The rancor against Creationist viewpoints, and the arguments swirling around the media and the internet over Intelligent Design come down to only a couple of things: Is the account in Genesis true or not? And is evolutionary theory at least partially true or not?
There is, unfortunately, a distinct inflexibility on the part of most people to believe that intelligent life exists on the other side of the debate. Regardless of which side you are on.
I hope I can respectfully add a few specifics about the actual Genesis account, and whether you are an evolutionist, a creationist, an intelligent design proponent, a college professor, or a normal well adjusted individual… hopefully the following will at least give you a more accurate basis from which to debate.
And please keep in mind, even this is but the most cursory, incredibly brief look at Genesis. Real scholarship would demand more typing and more space than either you or I have time to commit.
TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND SIT DOWN BECAUSE THE BIBLE DOESN’T REALLY SAY HOW OLD THE EARTH IS…
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. -Genesis 1:1-2
Young Earth Creationists will point out that if you trace back the geneologies given in the Bible all the way back to Adam, you’ll end up with an earth that is about 6000 years old. (this is inexact since the Jews and Greeks would often skip people when giving a geneology, but in general, a YEC guy or gal would figure 6,000 – 10,000 years for the age of the earth)
The Bible however, does not say anywhere in it that the earth is such and such years old. And some ministers and scholars would read the above two verses and point out that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but there could be any length of time between the initial creation of the heavens and the earth, and the time he focuses on this dark planet and says “Let there be light.”
For you guys who want to bring up scientific evidence one way or the other concerning the age of the earth, knock yourself out. The Bible does not specifically say how old the earth -the planet itself- actually is.
Even before God says, “let there be light” the earth was already there.
Oh, I know you’ve been told the earth was void, so there was nothing really there. Or the earth had no form, so it wasn’t a planet. But please, read the words.
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
#1 – the Hebrew word we translated in the New King James Version as “without form” literally means: a desolation, a desert, to lie waste
It does not mean it had no mass or presence or physical form. Obviously it had waters and the Spirit of God hovered OVER THE FACE of the waters (or surface of the waters) indicating gravity.
#2 – the Hebrew word we translated in the New King James Version as “void” literally means: undistinguishable ruin, an emptiness.
A close look at the description tells us the earth was covered by darkness and “the deep” (the ocean) and was a desolate waste with no life and no features. (other than endless water and darkness)
It was however, THERE. It was there before God said “Let there be light.”
Therefore, neither the idea of an old earth nor the assertion of a young earth conflicts with the Bible. There is simply no way to know how long the earth had been a lifeless, dark planet as it is pictured in Genesis 1:2. So, enjoy the debates over the age of the earth itself. The Bible sits on the sideline with the truth it gives which is simply that God created the place, that it began as a dark wasteland, and he created it in the beginning along with the universe: the “heavens.”
One might ask, “How could God create the universe, before he created light, since stars by their very physical nature give off light?”
Easy. The Bible also does not say God created light. I will pause to give you time to regain your breath…
There is a difference between something existing, and something being present at a particular place. Light existed already, but the Genesis story focused on the earth, this planet covered by darkness. Light was not present there, and it is there that God said, “Let there be light.” He didn’t invent light for the first time, he simply put light into the darkness.
After all…
God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. – I John 1:5 (since God was there, didn’t light exist already?)
And light dwells with Him. -Daniel 2:22 (speaking of God in the Old Testament and saying the same thing as John did above)
who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. – I Timothy 6:16
These Scriptures demonstrate the Bible itself claims light must have existed already, because God existed in Genesis 1. We have traditionally assumed God invented light in Genesis 1:3 because it says:
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. -Genesis 1:3
But we aren’t reading carefully. We forget that the previous sentence just described the earth as covered by darkness. And we don’t realize that Paul referred to this verse in II Corinthians and worded it this way:
For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, -II Corinthians 4:6
Therefore, the phrase from Genesis “Let there be…” evidently does not mean God brought something into existence for the first time, but that God focused on bringing something into view, or putting something in a particular place. As the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the ocean, in the midst of the darkness, God said “Let there be light.” And there was. Right there. It doesn’t preclude light existing somewhere else, however. The focus was the earth.
Okay, on to other things…
HOW CAN GOD MAKE LIGHT- EXCUSE ME, UH… CAUSE LIGHT TO REACH THE EARTH BEFORE HE MAKES THE SUN??? AT LEAST BIBLICALLY SPEAKING…
If you’ve ever argued that Noah couldn’t possibly have gathered all those animals or brought animals over from Australia, (especially at his age) you should know you are right. Which is why God brought them himself -according to the Bible.
The inescapable discovery I keep running into is that very few of the Bible’s stories happen without God having a hand in it. As much as I’d like to explain them naturally, the Bible explains them supernaturally. It details how God intervenes this way or that way, making the impossible happen. In the same way evolution theorizes a particular force contributed in a certain way, the Bible details that God contributed in certain ways. It’s impossible for the Red Sea to split the way it did, or for Noah to gather all those animals, or for the Israelites’ clothes to keep from wearing out in the desert for 40 years…
or for there to be light on the earth without the sun.
God would have to exist, be present, and be involved for those things to happen, which is why I personally believe that’s exactly how they happened. I think God does it this way on purpose. And yes, it messes our pretty little creationist or evolutionary theories up, but I think that’s the reason he did it that way.
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? -I Corinthians 1:20
One growing group of Christians, especially the Christians who happen to be scientists, believe the perspective of the writer of Genesis is writing from the perspective of the earth’s surface. In other words, he wrote the sun, moon and stars were put in place on day 4, because that was the first day they became visible from the surface of the planet. They point out that the story itself begins right there on the surface in verse 2. They may have a point, and they may be right. If you believe that is more likely, feel free.
I personally think God is messing with ya. Here’s why:
#1 (I like numbering things) – Yes God did say he made the HEAVENS and the earth in the beginning before day one.
#2 – Yes, if God said “Let there be light” and he wasn’t INVENTING light, but simply causing it to reach the surface of the earth, then when God also says, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; -Genesis 1:14-15 he also wasn’t necessarily INVENTING the stars for the first time, but simply causing them to be visible from the surface of the earth.
I get that. In fact, I absolutely agree with the above points. I do believe he made the stars and the universe before day one.
But here’s what the verse says about the sun and the moon:
Then God MADE two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God SET THEM IN THE FIRMAMENT of the heavens to give light on the earth, -Genesis 1:16-17 (emphasis mine)
If you read carefully, you’ll be screaming at me. “It says he made the stars also!”
Which is why I should point out the words “he made” were added by the translators. They aren’t there in the Hebrew. The sentence should literally read:
Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, the stars also.
I promise I’m not making this up as I go along. I have one of those Bibles that places the words the translators ADDED in italics. It doesn’t say he made the stars (not in the original language), but that they would also “rule the night” with the “lesser light” -the moon.
So…
#3 The universe existed, the stars already existed, the earth already existed (before day one) but God made the sun and moon and placed them in the universe. It specifically says on day four, God made the sun and moon for the first time.
Which means its impossible to have light on the earth on Day one, right?
Here’s what the Bible says at the end of the book speaking of the New Heaven and the New Earth (yeah, he renovates the place):
There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever. -Revelation 22:5 (in chapter 21 he specifically mentioned there will be no need for a sun or a moon)
In much the same way evolutionists often begin with the assumption that God does not exist, cannot be found, and has no relation or involvment with the physical universe…
The Bible forces a believer to allow that God does exist, makes himself known, and has often been involved with the physical universe.
No light from the sun would be needed in Genesis according to the Bible, because God was already there. He gives light. He will eventually take the place of the sun.
Evidently the light he gives off works just fine for photosynthesis and evaporation…
It’s interesting that if God exists, the way we attempt to explain the origins of the universe will never be fully correct because we do not consider God as a factor, and refuse to consider him so. On the other hand, if we believe the God of the Bible exists, there is ultimately no real compromise with a naturalistic-only view of the universe. God has not left us much of a fence to ride on, and I think he did that on purpose.
finally
HOW LONG IS A DAY?
Very quickly you should know the word translated “day” in verses like this one:
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. -Genesis 1:8
Was a word specifically used for a 24 hour day, and word used generally when speaking of a long period of time. It literally means: “day, time, year, age…” and a few more. In the Old Testament, the word is translated “age” 8 times.
Even the words “there was evening and there was morning,” have been long debated as to whether they mean a 24 hour time period or an age of time. On the surface, it would seem to me to indicate a 24 hour day. However, Genesis chapter 2 describes God watering the earth so the plants would grow up from the ground. Typically, growing grass and trees is a process that takes more than a day. At least when I water MY yard.
So does chapter one mean these plants grew up in merely one 24 hour day?
Was this God stepping in again and making the impossible a reality?
Or was this an age of time as some scholars suggest?
