Special Creation is the term creationists use when they want to say that God created the world, and everything in it, pretty much the way we see it today. Further, they contend that He created it all at once, bypassing the natural processes and mechanisms we see at work around us in the universe. So while we see proto-stars, this is not how God made the current stars, though we see material from which planets will form, and material left over from planets that have formed, this is not how God made the planet we are on. Though we have discovered vast plates on which all the surface of the earth rides, these had nothing to do with the formation of the land masses we now see. Though we see evolution at work every day, evolution is not the process through which the diversity of life developed. It is true that some creationists recognize that natural forces are at work in the world, and ascribe trivial changes to them - but creationism ascribes the vast majority of the natural world to a 6 day stretch of time during which everything simply came to be.
Is there any scientific support for the idea of special creation? That is, can the facts we observe about the natural world be reconciled with the idea of a recent (6,000 year) earth, brought into existence over a 6-day period of time? The simple and best answer is no. At every level you look at it, the account of creation in Genesis 1 does not stand up as a "scientific" explanation of how the world was created. For me at least, this does not mean that it is not true - it is a declaration of freedom from bondage to the elemental forces thought to rule the earth - not a scientific explanation of the earth's construction.
It turns out that creation is a metaphor for processes that were not understood at the time, and for which people had neither the world-view, technology or even vocabulary to comprehend. And like all metaphors, it breaks down when you push it to the level of detail required to see the world as it is.
Take the opening sentence "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." When we contemplate these words, we most likely think of the familiar picture of a blue earth resting in vast space. This is not what the original hearers imaged at all - they pictured a vast sea, on which the earth, plate-like, rested on pillars. More pillars supported a dome of sky, and above that, the heavens - the place where God literally dwelt. Below the earth was a place of danger and chaos, where the dead went. The entire world was centered on the middle east, and Australia, North and South America did ot exist. Even much of Asia, India and Europe were unknown, or the merest fables. Ships kept close to the shore for fear of getting lost or eaten by monsters, women and children were property, slaves were a natural part of everyday life, and the world was ruled by powerful and unseen forces, investing all of nature with supernatural menace - capricious gods and spirits who had to be placated at every turn. This is the world pictured by the hearers of Genesis 1.
And where do we live now? In a world with 10,000 species of micro-organisms in a GRAM of soil. In a world where there are 350,000 species of beetle, where we can see the evidence of the slow shift of continents, and find the fossils of - not just strange creatures who have gone extinct- but entire ecosystems (plant and animal) who have developed and died out not just once or twice, but over and over during the 4.5 billion year history of the planet. Seas have formed and dried up, only to be replaced by plains, mountains have thrust seabeds into the sky, entire mountain ranges have been washed into the oceans - not once, but many times. We are not just related to the other apes - we share something like 98% of our DNA with them.
Yes life is wonderful and amazingly complex, and yes, there are still things we have not figured out - but one thing we have figured out is that we were not created 6,000 years ago from the dust of the earth.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
If not us, then who?
While we are all living our lives with a "it could never happen here" philosophy, people are moving into the vacuums created by our non-involvement.
No one around to demand integrity and accountability in politics? The unscrupulous and opportunistic step into their niches.
No one willing to preach the gospel of Christ, knowing what it will do to their TV ratings and "free-will" offerings? Tell people what they want to hear - appeal to their vanity, their pride, their weaknesses, their fears, their prejudices.
No one around to insist that capitalism be balanced with compassion and concern for 'the commons?" Corporations take it as their duty to maximize profit - no matter what it does to people, society or the environment.
We drop duty, service, mercy from our personal values? People get ahead by being selfish and self-serving, and entire industries arise to help them along.
We humans have a remarkable ability to shape our environment - and the shape of that environment determines the behaviors required to succeed. We create and strengthen our environments by every action we take – which is why character matters, and why mercy and compassion matters, and what gives meaning to duty and sacrifice and service.
If not us, then who?
