Here’s the audio for “What’s the Rub Between the Bible & Science” (January 17, 2010)
This Sunday, we ventured into our second question of eight with “What’s the rub between the Bible and science?” This is a hot topic “outside” and “inside” the Church. This post will give further resources and address further issues that I did not have the time to explore on Sunday.
Here’s an important personal and pastoral disclaimer: the contents of this blog post are in no way an exhaustive discussion on the issue of origins. I must also confess up front that I am not a trained scientist. I do have a Bachelor of Science degree that focused on molecular biology and physiology within the field of horticulture, but I’m in no way an expert in any of the sciences involved in the larger discussion (biology, chemistry, genetics, astronomy, physics, etc.). I am however, a “trained” theologian and pastor, so my specialty, if you will, is the Bible, with training in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, as well as theology. All of that being said, I’m in no way an expert in this area either. There are many theologians, biblical scholars, and pastors that I am indebted to as I’ve studied the issues of origins, faith, and science.
To help answer this big question, I posed three other questions:
1. How did all of this come to be?
2. How old is all of this?
3. So what?
So let’s take a look at these three questions:
QUESTION #1: How did all of this come to be? This is the ultimate issue of origins of life and the universe. There are three larger vantage points that attempt to answer this question:
- Theistic Creation. Theistic creation sees the direct, dynamic, and integral hand of a Theistic Being (i.e., God) creating the heavens, the earth, and all of the life contained within them. More on various viewpoints of theistic creation in a moment (see below).
- Naturalistic Evolution. At the other end of the spectrum is naturalistic evolution, also known as Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Evolution. Charles Darwin’s seminal work Origin of Species, published in 1859, attempts to explain how all living creatures have a common ancestor. There are two aspects of Naturalistic Evolution:
Pre-biotic evolution begins with “some warm little pond” (Darwin’s term) “in which appropriate organic compounds were exposed to light, heat, and electricity, eventually producing proteins” that combined with further chemical reactions, in which a single-celled organism ultimately resulted. This “pre-biotic soup” however has yet to be re-created, because there are numerous biochemical challenges to the emergence of life from this pre-biotic soup. Here’s a way to illustrate the challenge of pre-biotic evolution:
Imagine trying to find a blind date at a party filled with strangers. Nobody can bring the two of you together, and neither of you knows what the other looks like. Your only hope is to mingle and ask each person’s name. If it is a small group of people, chances are that you will locate each other fairly quickly. If the party filled a gymnasium, it would take a little more time. But the party is not in a living room, or even in a crowded gymnasium… For all practical purposes, the two of you are lost among billions of other individuals… The unhappy prospect raises another important point. If the blind dates don’t find each other, the party is as good as over (Robert Pyne, Humanity & Sin: The Creation, Fall, and Redemption of Humanity, 26)
Biological Evolution. In Darwin’s theory of natural selection, he believed that physical characteristics that organisms experienced during their lifetime could be passed to offspring. This change continually occurs, and new species are created through mutations over time through natural selection whereby the best and most beneficial mutations survive (“survival of the fittest”). Since Darwin did not have knowledge of genetics, Neo-Darwinists (scientists who have modified Darwin’s original theory) concede that natural selection must involve genetic changes, and these genetic changes are continually occurring. There are some pretty big “gaps” or “missing links” in the fossil record, so some scientists have argued that an organism will rapidly change, and then the new, changed species will exist for some time until changes occur again.
For further reading see:
Charles Darwin’s On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Pre-biotic evolution (abiogenesis)
For an interesting read on new research on the Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees
- Theistic Evolution. In an effort to mediate the difficulty of the origination of that first single-celled organism that began the process of biological evolution, theistic evolution believes that only a Divine power could have “energized” or produced this pre-biotic soup. According to most proponents of theistic evolution, God initiates the process by producing the matter and energies that will gradually develop into vegetable, animal, and eventually human life but refrains from asserting any divine intervention in the process of evolution. One of the most popular versions of theistic evolution is called Biologos as advocated by Francis Collins in his book The Language of God. Collins led the Human Genome Project and currently serves as the Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD. Collins also founded the Biologos Foundation, which emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with what science has discovered about the origins of the universe and life. The ultimate challenge to Collin’s Biologos view is that he does not take the creation accounts in Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 as literal or historic as well as the unique creation of Adam and Eve as literal or historic. This has all kinds of implications for sin and what the rest of the Bible has to say about sin and the remedy for sin.