If you REALLY want to start messing with your own head, then start considering how God may have manipulated time and space as Albert Einstein theorized in quantum physics. The Bible does say God “stretched” out the universe. Some scientists have even proposed the speed of light is decaying which in turn would cause radioactive decay to speed up and a universe most believe is 13.6 billion years old would actually be much younger… Hey it’s all over my head too. Let someone else debate that stuff.
I will agree with St. Augustine and leave it at that. Augustine said these “days” in Genesis are “God-defined” days, not “Solar-defined” days.
After all, there was no sun anyway until day 4….
I don’t care how long the day was. God said it was one day and He defined it by “evening and morning” not by hours. Works for me.
Whatever you decide, just know that the words themselves are used for both meanings, even in the Bible. The age of the earth, while often the point of many of our arguments, is not the point of the Bible. The point of Genesis is that God made this universe and this earth by his power and will.
And the point of the Bible is that the Creator of the universe has not only meddled with Creation itself, but he has walked this planet, experienced suffering with us, and calls everyone to believe in Him. He calls us to believe, not in a particular theory, but in HIM.
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: -John 1:10-12
He is the line in the sand.
right next to the amphibian…
39 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 14, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Ed Darrell
Generally a good post. You’re working on these issues with both faith and reason, and that’s good.
Just don’t get sucked in by the next vortex of ignorance, “intelligent design.”
August 14, 2007 at 7:24 pm
thecrazypastor
Thanks Ed, and I appreciate the comment. I’ve met some highly regarded scientists (even in the scientific community) who would take exception to calling intelligent design a “vortex of ignorance,” though.
But then, I will for the moment leave it to them to argue the science of things. I’m more qualified to speak about what the Bible says or doesn’t say.
August 15, 2007 at 12:37 am
rootietoot
Yay! Thanks for saying what I’ve been thinking but have been unable to say coherently!
September 13, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Ed Darrell
Picking a nit on second reading:
Both Darwin and Wallace started from the opposite assumption. In fact, Darwin was engaged to find the scientific evidence from nature to corroborate and verify Genesis, aboard H.M.S. Beagle. Most “evolutionists” start from an assumption that life exists; Darwin and Wallace started from the assumption that God breathed life into existence here.
Evolution theory is independent of the origins of life. Regardless how life started, evolution is what we observe today, and those same processes seem to be encased in rock in fossils.
One assumption Darwin never changed: Christians, especially Anglicans, assume God is the ultimate motivating force behind nature, and everything we see in nature. Therefore, studying nature is a way of understanding God — all of creation is another testament to God. Coming from THAT assumption, they understood that, since God is not a deceiver, what is observed in nature is what God wants to be observed, and it is truthful and correct.
“No god” was not the starting place for evolution theory, and is not the starting place for science today.
September 13, 2007 at 3:38 pm
thecrazypastor
I like your point, but I’m not sure it works out that way in practice these days. Evolution and the origin of life are generally taught side by side and any competing idea which includes a possibility of God -even if it was only focused on the origin of life and not what is observed today, is either not allowed or it is ridiculed. God is not matter of science but of faith as I’m told. Ironically, if God exists, we’ll never be completely accurate scientifically.
We spend quite a bit of money listening for aliens, but any attempt to find God would be met with something less than seriousness.
You do know that two things you said, “evolution is what we observe today, and those same processes seem to be encased in rock in fossils” are very much debated. Other than bacteria seemingly adapting to drugs and giving “proof” of evolutionary processes, not sure how many fish are observed crawling up on shore and becoming amphibians.
The great miraculous claims of the Bible aren’t observed every day either, so don’t think I can’t sympathize with ya…
September 14, 2007 at 4:00 am
Ed Darrell
Certainly not so in U.S. schools. The textbooks don’t present it that way, the state-approved standards don’t present it that way, and I don’t think any teacher could get away with teaching it that way (most teachers avoid evolution so as not to offend the creationists, especially parents).
The difficulty with teaching “possibility of God” is that there is no scientific theory there, no data to support a hypothesis, and so teaching ‘God did it’ is a religious position. Public schools may not endorse religion. It’s a minority religious view at that.
September 14, 2007 at 6:19 am
thecrazypastor
When have we ever looked?
So when you say certainly not in US Schools, you are referring to evolution and the origins of life being taught side by side. To say they are not doesn’t quite make sense to me so I’m afraid I may not understand what you’re getting at.
You have said evolution is what we observe today and is independent of the origin of life. Again, I would like this a little better personally, but this isn’t how a cosmologist would phrase it. Nor is it how every biologist would phrase it. At least according to these books:
Life’s Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution, by William Schopf
Origin of Life (Dover Phoenix Editions) (Hardcover)
by A. I. Oparin “This classic of biochemistry offered the first detailed exposition of the theory that living tissue was preceded upon Earth by a long and gradual evolution of nitrogen and carbon compounds.”
Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story (Canto) (Paperback) Review
‘I know of no other book that succeeds as well as this one in maintaining the central question in focus throughout. It is a summary of the best evolutionary thinking as applied to the origins of life…’
You also said
But the State of Texas did present evolutionary theory and the origin of life in the same textbooks and one would therefore assume in the same class:
1991 editions of Biology I textbooks adopted by the state of Texas
textbook authors were given a mandate from the Texas State Board of Education to deal with the topics of Origin of Life and Evolution. Pertinent excerpts from Proclamation 66 that relate to these topics follow:
1. Scientific methods: under content:
1.4 scientific theories and laws based on existing evidence as well as new evidence;
1.6 problem solving (data collection and analysis, conclusion).
2. Important scientific discoveries and theories of the past. . .under content:
2.2 Pasteur’s discoveries (non-spontaneous generation, rabies vaccine, experiments with anthrax);
2.6 Darwin’s theory of evolution.
4. Specialization and functions of cells and cellular organelles: under content:
4.2 theory of chemical origin of life.
6. Drawing logical inferences, predicting outcomes and forming generalized statements: under process skills:
6.2 deducing a biological hypothesis from experimental data;
6.3 examining alternative scientific evidence and ideas to test, modify, verify or refute scientific theories.
9. Theories of evolution: under content:
9.1 scientific theories of evolution;
9.2 scientific evidence of evolution and other reliable scientific theories, if any;
9.3 mechanisms of evolution;
9.4 patterns of evolution.
At any rate, the possibility of God is not allowed mention.
After all, public schools may not endorse religion.
Which means of course, that we will never teach our children the truth of the origins of life. We teach them a fairy tale.
If God does exist of course.
September 14, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Ed Darrell
About finding God:
Constantly, since the beginning of humans. Galileo was censured by the church for having looked and confirmed what Copernicus found, which was “not God there.”
Darwin’s assigned task aboard H.M.S. Beagle was to find the scientific evidence to back up the Genesis accounts of creation. He spent his life to that point studying what God’s creation should look like, especially William Paley’s Natural Theology; he spent five years aboard the Beagle collecting the largest body of natural evidence ever collected by one person in history (still — almost all of it available or on display at the British Museum), and then reported straight on what he found. Then he reported on the theory he’d discovered from the evidence. In both cases, God’s fingerprints and direct, explicit intervention were not on display.
Now we look with telescopes of various kinds throughout the cosmos, and with microscopes down to the atomic level. The search is constant, every day work of all scientists. So far, we haven’t found the label, “God did this.”
September 14, 2007 at 6:33 pm
thecrazypastor
Ed, Galileo was a Christian. The reason we know of his story is because it was written in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Where lots of Christians’ stories of persecution by the Roman Catholic Church were written down.
Antony Flew found a label. Many other former atheists have as well such as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel. Some very less well known scientist friends of mine can describe the label in great detail. Just as with Darwin, there is some disagreement on your conclusive belief there bro.
September 14, 2007 at 6:35 pm
thecrazypastor
Oh, and we don’t look. Name one, just one research grant given for the search for God. We can claim Darwin looked and found nothing, but we ignore and ridicule those who also looked and found a great deal. I’m not asking that everyone agree with me, but I would ask that everyone look for themselves and not decide ahead of time to believe only what you’re told.
September 15, 2007 at 4:09 am
Ed Darrell
One research grant? Every grant that looks to find the moment of viability of a fetus, so we can know when a miscarriage becomes merely an early delivery. The $3 million grant to take heart/lung machine for adults and cut it down to size and volume for an infant, so surgery on infants can be done. The HHS grant that determined babies do feel pain, and so should be anesthetized before surgery.
What kind of a question is that? Darwin looked and found evolution. You deny that God has anything to do with nature — it is YOU who says Darwin didn’t find God, not me. I merely noted that we found no evidence of direct intervention from God. There’s a difference, but it’s subtle. If God is at war with creation, then creationists might be right. But what if God is not at war with creation. What if creation responds to the voice of God — the way scripture says? Then what should we expect to find when we look at nature?
The Catholic church, the traditional Protestant churches, and Jews, all say when we look at nature and study it closely, we may find God.
You say no. So you don’t look. Your choice.
I’ll wager you’ve never looked at evolution, nor in nature, to see what God’s hand wrought.
Yes, Galileo was Christian. So what? It’s okay to tell him he can’t look for God? Nuts.