No one around to demand integrity and accountability in politics? The unscrupulous and opportunistic step into their niches.
No one willing to preach the gospel of Christ, knowing what it will do to their TV ratings and "free-will" offerings? Tell people what they want to hear - appeal to their vanity, their pride, their weaknesses, their fears, their prejudices.
No one around to insist that capitalism be balanced with compassion and concern for 'the commons?" Corporations take it as their duty to maximize profit - no matter what it does to people, society or the environment.
We drop duty, service, mercy from our personal values? People get ahead by being selfish and self-serving, and entire industries arise to help them along.
We humans have a remarkable ability to shape our environment - and the shape of that environment determines the behaviors required to succeed. We create and strengthen our environments by every action we take – which is why character matters, and why mercy and compassion matters, and what gives meaning to duty and sacrifice and service.
If not us, then who?
Monday, August 21, 2006
Can A Christian Color Outside the Lines?
Have you read Acts 1:9 where Luke writes about Jesus' ascension into heaven:
"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
Do we think that heaven is up in the air, above the dome of the sky? The disciples seemed to think so.
Do we think that heaven is anywhere in this physical realm at all?
If heaven is not "away beyond the blue," then why did Jesus travel up a few hundred feet in the air, and then disappear behind a cloud? And where did he go? And why couldn't he have just gone there from right on the ground?
Of course, it is fine to say that there may be things about heaven we do not understand (surely we understand little or nothing) - but we can be fairly certain that heaven is located in no physical place that we can see, or reach, or locate on a map or celestial chart. In any event, we can be pretty certain that heaven is in no place that required Jesus to lift up off the ground and disappear behind a cloud.
So why did he do it? Is there a sense of theater here, playing to the expectations of the disciples? Is Jesus meaning to teach something about the location of heaven, or is he underscoring that that is indeed where he was headed? Certainly the disciples would have seen this as an unambiguous act by Jesus - literally ascending into heaven. The creeds affirm as much. It certainly cannot mean the same thing to us - we've seen what is "up there" and it is space and a planetary system and very distant stars.
So yes, science can make us take a new look at the Bible - and it "makes us look" whether we want to or not. We do not read the bible or experience the world in the same way Abraham or Moses or John or Paul did. We cannot make it otherwise - except by imposing ignorance through the process of demolishing science. This is just what well-meaning people do when they insist that matters of faith be taught as if they were scientifically demonstrated facts. When any heartfelt belief can be legislated into science, then science is in danger of losing its essential character, and truth becomes a word meaning only the opinion promoted most forcefully.
In the name of piety, there certainly are those who are taking an axe to the tree of science. They will be shocked to discover that what grows up is a crop of weeds - all claiming to be beautiful flowers of truth. Let's hope that someone is always around to stop such senseless vandalism - and let's resolve to be that someone.
"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight."
Do we think that heaven is up in the air, above the dome of the sky? The disciples seemed to think so.
Do we think that heaven is anywhere in this physical realm at all?
If heaven is not "away beyond the blue," then why did Jesus travel up a few hundred feet in the air, and then disappear behind a cloud? And where did he go? And why couldn't he have just gone there from right on the ground?
Of course, it is fine to say that there may be things about heaven we do not understand (surely we understand little or nothing) - but we can be fairly certain that heaven is located in no physical place that we can see, or reach, or locate on a map or celestial chart. In any event, we can be pretty certain that heaven is in no place that required Jesus to lift up off the ground and disappear behind a cloud.
So why did he do it? Is there a sense of theater here, playing to the expectations of the disciples? Is Jesus meaning to teach something about the location of heaven, or is he underscoring that that is indeed where he was headed? Certainly the disciples would have seen this as an unambiguous act by Jesus - literally ascending into heaven. The creeds affirm as much. It certainly cannot mean the same thing to us - we've seen what is "up there" and it is space and a planetary system and very distant stars.
