A couple of days ago I received in our mail a booklet titled: “What if Genesis 1-3 did not happen literally”. It was a booklet promoting the belief in creationism and showing how evolution was problematic for faith in God as the Creator.
This booklet actually came as a result of two prominent theologians openly changing their views from Creationism to Theistic-Evolution which caused quite a stir in Evangelical and orthodox circles.
I personally also believed that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally, not only because I thought it would be theologically problematic to do otherwise but because I had been listening to organizations like Answers in Genesis and most people in my environment believed it.
Re-interpretation
I dont remember exactly what made me doubt creationism but over the course of time I have started doubting it and came to the conclusion that the Bible is not so much a book about the question HOW the world was created but much more WHY it was created and what our response should be to it. It is not a science book and in my opinion people who view it in that way have an extremely weak foundation for their faith for if science proves things in the Bible like Gen 1-3 to be scientifically false you in a sense have a false revelation…
The Rambam’s approach also influenced my thinking, in his day there was a large debate about the eternity of the universe and while he rejected the prevalent notion among the philosophers of his day; that the universe was eternal, he said that if in the end there comes proof for the eternity of the universe he would find a way to reconcile it with the Torah.
And I think this is exactly the way to go, if science disproves the idea that seems to be taught by some passages in the Bible that the earth is a disc floating on the oceans and that the stars are hung upon a cord we simply need to reinterpret those verses and in many cases read them not literally but allegorically.
Picking and choosing
I also had a discussion while in Turkey with some of my Muslim friends and they were eager to point to certain passages in the Qur’an that seemed to foretell scientific principles that we have only recently discovered. Now besides the point whether thats actually possible, I asked them what would happen to their faith were science to disprove things that were recorded in the Qur’an. To which they answered, that in the case science posits something different from what the Qur’an is telling, they would simply ignore science and stick with the Qur’an. And this in a sense is also what some groups of Christians do, making up all kind of conspiracy theories, how evolution is actually a big hoax and lacks conclusive evidence, and how scientists deliberately try to make up stuff to bolster their case.
False dichotomy
Especially in the U.S.A. this has led to two big camps, the conservative camp clinging to the creationism point of view and the liberal camp embracing the evolutionary point of view. And any sign of threading outside of those camps is seen as betrayal. And this is sad as it drives people away from the Bible, people feel they are being pushed into making a decision between either believing in God or believing in science. Which is a false dichotomy.
Consequences for faith
At the moment Im reading a book by Keith Ward called The Big Questions in Science and Religion which I would recommend to anyone having questions about this. Theres a chapter about whether evolution is compatible with creation and he concludes by saying that it is although there needs to be considerable reinterpretation of the first three chapters. A pressing issue especially for Christians is the concept of Original Sin or the idea that death came as a result of sin. He says:
Suffering and death existed long before the first humans did, and they seem to be essential factors in the ascent of humans to dominance on the planet earth. They are not just imprerfections that might have been avoided, if Adam had not sinned. Without them, Adam, or the first member of the species homo sapiens, would never even have existed. [1]
This is problematic to say the least, as most of Paul’s argument in Jesus being the second Adam seems to fall apart if it wasnt Adam’s sin that caused death to enter the world…
Ward puts forth some ideas on how to reconcile this:
What some Christians call “original sin” can be seen, from an evolutionary perspective, as the decision by groups of early humans or even prehominids to realize their genetically inherent tendencies toward kinship bonding and altruism. Over generations, those destructive tendencies have “switched on” the relevant genetic mechanisms, until it has now become “human nature” to be selfish and aggressive… Humans may not, as the Genesis account suggests, have brought suffering and death into the world. But they have immeasurably increased the sum of suffering, and they have brought spiritual death, the death of the sense of God into the world. [2]
Although Im not a big fan of the idea of Original Sin, I must say that he does a very creative job and his methodology is one that I think is more viable in the long run.
