- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (8/2)
- Next Post »A La Carte (8/3)
Wrestling with Evolution
- 08/02/07
- 92
Christians are accustomed to treating evolution as an account of the world’s origins that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and something that a person could only believe in the absence of God or in the absence of faith. But this is not quite fair. There are now many Christians—Christians who treasure the Bible and who affirm the truths of the historic Christian faith—who do believe that the evidence for evolution is too compelling to ignore. It is telling that, as far as I can see, the vast majority of Christian scientists (not to be confused with Christian Scientists) hold to evolution. In the face of modern science, those of us who still cling to a literal six day creation may seem to be increasingly stubborn and outdated. Certainly the world perceives us this way. So, too, today, do many in the church. There is very real pressure to conform.
The stakes are high. As Christians we believe that God is honored when we honor the truth. Hence if God did not create the world from nothing in six literal days, we dishonor God by clinging tightly, even in the face of evidence, to a view that is wrong. Of course the opposite is also true. If God did create the world in six days, we dishonor Him by believing in evolution. Only one view can be right.
In his book The Language of God, Francis Collins, who identifies himself in the book as an evangelical Christian, neatly divides the realm of science and the realm of faith. Faith is given to answer ultimate questions about meaning and purpose where science is God’s way of speaking about the physical world. He sees a complete harmony between them. Collins says there are four options when we consider possible responses to the interaction of the theory of evolution and belief in God.
The first is atheism and agnosticism which he describes as science trumping faith. In this view people place their ultimate trust in science and have little to offer when it comes to ultimate questions about meaning and purpose.
The second is Creationism and he describes this as faith trumping science. He says that if the views of creationists are true, “it would lead to a complete and irreversible collapse of the sciences of physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology and biology.” “Ultra-literal” interpretations of Genesis are wrong and must be adapted to fit with what science tells us. Collins makes no distinction between “old earth” and “young earth” Creationists. There are, after all, some Christians (and though I am not among them I do have some sympathy for their beliefs) who would hold to something a little bit different than a six day creation, believing that God has created ex nihilo (i.e. out of nothing) and that He has been doing so progressively over millions or billions of years. He created man ex nihilo 6,000 or 10,000 years ago almost as described by a literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis. Collins does not distinguish because he feels evolution is simply to clear to ignore and whether we believe in an old earth or a young earth, to ignore evolution is folly. Evolution and divine non-intervention are the keys, not the age of the earth.
The third option is Intelligent Design, which tries to find harmony but which does so only by looking for areas science cannot explain. As science progresses it inevitably finds a way to explain these gaps, thus keeping Intelligent Design advocates always scrambling and always on the defensive. While I enjoy reading of the world of these people, I find Intelligent Design an unsatisfying explanation for reasons I may discuss at another time.
The final option is theistic evolution or what Collins prefers to call “BioLogos.” This is the view he holds to and the view of an increasing number of Christians. This belief rests of the following premises:
- The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
- Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
- While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time. Collins seems to hold that life arose naturally (or at least that it could have arisen naturally) and not through supernatural intervention.
- Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required.
- Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
- But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
I think these six points accurately summarize what most theistic evolutionists believe. I don’t have an exhaustive list of Christians who are theistic evolutionists, though some of the names I’ve heard are a bit surprising to me. But as I said at the outset, the names do include many Bible-believing Christians.
As for me, I am still an old-fashioned, out-dated, six day Creationist. My reasoning is simple: I believe we have to give the position of supremacy to the Bible. While I certainly admit that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook, if we affirm its inerrancy we need to believe that where it does comment on science, it does so truthfully. Thus, until it can be proven to me otherwise, the creation of the world, as outlined in the Bible, is meant to be read literally and accepted as fact. Further, the creation of the world is not merely a scientific question but also a theological one, so it is not something we can consign entirely into the realm of science. Thus we have to arrive at a solution that is consistent with both science and Scripture, all the while knowing that we are imperfect and our eyes are clouded by our limitations. Where science and Scripture clearly disagree, we must hold fast to God’s Word. And to this point that is where my conscience has directed me.
There are several areas where I feel theistic evolutionists allow science to trump Scripture and I’d like to point out just four of them. Francis Collins is certainly no theologian and, unfortunately, does not address these in his book. I really would be glad to receive recommendations for a book written by a conservative Christian explaining how we can reconcile science with Scripture in these points and others.
First, if we decide that the biblical account of creation is simple allegory or a metaphorical description of what actually took place, how are we to determine where allegory ends and reality begins? If the description of the creation of the world is either just a vague metaphor for what actually happened or perhaps some kind of allegory, where do we determine that historical narrative actually begins? Certainly we cannot read much into the fact of God resting on the seventh day. We have to see that God did not create Adam from the dust of the ground and did not form Eve from Adam’s rib (putting to rest the age-old controversy of whether or not they had belly buttons). Was there a literal tree of life and tree of the knowledge of good and evil or were these, too, mere metaphor? Did God really create Eve specifically to be Adam’s helper or did woman arise by the process of evolution? Were gender roles part of God’s creation or did they arise only through natural selection? Was there a serpent who tempted Adam and Eve? Did they really eat fruit God told them not to eat? Was there a real Garden of Eden? Did Adam and Eve really get banished from it? Was there really a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life? Did God really create Adam and Eve clothes (foreshadowing the death of Christ in the death of the animal He used to cover them) to cover their nakedness? And finally, do we not see throughout the Bible that the other authors seem to understand the Biblical account of creation in a very literal way? It seems to me that the metaphorical reading of the first few chapters of Genesis if fraught with peril. This, in itself, is not a sound argument as much as it is a caution. Those who hold to theistic evolution tread upon portions of the Bible that are absolutely foundational to our faith.
While I will admit that this next argument, an extension from the last, may fall into the realm of fallacy, I will state it anyways. Is there not a danger in handing someone a Bible and saying, “It is important to note that the first three chapters you read really aren’t meant to be taken literally!”? Does it seem likely that God would give us His description of the world’s origins in a way that, by most measures, seems to be meant literally, when in reality it is merely figurative? What are the wider implications of reading these early chapters in a way that is less than literal?