So yes, science can make us take a new look at the Bible - and it "makes us look" whether we want to or not. We do not read the bible or experience the world in the same way Abraham or Moses or John or Paul did. We cannot make it otherwise - except by imposing ignorance through the process of demolishing science. This is just what well-meaning people do when they insist that matters of faith be taught as if they were scientifically demonstrated facts. When any heartfelt belief can be legislated into science, then science is in danger of losing its essential character, and truth becomes a word meaning only the opinion promoted most forcefully.
In the name of piety, there certainly are those who are taking an axe to the tree of science. They will be shocked to discover that what grows up is a crop of weeds - all claiming to be beautiful flowers of truth. Let's hope that someone is always around to stop such senseless vandalism - and let's resolve to be that someone.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
“Proving” God's Power and Might
I believe the driving force behind "creation science" and Intelligent Design is the desire to demonstrate, in concrete terms, that God exists and impacts the natural world.
From the faith position, the argument goes something like this (I am generalizing about many evangelical and conservative Christians -I realize that this does not represent the experience or beliefs of all people of faith):
A large number of people believe in God. They base this belief on a combination of personal experience and revelation. We have books that claim to contain the words and acts of God. We have subjective experiences that we believe are the result of God interacting with us. We observe effects in our life and in the social, political and natural world that we attribute to the activities of God.
From these experiences and observations, we come to believe that God has a tangible impact on our lives and the workings of the world. By tangible impact, we mean measurable, noticeable - that God is potent and effective. Isaiah 55:10-11:
To be sure, there are many, many stories of things happening that are attributed to God - healings, recoveries, fortuitous happenings, incredible coincidences, chains of events leading to results that people feel can only be the action of God - but so far, no way to demonstrate that belief in the laboratory or in the field to a "scientific" level of proof.
This stands in stark contrast to the success of science in understanding how the natural world works.
The "creation science" and ID movement is an attempt to rectify this imbalance by demonstrating the power and effectiveness of God in terms that cannot be denied. So far, this attempt has not been successful. This has resulted in some people of faith "declaring victory" anyway, and trying to convince the rest of the world that areas of uncertainly, complexity and debate represent the genuine activity of God. The world's response has been skeptical.
For now, it seems that the kind of hard proof people of faith are looking for is not forthcoming. It makes sense to keep looking - but integrity demands that we be up front about how the search is going - full of confidence and faith, yes, but declaring victory - not yet.
Of course, there is another approach - to consider the possiblity that the world that science uncovers is the world God has made. God may not be detectable via science because what science reveals is what God does - all of it. In ways that we obviously do not understand, perhaps God makes his will known though what we perceive to be the natural processes we experience everyday. If this is true, then we will never (or always) find God via science. This does not make science any less useful, but it can make science less threatening.
From the faith position, the argument goes something like this (I am generalizing about many evangelical and conservative Christians -I realize that this does not represent the experience or beliefs of all people of faith):
A large number of people believe in God. They base this belief on a combination of personal experience and revelation. We have books that claim to contain the words and acts of God. We have subjective experiences that we believe are the result of God interacting with us. We observe effects in our life and in the social, political and natural world that we attribute to the activities of God.
From these experiences and observations, we come to believe that God has a tangible impact on our lives and the workings of the world. By tangible impact, we mean measurable, noticeable - that God is potent and effective. Isaiah 55:10-11:
quote:The success of science in the past few hundred years has been to describe how the world works without reference to God (not in denial of God, but reflecting the understanding that supernatural intervention is not needed for all natural processes so far identified). So far, no cause-and-effect has been demonstrated to depend on God, and no experiments have been successful in detecting God's activities.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
To be sure, there are many, many stories of things happening that are attributed to God - healings, recoveries, fortuitous happenings, incredible coincidences, chains of events leading to results that people feel can only be the action of God - but so far, no way to demonstrate that belief in the laboratory or in the field to a "scientific" level of proof.
This stands in stark contrast to the success of science in understanding how the natural world works.