September 15, 2007 at 4:56 am
Ed Darrell
Earlier stuff we’ve passed by:
What I’m getting at is that the origins of life is not a serious topic in biology in high schools in the U.S. Some of the texts talk about what is required for life — the complex hydrocarbons — and how they are formed in the Miller-Urey style experiments, and the books mention that most scientists believe that these chemicals had to be present before life got started; some of the books go on to say that no one knows just exactly how life got going.
What is your objection to that? It’s factual. It’s solid. It’s the truth.
Regardless how life got started, life evolves. Generally the texts discuss the chemistry of life, up to and including DNA, and then get into the structures of cells. Evolution chapters tend to follow the basics of life.
SO when you claim that “evolution is taught alongside the origins of life,” you distort what’s going on. There is mention of research on origins of life. Perhaps a page, maybe less. There is a lot of critical information on how life works, the chemistry and reactions — generally a chapter, or two, or three. There is a chapter or two on evolution. Origin of life reserch is generally not tested hard — there’s not much to test — and it’s important to the overall course only in the chemistry, and where we might find such chemicals. This stuff also informs the search for life extraterrestrially, which is important to a lot of work at NASA.
What else do you need to know to make sense of it?
At no time has any biology text ever denied God, nor suggested that the origins of life studies suggest God doesn’t exist. So I’m still puzzled at what your complaint is.
Note especially the lack of any claim there that would deny God, or any claim that suggests that origins of life chemistry precludes God’s intervention; at face value, Oparin posited only that it took some time for the chemicals that support life to be formed. That’s all that sentence says.
It’s not a text on evolution, however — it is a summary of the best evolutionary thinking as applied to the origins of life. They are not the same thing.
None of those books is used as a biology text in any high school in America. They’re not even supplemental reading.
As I noted earlier, Darwin wrote that God breathed life into forms on the Earth, and that from that point evolution occurred. It’s in the famous closing passages of Origin of Species”
So Darwin’s entire theory is predicated on the idea that life got started by God, or something else that “breathed life into” forms on the Earth — language harkening to Genesis probably was not meant to imply anything other than the possibility of deity — and not on any other origins of life idea. If the fellow who discovered evolution could so carefully detail it without once resorting to a claim that life originated without God, why would anyone else assume otherwise? Alfred Russel Wallace then discovered the same theory, from the same premise — God created life, evolution occurred later.
No part of evolution theory depends on how life got started. None of the five major observations or the inferences from them that make up the backbone evolution theory is dependent upon how life got started — only that life exist as we know it, with cells, some with nuclei and some without, all with DNA, all with some “urge” to reproduce to carry on the line.
As a pragmatic matter, origins of life research is probably much farther along that you wish it were. A few uncareful souls suggest we’ll create cells in the next decade; in any case, people like Jim Ferris and Andy Ellington have most of the goods that creationists deny is available from origins of life research. NASA knows it (Ferris headed one of their astrobiology divisions for a while), and that research is the guidepost for our exploration of the solar system, looking for life outside Earth.
Neither origins of life nor evolution is predicated on the other.
September 16, 2007 at 12:13 am
thecrazypastor
On your first post Ed, here’s what I was trying to say: We do not research or look for God in the universe. I compared it to listening for aliens in the cosmos. I don’t believe medical research into fetuses and heart/lung machines are dedicated searches for a god. That’s an entirely different argument we can pursue someday.
I never denied God had anything to do with nature. God had everything to do with nature. He has acted on nature in ways that defy a natural-only explanation.
Your first quote concerning Darwin’s research: In both cases, God’s fingerprints and direct, explicit intervention were not on display.
Your second quote to me when I referred to your first quote: it is YOU who says Darwin didn’t find God, not me.
My apologies for referring to this, as well as your assertion that no one ever found a label saying “God did this” as your position that Darwin (and others) “never found God.” I was merely referring to your statements, and my phrase could have been more specific.
On your point, I don’t believe that gravity is necessarily at war with creation, but that gravity is a part of creation. Nevertheless, we have studied the effects of gravity. If God is not at war with creation, then it remains possible that we could still see the effects of God and recognize them, as we do gravity, as affects coming from God.
The philosophical idea of “at war with creation” or “not at war with creation,” doesn’t therefore answer the question. IMO
You’ve misunderstood me then. I would say emphatically yes. Not only do I look, I would like for funded research to look specifically for the effects of, and the evidence for, God.
Here’s YOUR quote again:
Galileo was censured by the church for having looked and confirmed what Copernicus found, which was “not God there.”
Again. Galileo was a Christian. On what basis do you say that Galileo found “not God there?”
I would bet Galileo found much in the universe that was evidence to him of God being there. As do any Christian astronomers I’ve ever read or spoken to. My bone of contention was that Galileo found “not God there.” I think he would disagree, personally.
September 16, 2007 at 12:38 am
thecrazypastor
Let me object first! lol Two things: One, okay, but the nationwide argument has blurred the lines between “origins of life” and “evolution.” As the Texas Board of Education itself and many other books state they are teaching Origins of Life and Evolution in the same text. So what you’ve said above isn’t necessarily something I’d be opposed to, but your explanation is very appreciated by me since it clarifies something that on the surface seems “side by side.”
Throw in the obvious, that there is currently in this country a great debate between atheism and those who believe in God, Christians especially since they tend to believe God created the universe. So when I say God is ridiculed, much of the ridicule comes from those who are part of this debate, and in the process, champion their naturalistic views on the origin of life and evolution while dismissing the Bible and anyone who questions popular theories.
You however, to me, seem more grounded in the actual science of things, and not so much into the “lets-prove-God-doesn’t-exist” stuff, so I would have no problem with you teaching a science course for my kids. For the record, neither I nor anyone else I know, shelters our kids from popular science.
As we are often accused of doing.
Certainly some do of course (which isn’t good), but if Christianity and the Bible are true, then they can handle the debate in my opinion, and so can my kids.
Two, did you know Stanley Miller himself no longer accepts his experiment as valid? I’d probably debate teaching that, but not on religious grounds. Just scientific ones.
Excellent point! (now for those reading who oppose evolution, no I don’t believe evolution is responsible for the formation of life as we know it today, but…. ) Darwin has always been presented to me (by atheists in discussions) as someone who has disproved the Bible and the existence of God and that he was never a believer in God. While I don’t believe Darwin was a Christian when he died, the fact he left room for God seems a much more reasonable and rational way to leave the questions none of us can actually PROVE. I sincerely appreciated this quote. Thank you.
I like how you frame the “origins of life” and “evolution.” I can live with it, and I’ll try to phrase them more accurately. I promise you however, that an atheist will come along and correct me later saying evolution and origin of life are inseparable. I will refer them to you.
Have a great weekend.
September 16, 2007 at 2:24 am
Ed Darrell
Thanks, we’ll work on having a great weekend. You have one, too.
While you’re recreating, a couple of thoughts:
We know more about evolution than we know about gravity. We’ve never been able to directly measure gravity. While we’re pretty sure gravity is carried on gravitons, no one knows much about them — massless particles? — and it’s only been in the last five or six years that anyone was able to measure the speed of gravity (same as the speed of light). There are massive experiments to try to detect gravity waves, so far without sure positive results.
In contrast, we know how evolution is carried, in chromosomes and genes. We know enough about evolution to be able to guide it in selective pairings, and we can even intervene on the molecular level with genetic engineering. We can manipulate and guide evolution processes we know them so well; we cannot even measure gravity directly. All measurements and observations so far are on the indirect effects.
Gravity is part of creation, but no moreso than is evolution.
Dr. Miller died earlier this year, and in his obits and everything else I’ve ever read about him, I’ve never seen anything that suggested even a hint of doubt in his results. You may want to check your source on Miller’s recanting. It sounds like a replay of the Lady Hope hoax about Darwin’s imagined recanting.
Miller’s 70th birthday:
http://exobio.ucsd.edu/birthday_70.htm
Miller’s homepage:
http://exobio.ucsd.edu/miller.htm
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Miller
NY Times Miller obituary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/us/23miller.html?ex=1190001600&en=0bae473a7cc37ce6&ei=5070
September 16, 2007 at 3:20 am
Ed Darrell
This interview with Stanley Miller is also informative, from 1996:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html
September 16, 2007 at 12:51 pm
thecrazypastor
What Miller did was agree with a speaker at a symposium that the experiment in question started with the wrong materials, used the wrong process and got wrong results. My source was a documentary I’ve watched about 3-4 times. At any rate, the experiment itself has been slammed pretty hard, although I wonder if most people ever hear the objections.
Anyway I certainly don’t deny evolution exists at the level of changes within a species, and much of what you were describing as what you observe I don’t doubt exists. All dogs are believed to have come from one dog, so obviously there can be quite a bit of change and difference between one dog and another. And the question of when a change jumps from one species to another is a valid one in my opinion.
And natural selection works, plain and simple.
What I don’t believe is that evolution is the root cause of the life we see today, but I believe that God created life and part of his idea was to give life the ability to adapt and change.