Second, the Bible tells us that Adam, as the first man, stands as our federal head. He represented us before God in such a way that when he fell into sin, so did we. The Bible makes it clear that this position was assigned by virtue of Adam’s position as the first man. If we hold to evolution we have no way of knowing if, how or why Adam is our federal head. Was he perhaps the first person who was truly a sentient being? Was he the first person to whom the moral law was given? Did God somehow intervene in his life to give him something that made him human while the rest of the species went on as animals? We are forced to believe that God somehow chose Adam out of the mass of humanity (or near humanity) and conferred on him a special privilege. While this is something God is known to do (think of Abraham as an example) this is certainly not clear from the Bible. In fact, I don’t know that anyone would have thought of this until evolution began to make us rethink Genesis. We would also do well to consider the implications to the federal headship of Christ, the Second Adam.
Third, how did the fall into sin actually happen? I touched on this in the first point, but if we believe in evolution, it is difficult to then believe that the story of man’s fall into sin happened exactly as the Bible describes it. And so I ask, how did sin come into the world? And how can we explain its pervasiveness?
And finally, was there death before Adam? Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world through the sin of Adam. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…” Yet evolution is impossible without death (and without death being an agent of good, rather than evil, for death causes the stronger to supplant the weaker, driving the innately beneficial process of natural selection). So did death really enter the world through Adam or was there death already? And is death a curse, as the Bible says, or is death also a good and necessary force that causes the stronger to survive?
I have found these four questions (or series of questions) impossible to reconcile with Darwinian evolution. Thus I have to give supremacy to the Bible. Am I asking you to answer these questions? Not necessarily, though if you have answers or can refer me to a place that they’ve been answered satisfactorily I would be interested in the learning experience. In the meanwhile, I’m content to continue believing that God created the world, from nothing, in six days, and that He did so not too long ago. My understanding of Scripture and my love for it just doesn’t allow me any other option.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (92)
Randy H. said: “[t]he better you understand the original languages and their use of the varieties of rhetoric, the deeper you get to go in the appreciation for it’s richness.”
When we in this age try to interpret the words of past ages, we unconscoiusly impute many aspects of of our society to the ioriginal authors. Genesis, for example, was written before the invention of modern science, and even before the invention of history as we know it. So it is unlikely that the authors meant it to be either scientific or historical.
In fact, the two groups of authors of Genesis would be incredulous that anyone would take their words literally. They would think us naive and unperceptive. For a good exposition of the theological devices and intended meanings of the Bible’s creation stories, read Conrad Hyers, “The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science” (John Knox Press, 1984). You will then read Genesis not only with more understanding, but with an increased awe for its theological breadth and subtlety.
Randy Hurst,Many assume that YEC proponents have a flat woodenly literal view of the whole Bible and cannot make distinctions in literary genres. This is unhelpful in the debate.
The reality is YECers accept Genesis 1-2 as historical narrative in part because there is no break in the continuity from Genesis 1-2 and the rest of the larger pericope of which it is apart of - Genesis 1-11. The key is the strategic use of the Hebrew term toledot (i.e. “generations”). The term is used to structure the whole narrative throughout Genesis 1-11. Note toledot is used in 2:4 (i.e. translated “account”) to link the creation account to the larger framework of the pre-Abrahamic narrative. It is used again in 5:1 (for Adam’s genealogy); 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27. If Adam is not historical in the creation account then his genealogy in 5:1ff. must be rejected as historical and subsequently the rest of Genesis 1-11. For that matter, the rest of Genesis must be questioned as historical narrative and that obviously presents serious problems. Toledot is also used in 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2.
Mike: Based on your reading of the gospels, do you think Jesus treated Genesis as a historical document?
Regarding the questions to evolutionary creationists (EC) wrt reconciling a “literal” interpretation of Genesis with evolution, there are actually many views within EC. For clarity, I’ll use the word “historical” rather than “literal”.
1. Some EC accept that all of Genesis is historical. Glenn Morton’s view identified by Tim M. above is a good example of this.
2. Some EC accept the historical nature of Genesis 2:4 & following, but not Gen 1. Dick Fischer’s “Genesis Proclaimed” organization is a good example of this. See: http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/
3. Some would view Gen 12 & following as historical, but not necessarily Gen 1-11. As Scott C. pointed out, there is no natural break before chapter 12. Denis Lamoureux’s web essay I pointed to earlier is a good defense of this. In his excellent commentary on Gen 1 - 15, evangelical biblical scholar Gordon Wenham refers to Gen 1-11 as proto-history.
Regarding references to science vs. scripture, I agree this is a false dichotomy. Its really how science & scripture is interpreted. YEC will maintain they are doing science, EC’s simply believe (very strongly) that YEC scientific interpretation of the evidence is atrocious. And those of us that are EC do trust the bible. YEC’s however believe (very strongly) that we are interpreting the bible very poorly. I posted on the science vs. scripture choice earlier at http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/scripture-or-science-do-we-have-to.html
(Oops .. Hit post too soon above). To Ken & others regarding questions of whether Jesus & Paul referred to Adam as a historical character, and whether they thought Adam was historical. (Separate questions I think). Frankly, those are great questions … I’ve got to admit that right now I don’t have a really good answer to that yet. Still wrestling.
I was born and raised under the 1689 LBC and am now soon to finish my PhD in Biochemistry. I’ve just recently finished “LoG” by Collins in my own struggles to come to a resting place wrt Science and Faith. A profound quote from LoG by Augustine is insightfull:”in matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision … we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture”My view is essentially that God is the God of all truth and we should never be afraid to evaluate any theory that is backed by real evidence. There is a flexibility in Gen 1 with regard to time as i see compelling reasons to trust Einstein’s theory of relativity and it’s prediction of an old cosmos, but I do agree with Tim there are theological “pillars” which are more or less immovable including 1. Literal Adam and Eve created in God’s image. 2. Origianl Sin 3. Divine Sabbath keeping precedence as already mentioned. Aside from some of these guiding princeples i’m “agnostic” as to the mechanism and exact time scale of God’s creative processes. It is not essential to my faith (aside from the above exceptions) and i can accept scientific evidence which is reliable. I do not include (Darwinian) macroevolution in this category of reliable scientific theories because of the paucity of evidence, and this is decidedly not due to ignorance, rather close proximity to the biological sciences, knowledge of the naturalistic arguments and daily access to PubMed. Does that make me an OEC?? I don’t know; don’t care about labels, but only God’s truth whatever the source.