The "creation science" and ID movement is an attempt to rectify this imbalance by demonstrating the power and effectiveness of God in terms that cannot be denied. So far, this attempt has not been successful. This has resulted in some people of faith "declaring victory" anyway, and trying to convince the rest of the world that areas of uncertainly, complexity and debate represent the genuine activity of God. The world's response has been skeptical.
For now, it seems that the kind of hard proof people of faith are looking for is not forthcoming. It makes sense to keep looking - but integrity demands that we be up front about how the search is going - full of confidence and faith, yes, but declaring victory - not yet.
Of course, there is another approach - to consider the possiblity that the world that science uncovers is the world God has made. God may not be detectable via science because what science reveals is what God does - all of it. In ways that we obviously do not understand, perhaps God makes his will known though what we perceive to be the natural processes we experience everyday. If this is true, then we will never (or always) find God via science. This does not make science any less useful, but it can make science less threatening.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Science and Religion Both Faith-Based?
Do scientists who accept evolution have equivalent a priori assumptions (old earth, evolution, common ancestor etc.) that causes them to process all facts through a filter that can yield only support for their assumption? That is, are YEC and evolution two faith-based competing theories?
I do not think so, because there are many, many independent lines of evidence that do not make sense in a YEC interpretation of Genesis, but do make sense in the context of evolution and common descent. And of course, this is how the theory developed. A YEC scientist (Darwin) went out and looked around, and realized what the facts he observed led to - evolution. After some rather contentious debate, other scientists came to the same conclusions. Years later, thousands of scientists recognize that evolution makes sense of the facts, whereas special creation does not. Some of these facts include the geological column and the fossils indexed to them, psuedogenes, broken genes, junk DNA, greater similarity correlating with shared ancestry, etc. etc.
So you have evolution emerging from the systematic observation of facts about the world, and the YEC approach coming from an assumption about how to interpret Genesis 1.
While science does not have anything to say about the existence of God, it does have things to say about things that have and have not happened in the natural world. When your confidence in God is tied to the accuracy of statements about the natural world contained in books of revelation, then science is in the uncomfortable position of “disproving” some possible interpretations of that revelation (Genesis can’t be both "true in a scientific sense" and teach that the world is 6,000 years old, for instance, if science is a reliable guide to nature).
Unfortunately for creationists, criticism of our evolution is not the same thing as defending the Genesis account of creation. It may be that mutation and natural selection are not the only forces acting on species to cause evolution. This just means that the theory will get better over time – that there is more to learn. While the theory of evolution will change and grow, there is no reason to expect that the evidence will suddenly start pointing to special creation, a global flood, and a young earth.
None of this rules out the possibility that God designed the universe, especially if He did it in some way that is beyond our detection – and in a way that also preserves the true random nature of the cosmos. This is a position that cannot be proved or disproved by science – two people look at the same facts, some see God, some see chance.
So faith and science two faith assumptions? Christians challenged to believe the Bible or believe science? I don’t think so. Do the findings of science challenge our beliefs? Of course. All Christians used to believe that the Bible taught geocentrism – today, YEC-ers argue strongly that the Bible teaches no such thing. The reason everyone agrees on this point is because scientists demonstrated a fact about the world (heliocentrism) that no one can successfully dispute. Like it or not, we have to test our interpretations of revelation against our real world experience. Science is a tool that magnifies and strengthens our ability to think accurately about our world. And that is all it does – but that is quite a lot.
I do not think so, because there are many, many independent lines of evidence that do not make sense in a YEC interpretation of Genesis, but do make sense in the context of evolution and common descent. And of course, this is how the theory developed. A YEC scientist (Darwin) went out and looked around, and realized what the facts he observed led to - evolution. After some rather contentious debate, other scientists came to the same conclusions. Years later, thousands of scientists recognize that evolution makes sense of the facts, whereas special creation does not. Some of these facts include the geological column and the fossils indexed to them, psuedogenes, broken genes, junk DNA, greater similarity correlating with shared ancestry, etc. etc.
