There is, in Christendom, a debate over origins. While hardcore Evolutionists will ridicule Christians who take the Bible at face value and will, on the other hand, deny that Evolution tells us anything about origins (because we will always ask, "But ... where did it all start?" and they will tell us "It's not about origins! It's about origins of life."), many voices in Christianity are arguing that we need to give up our silly "God created everything" perspective and especially any notion of a young Earth and surrender to ... Science because, after all, Science has proven that the Bible is wrong. No, that's not quite fair or right. While skeptics will say it, Christians are saying that a literal understanding of the Bible in this case is wrong. Go to another view. So the quesion is "Is a Bible-believing Christian required to accept the Young-Earth view?"
I would want to start with a couple of very important cautions. First, it won't work to reject a biblical position based solely on a perceived conflict with Science1. If your primary motivation for the question is "We're colliding with Science", then it's a wrong-headed question. Don't bother. It can be perfectly okay for Scripture and Science to disagree, primarily because the nature of Science is to be in flux. As should be abundantly clear to the casual observer, science is always finding out that what they knew for certain was actually wrong and new discoveries change it. So I wouldn't be too quick to jump on the "Run for your lives! Science and the Bible disagree!" bandwagon.
Second, it won't work to reject scientific input on the basis of a poorly examined, woodenly literal use of Scripture. It has been argued, for instance, that when the psalmist says, "the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved" (Psa 96:10), it is biblical proof that the Earth is stationary and everything else orbits around it. Come on. Be reasonable. This text does not require that either Science or the Bible is wrong. It requires that you not be so rigid in your reading.
Both errors, then -- either rejecting a biblical interpretation simply because Science says so or rejecting science because of a misguided understanding of Scripture -- ought to be avoided. If your aim is to synchronize the Bible with Science, your aim will be a failure because human Science is rooted in human understanding and we already know that Natural Man is futile in his thinking (Rom 1:21) and the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). If your aim is to defend your view of texts simply because it's your view and Science is not to be trusted, then you'll likely have to simply stop paying attention to any rational discussions on any related subjects, become a Flat-Earther, and go away.
Having offered these warnings, I wanted to look at the question. The suggestion from Christian quarters is that it is entirely possible to reject the biblical account as an historical piece and accept it just as mythology, as allegory, as imagery without actually telling the real events. "That way," they assure us, "you can accept both Evolution (with a capital "E") and creation." Well, okay ... or is it?
Here's the problem. The Bible itself has critical functions rooted in the Creation story. The rest of the Bible all speaks of Genesis as historical. The first 9 chapters of 1 Chronicles is an extensive list of family lines beginning with Adam (1 Chron 1:1). Luke traces Jesus's lineage back (through history) to a supposedly actual Adam (Luke 3:38) (and then back to God ... surely He is not mythology, poetry, allegory, is He?). Romans 5 refers to Adam as the one who introduced sin into the world and is the type to which Jesus is repeatedly contrasted in Paul's "one man" series where "one man" (Adam) brought trespass and "one man" (Christ) brought life and so on. Paul writes, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22) and bases his much debated prohibition of women leadership in the Church on the order of creation ("For Adam was first formed, then Eve ...") (1 Tim 2:12-15). Jude assumes that Enoch was "the seventh from Adam" (Jude 1:14). If, as it turns out, there was no Adam, the least we can conclude is that all of these writers were mistaken because, after all, there was no Adam. Remove the historical Adam and you remove all sorts of biblical realities. Then there are the other links to the concept. God told Moses that Israel was to "honor the Sabbath and keep it holy" because "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth" (Exo 20:8-11). Was God mistaken? Or just misleading? And the entire "Sabbath" concept plays a big role in Scripture. Just to name a few problems that arise if we relegate Genesis 1 and following to mythology or allegory.
I think it is a possible mistake to stand on a 6,000-year-old Earth as a biblical fact. The Bible doesn't say it. Why should we? I know that some of the things we've taken for certain in Christendom were, after careful examination, mistaken, like those who argued that the universe revolved around us or those who said that the world was flat (which was a much smaller number than we were led to believe). Conversely, placing one's faith in Science over Scripture is a dangerous thing. Determining truth by what modern science is telling us is questionable even in science. I mean, how many times have they changed their minds on whether or not coffee or wine or eggs are good for you? How many "known facts" proved to be false? Well into the 20th century science believed that there were canals on Mars. And how recently did they vote out Pluto as a planet? Didn't they just change from "a pending ice age" to "global warming" to "global climate change"? So why are we going with a worldview that itself claims to be in constant flux for our determination of what is or isn't true?
The Bible has clear statements on the origins of the universe and the origins of life. Beyond the clear statements, there are theological ramifications. Before you decide to jettison a historical Creation story, consider the implications. Converting Genesis 1 to "allegory" or "myth" has the reasonable capability of destabilizing the rest of Scripture and, consequently, Christianity itself. Think long and hard before you choose that path.
________
1 I capitalized "Science" because in today's world, even for some Christians, it has become a sort of "god" (or, for some, an actual god) that determines Truth and demands Obedience.
2 comments:
I like the idea of a young earth. I wonder what the appeal of an old earth is, however. The science behind dating is often circular, but my bigger objection is to use an illustration: How old was Adam on the day he was created? Clearly, he was an adult of 0 years old. The appearance of age wasn't a deception on God's part, and neither is the appearance of the age of the earth.
I've recently found your blog (while searching the web for "moral relativity").
Welcome, Jim.
You're referring to the "Apparent Age Theory" which, to me, appears to be not only a valid notion, but a necessary one if God created. He wouldn't have created things in initial states which cannot self-sustain; He would have created them in their normal states. So the rock or the tree next to Adam that were all days old would appear older. Not as a matter of deception, but as a matter of practicality, design, and balance.
Post a Comment