While there are real “labels” in nature that I believe point to God, none of this precludes us from studying the processes that we observe as you said. In fact, in the end, we may disagree merely about the things we can’t prove. If that.
September 16, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Ed Darrell
I’m unaware of any “slamming” of Miller’s work. There was a lot of work done refining Oparin’s calculations on what ancient atmosphere was, but Miller and other have rerun the experiment with every combination of gases and humidity proposed, and though the amino acids differ in concentration from one to the other, the experiment works in every atmosphere proposed. Miller himself suggested difficulties in some combinations, and especially in conjunction with the higher UV values expected without an ozone shield. What has been discovered is that minerals present harbor the polymers from damage.
Did your documentary talk about the many other experiments done since 1953? It sounds like it was a creationist propaganda documentary. I’ve learned not to trust those things.
September 17, 2007 at 3:29 am
thecrazypastor
From what you said, I would imagine that when Miller said what was mentioned in the documentary, he was agreeing with the criticism with one of his earlier experiments and reserving in his own mind at least, the knowledge he had run the experiment differently. ie… he had later used the “right materials” and the “right processes” and got a “right result” etc…
You should hang around the scientists I’ve hung around with and you’d hear plenty of ’slams’ against the Miller-Urey experiment. The best argument against Miller’s experiment for me came from a team leader I knew at Los Alamos. The fact that the materials produced by the experiment were still lightyears away from something able to produce actual building blocks of life, the nucleotides being random and not in the right order or type…etc…. basically said it proved nothing. You’d have to take up the science of it with one of those guys though. I don’t remember all of it, and my tapes of his lecture are around here somewhere…. He also mentioned that a number of guys at Los Alamos were skeptical of many of the claims made in current evolutionary theory, but of course, they weren’t able to get grant money to pursue those directions.
Same complaint Michael Crighton makes about Global Warming theories in his book “State of Fear”. Recommended to me by a friend of mine leading a team at Antarctica… (I only know him because he’s a Cowboys fan, he’s also an atheist)
(For the record, I don’t have any firm opinions about Global Warming. But in general I’m in favor of it. I hate cold temps….)
September 17, 2007 at 9:38 am
Ed Darrell
The question Miller looked at was whether the chemicals of life could occur spontaneously. Theorists were dubious. What his experiment showed, in spades, is that those chemicals can indeed occur spontaneously. In fact, we now know that all of what we think are essential chemicals can and do arise spontaneously. Andy Ellington has spent some years looking at the question of whether they arise in the “correct” ratios, and his conclusion is that once you get all of the chemicals in the same area, the ratios don’t really matter.
The guys at Los Alamos ought to pay attention to Richard Feynman’s experience. He developed a radical new idea about evolution, and refined it over several months. Eventually the biologist who led the field in that area visited CalTech, and Feynman took him to breakfast to explain the idea. The biologist noted where Feynman was right in analyzing the problem, correct in hypothesizing a solution, wrong on some details, and about 50 years behind the curve in biology. Feynman laughed about it. You can’t get grants to do research on ideas that were disproven 50 years ago. Chemistry doesn’t function on random reactions — no chemical reaction is random. Ellington and Jim Ferris have headed teams that push the development of life right to the brink. Take a look at Astrobiology Magazine for a good lay explanation. It’s available online.
September 17, 2007 at 5:26 pm
thecrazypastor
Ah, I’m still a skeptic (I have a lot of faith the guys I have talked to aren’t 50 years behind the curve), but thank you for the info. I’ll check it out.
March 29, 2008 at 11:26 pm
airtightnoodle
Wow, what a fun back-and-forth dialogue! I enjoyed reading this immensely. A few thoughts of my own:
“I like your point, but I’m not sure it works out that way in practice these days. Evolution and the origin of life are generally taught side by side and any competing idea which includes a possibility of God -even if it was only focused on the origin of life and not what is observed today, is either not allowed or it is ridiculed. God is not matter of science but of faith as I’m told. Ironically, if God exists, we’ll never be completely accurate scientifically.”
I am a biology teacher in Texas. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “side by side”. You say this as if there is something wrong with that. They may both be taught (or at least mentioned…most teachers do not go into great detail) in high school biology courses, since they do both fall in the realm of biology. I have two problems with this statement:”competing ideas which include a possibility of God”…First, this implies that evolution denies the possibility of God. It does not. There are, of couse, many evolutionists who are atheist and have said, or implied, that evolution means there is no need for God, but the theory itself has nothing to do with the existence of God. Secondly, of course such ideas are not taught in biology. They have nothing to do with biology and instead fall under the realm of either philosophy or religion. Third, just because something is written in a textbook does not mean the state includes it as an educational objective for its students (the current Texas objectives for high school biology can be found here.)
“Two, did you know Stanley Miller himself no longer accepts his experiment as valid? I’d probably debate teaching that, but not on religious grounds. Just scientific ones.”
Many experiments that are no longer “valid”, to use your word, are still taught in MANY classes for several reasons. They demonstrate proper use of the scientific method and demonstrate the importance of repeating your work. Miller’s experiment was great and worked fine and achieved its goal (assembling some of the building blocks of life). The only “problem” with it is that it used conditions that are no longer believed to be representative of the early condition of the earth’s atmosphere. There have been many similar experiments since then, as Ed Darrell pointed out, that have used a variety of conditions; they have all been able to produce some of the building blocks of life.
I’ll stop there as Ed said many of the things I would have said myself. I enjoyed both of your postings very much and look forward to reading more from both of you!
March 29, 2008 at 11:27 pm
airtightnoodle
One thing I meant to include is that most textbooks that I have seen DO include that the conditions Miller used in the experiment are no longer thought to be representative of the earth’s early atmosphere.
March 30, 2008 at 1:34 am
thecrazypastor
I’m glad you have enjoyed the discussion and thank you for your input on the blog. It’s difficult for any of us to say much in this arena without being misunderstood. I’ve learned a great deal especially in how some of you guys view this discussion, and much of what is argued I think ends up being an apples and oranges type of thing.
Much of what I said is taught, or my comments on how it is taught, is my perception as someone who is around the public school system and as someone whose parents (and several friends) are retired or current teachers and administrators in the public school system. A good friend of mine, a Christian, taught biology and evolution himself. Thus when I say the origins of life and the theory of evolution are taught side by side, I meant, in the same class and in the same textbook. And they often are, although depending on the teacher and book, the origin of life or the universe is usually left with more of a open-ended answer.
Now Ed Darrell made a point, an interesting point to me, that those are really two different subjects. (It was his comment I was responding to when I said those things are taught together, something which he disagreed with basically) However, you are a biology teacher and say they both fall in the realm of biology and there’s nothing wrong with teaching them side by side. Well, that makes my original point. We are grappling with the origin of the universe or the earth in the same class as evolution, and we often slap the word evolution on both. I’m not saying we should bring up a discussion of God when we’re examining how a brown cow is bred through natural selection into a black and white cow.
When it comes to the origin of the universe, however, and the origin of life, my beef was that when those discussions come up, we rarely allow the actual cause of the universe and the earth to be mentioned. This is no different than studying why earthquakes happen, but not allowing any discussion in class of tectonic plates and shifts. The logic is simple: IF God created the universe AND we cannot consider God when studying the origin of the universe THEN we will never discover the true origins of the universe. So in end, since God literally exists, any study or science that takes Him out of the equation altogether is an exercise in partial truth at best and pure fantasy at worst.
Words like “faith” and “religion” dismiss the idea of God as unscientific, but you know, the claims about God put Him squarely into the realm of our physical universe. A God who created what we see, is just as literally real and as existent as the sun, moon or stars. After all, He made them, acted upon our physical world in real ways and walked the earth Himself according to the claims. These should be considered as any empirical evidence would be. God has never claimed to stay completely outside of the physical world. That is something people have claimed, but not God.
Besides, I’ve got lots of room to be skeptical of the idea we are able to adequately explain things without God. In our attempts to produce “building blocks of life” without Him, how many L stereotypes were produced in those experiments? It’s never been anywhere near close enough to what it would take to actually form life. But what do we often tell students? We tell them it happened this way or a way similar to this. Creating one cell (a universe unto itself) is lightyears beyond what we’ve come with. Even with the right conditions, the statistically probability has been shown to be so large as to require faith to believe in. Since it requires faith, that should exclude even mentioning such experiments shouldn’t it?
Ok, I do agree we should use those experiments because they DO teach the scientific method and they are a part of history in the study of these topics. A little healthy skepticism and discussion is all I would ask for from a classroom or a textbook. I’d like for students to question results, look closely for proof, and feel free to doubt.
Anyway, please understand, I’m not saying God should be “taught” in the study of biology. I don’t mean to say that or imply that. And much of what we term “evolution” in biology is absolutely true and observable. (At the same time, there are serious problems with other elements we term “evolution,” too… let the debate rage) In the study and discussion of the origins, however, God should be included as a discussion point, or a thought or possibility to consider. We have far more evidence for Him than we do inflation theory. Shoot, we should look for Him instead of assuming He cannot be found…
March 30, 2008 at 8:55 am
Ed Darrell
and
And the scientific experiment which poses or tests the hypothesis that God was behind Big Bang is which one?