So you have evolution emerging from the systematic observation of facts about the world, and the YEC approach coming from an assumption about how to interpret Genesis 1.
While science does not have anything to say about the existence of God, it does have things to say about things that have and have not happened in the natural world. When your confidence in God is tied to the accuracy of statements about the natural world contained in books of revelation, then science is in the uncomfortable position of “disproving” some possible interpretations of that revelation (Genesis can’t be both "true in a scientific sense" and teach that the world is 6,000 years old, for instance, if science is a reliable guide to nature).
Unfortunately for creationists, criticism of our evolution is not the same thing as defending the Genesis account of creation. It may be that mutation and natural selection are not the only forces acting on species to cause evolution. This just means that the theory will get better over time – that there is more to learn. While the theory of evolution will change and grow, there is no reason to expect that the evidence will suddenly start pointing to special creation, a global flood, and a young earth.
None of this rules out the possibility that God designed the universe, especially if He did it in some way that is beyond our detection – and in a way that also preserves the true random nature of the cosmos. This is a position that cannot be proved or disproved by science – two people look at the same facts, some see God, some see chance.
So faith and science two faith assumptions? Christians challenged to believe the Bible or believe science? I don’t think so. Do the findings of science challenge our beliefs? Of course. All Christians used to believe that the Bible taught geocentrism – today, YEC-ers argue strongly that the Bible teaches no such thing. The reason everyone agrees on this point is because scientists demonstrated a fact about the world (heliocentrism) that no one can successfully dispute. Like it or not, we have to test our interpretations of revelation against our real world experience. Science is a tool that magnifies and strengthens our ability to think accurately about our world. And that is all it does – but that is quite a lot.
Monday, July 31, 2006
So What is Wrong With ID?
I have a few objections to ID. These include:
ID is an interventionist theology, that states that God MUST miraculously intervene to do the "hard parts." By this I mean that ID in general agrees that some evolution has taken place, but that certain things (e.g. species, major organs (like the eye), the bacterial flagellum) represent too much complexity to have evolved. So God, in some unspecified and unknowable way intervened in the process of evolution and added the missing information. This is not my view of how God acted in creation, based on the evidence so far - so I am not an advocate. It also specifically EXCLUDES my theistic evolution approach *which essentially states that science is uncovering how God made the world). Id differ from young earth creationism only in that ID accepts far more of evolution and grants a much longer time frame for life on earth than those folks who think that Genesis 1 accurately describes creation events.
The whole movement is driven by a prior commitment that we know, based on our interpretation of the Bible, better than the evidence of the natural world. Though ID claims to be agnostic about the Designer, both Behe and Dembowski have admitted that they think the designer is the Christian God. The only reason to remove "god talk" is the hope that it will then stand up to constitutional challenge. ID has not made its case, so we are jumping the gun, and asserting things contrary to fact, when we advance the ID idea.
I also think that most of the furor over ID has been whipped up under false pretenses. Conservative Christians have been told that "mainstream science" promotes atheism. This is not true (though there are scientists - both Christian and atheist - who do claim that science supports their beliefs). Science is the most successful tool we have to explore the natural world. Because it has not turned up evidence of the existence of God (something it was not ever designed to do), it is now being made to suffer accusations of being anti-Christian.
Yes, there are cultural, moral and ethical issues we need to face. Yes, scientists (just like pastors, lawyers, politicians, plumbers, etc.) have a variety of personal views - some we embrace, some we reject. Science is being singled out for attack because it speaks with authority about issues that touch on the validity and accuracy of the Bible. ID is an attempt at a scientific case, but in spite of claims to the contrary, it has not yet made its case. Will ID be able to support its claims? Time will tell - and we should give it all the time it needs (however long that turns out to be), not rush it, half-baked, to the table, and then insist that it be the star of the banquet.
