One day while changing channels on television I came across a popular evangelists who announced, in pious certainty, that one could not accept evolution and be a Christian at the same time. I was disgusted yet not surprised by his statement. Unfortunately this opinion is all too common. The problems with doctrine of Creationism (as opposed to the doctrine of Creation) will be the subject of this essay.
Note: the recent term “Intelligent Design” is just code for Creationism. It's a Trojan Horse virus trying to slip through the firewall of separation of church and state.
Three Different Variations of Creationism:
Literalists - In this view the entire universe was made in six literal twenty four hours days. These creationists do not agree on the age of the earth. Some say 4,000 years while others 10,000 years. A few will go as far to say 20,000 years.
Gap or Ruin and Restoration - In this case the universe was created eons ago. They would accept the fossil record but still hold that Adam and Eve were real people. According to them the original couple was created 4004 BCE.
Day-Age - In this case the term "day" in the bible would be interpreted to mean an age rather than a literal day. Each age would cover millions of years.
In all three variations there are several regular features. First, they all deny the possibility of speciation occurring. According to creationists each species was created specially and did not evolve from a previous different species. This is though a little false because the creationist believes in "kinds" not species. Second, they all deny that life could have arisen by natural means. Thirdly, they all accept the story of a universal flood and accept Noah's ark as a fact and deny uniformitism.
Theistic Evolution
What alternatives does the Christian have if Creationism is false? One should understand that evolution is a valid alternative to Creationism in all of its many forms. Evolution is simply a process of nature by which life has adapted to its environment and by which species have arisen from a common ancestor. It is religiously neutral and as we shall see is not contradictory at all to the bible.
The term Theistic Evolution has sometimes been used to distinguish a philosophical difference by Christians who are evolutionists from the views of some who have abused the theory. A theistic evolutionist would counter both the creationist and the atheist by saying that evolution was simply the means God used to create the universe and the life within it. He or she would then point out that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God so one could not draw any claims about whether or not He exists from any scientific enterprise.
I prefer simply the term evolution without the clarifier of "theistic" attached. I believe using that term here is as absurd as saying "I don't believe in Atheistic Geometry instead I believe in Theistic Geometry". Evolution is as religiously neutral as gravity so therefore we should not try to create some new term to describe it. We should instead work to keep those with a personal agenda, whether they are atheists or creationists, from twisting science into something that it is not. Using the term "theistic evolution" simply gives credence to the abusers of science.
The Bible as Science Textbook?
Unlike what the creationist claim the bible does not correctly describe the Earth the same as modern cosmology. According to Psalms 75:3, the earth is propped up on pillars. The Hebrews believed that the sky was as solid as a mirror (Job 37:18) and above it were the waters where the flood originated from (Genesis 1:7). To allow the flood waters to fall there were windows in the "firmament" (Genesis 7:11). The dry land was surrounded by the "seas" (Genesis 1:9-10). There are also reasons to believe that they felt like the Earth may have been rectangular since the bible speaks of the "four corners of the earth" (Revelation 7:1). These errors are not just limited to cosmology but are also found in other "scientific" accounts found in the bible. The Hebrews also believed that snakes ate dirt (Genesis 3:14), rabbits chewed cud (Leviticus 11:4-5) and they believed in dragons (Job 41:1).
To say that creationism is a valid scientific theory it would have to support the above beliefs. They would have to deny that the earth is round and that a rocket could leave the atmosphere. In "Studies in the Bible and Science" the leading creationist Henry Morris wrote "The Bible is a Textbook of Science!" (p.108) As one can see by reading the bible that would make for a very bizarre science indeed.
Genesis 1 or Genesis 2
Creationists try to say that there is no contradiction between the accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In reality we have two very different stories.
In Genesis 1 we read of God creating the heavens and earth and that it was formless and void. Obviously when God did this water was created at the same time. Also on the first day God created light and separated darkness from it which was called Day and Night. Since there wasn't any sun one wonders what produced the light. On the second day God produced a solid sky which separated the oceans from the waters above the sky which is called Heaven (sometimes referred to as the "Lower Heavens" by medieval theologians). On the third day God created dry land and He created plant life. The stars, sun and moon (the "Middle Heavens") were created on the fourth day. It was on the fifth day that God created whales, fish and other water life. Also, on this day He created the rest of animal life including the birds, insects and animals. Finally on the sixth day God created man and woman and gave them dominion over all of the earth. This account is wrapped up in the beginning of chapter two.
When we read Genesis 2 verse 5 we start out with a barren earth rather than water. In this account we continue to find different an order to creation than chapter 1. God’s first act was to raise a mist (2:6), which covered the entire world. Afterwards God molded Adam from the dirt (2:7) and then created plant life (2:8). Later all of animal life was created to keep Adam company (2:19). But the animals were not enough for Adam so God made Adam fall asleep and created Eve from one of his ribs. From that point on we read of the talking serpent and the Fall of Humanity.
These are obviously two very different creation patterns. One could create two lists; one for Genesis 1:1-23 and another for Genesis 2:4-25:
GENESIS 1:1-2:3
1) God created the Universe in six days. (1:31)
2) On the sixth day God created humanity, male and female, after all other life was created during the first 6 days. (1:26)
3) Emphasis is placed on God's authority in creation. Nothing is said about the Fall. (1:1-2:3)
GENESIS 2:4-25:
1) God created the entire universe in one day (2:4)
2) Adam was created first, then plants and animals and finally Eve. (2:5-21)
3) Emphasis is placed on why the world is the way it is. The story of the Fall can be found in this account. (2:18, 20)
It is rather absurd to read the above lists and still say that there is no contradiction between the two "accounts" of creation. Recently there have been several attempts by creationists to force the two to agree but to do this one must move away from a literal interpretation of the bible. There would be no other way to make these accounts agree but of course if they did that then there would not be a creationist position in the first place.
Sacred Narratives
How then shall we read creation stories? One reason for their writing was to create an explanation of how the world came to exist as the authors saw it. In other words:" Where did the sun and the moon come from?", "Where did life come from?", "What is the shape of the world?", "Why and how are we different from the animals?" and similar questions. These answers to these questions were pre-scientific in the sense that they were the result of the everyday observations and discussions not scientific study.
But such stories serve another purpose. Another reason for their writing was to transmit the world view of the people. These questions are more existential than those previously mentioned. Such questions include: "What is the meaning of life?", "What supernatural beings or forces, if any, exist?", "If there is a supernatural realm how does it relate to the world and especially humanity?" These resulted from the religious life of the people and were combined with the more secular purpose of the stories until it’s difficult at times to differentiate between the two.
Conclusion
Saying that Genesis is a scientific textbook dictated by God is to completely misunderstand it. The stories of Genesis are like all Creation stories found in all faith traditions in that they are not only pre-scientific explanations of the world but are, more importantly, also sacred narratives created to explore the greater theological issues of meaning and relationships between the Divine and humanity. To say something else is to miss the beauty and purpose of Genesis.
Creation "Science" Debunked
Note: The site Creation "Science" Debunked, while a very useful site, has the modified fish symbol with legs and the word Darwin. I know this disturbs some people.