In science classes, we teach the science. Which experiment is it you think is not discussed in the textbooks?
March 30, 2008 at 1:01 pm
thecrazypastor
We don’t need a test to come up with inflation theory, or when we discuss alternate universes. We discuss those at will in an attempt to overcome certain problems with theories. Not sure we currently have the ability to “test” for God any more than we have the ability to recreate the power of the Big Bang and demonstrate the four forces of the universe are truly just one force. Doesn’t stop us from postulating such things, however.
Anyway, God left us a note saying he did it in Genesis. When someone leaves a note behind, we should consider whether or not they had something to do with it.
(I didn’t say anything about an experiment that is not discussed in textbooks.)
March 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm
airtightnoodle
Ironically, there are many physicists who would like to see string theory abandoned all-together. For instance, read this from 2006:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-09-18-string-theory_x.htm
However, what string theory does have backing it (according to some, anyway) is mathematics. As far as I know, you cannot use math OR science as proof of the existence of God, proof of God as the “first cause”, proof of God as CAUSING evolution, or proof of God as creating by word of mouth.
Touching on the math thing a bit more, I’m sure others will read this and immediately think of statistics. I know there are many people out there that try to use statistics to back these sorts of things up, but I’ve found that many of the creationist/Christian/intelligent design statistics have been found to be convoluted in many ways to support their own ideas.
“Not sure we currently have the ability to “test” for God any more than we have the ability to recreate the power of the Big Bang and demonstrate the four forces of the universe are truly just one force. Doesn’t stop us from postulating such things, however.”
Postulating is all well and good, but that doesn’t mean it belongs in a textbook or course curriculum without a lot of supporting evidence.
“Now Ed Darrell made a point, an interesting point to me, that those are really two different subjects. (It was his comment I was responding to when I said those things are taught together, something which he disagreed with basically) However, you are a biology teacher and say they both fall in the realm of biology and there’s nothing wrong with teaching them side by side. Well, that makes my original point.”
No, Ed is still correct. They ARE two different subjects (or topics), just like ecology and genetics are two different subjects (or topics). Origin of life discussions in biology typically center around abiogenesis, which is not the same as evolution, though many creationists try to depict it in such a way. Since they both DO deal with life (and biology is the scientific study of living things) then yes, they may both be discussed in a biology class. At the same time, though, please understand that neither of these topics (especially abiogenesis) is usually taught in-depth in a typical high school biology class. (Though I feel they should be…but that’s another matter.)
Let me quote an About.com article here (click here for the full article) as I think it words it quite nicely: “Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.”
“Anyway, please understand, I’m not saying God should be “taught” in the study of biology. I don’t mean to say that or imply that. And much of what we term “evolution” in biology is absolutely true and observable. (At the same time, there are serious problems with other elements we term “evolution,” too… let the debate rage) In the study and discussion of the origins, however, God should be included as a discussion point, or a thought or possibility to consider. We have far more evidence for Him than we do inflation theory. Shoot, we should look for Him instead of assuming He cannot be found…”
You ARE saying God should be taught in biology if you think God should be included as a discussion point in origins.
Cheers.
March 30, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Ed Darrell
Those wouldn’t be discussed in high school textbooks (and they aren’t, much) if they were not testable and had not survived some testing to see if they were viable. My point is simply this: Science should be discussed in science classes, not religion. Evolution is science. Big Bang is science. Genesis is one of about eight stories of creation told in Christian scripture. Do you see the difference, and detect the Constitutional difficulty yet?
You’ve got it backwards. God didn’t write Genesis, and that claim is nowhere made in scripture. God did created the universe, and what He wrote there is testable as science, and teachable in science classes.
I feel odd instructing a pastor on the Bible like this.
Exactly. That’s why we should listen to modern scientists who read the notes God left behind, rather than tales of 6th century B.C. Babylonian priest/scientists about what we can tell of creation. Peer review did not vette those ancient Babylonian astronomers and astrologers; we don’t even let astrologers publish their whimsical musings as science anymore.
Creation is a second testament of God, as most Christians believe, direct from God’s hand. Consequently, it is more authoritative than any of the human-told creation stories in the Bible, or in other scripture.
I brought it up. If we’re talking science class, we should teach science. If you really want to talk about God in science class, you need to show us the experimental results upon which that discussion will be based.
The reason it’s not discussed in textbooks, as you know by now, is that there is no such experiment. We don’t teach geocentricity in astronomy or physics courses. We don’t teach alchemy as a precursor to chemistry. We don’t teach spell-casting as a precursor to health classes, nor do we teach that “night air” is bad.
Nor should we teach creationism in biology.
Especially since evolution is absolutely silent on the existence of any deity, there is no reason to produce a religion-based rebuttal to science, in science classes. Doubly especially, no reason to introduce non-science based claims as rebuttals to science.
March 31, 2008 at 2:53 pm
thecrazypastor
wow guys, where do I start…
Yes, Scripture specifically says God wrote Genesis. “2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,”
All Scripture includes Genesis. There is no way to historically or contextually take the above passage any other way. It’s not incredulous either since God has the ability to create the universe by speaking it into existence (By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. Psalms 33:6) It’s a small thing for Him to use Moses to record what He did.
The evidence used in string theory is mathematics. The evidence used in inflation theory and a few (just a few) others is nothing more than postulating stories. The Word of God is evidenced by prophecy and by the evidence God left behind in the universe. Psalms 19:1-4. On that, I whole-heartedly agree. It is also evidenced in a decidedly unscientific way by the Spirit of God who, while He cannot be measured in a test tube, nonetheless does bring conviction to a man’s heart/soul/mind.
But about reading what God left behind in the universe, how many times have we misinterpreted and changed our theories to fit new evidence? Since we often change our theories or modify them to fit new evidence, it would be presumptuous to ignore the written Word in favor of something we won’t believe 10 years from now anyway.
You see, science discovers something is wrong and then studies it more closely. The evidence wasn’t wrong. Our interpretation of it was. Same thing happens in what you believe the Bible is saying. I certainly don’t want to ignore science, but I’m not going to ignore the Scripture either. We should study each closely.
And again, I promise I get the whole idea that the origin of life and evolution are two different subjects. In fact, I’m happy to hear that. It makes sense to approach them that way. Having said that, any discussion, no matter what the venue, of the origin of life that leaves out God is a fruitless exercise. If we say, “here’s how the universe began…” and it doesn’t include God, it’s only partially true.
God created the universe. A majority of cosmologists believe that. It should enter the discussion from time to time at least.
March 31, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Ed Darrell
“Given by inspiration of God” is not “written by.” Don’t confuse mainstream Christian claims with Mohammed’s claim of an angel dictating the Qur’an to him, nor with Joseph Smith’s claim of an angel giving him the Ummim and Thummim to magically translate the golden plates of the book left by Mormon in a New York hillside. That’s not at all what that verse in 2 Timothy means.
Read it carefully: It says that God inspired the writers, not that God wrote it. It says all scripture — all scripture — is useful for study. But it does not say the prophets were wrong when they said they were NOT speaking God’s words. It does not say that any particular book was written by God.
You’re straying close to saying Genesis should be taken literally. Of course, if you’re serious in thinking that God wrote the Bible, then you must take Job literally, too. In Job, God talks about storehouses in the sky for hail and snow. Do you seriously believe there are such storehouses? Of course not.
How many times have we changed science? Not many. Most of the famous corrections science has undergone were corrections prompted by religious interference in scientific inquiry. In contrast, the idea that Genesis is literal is a rather new idea, not at all shared by Jews 4,000 years ago, who noted the discrepancies in Genesis 1 and 2 and argued that there should not be a literal reading of them (if there were, they noted, then there’s a problem with the second, different creation of Woman in Genesis 2; the literalists took a step back and agreed that Adam had divorced Lilith, the woman created in Genesis 1, and God had to create a second wife for him, Eve, in Genesis 2 . . . is that really theology we want to endorse?).
Rarely is there a complete reversal of an idea in science. One great example was the abandoning of flood geology, after two centuries of looking for evidence of Noah’s flood turned up only evidence that contradicted it.
Yes, science is self correcting and scripture is not. That’s not exactly a good selling point for scripture, it seems to me. Better to note an interpretation of evidence was wrong and change, than to deny an obviously wrong interpretation and stick to it and look silly, as Aquinas feared.
I’m not asking anyone to ignore scripture, but please do not read anything into it that is not there. There is no place in scripture which argues for a literal reading of any of the creation stories in the Bible. There is no place in scripture which argues for a very new Earth created by sheer magic with no reference to physical laws of the universe.
You’re arguing that we should put religion into science classes, and then you’re arguing we should not question it scientifically. Can’t have it both ways. If it’s in science class, it’s tested as science is tested.