ID is an interventionist theology, that states that God MUST miraculously intervene to do the "hard parts." By this I mean that ID in general agrees that some evolution has taken place, but that certain things (e.g. species, major organs (like the eye), the bacterial flagellum) represent too much complexity to have evolved. So God, in some unspecified and unknowable way intervened in the process of evolution and added the missing information. This is not my view of how God acted in creation, based on the evidence so far - so I am not an advocate. It also specifically EXCLUDES my theistic evolution approach *which essentially states that science is uncovering how God made the world). Id differ from young earth creationism only in that ID accepts far more of evolution and grants a much longer time frame for life on earth than those folks who think that Genesis 1 accurately describes creation events.
The whole movement is driven by a prior commitment that we know, based on our interpretation of the Bible, better than the evidence of the natural world. Though ID claims to be agnostic about the Designer, both Behe and Dembowski have admitted that they think the designer is the Christian God. The only reason to remove "god talk" is the hope that it will then stand up to constitutional challenge. ID has not made its case, so we are jumping the gun, and asserting things contrary to fact, when we advance the ID idea.
I also think that most of the furor over ID has been whipped up under false pretenses. Conservative Christians have been told that "mainstream science" promotes atheism. This is not true (though there are scientists - both Christian and atheist - who do claim that science supports their beliefs). Science is the most successful tool we have to explore the natural world. Because it has not turned up evidence of the existence of God (something it was not ever designed to do), it is now being made to suffer accusations of being anti-Christian.
Yes, there are cultural, moral and ethical issues we need to face. Yes, scientists (just like pastors, lawyers, politicians, plumbers, etc.) have a variety of personal views - some we embrace, some we reject. Science is being singled out for attack because it speaks with authority about issues that touch on the validity and accuracy of the Bible. ID is an attempt at a scientific case, but in spite of claims to the contrary, it has not yet made its case. Will ID be able to support its claims? Time will tell - and we should give it all the time it needs (however long that turns out to be), not rush it, half-baked, to the table, and then insist that it be the star of the banquet.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Science and the Art of Biblical Interpretation
I've written lots about what I am against, so what am I arguing for?
First, that the natural world is a continuum with revelation. What I mean by this is that the natural world is like a “fossil” of truth – it provides an accurate picture of what has come before.
An example? The world really is 4.5 Billion years old. Why do we know this? Multiple dating methods converge on this date, using independent properties of matter.
The implication? When Genesis describes creation, it is not describing the events in any sort of scientific manner. This would have come to a surprise to the original hearers, to believers during the life of Jesus, even to early scientists like Isaac Newton.
So how can I justify ignoring the plain meaning of the text? Well, because the plain meaning is not suported by any evidence - none. Not just in the timing of creation (6, 24-hour days), but also in the order of creation (light, day and night before the creation of the sun, for example).
One objection is that this is how God decided to do it; it was a miracle, and one of the (unintentional? unavoidable?) fallouts is that the scientific evidence points in a different direction (old earth), but the Bible sets us straight (young earth). This objection is unassailable – this could be the truth. But when I consider the odd situation that puts us in – the truth (young earth) is of no help to us (for example, flood geology is useless in finding oil), and the scientific “lie” (old earth) proves very accurate and useful information (a good way to find oil) - I am not satisfied with this explanation.
Is this kind of dualism really Biblical? For spiritual purposes, we believe in a young earth, but when we want to have an accurate model of the earth and how it works, we have to resort to the lie of an old earth?
I suppose the same can be said of evolution. In spite of all the hype, no evidence actually exists that disproves evolution, and no support for special creation can be found. What is left is personal disbelief that evolution can work. But inability to believe is not compelling, especially when you follow the evidence, and find that all the claims made to have disproven evolution turn out to be mistaken or worse, fraudulent.