- Intelligent Design. A relative newcomer to the discussion is the theory of intelligent design. Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as naturalistic evolution. One of the primary voices within the Intelligent Design movement is Michael Behe, who contends that certain biological systems within organisms are irreducibly complex. Here’s the way Behe defines irreducibly complexity: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 39). It’s interesting that Intelligent Design resources are chalked full of hard-core scientific research and processes, but still bookstores like Barnes & Noble (following the example of the National Academy of Science) put them in the religion section instead of the science section. Seems like there’s a hidden agenda in all of that…
Here are some further web resources for Intelligent Design:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign
http://www.discovery.org/a/3059
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
Here’s an interesting dialogue between atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion) and Ben Stein in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
QUESTION #2: How old is all of this? If you turn on your TV to the Discovery Channel or open the average science textbook, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old and the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. If you talk with theistic creationists, you’ll get answers on the age of the universe and earth from 6,000 to 14 billion years old. That’s quite a range! The two “camps” within theistic creationism are the young earth creationists and the old earth creationists.
Two more disclaimers: (1) this seems to be much more of an intramural discussion among Christians… most “secular” scientists are not watching our sideline scrimmage about the age of the earth because they already rightly or wrongly assume a 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old earth. (2) As we’ll discuss further in this question, conservative, Bible-believing evangelical theologians, pastors, and Christians who are committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures subscribe to both YEC and OEC views. And as I said last week when I gave the ground-rules for this series, there’s room within Northshore for both of these views (i.e., we will not split Northshore over this issue).
- Young Earth Creation (YEC). This view believes that the earth is somewhere between six and thirty thousand years old. In this model, God finished His creation in a literal six 24-hour days and then rested on the seventh day. He created distinct “kinds,” thereby ruling out “common descent.” YEC see the geological data that others use to prove the earth’s longer history as evidence of a universal flood in Noah’s days in what is called “flood geology.”
- Old Earth Creation (OEC). Old Earth Creation is an umbrella term for a number of views of theistic creationism. This view is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of age of the earth while still taking the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally and at the same time, rejecting macro-evolution that changes in organisms result in other species.
- Key Interpretive issues in Genesis 1 and 2.
Genesis 1. Within interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1, there are several exegetical and theological considerations:
1) Genre. What is the style of literature in Genesis 1? Was it written by Moses to be a chronological, historic narrative to be taken literally (and for that fact scientifically) or was it an “epic poetry” illustrating that God “performed the creation as a perfect work, the greatest construction project of all time”?
2) Interpretation of “Day” (yom). Another issue that evangelical theologians wrestle with is the meaning of the Hebrew word yom or day. Does it specifically refer to a 24-hour day or can it have a broader meaning? Even if the majority of uses of the word “day” in Hebrew refer to a literal, 24-hour day, are there exceptions (“yes”), and could Genesis 1 be one of those exceptions?
Genesis 2. When we get to Genesis 2, there are several other things we need to consider.
1) Hebrew Narrative. When we get to Genesis 2:4, the Hebrew language very clearly shifts to a historical Hebrew narrative, especially in the verb forms (preterite with waw consecutives), that carries throughout the rest of the book. Even if you don’t take Genesis 1 as a literal, historic, chronological account, when you get to Genesis 2:4 and beyond, how you interpret it impacts how you interpret the rest of Genesis, including the special creation of Adam and Eve and the introduction and impact of sin into the rest of the Biblical story.
2) Scope of Genesis 2. Is the “scope” of Genesis 2 another vantage point on the overall creation account or is it focusing in specifically on the creation of humanity and life within the Garden of Eden?
- How YEC & OEC Interpret the Creation Accounts in Genesis
Young Earth Creation. YEC conclude that the word “day” in Genesis 1 is to be taken literally as a 24-hour day, which leads to a literal, 6-day creation of the earth. They will also go to the various genealogies throughout the Bible to conclude that Adam and Eve, the first humans, arrived on the scene some 6,000 years ago.