So, where is the experiment that says “Here’s God!” upon which we could base a science curriculum arguing for God?
Why do we need to impose a philosophical argument on a science class? Since when is church incapable of arguing for itself on Sunday? Why are you asking science classes to do the church’s work? Why aren’t churches doing it?
March 31, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Ed Darrell
Should have read, “than to deny THAT an obviously wrong interpretation IS WRONG, and stick to it and look silly . . .”
March 31, 2008 at 11:45 pm
thecrazypastor
Ah, finally. Thank you. Genesis IS literally true. Which is why in my article above, I’m not taking it symbolically, but taking every phrase, looking at the meanings of the Hebrew, because it’s literally true. God did it.
I think my meaning in saying “God wrote it” is clear. You equated Genesis with “tales of 6th century B.C. Babylonian priest/scientists about what we can tell of creation.” Obviously, I disagreed with that statement. The story that Moses wrote down came from God.
The Greek literally means all Scripture is “God-breathed.” The Bible also says: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” -II Peter 1:20-21
That is a Scriptural definition of what happens during the “inspiration” of Scripture. God breathed these words through someone else, moving them by the Holy Spirit.
So it is accurate for me to say the Bible backs up the idea that God wrote it, when responding to the idea that these are tall tales from Babylon. Of course it’s not the same as the claims of Joseph Smith and Muhammad, but I wasn’t responding to that comparison. Moses wrote these words in Genesis as God led him to. God’s inspiration in any case, gives the words the authority of truth. Whether they be written in prose, symbolism, or straightforward facts listed one after the other.
For instance, Job uses a metaphor and you suggest I must interpret it literally in order to take the Bible literally? Taking the Bible literally does not mean suspending the rules of literature or grammar. It means determining what the writer, and by extension, God wanted to convey using those words. What does it mean? -is the question because what it means is true. It’s what God wanted us to know otherwise He would have had something else written down and preserved. Not even a sparrow falls to the ground apart from His will according to Jesus.
There are also places in Job, where what is said is called untrue by God later in the story, and taking the Bible literally does not mean we take everything as true in and of itself. That would be out of context and again violate rules of study. To take the Bible literally, you still must look at the truth, understanding the context as well. Any time you take something out of context, you lose the meaning.
Genesis 1 and 2 have no real contradictions. Genesis 1 summarizes, Genesis 2 is more specific as to what went on during a few of those “days.” Especially day 6. Many Jews, a whole sect of them over 2000 years ago, were taking Genesis quite literally. Not only did Jesus, but so did a former Pharisee named Paul.
As for the flood, there are geologists who would disagree with your assertion that we’ve found zero evidence in two centuries. John Baumgardner demonstrates the flood in a mathematical model using the TERRA program, and a bit more than “none” evidence is cited by him and other geologists. John’s version lines up with the Bible quite literally actually.
And yes the Bible does demand we look at the creation story literally. Jesus did. That’s all I need really, from Matthew 24, but if you insist there’s also I Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hebrews 11, I and II Peter, Luke, Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude. Just to do a quick search.
You see, it is there.
The point was not that science is self-correcting and Scripture isn’t. The point is people are self-correcting, or should be, in regards to both IF they continue to study and examine. Scripture is the truth whether we understand what it’s saying or not, and gravity is what it is, whether we understand it correctly or not. Unfortunately, while we are usually pretty good at correcting ourselves when studying gravity, we are not so good at continuing to study and examine Scripture. That problem is especially evident in Genesis.
And if science wants to search for the truth by ruling out the truth, then they will never arrive at the truth. Of course, II Peter 3:3-7 said this day would come.
April 1, 2008 at 7:18 am
Ed Darrell
Maybe the story Moses wrote down came from God, but Genesis isn’t that story.
Plus, I worry that you’re dismissing God’s words in Job, which obviously describe a different creation.
I don’t think God to be a joker in giving different stories to different prophets at different times, nor do I think God to be a deceiver as to describe one thing and do something quite different (even just to deceive those nasty old scientists!).
Nor, as I said, do I think we should make claims for scripture that scripture itself does not make. There is nothing in scripture to say Moses wrote down Genesis (God’s command to Moses was to write down the law, not the lore), nor in any other way to suggest either of the competing creation stories in Genesis should be literal.
I think the traditional Christian view is adequate, that the creation stories state the fact of creation, the fact of God’s being the ultimate mover, without describing how God did it.
April 1, 2008 at 7:54 am
Ed Darrell
As I noted earlier, the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 are a matter of history. I rather resent suggestions that the Jews got it wrong, and so did Jesus. Jesus never took issue with the interpretation that Genesis 1 and 2 conflict, especially if you’re making claims that Jesus testified to the literalness of any creation story — He never did. That falls into the category of making claims that scripture doesn’t make. Oh, yes, Jesus referred to the Genesis stories when He spoke of divorce — let’s not stretch scripture way past what it was intended to cover. That’s not a statement backing a literal Genesis, nor is it kosher to take Jesus’s words about divorce and say they were intended instead as a diatribe against science.
Genesis 2 has a different order of creation that is obvious. It’s a different story, from a different tradition. While both stories testify to God’s being the ultimate mover (the message of every one of the creation stories), neither holds up to any scientific scrutiny — which again points to why they are unsuitable for science classes.
We don’t get to pick and choose which parts we claim to be literal and which metaphor. There is no ethical way to say Genesis is literal and Job not, nor vice versa. Scripture simply doesn’t support such claims. Especially such a selective set of interpretations cannot be supported if, as you claimed earlier, it’s all God’s dictation. There’s no fair or clear way to make such interpretations.
No geologists who practice the science as science, I suppose we must say. Let me remind you that Baumgardner’s interpretations of scripture run contrary to 2,000 years of Christian tradition. Rev. Adam Sedgwick’s life work was to prove Genesis accurate, and his pronouncement in 1831 that honest Christians then had to admit that the story could not be verified is still accurate; while we have better evidence of massive local floods, there is simply no honest way to argue for a single, world-wide flood, without contradicting God’s creation as God has given it to us.
And, frankly, I regard Baumgardner as unethical in his dealings with people, scripture and science. Charles Keating may disagree with the geologists, too, but that doesn’t make him a prophet or an accurate intepreter any more than it does Baumgardner.
I see a lot of wishful interpretation. No scripture in any of those books says Genesis is a science text — especially none of them say it is a science text accurate as science. There are verses testifying to the accuracy of the spiritual message, but even in making that claim, none of those scriptures adds, “And reality be damned.” Aquinas’s warnings that we should not foolishly regard scripture in a way to bring embarrassment on the Word of God apply here.
April 1, 2008 at 2:29 pm
thecrazypastor
Plus, I worry that you’re dismissing God’s words in Job, which obviously describe a different creation.
The book of Job uses metaphors and poetic phrases. Unless you want to say clouds are literally a “garment” and say darkness is “its swaddling band” and believe God set limits for darkness with “bars and doors” then you have to understand it is metaphor. Nothing in Job contradicts Genesis.
The prophets don’t contradict Genesis.
Scientists aren’t “nasty ol’ scientists”… you’re not really arguing with me there, but some creationists with whom I often disagree since I believe the universe is probably 13.6 billion years old given what we know.
There is nothing in scripture to say Moses wrote down Genesis (God’s command to Moses was to write down the law, not the lore),
There was no instruction to Moses to only write the Law and nothing else.
In Luke, Jesus refers to what Moses “showed” in the burning bush passage, ascribing that part of Genesis to Moses. II Corinthians quotes Genesis 1:3 as a fact, I Corinthians 15 quotes Genesis 2:7 as a fact, Exodus 20:11 (a book of Law and history) refers to the 6 days of creation as fact. Ezekiel refers to the Garden of Eden as literal, I Corinthians refers to the creation of woman from man as literal fact, and the Bible over and over again refers to God as the literal Creator who “made” all things, and states without God nothing was made. Specifically contradicting any idea it was random or accidental. There is nothing to suggest in all of Scripture that Genesis was not looked upon literally.
Ancient Christians and ancient Jews give authorship of Genesis to Moses. Understanding that Moses (as God led him) probably wrote Genesis from stories that were passed down to him, or writings that had been preserved, or by some divine revelation. These were not the stories taught to Moses by the Egyptians who had an entirely different idea of creation, but likely passed down through Abraham and his Jewish ancestry. Again, directed by the Holy Spirit.
nor in any other way to suggest either of the competing creation stories in Genesis should be literal.
They don’t compete, they compliment. I’m glad we have chapter two since it makes more sense of chapter one.
I think the traditional Christian view is adequate, that the creation stories state the fact of creation, the fact of God’s being the ultimate mover, without describing how God did it.
For the most part, I think what you’re saying is true. Literally true. Genesis itself doesn’t say very much at all regarding how. I study the Bible literally and would be perfectly fine with your statement, “the creation stories state the fact of creation, the fact of God’s being the ultimate mover, without describing how God did it.”
I believe Genesis literally leaves all sorts of room for us to speculate, pursue science, and try and figure out the “how.” Genesis, especially Genesis 1, doesn’t get into specifics like that.