So does that mean that science stands in judgment over the Bible? For me at least, not really. I view science as a natural extension of our curiosity about, and knowledge of, the world. We understand the world in a very different way than did the original hearers of the various books of the Bible. We do not believe in geocentrism. We do believe in the germ theory of disease. From Augustine to Galileo, the church taught that no one lived on the opposite side of the world (the antipodes), because Christ’s message could not have reached them. We now know that in fact people did live there, even before the time of Noah.
God, however, would not have been unaware of any of this. A clear implication is that God spoke to people in terms of their local cultural understandings and expectations. It turns out that the Bible is not a science textbook; God uses the language and experience of the people he is dealing with to communicate to them – how could he do otherwise?
It is true that this opens up sections of the Bible to interpretation; what in the Bible is cultural, and what transcends culture? This is a question that we must, and do discuss (consider the issues of multiple wives, slavery and the role of women to name just a few issues where our modern approach differs from the world found in the New Testament). It is naïve to pretend that we do not reinterpret the Bible for our time and culture. Even literalists have to explain away the order of creation in Genesis and the geocentrism of Joshua; so the question is not IF, but HOW to intepret the Bible. I believe that we must let our understanding of the natural world play a role in our approach to Biblical interpretation.
First, that the natural world is a continuum with revelation. What I mean by this is that the natural world is like a “fossil” of truth – it provides an accurate picture of what has come before.
An example? The world really is 4.5 Billion years old. Why do we know this? Multiple dating methods converge on this date, using independent properties of matter.
The implication? When Genesis describes creation, it is not describing the events in any sort of scientific manner. This would have come to a surprise to the original hearers, to believers during the life of Jesus, even to early scientists like Isaac Newton.
So how can I justify ignoring the plain meaning of the text? Well, because the plain meaning is not suported by any evidence - none. Not just in the timing of creation (6, 24-hour days), but also in the order of creation (light, day and night before the creation of the sun, for example).
One objection is that this is how God decided to do it; it was a miracle, and one of the (unintentional? unavoidable?) fallouts is that the scientific evidence points in a different direction (old earth), but the Bible sets us straight (young earth). This objection is unassailable – this could be the truth. But when I consider the odd situation that puts us in – the truth (young earth) is of no help to us (for example, flood geology is useless in finding oil), and the scientific “lie” (old earth) proves very accurate and useful information (a good way to find oil) - I am not satisfied with this explanation.
Is this kind of dualism really Biblical? For spiritual purposes, we believe in a young earth, but when we want to have an accurate model of the earth and how it works, we have to resort to the lie of an old earth?
I suppose the same can be said of evolution. In spite of all the hype, no evidence actually exists that disproves evolution, and no support for special creation can be found. What is left is personal disbelief that evolution can work. But inability to believe is not compelling, especially when you follow the evidence, and find that all the claims made to have disproven evolution turn out to be mistaken or worse, fraudulent.
So does that mean that science stands in judgment over the Bible? For me at least, not really. I view science as a natural extension of our curiosity about, and knowledge of, the world. We understand the world in a very different way than did the original hearers of the various books of the Bible. We do not believe in geocentrism. We do believe in the germ theory of disease. From Augustine to Galileo, the church taught that no one lived on the opposite side of the world (the antipodes), because Christ’s message could not have reached them. We now know that in fact people did live there, even before the time of Noah.
God, however, would not have been unaware of any of this. A clear implication is that God spoke to people in terms of their local cultural understandings and expectations. It turns out that the Bible is not a science textbook; God uses the language and experience of the people he is dealing with to communicate to them – how could he do otherwise?
It is true that this opens up sections of the Bible to interpretation; what in the Bible is cultural, and what transcends culture? This is a question that we must, and do discuss (consider the issues of multiple wives, slavery and the role of women to name just a few issues where our modern approach differs from the world found in the New Testament). It is naïve to pretend that we do not reinterpret the Bible for our time and culture. Even literalists have to explain away the order of creation in Genesis and the geocentrism of Joshua; so the question is not IF, but HOW to intepret the Bible. I believe that we must let our understanding of the natural world play a role in our approach to Biblical interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
