub; this one life said too much, not only by revealing truth but by exposing lies. Every step Jesus took among fallen men only served to show how far astray from God others had gone.
So they crucified him. In today's world, an online poll would have showen a majority in favour of his untimely death. Electronic petitions would have sung the old song of rejection 'crucify him'.
And for that reason, I do not want to establish truth by a democratic ballot. I do not want to establish morality by a show of hands. I do not authenticate my religion by how many people attend my church.
Yet Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost said much more. What happened at Calvary was wrong, but it was still 'according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God'. Peter's doctrine is grounded in the sovereign purposes of God, which rule over and over-rule all human actions.
Others may claim that Peter was the first Pope; I want to claim him as the first Pentecostal Calvinist.
Which brings me back to my subject. Had I voted on Darwin, I too would have said that, in my amateurish, humble opinion, much of what he said on the subject of where we came from, he got wrong.
But much of what he said on other subjects he got right. I will not demonise him for being an evolutionary scientist. But I will give priority to the statements of Genesis before the theories of the Origin of Species.
More important still, I will insist that no poll, online or offline, is enough to establish the truth and legitimacy of any subject.
It's just as well that the Gazette has no plan to assess the authority of the author of this column in one of its electronic ballots.
iaind@backfreechurch.co.uk
The full article contains 1213 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