April 1, 2008 at 4:02 pm
thecrazypastor
As I noted earlier, the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 are a matter of history. I rather resent suggestions that the Jews got it wrong, and so did Jesus. Jesus never took issue with the interpretation that Genesis 1 and 2 conflict, especially if you’re making claims that Jesus testified to the literalness of any creation story — He never did.
Actually, the Scripture I referred to Jesus was Jesus talking of Noah’s flood as literal fact in Matthew 24. You were including that story at the time. At any rate, Jesus referred to the flood as fact. And your argument is an argument from silence, hair splitting silence at that. Jesus said Genesis 6-7 were facts, but because He didn’t specifically mention “The Creation Account” He must not have supported it? C’mon. His followers did later. It’s a stretch to say otherwise.
One reason He never took issue is because there is no conflict with Genesis 1 or 2.
That falls into the category of making claims that scripture doesn’t make. Oh, yes, Jesus referred to the Genesis stories when He spoke of divorce — let’s not stretch scripture way past what it was intended to cover. That’s not a statement backing a literal Genesis, nor is it kosher to take Jesus’s words about divorce and say they were intended instead as a diatribe against science.
Of course, I never made that argument. However, how can you say Jesus takes this part of Genesis literally, and this part He doesn’t? On what basis can you decide? Where is the teaching in Scripture that says the Old Testament is only partially true? If Jesus interprets Genesis literally in one place, it seems more consistent to believe He would do the same elsewhere.
Genesis 2 has a different order of creation that is obvious.
Actually it doesn’t. Problem you’re having is you’re reading into Genesis 1.
It’s a different story, from a different tradition.
There’s no basis for that, other than the opinion of those who think chapter two seems contradictory to their interpretation of chapter one.
While both stories testify to God’s being the ultimate mover (the message of every one of the creation stories), neither holds up to any scientific scrutiny — which again points to why they are unsuitable for science classes.
They hold up just fine.
We don’t get to pick and choose which parts we claim to be literal and which metaphor.
Evidently Jesus, the Jews, and you get to, according to your reasoning above. Besides, you don’t pick and choose. What is a metaphor and what isn’t is obvious from the text. From the style, the type of writing, and the context around it.
There is no ethical way to say Genesis is literal and Job not, nor vice versa.
Sure there is. Just use rules of grammar and literature. Do you think all English professors are unethical?
Scripture simply doesn’t support such claims. Especially such a selective set of interpretations cannot be supported if, as you claimed earlier, it’s all God’s dictation. There’s no fair or clear way to make such interpretations.
Selective? Quite the opposite. The stories must be looked at as a whole. Look closely to see how Genesis 1 and 2 and Job and Isaiah fit together. Suddenly you’ll have a much better interpretation of all of them. It’s like putting peoples stories together to see what really happened. Bible scholarship has been going on for a long time, and there is an enormous amount of unity of interpretation among those who look for the literal meanings of the text. The only ones with wildly divergent interpretations are those who refuse to look at the literal meanings, or who view each story selectively and out of context.
No geologists who practice the science as science, I suppose we must say.
Of course not. Ah, Ed. Baumgardner IS considered a kook because of his belief in the flood, but the man is ALSO a noted geologist. He wrote the TERA program everyone else uses. I can’t argue flood geology without simply directing people to him or someone else but the idea that NO real scientists who practice the science as science believe the flood happened, is just not true however. A minority? Sure, but none? Nope.
Let me remind you that Baumgardner’s interpretations of scripture run contrary to 2,000 years of Christian tradition.
No they don’t. Not sure what the “tradition” you’re referring to is, though. The Catholic Church’s? Christ followers have argued over various aspects of Scripture for every one of those 2000 years. Check out Baumgardner’s site: http://globalflood.org/
Rev. Adam Sedgwick’s life work was to prove Genesis accurate, and his pronouncement in 1831 that honest Christians then had to admit that the story could not be verified is still accurate; while we have better evidence of massive local floods, there is simply no honest way to argue for a single, world-wide flood, without contradicting God’s creation as God has given it to us. We’ve learned a few things since 1831.
And, frankly, I regard Baumgardner as unethical in his dealings with people, scripture and science. Charles Keating may disagree with the geologists, too, but that doesn’t make him a prophet or an accurate intepreter any more than it does Baumgardner.
I just used him as an example of a geologist.
I see a lot of wishful interpretation. No scripture in any of those books says Genesis is a science text — especially none of them say it is a science text accurate as science.
Another straw man. I didn’t say the Scripture said “Genesis is a science text” nor was I responding to such a claim. You said there’s nothing in all of Scripture that looks at Genesis as a literally true story. There is. I listed a few places.
There are verses testifying to the accuracy of the spiritual message, but even in making that claim, none of those scriptures adds, “And reality be damned.” Aquinas’s warnings that we should not foolishly regard scripture in a way to bring embarrassment on the Word of God apply here.
Acquinas warned against foolishly interpreting Scripture so dogmatically, that if our personal interpretation proves wrong, that we bring shame to the Word of God. That’s why when the Bible leaves the door wide open to the possibility that the universe very old, we shouldn’t arbitrarily shut that door. When the Bible in Genesis chapter 2 suggests the “days” or “ages” (translated “age” in 8 other places in the Old Testament) seem to have lasted longer than 24 hours, we should not be so dogmatic about it that we make the Word of God appear ridiculous. I cannot say for sure if the day of Genesis was 24 hours. There wasn’t even a sun for a sunrise or sunset until day 4. As Augustine wrote, those were “God-defined days” not “solar-defined days.” We should leave it at that.
There is that scripture regarding gravity, too. Jesus tells the tempter that a believer does not test God by insisting the natural laws of the universe do not apply.
Jesus wasn’t really talking about gravity there. He was talking about testing God.
It’s not science that is ruling out the truth. In any case, science makes no statement about God one way or the other.
See, I agree that this is how it should be. Science cannot DECIDE the issue of God or not, at least not perfectly, but nevertheless, suggesting the universe has God behind it is attacked, not discussed. People make lots of statements about God in the name of science. I like your statement here, but I don’t see this in practice.
Nor does 2 Peter support the rather arrogant assumption that we are correct and all others wrong. It is not a statement against science at all, but a statement against such arrogance as claiming to have all the answers:
I never said 2 Peter was a statement against science. II Peter says people will scoff at the idea of Jesus returning and will be (literally) “willfully ignorant of” the fact God created the earth.
“Long ago?” Is this not a clear denial of the new, 6,000-year-old Earth Baumgardner claims? I think any fair reading must have it so. Is Peter warning us against Baumgardner and other fanciful interpretations of scripture here? I believe so.
That’s funny. First, Genesis almost teaches the earth is old, especially Genesis 1:1-2. Second, it’s not warning us against Baumgardner, but I DO agree that when Creationists are dogmatic about the earth being only 6,000 years old, that they are indeed going against what Aquinas warned against.
It may be gilding the lily to point out that “these waters” is probably metaphorical here, since there is little literal support for a creation of the universe in water — hydrogen, yes, but not literal water. The author here does not say the water is literal, and we add to scripture if we make that claim.
Again, Genesis 1:1-2 begin with the earth already present as the article above details. How long God allowed the earth to stay in that state before beginning the days of creation, all of two seconds, or for a few million years or whatever, the Bible does not say. What may have happened previously, if anything, (and we know God had some dealings with Satan previously) it doesn’t say. How long it had taken the oceans to form or how they formed is not mentioned in Scripture. The “earth” as we know it, according to the Bible was formed starting with the oceans present, and God brought the land up and out of the water in Genesis. Peter is simply referring to the description given in Genesis, and refers again to Noah’s flood in Genesis. Therefore in context, he’s not being metaphorical, but referring to Scripture.
This isn’t metaphorical either:
7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
And that’s the real point of the message, isn’t it? God is asking us to repent, not to deny science, reality, nor even Charles Darwin.
I’m ok with this. However, I don’t believe it’s a sin to disagree on things either. The point of the message here is that Jesus will return, even though it will seem like a long time and many scoffers will come, scoffing not only about Jesus coming, but also being unwilling to understand what God has done in the past.
I’ll wager Paul writes about spiritual salvation, also, and not about science. Paul refers to Genesis as literal. His point isn’t to argue about it. Paul assumes it’s true.
I don’t see a call to deny science in any form there.
Of course, I never said there was. I responded to you claiming that nowhere in the Bible do the other writers take the creation account or the flood literally. Well, they did. They assume it’s true.
I don’t see a call to regard the testament in words above God’s creation from His own hand. I don’t see a call to interpret Genesis above Job, nor above John, nor above the Psalms.
The point in all of Scripture is that the Creation comes from God and didn’t happen without Him.
I think we commit scripture abuse if we make claims beyond what the scripture itself plainly says.
And yet that is exactly what you did in the statement “I don’t see a call to regard the testament in the words above God’s creation from His own hand.”