For further resources on YEC, see:
http://www.icr.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
Old Earth Creation. Once again, OEC is an umbrella term for many different viewpoints that align with the possibility of a much older earth.
1) Gap-theory states that there is gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. There are several different view of what happened in that “gap,” but the basic gist of the gap-theory is that God created the heavens and earth (who knows how long ago), and then between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, something happened… perhaps the rebellion and fall of the archangel Satan and a cosmic war that resulted. And this caused a cataclysmic judgment and destruction of the earth, so re-creation begins in 1:2. This is a very speculative view. For a good critique of the Gap Theory read Mark Rooker’s “Genesis 1:1-3 – Creation or Re-creation?”
2) Day-Age does not take “day” as a literal 24-hour day but as the possibility of an “age” especially since the sun isn’t even created until the fourth day in the Genesis 1 account.
3) Progressive Creation. This position holds that “God worked directly to create particular organisms over a long span of time” while still holding to the special creation of humanity. Progressive creationists do not believe in macro-evolution that changes in organisms can create new species (i.e., they reject Darwinian biological evolution).
4) Literary Framework. Sees Genesis 1 as an epic poem not to be taken as a literal, chronological history. This viewpoint pays special attention to the literary structure and symmetry of (e.g., Day 1 the “space” is created, Day 4 it is filled. Day 2 the “space” is created, Day 5 it is filled, etc.)… along with the repetition of specific phrases… “God said… God saw” etc. Those that take Genesis 1 as an epic poem must still deal with Genesis 2 and clear historical narrative nature of the Hebrew verb forms. For a good article on this position, see Tim Keller’s “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople”
5) Historic Creation sees the creation accounts Genesis 1 and 2 as only pertaining to the Garden of Eden. From their viewpoint, Genesis 1 and 2 were never to be seen as a creation story of the whole heavens and earth. See John Sailhamer’s exegetical notes on Genesis 1:1-2:4a
6) Summary/Special is a creative view that sees Genesis 1:1 as an overall, summary statement of God creating the heavens and the earth who knows how long ago, and then Genesis 1:2 and following is to be taken literally (including six literal days) as God specially preparing the earth for the habitation of humanity and the rest of created life. See Pastor Mark Driscoll’s Genesis Study Guide
For further resources on OEC, see:
http://www.reasons.org
http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/greg-moore-does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1
http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/biblical-evidence-old-earth/age-earth-0
QUESTION #3: So What? Why does all of this matter? If we get so caught up in the proverbial trees and miss the forest, I believe that we’ve missed the whole purpose of Genesis 1 and 2. Here are some final thoughts on why I believe discussion on origins and interpretations of the Bible’s creation accounts.
- The Who of Creation. As we read the creation account in Genesis 1-2, we find that the story doesn’t tell us all we want to know about the how of creation, but it tells us everything that we need to know about the Who of Creation – God and His relationship with creation. The opening line of the story in Genesis 1:1, as the curtain rises on the stage, reveals to us the God that existed before anything or anyone else… and this God who is the eternal and all-powerful Creator King.
- The God of New Beginnings. The backdrop to the whole book of Genesis is that it was written to give the people of Israel their bearings in a broken world… a people who had gone through hell (400 years of slavery), who had witnessed a miracle (escape and redemption from Egypt through the Red Sea), and who were at the doorway of a new beginning (the Promised Land). And all of it points to the God of new beginnings… the God who is powerful, wise, and loving enough to get you where you need to go in a beautiful yet broken world. The whole story calls us to come to and trust God in the midst of all of the beauty and even the brokenness of life.
- God is dynamically present and active in creation and in our lives. Ultimately I have a hard time accepting any naturalistic evolution or even theistic evolution that presents no direct hand from God in the process of humanity coming into existence. The Bible never presents a God that removes Himself for billions of years… that seems much more like a deistic version of God. On the contrary, the Bible always presents a loving, interested God who is dynamically and actively to His creation, especially the crown of His creation – humanity. This is best captured in Paul’s words in Colossians 1:13-20 (NASB).
For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
God not only created you, but He came to die for you, in your place… to rescue you from the sin and rebellion that we have committed against the Him. And He invites you to come back home… to recognize Him as the all-loving, all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth and you!