4 words that were said from the beginning to confuse man in to believing he knows more than God:
“Did God really say?”
Sums it all up
Nope. Nothing new under the sun. The ol’ serpent is still hissing. He’s says old earth and here I have proof, and man goes a running.
Anther thought,I have always been curious…
How does man know that something is billions of years old? What does he have to compare it to that he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt is billions of years old? Since carbon dating and some of the other methods used are proven to not be 100% accurate on all matter and situations. How does he know for sure?
I still here the ol’ serpent hiss again, “Did God really say”?
Ken said: “Mike: Based on your reading of the gospels, do you think Jesus treated Genesis as a historical document?
Although Jesus talked a lot about Abraham and others in Genesis, He didn’t really comment on the creation part. So it’s hard to tell from the record. My guess is that He understood the creation stories as theology rather than history, just as the original authors did.
One example of the theology: In the Gilgamesh epic that paralleles the sory line of Genesis 1 (written several hundred years later than Genesis 2), the chief god created gods of the sun and moon and stars, who then briought forth others for animals, seas, and so on. In Genesis, one God created the sun and moon and stars, and everything else. The point being that the sun and the moon, formerly worshipped as gods, were not gods, but natural parts of creation.
I have some few points to make regarding some comments concerning the genisis account of creation and they are as follows. Adam did not write Genisis, I believe Moses is recognised as the author inspired to write the account and so we should remember that he wrote the account in words that he had available at that time as did all the writers of the scriptures. With that in mind I do not believe that he had any of these multi-syllible words we use today to describe what he wrote of. His use of “day” could be the best he came up with since I do not think they had a word for epoch or any such extremely long length of time.Next concerning 2Peter 3:8, a day is as a thousand years ….and a thousand years as a day. YHWH has always existed and will always exist. He is infinite in both past and future so I ask; what is time to such an awesome entity? Years, seasons, months, and days were given to us for our needs not his. Could not a “day” be a subjective amount of time with these two things in mind? Is it taking anything away from our God thinking that each day could have been millions of years long and all of differing time?Concerning the THEORY of evolution; I might be wrong but did not Geofry Hoyle compute that the chances of spontaneous creation were 1-0 to the 32 power? Does that not mean it is an impossibility? Add in the chances of not only one creature evolving suddenly into another but at the same time the opposite sex of the same species appeared. Add to that the odds of them both appearing not only at the same time but also in the same area so to be able to procreate their spiecies should be the mother of all impossibilities.Concerning the “big bang” did not the psalmist say that”With your dynamic energy you created the cosmos.” If God did use his awesome energy to create matter there would have definately been LIGHT at the time of the release of it.(“let there be light.”)In conclusion, I am just a carpenter with no prestigious degrees, but these simple thoughts seem to allow the written record and the physical record to agree.I have found the truth to be simple. The speed of light is a constant and retracing it back to its point of origin does give a good argument for the age of the universe. I think that it really does not matter to our salvation how we think YHWH created the cosmos only that we believe without doubt that he did create it. Faith and doubt can not exist together.Finally, go outside and pick up a rock. It is the simplest of all creation, it does not breath, procreate, or move under its own power. It has no thoughts. All that we see can be found in them for they hold all the elements in the atomic table. They make up the mantle of our earth and without them life could not exist as we know it. Try to make one……….out of nothing.
Carl,Things are not a simple as they may seem. Consider the miracles of Jesus in relation to time, space and matter. In John 2 we read Jesus turned the water into wine; not ordinary wine, but the best wine. Wine takes a certain amount of time to ferment. The best wine take longer to ferment. Supposing the headwaiter was somewhat of a wine connoisseur, how old do you suppose he thought the wine Jesus made was? Was the wine months or years old or was it merely minutes old? What criteria would one use to judge the matter? Normal scientific criteria? Consider the multiplying of fish for the crowds to eat. What make and model was the fish? Were they young fish or old fish? What was their date of birth (or hatching if you wish)? How would one judge the matter? These are matters conventional science has no apparatus or foundation to answer. We can reject the miracles because they are not scientifically verifiable, but then we run into a problem if we reject miracles (i.e. think Jesus’ resurrection).
Just as Jesus spoke and the wind and the waves defied normal processes of the laws of nature (if we want to call them such), I think it is safe to categorize God’s other creative acts via fiat (speaking things into immediate being and action) in the same way - namely the unique act of Creation ex nihilo by divine fiat. It seems to me that passages like Heb. 11:3 make this clear. The appearance of the creation was not what it seemed, just like the wine and the fish.
I do not know how we reconcile such divine creative acts with the normative processes of scientific understanding. But then again we do not scrutinize divine miracles by the laws that God created to govern His creation and are used at His bidding in the manner He decides. The reality is the normal providential sustaining of the universe (by what we like to call laws of nature) cannot ultimately be distinguished from God’s special acts of providence in what we call miracles. “In Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17) and He “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3).
This is why I can accept a young earth created in a short span of time that ‘seems’ to be incompatible with verifiable appearances (think distant starlight and the speed of light). My worldview and understanding of the nature and actions of God do not require me to reconcile the ‘apparent’ discrepancies. And I do not think my worldview scuttles conventional science, only that conventional science cannot answer all of the questions the universe poses.
Tim:Thanks for your irenicism. I was an atheist until my conversion just before my thirties began. As a young Christian I wanted very much to believe Young Earth Creationism, but I knew too much astronomy.
Fellow Christians told me I was worshipping at the hoary idol of science, putting science ahead of the Bible.
I believe that God is the author of Scripture and of Creation, and where there appear to be contradictions, the contradiction arises from my mis-interpretation either of Scripture, or of creation, or both.
But I think that creation is a reliable source of truth, because Scripture says so:
Romans 1:20 “From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made …”
Creation is shown as a source of truth.
Psalm 19:1-3 “The heavens declare the glory of God,and the sky proclaims the work of His hands.Day after day they pour out speech;night after night they communicate knowledge.There is no speech; there are no words;their voice is not heard.”
The heavens are set forth as a reliable source of knowledge.
Genesis 1:15 “They will serve as signs for festivals and for days and years.”
The heavenly bodies are signs, to be studied.