Peter wrote: “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
The Bible teaches the act of Creation comes from God’s Word. Actually Christ’s.
Is Romans 1 still a part of the Christian canon? It warns against creationism rather explicitly, to me, when it warns us against those who claim to know what’s plainly revealed by creation.
It warns against the intentional ignorance of God and refusal to glorify Him as God, and refusal to thank Him. It says God’s attributes are “clearly seen” in the created things. It has nothing to do with arguing that God did not create the earth literally. Quite the opposite.
We don’t need to add to scripture what is not there, nor stretch scripture to make alternative scenarios to contradict science. That’s not what the faith is about.
I agree.
April 1, 2008 at 6:53 pm
thecrazypastor
Although I don’t have the time this week to keep up this spirited discussion at its current level, I do want you to know Ed, that despite the fact we aren’t going to convince each other, I still think you’ve taught me a few things.
For one, I was thinking about it today and remembering a film I watched in high school on the Big Bang. In it, the scientists were trying to demonstrate with particle accelerators that the four forces of the universe are really just one force.
Throughout, they made a point to say they hoped they could someday figure out what was on the other side of the Big Bang as far as what caused it etc… but that they might never know. One guy said, he didn’t know what was on the other side of that door, God or what, but they just couldn’t look that far with science yet.
At the time, I felt like anyone watching could be a Christian AND be a scientist. That they weren’t mutually exclusive.
Truthfully, when we are honest about what we don’t know, I think that’s enough. God doesn’t have to be taught in class necessarily, but where science cannot answer should also be noted. In the same way, where the Bible really doesn’t say (like the age of the earth) we should accept that without reading into the Bible as many do.
April 2, 2008 at 12:50 am
airtightnoodle
Adding my two cents:
Ah, finally. Thank you. Genesis IS literally true. Which is why in my article above, I’m not taking it symbolically, but taking every phrase, looking at the meanings of the Hebrew, because it’s literally true. God did it.
I think my meaning in saying “God wrote it” is clear. You equated Genesis with “tales of 6th century B.C. Babylonian priest/scientists about what we can tell of creation.” Obviously, I disagreed with that statement. The story that Moses wrote down came from God.”
Something can be true AND symbolic at the same time. You just said Moses wrote it, but in an earlier post you said Yes, Scripture specifically says God wrote Genesis. “2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
So who wrote it? God or Moses? Most would say that Moses wrote it, but it was inspired by God. That is what 2 Timothy supports. 2 Timothy never says God literally wrote Genesis.
The Greek literally means all Scripture is “God-breathed.” The Bible also says: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” -II Peter 1:20-21
Well, since we talking of “literal”, etc, this verse LITERALLY says “no PROPHECY of Scripture”. Unless you think all scripture is prophecy, I’m not sure how you can use this to apply to the idea that God literally wrote all scripture. I’m not sure it applies anyway; being “moved” or being “inspired” implies being under a supernatural influence. God influencing, and God literally writing, are not one and the same, in my opinion.
For instance, Job uses a metaphor and you suggest I must interpret it literally in order to take the Bible literally? Taking the Bible literally does not mean suspending the rules of literature or grammar. It means determining what the writer, and by extension, God wanted to convey using those words.
What is a metaphor and what isn’t is obvious from the text. From the style, the type of writing, and the context around it.
So then why must we read the creation account in Genesis literally? It seems very figurative/symbolic to me.
And yes the Bible does demand we look at the creation story literally. Jesus did. That’s all I need really, from Matthew 24, but if you insist there’s also I Chronicles, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hebrews 11, I and II Peter, Luke, Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, and Jude. Just to do a quick search.
I’m insisting. Can you point these out to us, please? I see nothing in Matthew 24 saying we must take the creation account literally. There is mention of Noah, but I see nothing showing we should read the creation account literally. Please point it out if I am overlooking it.
However, how can you say Jesus takes this part of Genesis literally, and this part He doesn’t? On what basis can you decide? Where is the teaching in Scripture that says the Old Testament is only partially true? If Jesus interprets Genesis literally in one place, it seems more consistent to believe He would do the same elsewhere.
I don’t recall anyone saying anything about the Old Testament being partially true. Again, if parts are non-literal, that doesn’t make it untrue. Interpreting Genesis literally in one place does not mean one has to take Genesis literally completely…you’re saying that Jesus MUST have taken the creation account literally because he seems to take the story of Noah literally. That’s a dangerous extension, in my opinion.
I didn’t say the Scripture said “Genesis is a science text” nor was I responding to such a claim.
But you did say you thought God should be included in discussions of origins. How do you hope to do that WITHOUT invoking Genesis?
Again, Genesis 1:1-2 begin with the earth already present as the article above details. How long God allowed the earth to stay in that state before beginning the days of creation, all of two seconds, or for a few million years or whatever, the Bible does not say. What may have happened previously, if anything, (and we know God had some dealings with Satan previously) it doesn’t say. How long it had taken the oceans to form or how they formed is not mentioned in Scripture. The “earth” as we know it, according to the Bible was formed starting with the oceans present, and God brought the land up and out of the water in Genesis. Peter is simply referring to the description given in Genesis, and refers again to Noah’s flood in Genesis. Therefore in context, he’s not being metaphorical, but referring to Scripture.
How does gap theory (which is what you proposed in the article) jive with Exodus 20? In verse 11, it says the Lord made HEAVEN AND EARTH, the sea, and all that in them is, in 6 days. Also, why would God declare “all that he made” as “very good” on the sixth day when He had finished His creating work if these events took place AFTER the fall of Satan?
April 2, 2008 at 3:20 pm
thecrazypastor
Ok, but the Scriptural definition of “inspiration” as I gave above is not inconsistent with saying “God wrote it.” For instance, God speaks in Deuteronomy of how He is going to destroy Israel and scatter them if they disobey. However, it was actually the Roman army that did it. So who destroyed the nation, God or the Romans? The Bible uses language like this throughout, God taking credit for something the Israeli army did, or a disease did, or something else. In writing the Scripture, the Bible specifically says speaking the words of God is not a function of man’s will, but that men were moved by the Holy Spirit. So if I say “Moses wrote it” I would be contradicting the idea of “inspiration” which literally means “God breathed.” Inspiration in the Bible still means it came from God, but through someone else, too. He used them to write, just as He used armies to execute His judgment. So it’s not off the wall or inconsistent to say “God wrote it.” He wrote it through others. Admittedly, my statement wasn’t clearly defined or nuanced. Again, though, my statement was just a quick retort to the idea that Genesis was more of a fanciful tale from Babylonian myths. I wasn’t trying to be technical with it.
Prophecy of Scripture in that passage refers to what the Old Testament prophets wrote, especially concerning Jesus. But he went beyond that by explaining how they wrote and where it came from, thus giving the Biblical definition of what is understood as inspiration. If Genesis is considered “inspired” then it would follow AND inspiration is an English word. The Greek word reads “God-breathed” which is how the NIV translates it. If God breathed the words, then we’re still left with understanding the words come from Him.
And I agree with you that something can be true and symbolic at the same time. That happens a lot, and it’s totally ok for you guys to disagree with me over whether or not something should be taken symbolically or not.
If you believe Genesis should be taken symbolically and not literally, it doesn’t mean you aren’t a believer in God or any less of Christian -if you are one- than I am. We just disagree.
All truths are equally true. Not all truths are equally important.
My response about the Bible taking the creation account literally was right after I wrote something about the Flood, so several of the Scriptures I used there included the Flood. Jesus takes the Flood literally in Matthew 24. He takes the Genesis story of the burning bush literally. He takes the Genesis stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob literally. He even took the story of Jonah literally, but that of course isn’t Genesis. Jesus quoted from the Creation story as if he was taking it literally in Mark 10:6.
The problem with arbitrarily deciding which parts to take literally and which not to, is the truth or the meaning can become whatever we want it to be if we’re not careful. Generally speaking, believing Jesus would take the creation literally is an effort to simply be consistent. He did take Noah’s flood literally, and that story is the same type of writing from the same source, only a few pages down the line. It’s part of those principles of interpretation guys like me have to deal with. Honestly though, I think the Creation story is so basic on details that there is more room in there, literally, than we’ve given it credit for.
My partially true comment was used in a conversation when I was chewing over the idea that the creation story was nothing more than Babylonian myth type of thing. Something can definitely be true and symbolic at the same time.
The study of origins, which is separate from evolution, has a lot of unknowns and difficulties present in any of the current theories. An acknowledgment of what we don’t know, and an acknowledgment that people often believe that some sort of deity is involved, would not be forcing religion down anyone’s throat in my opinion. When Origins come up, discussions ensue, and I don’t think it’s right to rule God out of those discussions necessarily. I would love for Scripture to be investigated and analyzed and understood as it relates to Origins, but I understand such depth would be problematic in a classroom.
Exodus, in my opinion, is a one sentence summation of the creation account from Genesis 1, and is directing its thought to the heavens and the earth as we now know them. The point of it wasn’t to shed light on creation, but to point out the importance of the Sabbath.