The Jewish perspective
I asked a Jewish friend of mine what the consequences from a Jewish point of view would be were death not to be the consequence of sin, and he cited the late Chief Rabbi Hertz:
Strange and sombre doctrines have been built on this chapter of the Garden of Eden, such as the Christian doctrine of the Original Sin (e.g. ‘In Adam’s fall, we sinned all’)… Judaism rejects these doctrines. Man was mortal from the first and death did not enter the world through the transgression of Eve. Stray Rabbinic utterances to the contrary are merely homiletic and possess no binding authority in Judaism. There is no loss of God-likeness of man, nor of man’s ability to do right in the eyes of God; and no such loss has been transmitted to his latest descendants. Although a few Rabbis occasionally lament Eve’s share in the poisoning of the human race by the Serpent, even they declare that the antidote to such poison has been found at Sinai; rightly holding that the Law of God is the bulwark against the devastations of animalism and godlessness… Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man; and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue (זכות אבות) the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants. ‘There is no generation without its Abraham, Moses or Samuel’ says the Midrash; i.e. each age is capable of realizing the highest potentialities of the moral and spiritual life.”
My friend did point out that theres a Gemara (Shabbat 55a-b) where it does seem to advocate the idea that death came as a result of sin but that could also be among those Hertz deemed homiletical and not binding.
Natural selection
The approach advocated by the Rambam and Keith Ward could be seen in some way as analogous to Natural selection; theology should constantly adapt itself and only those ideas and concepts that are able to stand through the test of time should be held to. Needless to say there is a limit to this and Im sure many would feel that putting death before sin is off-limit and hurting the Christian faith, however if this proves to be necessary, I think we have no other choice.
—————————————————————–
[1] Keith Ward, The Big Questions in Science and Religion (West Consohocken: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008), p.64
[2] Ibid. p.81
[3] Hertz Chumash
The problem with a great deal of the Creation-Evolution debates is that they are almost always too polarized from a strictly literal Young Earth/6000 year view, and then a Theistic Evolutionary view that wants to reconcile all aspects of modern, accepted scientific, to the Bible.
A fair view that is almost always never considered is the Old Earth Creationist perspective. It rightly recognizes the age of the universe in the billions of years, recognizes the validity of the Big Bang, and recognizes that there was animal death millions of years ago. What it does not accept, though, is evolutionary science for the creation of humanity. It rather posits that the human race was created by God approximately 45,000-60,000 years ago.
I would encourage you, in your examination of this subject, to examine some of the works of the ministry Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org), or go to their channel on YouTube. Don’t think that you have to choose between one of two extremes on the issue.
Hi J.K.McKee,
I was only aware of the debate between Creationism and what I think can be called the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary view. I found the Theistic-Evolutionary view wonderfully refreshing as it seems to set out in a constructive way instead of ignoring science when conflicting with the Bible but neither turning a deaf ear to the revelation we have received.
I looked up the website you recommended and came across the following in their statement of beliefs concerning Scripture:
This is where I part ways, the idea that the Bible is without scientific errors, that is an assumption or belief that I cannot share for the simple fact that the Bible does contain scientific errors.
I feel the Theistic-Evolutionary approach is much more realistic and viable in the long run and I think it wouldn’t be a stretch to see its proponents in the way Maimonides was using the scientific ideas of his age to understand his beliefs and religion and similarly Thomas Aquinas when writing his Five Ways.
The problem I see with the view you are describing (Old Earth Creationism) is the fact that its not scientifically motivated, but mainly theologically. It agrees with science to the point that it can reconcile it to its theological beliefs, but when science puts forth ideas that go against it, such as death appearing before sin, it closes the door.
This is an approach that I think is problematic because what will happen if science finds, beyond reasonable doubt, that death happened before sin, that is human death, will then your faith in the Bible being the revelation of the one God of Israel be shattered? I know its quite radical and I personally am not 100% comfortable with it, but Im even less comfortable with the idea of letting my faith be founded on a foundation that can change and indeed is bound to change.
Blessings,
Daniel
—————————-
[1] http://www.reasons.org/about-us/our-beliefs
I appreciate the fact that you have at least examined some of the Reasons to Believe website. Many Young Earth Creationists I have encountered would not extend the same courtesy.
On what basis do you assume that the Bible contains significant scientific errors? The fact that yom in Genesis 1 should be rendered as “period” or “era” in our translations, and not “day”? The fact that it depicts the sun setting down, when the vantage point is clearly that of a person on Earth, and not someone viewing Earth from orbit?
Please, before you totally dismiss the Old Earth view in favor of Theistic Evolution, at least read a book or two from the Old Earth perspective. I know you try to be well read on a subject, have done this with other issues based on reading your blog.