So as much as I respect my fellow Christians who hold different views and their views for holding them, I am among the number who think that Hebrew scholars like Meredith Kline, Mark Futato, and Bruce Waltke have a hermeneutic approach to Genesis that causes fewer problems than a literal-chronological approach, which causes more internal contradictions in the text, especially between chapters 1 and 2.
But this comment is too long already. When I post a blog on it, I’ll let you know, because even though I differ with you on this point, I respect you deeply as a brother in Christ and a fellow Reformed believer.
RobRTS Student
Rob M, I’m glad you used those verses, but just for clarity, and with reference to my previous post, as the hymn says, Jesus is Lord, creation’s voice proclaims it. The sermon of creation is a sermon about Christ (Col 1:23). What creation reveals (see my previous post) we can only apprehend by faith, and certainly not from science. Science doesn’t say Jesus is Lord based on it’s observations of creation.
Science can only observe a fallen world, and the observer is subject to the same frustration as the creation itself, and will never be a reliable source of truth for that reason.
So we must stand with the reformers and say “scripture ALONE.”
We must rely only on the information the Word of God gives us about the creation which is mediated by The Word of God himself.
This brings us neatly back to the question - so how do we understand the Genesis account? We understand it by faith, through exegesis, not going beyond what is written (we are commanded not do this - 1 Cor 4:6).
Hiya Randy,
Interestingly in your commentary on hermeneutics, your noodle notably avoided deriding figurative interpretations. Quite similar in style to Spong or Borg in their view of the resurrection as figurative, since compartive literature did not exist at the time.
Where do you draw the line?…or perhaps are you more comfortable drawing the line at what actually happened versus what makes us feel philosophically and humanistically warm inside. What I mean, Randy, is that, as you “walk away wondering if they are reading it in the in the same language”, I am wondering what ,if anything, you mean or stand for other than cutting down any literal interpretaion whatsoever.
Christ was raised in my heart, right?
What is wrong with that interpretation if literalism of any sort is so silly?
Just, once again, trying to figure out if you know what you mean.
Jason
Hiya Mike A.,
So let me make sure I understand you properly. Scientific and Historical writing was not around in the middle 2nd millenium BC? I’m certain the Mesopotamians, Akkadians and court of Pharoah would be surprised to hear it.
But even if that were the case, which it most certainly is not, how is it that you remain unafflicted by your own subjectivity in your interpretation of the words in Genesis? Tell us how you found the road which leads to the bird’s eye view.
It is a considerable fallacy to suggest that ancient perspective equals ancient ignorance in all but your own subjective cultural desires and angles.
Jason
Hiya back Jason. Thanks for giving my ribs time to heal. (smile)
I should ahve known that you would take my words literally.
You said: “I am wondering what ,if anything, you mean or stand for other than cutting down any literal interpretation whatsoever. ”
If my use of hyperbole is disconcerting, I apologize. My illustrations were purposefully exaggerated to make a point. Something our Lord used too often for the Pharisees of his day.
Now you could infer that I am inferring the same pejorative to those who lack finesse in their interpretation of scripture to this day. If and when I do, I am throwing myself into that same lot. Jesus used the apriori of love of God and Man as His interpretive nexus.
I believe in literal physical miracles. I like Hot Rods. If I design and build the engine…I know all kinds of ways to make it run faster. Miracles, in my tiny understanding (as you seem to like poking fun at :)), are God’s Hot Rodded Science.
Even my dysfunctional noodle usually discerns the difference in the figurative and the literal. But there are those in our clan that make statements that sound (even if they do not so intend) as absurd as my own intentionally absurd examples when they say they take the Bible literally. Literally true, yes. Properly exegeted, a must. Hermeneutically sound, please.
I believe that our Lord God could have created the world / universe to “appear” old as the mechanisms of scientific interpretation evolved, but that would seem out of character to someone who gave His worshipping creatures such a eye for the order and design that he engineered in the first place. Such trickery would be more in the vien of the Fallen Angles.
There are many good examples of old earth / eternal God, young man / new to science thinking referenced above. So I will refernce you back to them.
Great Post Tim,Justin Taylor recently wrote a couple post on this issue I found thought provoking:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/07/origins.html andhttp://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/07/origins-ii.html
-Ben
Rich Owen,So your saying the Holy Spirit can enlighten Christians in reading the Bible accurately but It can’t enlighten a Christian scientist to read God’s Creation accurately? Thats absurd.Do you think the sun still revolves around the earth? Well why not? Science you say? Becuase i hardly doubt you’ve performed the measurements yourself. THIS IS WHY THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION IS SO IMPORTANT TO THIS ISSUE!!! We as christians IN THE SCIENCES must influence lay-people to adopt a correct view of scripture AS CHRISTIANS!! There is an element of trust here, trust that brothers in Christ are relaying an accurate view of what science is indicating (Science does not belong to the devil, it belongs to believers!!!).
Over here in England, the numbers of Christians willing to identify themselves as 6-day creationists are very small, so it’s good to hear some good arguments in favour!
I think that Exodus 20:11 is important here: if we believe that Scripture interprets Scripture, I think this forces us to interpret Genesis 1 literally as referring to 6 24-hour periods.
There’s also the theological argument: I find it very hard to believe that God created the animal/plant world through evolution, since survival of the fittest is essentially justification by works! (I don’t deny survival of the fittest in the fallen world, though.)
[BTW: Rich Owen - your line of arguing sounds very familiar; were you associated with the ‘Frameworks’ course in central London that run a few years ago??]
For me, the questions are relatively simple.1. Who wrote the Bible in the first place?2. Who was the Bibe intended for?3. Did the Author take into account the intended audience?4. Is the Bible reliable?
