[Previous entry: "The Bible -- ASV"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Let them sing it for you"]

04/01/2004 Entry: "Science, creation and Genesis ... again"

From blogs4God I picked up Why is Evolution Believed in More Firmly than the Evidence Warrants? The focus of the article is the challenge to faith posed by the secular "myth" of evolution arguing that in addition to being a scientific theory, evolution functions as "a story of who we are and how we got here that serves as a guide for life". That, I think, is true. The evolution myth - in this technical sense - is accepted by most Westerners, even those who reject the science from which it springs. One example of this is the notion of free market captalism: things will improve if the "market" is left to itself. It will evolve from lower to higher. Unfortunately, the article is fundamentally flawed because it proceeds from the false assumption that there is a conflict between believing what the Bible says and the science of evolution.

I know I've been here before, but this seems to be one subject that just won't go away. I stand by my view that the opening chapters of Genesis provide no useful scientific insights into the origins of the universe. What they offer is theology, a statement of the relationship between God, humanity and creation. I'm not saying that Genesis is not true, but it is not interested in cosmology, astronomy, quantum mechanics or biochemistry. Think of the way that different maps can be used to chart the same territory, but offer different information according to the map's purpose. Different insights into the same truth. That, for me, is something of the relationship between the Bible and science. Don't try to find your way on the London Underground using a street map. The 2 creation stories of Genesis are not about how God created the universe, but statements of faith about the relationship between God, creation and humanity.

I really struggle with why it is that people who read their Bible's so earnestly cannot see that Genesis 1 & 2 tell very different stories - I'm amazed that people continue to flog this dead horse of a 6 day creation, claiming to be standing up for scriptural truth. I realise that I'm on the verge of ranting, but really...If you truly want to take the Bible seriously, if you're prepared to let it challenge and change you, then you have to read what it actually says. It's only the first chapter of Genesis that speaks of the week of creation. The second chapter gives quite a different story, told in a different way, with the creation occuring in quite a different order. If the first chapter is a scientifically accurate account, then the second cannot be. No amount of hedging, fudging or blustering can get around it.Just for clarity, Genesis 1 has: "In the beginning" - light-day/night - sky- land - grass & plants - sun etc - fish - birds - animals - human beings - rest. By contrast, Genesis 2 goes Adam - garden - plants - animals & birds - woman. There really is no need to confuse our young people with this old chestnut any longer. I'm not saying that science has all the answers. The essence of science is an uncompleted journey. But to try to claim that the Bible is any basis for teaching science is preposterous, at least as dangerous to faith as it is to science and ultimately flawed because it refuses to allow the Bible to speak for itself.

Posted by Jonathan @ 04/01/2004 03:41 PM GMT

Well said, Richard.

I've always thought it a rubbish sort of a faith that needs to be validated by science, or feels that it can be proved or disproved by scientific means, meself.

Posted by Wood @ 04/01/2004 03:54 PM GMT

I agree with you about literal readings of the Bible, but I've long felt that there's a deeper conflict between Darwinism and the Genesis narrative. This was actually one of the first theological issues I tackled on my blog, here and again here. I've dropped the subject since then but I've never worked it out to my own satisfaction.

Posted by Camassia @ 04/02/2004 04:52 AM GMT

I find that many people think the story of the Garden of Eden offers a scientific explanation of how and why humans came to be sinful. To me, that leads to an inherent conflict between the idea that we are born sinful and that we are at the same time "fearfully and wonderfully made."

That type of thinking, for instance, leads people who might even grant that some people are born homosexual to believe it is just an example of being born sinful. Instead, I see sin as our post-birth rebellion against creation. If people are born homosexual, then they aren't rebelling against creation.

Scientific evolution may be God's way of improving the physical being at the very same time that social Darwinism is humanity's sinful attempt to be co-creators with God. Thus, while physical evolution might be inherently good, social Darwinism can be inherently evil.

Posted by Joel Thomas @ 04/02/2004 08:32 PM GMT

If sin is rebellion against your inborn nature, a lot of Christianity would count as sin. Is it really natural to turn the other cheek, to love your enemies, to never commit adultery (even in your heart!), to give away your possessions and to not fear death? If it were, I'd think that two-year-olds would be a lot easier to manage.

Also, I'm not sure about characterizing evolution as "improvement." Evolution selects for reproductive superiority. I don't see Christian values fitting in with that, particularly (well, maybe the Catholic view on birth control, but they're also into celibacy...)

Posted by Camassia @ 04/02/2004 11:28 PM GMT