I would remind you that the Bible itself does not say that the human race or universe is 6,000 years old. The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are not added up by the Scriptural text, but rather people who came long after–and there are many who have properly viewed these genealogies as being telescoped. Those who frequently insist on a 6,000 chronology are motivated by eschatological datesetting, and not legitimate anthropological and astronomical findings that we are both agreed point to an ancient universe.
Belief in creation in its broad sense is simply the belief in the existence of God as the Creator of the universe. Is a belief in creation in this broad sense compatible with the Darwinistic doctrine of evolution? My thesis is that it is not, for the following reasons.
By Darwinistic evolution is understood a natural process that is not guided by an intelligence, and that neither has an intelligent origin nor an intelligible or intelligent purpose. If intelligence exists in our world this — according to Darwinism — is only because intelligence itself is a product of the evolutionary process. It is not more than that. To claim that there is a divine origin of the universe is simply non-scientific nonsense from this viewpoint. It is nonsense because the assumption of a God is a mere belief that cannot be classified as knowledge nor is it based on knowledge. That’s why this belief is simply imaginary.
The very core of what is called scientific Darwinism is that all kinds of life and all forms of existence within our cosmos are fully explicable on naturalistic principles. This prohibits the positing of a divine intelligent cause as the origin of the universe, or any divine intervention during the process of its natural unfolding. Darwinism thus not only excludes divine creation but also divine revelation — e.g. the Exodus or Sinai events as described in Scripture — for these would imply the intervention of causes that are completely beyond the boundaries of natural science and such an intervention would obstruct the process of natural selection, which ultimately is based on chance. The existence of the Jewish nation and its religion must be explained, on the Darwinist premise, by nothing else but natural selection, and certainly not by a divine election.
The thought-categories of scientific Darwinism absolutely outrule any theism. If natural science, guided by Darwinistic principles, has the authority to tell us how the universe an its life-forms developed, then religion from the outset is simply fantasy or subjective belief. Theists who want to have a God-guided evolution are believing in an entity that is completely superfluous and that has no explanatory force. Therefore this entity should be left out.
Theistic evolutionists in the eyes of scientific Darwinists simply do not understand what science is and they are vague about what evolution is. Darwinian evolution is by definition unguided and purposeless and such a kind of evolution cannot in any meaningful sense be theistic. In other words, a God-guided evolution is for Darwinists no real evolution at all. Allowing a pre-existent divine intelligence to be the origin of the evolutionary process inevitably implies that some form of intelligent design is operative in the whole process, which would make the Darwinistic explanatory principles, chance and natural selection, worthless.
Theistic evolutionism in my opinion is nothing else but a cheap compromise, stemming from a misplaced desire of believers wanting to preserve peace with the mainstream ideology of scientific naturalism. It lacks both theological and philosophical depth and is completely irrelevant from a Darwinistic perspective. Our efforts should not be directed at upholding such a theological and philosophical hybrid, but instead be directed at laying bare the false philosophical principles of Darwinism and of what is called scientific naturalism.
Hi J.K.McKee,
Im aware of the many attempts at explaining the language of the Bible when it conflicts with science, e.g. the firmament being a dome, the earth being supported by pillars, the sun rising, the stars hanging on a cord, the earth being a disc floating on the sea, etc. But even if you could explain all those things away by reading them not literally, I still do not believe the Bible is free of scientific errors for the simple fact that today´s science was not known to the people who wrote the Bible.
I might read a book on OCE but not very soon… if you read my blog you are aware of how many books I read so theres at least 1.5 book waiting for me Have you by any chance read any book from the Theistic Evolutionary perspective? If so which one?
Well thanks for stopping by and feel free to add in any other thoughts also on other posts,
Blessings,
Hi Geert,
Thanks for your input.
You are right to combat philosophical naturalism (i.e. the view that there are no supernatural causal factors at work in nature) however this is not necessarily the only perspective through which evolutionary biology must be viewed, and I think most scientists would opt for another approach, that of methodological naturalism (i.e. it asserts if there are supernatural causes, they may not be discoverable at all or their discovery may not be part of proper scientific method)
I feel like most of your argument is echoing views as put forth by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, that resemble much more philosophical naturalism, and not really the broad spectrum of the scientific community that does not claim that all reality can be explained on the basis of scientific discoveries.
Blessings,
Daniel