1. God.2. Every man, woman and child on the face of the earth from the beginning of time until the end. For the rich, the poor, the meek, the mild, the clever, the not-so-clever - in short every person who ever lived.3. Yes. The Bible is not meant to be some obscure tome where the meaning has to be teased out and debated on, and can only be understood by the intellectually superior. It says what it means and means what it says. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” means just that. Before God created it, there was nothing. God made it. The first two chapters of Genesis are not difficult to understand…my six year old comprehends it perfectly.4. See question one.I am a six literal 24 hour days/6K to 10K years ago creationist, because that is what the Bible clearly says. God wrote it, He was there when it happened, so I think we ought to listen carefully when He tells us what happened.The creation/evolution argument really gives pause for thought, if you think about the account of Noah and the Flood alongside it.Why did only 8 people get on the Ark? Only 8 people believed exactly what God said. God said He would destroy the earth, but the hordes didn’t believe it because it had never happened before/they couldn’t test it out/God really doesn’t mean what He says anyway and just wants to stop us having fun. (Does that particular argument ring any bells?? It should.)Look what happened to the hordes who said that God really couldn’t do that. Look what happened to the eight who listened to God, believed that He could do what He promised, even though from a human understanding point of view it was impossible.Of course there are fewer and fewer people who believe that God created the world in the way it says in Genesis. “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” Matthew 7:13. I am not suggesting that a theistic evolutionist is marked out for destruction, but I think you’ll find, if you scratch beneath the surface a little, that acceptance of anything other than what God says on the creation issue, also means a denial of other things that God says elsewhere. Either the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Quoth Jason: ” Scientific and Historical writing was not around in the middle 2nd millenium BC? I’m certain the Mesopotamians, Akkadians and court of Pharoah would be surprised to hear it”
Herodotus of Halicamassus, 5thC BC, is regarded as the “Father of History.” Before his time, narrative accounts were written for the purpose of glorifying ancestors, leaders, tribes, and so on. Accuracy and strict truthfulness were not considered important. Science began in Greece around the time of Thales, 6thC BC. Before then, there was only technology, with its experience and rules of thumb. Thales an his cohorts were the first to try to develop “theories” about physical phenomena, and to organize facts into these theories. Previously, all we wanted to know was how to stack rocks into houses that wouldn’t fall over.
The JPE writers of the two creation accounts wrote in about the 10thC BC (2) and 6thC BC (1), and far removed from the places and cultures where science and history were nascent. So I maintain that the authors of Genesis, before those time would have considered themselves, worote strictly to illustrate theological points, not historical facts or scientific theories. There is no warrant to consider Genesis as either hostory or science.
Jason: “[h]ow is it that you remain unafflicted by your own subjectivity in your interpretation of the words in Genesis?”
By consulting authors whho have made scholarly studies of these matters. In this case, the Hyers book that I mentioned, Anderson’s “A History of God,” and several others.
Jason: “It is a considerable fallacy to suggest that ancient perspective equals ancient ignorance in all but your own subjective cultural desires and angles.”
I never said the ancients were ignorant or that their perspective was wrong. The matter at hand is to determine what that perspective was. That’s why I said the Genesis authors would laugh at us moderns for literal interpretations of Genesis—-they wiould think us ignorant of their perspective, and naive. They were sophisticatred in many ways. It is you who see Genesis only through the eyes of modern society. In fact, essentially no one saw Genesis as a literal account until the rise of modern science in the 15thC. Ironically enough, it was that burgeoning science that projected its worldview onto the Bible.
Mike A,If Genesis is not real history (or for that matter the rest of the OT since it deals with purported history prior to Herodotus) then why do the NT writers regard it as history? Were they just hopelessly myopic antiquarians perpetrating myths disguised as reality?
I find your assessment far-fetched and too influenced by antiquarian 19th century theories long since refuted.
Scott C says: “If Genesis is not real history (or for that matter the rest of the OT since it deals with purported history prior to Herodotus) then why do the NT writers regard it as history?”
Do they regard it as history? How do you know? The NT writers drew many lessons from the OT. We draw lessons from fiction as well as from history. We talk about Babbitt as an example of a grasping unsatisfied person even though he never existed. We draw a lesson about overweening ambition from Lady Macbeth. Did the prodigal son that Jesus spoke of actually exist as a real person? Does it matter?
Also, why do you assume that something that is not “historical” never existed? Archelologists have found evidence of David’s kingdom, although some of his deeds were probably exaggerated or invented. Was there an actual Abraham? There probably was a person on whose life “Abraham” was modeled.
Here’s an example from another culture. When you (had to) read the Odyssey in high school, you thought of it only as a fictional adventure story. To the Homeric Greeks, however, it was a guide to correct living—-an encyclopedia. The stories illustrated how one was expected to behave in various circumstances. And, although fictional, it was based upon actual events, and to some degree on real people. Did the Greeks understand it as history? Of course not. That wasn’t the point.
This is aother aspect in which our inability to see beyond our own modern milieu hinders us from understanding. I read historians, philosophers, and theologians about my religion. Faith that is not informed by knowledge is sterile, and sometimes misleading. And reading only books you agree with is bootless. At a creationist lecture in California two years ago, a young woman stood up after the presentation and said that she wanted to go to college but then decided against it, because she might learn something that would challenge her faith. The audience applauded her decision. I think that’s a sad story. But maybe you’re with the audience
Tim V-B. Well spotted. I know the frameworks stuff well (not from attending All Souls, through a friend). I guess you must do too since it is hardly well known. Your Exodus 20 point is the killer isn’t it.
Josh C. I’m sorry if my argument got your blood up - my intention is to engage on a slightly different tack, not to irritate people - to push thinking, not to push an agenda. If that isn’t how it comes across, then I apologise unreservedly.
I do think you have been a little unfair in your response though. I do not believe that science is of the devil as you imply. Interestingly, I did make those measurements at university. Careful with assumptions, Josh :-)
I actually agree with you. It is our job as Christians who also happen to be in the sciences to speak the truth about creation. What I wanted to share was the idea of just how we come to know what that truth is, and the Hebrews argument is that we understand it by faith. Which means there is no false dichotomy as you suggest - we understand the world by the same process as we understand the bible - the same, not one or the other - in the Spirit, by faith in Jesus, through the revelation of Jesus in scripture.
I do think we have to acknowledge the limitations of science though, and accept that it cannot stand alongside scripture, and where there is seen to be conflict, we accept scripture and reject science.
I hope that helps clear things up :-)
Blogs and forums are not the best medium for debate, but they are useful and can help us to grow. I guess the key is to accept that we all struggle, and to offer each other the grace of Chirst as we read and respond to what is posted.
In Jesus
Rich
Tim said “While I certainly admit that the Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook, if we affirm its inerrancy we need to believe that where it does comment on science, it does so truthfully.”
I agree on the Bible’s inerrancy, but I am not convinced that what it is doing is commenting on science. It seems very strange that it would be commenting to an ancient Hebrew culture on a branch of human thought that was to them non-existent.
Tim also said, “if we decide that the biblical account of creation is simple allegory or a metaphorical description of what actually took place, how are we to determine where allegory ends and reality begins?”
This argument seems to be saying let’s not try and wrestle with this issue properly because it’s too big a can of worms. It also seems to me to be a mistaken dichotomy of allegory and reality. From our point of view where we try to find explanations in scientific terms, or else try to make the Genesis account into a scientific explanation, then we view “allegory” as somehow akin to “fable”, ie telling a bit of a fib in order to clarify something else. No, allegory in this sense is reality and not fiction. It just isn’t a description telling the message that we seem to obsess about looking for (ie. a ‘scientific’ explanation).
Supposing for one moment some of the scientific explanations are accurate, I can guarantee that their incompleteness will make them fairly allegorical from God’s complete point of view. This doesn’t, however, make them wrong.
Rich,I do appologize for the undue use of caps, not really my intended tone, just earnestness spilling over i guess. I’m glad to see other scientists in the forum.I would agree that Special Revelation has a higher level of importance than General Revelation, but that is due to its different function, that being: salvation, not just knowledge about God’s creation and time-space. We are dealing with the later in this case. Lets not confuse the two. I just hope people aren’t forgetting these important ideas of valuing general revelation at all. The Belgic Confession’s “two books” analogy, and the shorter catechism discern the two and point to the purposes of each. By definition, i don’t think of the two as “in conflict” with each other; that means in any cases of “apparent” contradiction one of them has some flex in interpretation. On one hand Einstein was wrong about relativity, the cosmos is young and Genesis 1 is literal; OR Einstien was right and God is not trying to “deceive us” about the age of the cosmos and there is some flex in our interpretation of Genesis. Its God’s truth but one of those two scenarios has to give. I want to believe the right one as a Christian and scientist. Soli Deo gloria.
Thanks for the fair and balanced article Tim! I really appreciate your attitude in contemplating these difficult topics.
While I cannot be dogmatic at this point, I have found that I am becoming more and more convinced by the Progressive Creationism (Long Day) theory. My biggest worry in studying PC was theological in nature: if death was in the world before Adam’s sin (the Fall), what did that mean? Like I said before, I am not totally sure at this point, but right now I am thinking that it means nothing… Death was a curse on man because of man’s sin. Try reading Genisis 3, Romans 5, and Romans 8 without the presupposition that no animals died before the Fall. and you may be suprised (I was).
A great resource on PC is Hugh Ross’ book “A Matter of Days.” Ross is kind, gentle, intelligent, and most importantly, biblically faithful. Also, for a more concise article dealing specifically with pre-Fall death, check out this: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/animal_death_before_the_fall.shtml
Thanks Josh.
I know this is probably extending beyond the scope of this thread, bit it is linked I guess, and might explain (in part) where I am coming from. On General/Special revelation, you call for distinction between the two.
I don’t know if you aware that there has been some really interesting discussion around the issue of General/Special revelation over here in the UK. (Tim V-B picked up on the language I was using as being influenced by that debate).
The idea being debated is that we shouldn’t in fact separate General and Special Revelation - that there is no difference. The basic idea is that creation doesn’t just speak general truths about “a creating god” but in a specifically Trinitarian way about Jesus Christ, and his salvific work. This aspect of the discussion is particularly important for scientists like you and me, but the wider debate has wider consequences for our understanding of the OT.
Rich
Yes, i’m very interested in this topic, however tangential to the original thread (although i don’t think so).I just now read through some of your earlier comments and i’m conscerned with a conclusion you came up with: “Any scientific attempt to describe the universe is therefore idolatrous.” I have a real problem with this conclusion. I don’t think scientific pursuits in and of themselves are idolatrous. Furthermore, i think this type of perspective is precisely why the christian worldview so often is scorned outright (1 Cor 4:10 only applies in spite of our reasonableness, not because of our lack of being reasonable) in the sciences and now in the public eye because “we” put a damper on discovery becuase of our faith. I completely disagree; as christians we have the same desire to explore the components and mechanisms of nature via science; however I admit a split difference in motive (helping mankind AND bringing glory to God) but do not relinquish the pursuit even knowing that science will never attain to the full knowledge of God (Eccl 3:11).
First of all you are correct in saying that near eastern cultures which existed previous to and during the patriarchal period usually did history in a very selective manner. However, there are a bare minimum which did history in a very even handed, if nationalistic, manner. The historians of a few cultural groups that predate Herodotus buy up to 1,500 years reported when they lost and when they won and when things were great and when they sucked. But even if that were not the case, historiographers are still able to detail the various dynasties and shifts of power by comparing the respective histories of the more selective, conquest-obsessed governments. In the process of comparing the records of these different groups historians can determine the flow of history of this period, even though the Patriarchal period seems to have lacked an Edward R. Murrow of the Chaldeans. But even if that were not the case, your reason for attributing credit to Herodotus, namely that he at least tried to ask the questions and take in the whole picture no matter how ugly, belies the fact that you would choose not to accept the Biblical record, even though the warts and all are contained in bulk in the same fashion. Why would people record things in a manner that makes them out to be the miserable cusses that they were, and we are, if they were no different than the nationalistic, aren’t-we-cool historians which you accuse them of being? And if they are neither and you don’t really don’t care what they meant (as long as one gets some meaning out of it which makes one all warm inside) then why would come here and write that every orthodox Christian since Paul has been getting it wrong? Your criteria for accepting secular scholarship are, in fact, much different than your reasons for not accepting the bible in what it says. Why is that?
Which, believe it or not, brings us back to the original stream. What is your worldview for looking at the Bible? It, from what you have noted so far (I don’t know anymore than that about you), is the world. The lens through which you interpret the Bible is the darkly tinted glass of the fallen world, ever shifting, “truth”-abrogating scholarship, being blown this way and that by the purpose-driven flippy-floppy of those who would say that God does not see or know. Now, you may say something similar about me except in the direction of fundamentalism, conservatism, bible-literalism or some other poorly defined attempt to categorize. And honestly, though the terms are poor, in intention you would probably be right in many ways. Which would only reinforce the fact that you are, in your postings, fighting against Christ and the word of God. You would fight against God’s word saying what it says in when there is simply no other way to take it if one is going to be honest with the way that the languages work. (Be honest, I am not talking apocalyptic or poetic or passages which bear parabole, hos, or other markers of metaphor and simile.)
To sum up, when you sing the praises of your own particular hermeneutical spiral and say that Genesis now has amazing “theological depth” for you, what you seem to mean is that it has great anthropological depth. Your writings indicate that long ago you cast aside the theos for the anthropos, which is the oldest Satanic trick in the book. And that is just the way it is for you. It just isn’t historical, orthodox Christianity or Judaism. It’s a new version of an old-new thing under the sun. If what you have written is truly indicative of who you are, your presuppositions regarding what you will see (which we all have) has nothing to do with Christ and everything to do with you. It pictures Jesus as a circumsized Aesop, a Palestinian Confucious, with no bigger meaning than ethics and the wisdom of those clever Hebrews. This is philosophy of the “Christ-event” informed almost uniformly by the latest contributions of various God-deniers.
But maybe I am wrong about this. What I have written is only my summary of the wisdom of the world which has comprised your postings so far.
Jason Ruzek
The above endless blahbehdeeblah is for Mike A.
Thank you scott for the reply, I have no doubt of the many miracles we are told about in the scriptures and I am positive that there are countless others that were not written about.We have not invented any of the laws of gravity, physics, light, time and so on but have stumbled across laws that were established by the creator. Can he compress time? Probably, I try not to limit the powers of the creator. Again, what is time to an infinit God and why would he compress time during the creation?The cosmos that we live in is endless both in the microcosmic since all things can be split and it is also endless in the macrocosmic since we can not see the end of his creation and all things can be doubled. Gods creation is so far beyound our comprehension that there are no words to describe it. I mean I have built some awesome structures but I can’t build a rock out of nothing. So what if he did take a few hundred million years to do it? I certainly would not think less of him. Again, is it so important to our salvation to believe in a certain length of time or to just believe that HE did it? I dont think about how he made the wine or what length of time it took I just believe he did it.I think as the master bulder Jesus knew how to excelerate the speed of fermentation and since he was with his father since the begining I would think he not only knew of all the laws our scientist seek but was the producer of them as the master worker. The cave man seeing a lighter doesn’t come close but maybe a gnat seeing the space shuttle might come closer to comparing our knowledge to the Lords.Gods name basically means, “I cause to be” and I can see the creation being done in 144 hours and I can see it taking a greater length of time. He sure has rested a long time on the seventh day though hasn’t he? Something like 7,000 years so far. If you say the first six had to be 24 hours then too should not the seventh day have been the same? Or did Christ return already and I missed it? No come to think of it Jesus was here after 5,000 years had passed in the seventh day. I do not question the bible for it was inspired by God but I can not pick and choose what I want out of it. It is all or nothing and it is written, “all scripture is inspired by God…”To strive to be able to love unconditionally, to strive to overcome the flesh, to believe in a God with every fiber of our being that we can niether see or touch. These are the things that are great works and acts of faith and doing these things sets us on the journey to being Christ like.This discussion like the trinity has been going on for 1700 years or so and I don’t think we will solve it now. I think that we can agree that we can disagree and still be brothers in Christ. All will be revealed in his time. Things like the holidays, traditions, and symbology in christianity need to be removed from christianity and we need to get back to just the 2 laws that Christ gave us especially since the one thing we have been given in infinite quantities is the ability to love. I like the simple things.
Josh,
That was an unhelpful use of rhetoric, sorry about that. I would agree that scientific pursuits are not idolatrous in and of themselves, in the same way that art is not idolatrous in and of itself. However, I do think that art can be misused (icons, porn etc), in the same way that scientific conclusions can be idolatrous.
Science says walking on water is not possible, but I know by faith that it is. Science doesn’t conclude that planting a seed in the ground and then watching it grow teaches us about the resurrection, which is the scriptural conclusion. Science says that resurrecting a buried and decomposing body is impossible, but I know by faith that it can be done and has been done, and I go further by investing my hope in the fact that one day it will happen to me in the same astonishing and glorious way that a seed in the ground can become a mighty tree.
I guess the problem I have had with a Christian scientific pursuit - that the believer can in some way study the sciences with a kind of purity afforded them by their goal of bringing glory to God, is that at a very basic level the sciences are built on foundational principles that do not allow God any relationship to the cosmos. That coupled with the fact that we are fallen observers, of a corrupted universe, leads me to (reluctantly) accept that I need revelation, not innovation.
I know that is hardly going to win me any credibility as a scientist, but I really don’t care. You are right to say that the Christian worldview is scorned, and will be scorned, but our calling is not to “legitimise” our faith within the culture of the day, rather to evangelise the culture of the day TO our faith.
You may disagree, but do you see what I mean?
Rich
Rich, (loving this discussion!)Use vs. Abuseyes, science today can be characterized as almost totally Godless, no disputes there, but doesn’t mean it has no proper use. I think we agree on this.MiraclesThis is the topic that i’ve been trying to sort out. To maintain my understanding of the Sci Method but also allow belief in miracles, because by definition a miracle is something that defies “natural explanation”. I think this can be totally consistant as a christian scientist. If someone claims a miracle has happened, what is the first thing i’m going to do? Try to come up with some other reason, because there are a lot of kooks in the world, however, lacking any explanation and of course assuming legitimate testimony, my definition would kick in: miracle. (there are some other theological corollaries: the telos of the miracle, etc.)Definition of ScienceI think the way you characterized it was naturalism, not science. Science is the method or process of answering questions about the cosmos where ever those questions lead us. Naturalism is that same process but only excepts naturalistic answers. Big difference. Don’t use their definition, your correct, it doesn’t allow God in.Street cred.Credibility is essential for the christian testimony, no less in the field of science. The christian worldview is comprehensive and fully integrates the main questions of life (Origins, Identity, Meaning, Morality and Destiny) in a robust manner that is Coherent, Empirically Adaquate and Existentially Relevant (ala Ravi Zacharias). We DO have an obligation to legitimise our faith in our culture, that is where evangelism begins! If, beyond our earnest attempts to present the reasonableness of the Gospel, we are laughed and mocked, then fine, but not before then. And we as christians have a long way to go in espousing this attitude IMHO. Have you ever considered your fellow Godless scientists as YOUR mission field? and not just (pearls before) swine?God blessJosh
Hi TimThe gap for many people is a good, biblical explanation for what people see when they dig up stuff. I don’t require an explanation for trilobites and dinosaurs, but many people do. Evolution claims to have an explanation. I don’t believe it’s accurate, but it’s an explanation.
Faith says that God knew what He was doing back there when He created all things. Faith says that He knew what He was doing when He gave us His Word. The bible is complete for perfecting saints. We can read it exactly as it’s written to learn all that we need to know. If Genesis says “days” and we understand days, then we have learned exactly what He wants to teach us. A little child can easily understand this and learn from it.
The bible also says that a day to the Lord is as a thousand years. A person could hold a petrified trilobite in their hand and read Genesis as the story of billions of years of creation of billions of planets, galaxies and wonderful creatures. If that produces spiritual fruit in their life then the Holy Spirit has given them a great gift. If that produces doubt and confusion, then they need to return to the Word, reread it and understand it at it’s most basic and receive that gift first.Larry Geiger
Hi Josh, it is good to discuss isn’t it.
You are right to point out that scientific method is distinct from naturalism. Scientific method works by comparing one thing to another - I know what this object is, because I have something else that is similar.
The issue with the creation account in Genesis is that it isn’t historical (in the sense that it was recorded by primary sources) - the Lord says to the man in Job 38:4 “where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” The only record we have is the one that has been revealed. (It is historical in the sense that it is true and it happened - as others in the thread point out, the rest of scripture and Jesus himself understand the creation record to be literal and accurate).
Thus our only reliable point of reference to compare the creation to is the revealed truth of God in the bible. So, yes I would concede that we can be scientific in method as we try to answer the big questions of life, but because there is no extra-textual reference that has not been cursed, we have to rely on the biblical revelation to interpret the natural world for us.
When I say that, I don’t mean to say that science is futile. I can know the atomic structure of gold because I can measure it, and I can know it’s chemical properties and utilise them in industry (or just cause it is shiny!), but as far as the metaphysical questions go, our method has be exegetical from the off.
So in terms of conclusions - we have to understand the cosmos as scripture reliably interprets it for us, which puts us back to square one. How do we reliably interpret Genesis 1 and 2? As Tim V-B says, we let scripture interpret scripture, and draw our conclusions from there.
Re my colleagues - absolutely. I seek to share my life and my faith with them when I can.
Sorry - very off topic. Rich Owen - please contact me: tim at timvb dot plus dot com - I’d love to find out who you are!
Uh Oh
Oops link didn’t work correctly. Try again:
Article
First, if we decide that the biblical account of creation is simple allegory or a metaphorical description of what actually took place, how are we to determine where allegory ends and reality begins? If the description of the creation of the world is either just a vague metaphor for what actually happened or perhaps some kind of allegory, where do we determine that historical narrative actually begins?
A fair question. Though I’m not a theistic evolutionist, I have been reading in non-six-literal-day creation literature. The answer I’ve heard to this one is that the historical portion of Genesis begins at Genesis 2:4, introduced by the phrase “These are the generations.” The book of Genesis is framed by this phrase and this is its first occurrence in the book. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is described as a “heroic narrative” introduction. This would seem to reconcile the differences in the creation account between Genesis 1 and 2. So for non-literalists there is a boundary marker in the text itself.We have to see that God did not create Adam from the dust of the ground and did not form Eve from Adam’s rib (putting to rest the age-old controversy of whether or not they had belly buttons).
Yes, the creation of Eve is a bit of a sticking point for someone who wants to hold to what the Bible teaches and what science believes. Here’s Warfield,I am free to say, for myself, that I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution. The sole passage which appears to bar the way is the very detailed account of the creation of Eve. It is possible that this may be held to be a miracle…or else that the narrative may be held to be partial and taken like the very partial descriptions of the formation of the individual in Job and the Psalms; that is, it teaches only the general fact that Eve came of Adam’s flesh and bone. Neither view seems natural. And we may as well admit that the account of the creation of Eve is a very serious bar in the way of a doctrine of creation by evolution. - B. B. Warfield, Evolution or Development, B. B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture, Mark Noll and David Livingstone, eds, (Baker Books, 2000), 130.
Warfield is fascinating on this issue. His view seems to have changed over the years and he was around when Darwinism was fairly new. But he was not a young earth creationist and takes them to task in a few places. He then turns around and takes scientists to task for presuming too much!
What is so helpful about Warfield is that he authored what we would today define as our doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and he was an old earther. I wish he’d written a commentary on Genesis! That way we’d understand how he processed all that. :)
Is there not a danger in handing someone a Bible and saying, “It is important to note that the first three chapters you read really aren’t meant to be taken literally!”?
What would you tell them when they read the Psalms and read about God’s arms and eyes and nose and such? Genre is important and that is the question when it comes to Genesis 1.If we hold to evolution we have no way of knowing if, how or why Adam is our federal head.
Another excellent observation. I too think this is a real problem for theistic evolutionists. They are forced to say something like Adam was the first creature with a soul or something. I don’t think it is a good or easy answer.And finally, was there death before Adam? Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world through the sin of Adam. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…”
Grudem in his Systematic has a nice section on this question. I agree with him. The Bible is clear that sin came through Adam and death came through sin, but it really is unclear as to whether death came to the animals through Adam’s sin. The pre-fall condition of the world and of animals is not clearly taught in Scripture and must be inferred.
Also, to the other commenters, some excellent thoughts!
Tim Etherington,
Very well structured ideas, and I appreciate your Christ-centered tone. I certainly disagree with facets of what you wrote, but the spirit in which and apparent desire with which you wrote what you did is testimony to the hope of biblical ecumenism and those who disagree worshiping Jesus from the same holy ground.
Perhaps some day the discussion will go farther.
You know…for the fun of it.
Thanks!
Jason
Thank you Jason! As far as your disagreement, I’m simply reporting the research I’ve done. I’m researching the different positions on creation within the evangelical community and looking for what is evangelical orthodoxy on the matter. I’m still keeping my opinion on creation private for now. :)
Thank you for your kind words, they are an encouragement to me. I am searching for understanding and common ground amongst the various opinions. What you’ve said gives me hope that I’m accomplishing that.
Bless you brother.