The Bible and Evolution

 


In our town’s newspaper this past week an article was published from a member of the ministerial alliance, of which I am a part, that said that if you believe in evolution or that the earth is older than 6000 years, you are disbelieving God’s word and picking and choosing what you want to believe or disbelieve from the Bible. While I have much respect for this person, I disagree theologically. And I want to list a few reasons why, because I am concerned that some might read the article and think, “Well, science on the old age of the earth is pretty convincing to me (between the fossil record, the carbon dating and radiometric dating, and so forth), so I guess I can’t believe the Bible. I guess I have to pick and choose between either accepting the Bible or science.” Basically, I’m concerned the article will be more likely to push people away from thinking they can believe in God than draw any in to think that belief in God could be rational and logical.

Can we hold to both biblical truth and scientific truth? Most of the debate comes down to genre. Some parts of the Bible are meant to be literal and historical, others are not. How do we decide this? Is it random picking and choosing based on what’s convenient? No, it’s based on genre. The Bible has writings from the genre of history, but also from the genres of poetry, prophecy, apocalypse, and parables. The Bible uses figures of speech and hyperbole. Knowing the genre of the text is key to interpreting the Bible as it is meant to be read. We must take the Bible seriously, but that doesn’t mean we have to take it always literally. Otherwise, failing to see hyperbole in Jesus’ words, we would all have to gouge out our own eyes to help keep us from sinning (Matthew 5:29).

I think there are good reasons to think that Genesis 1 and 2 might be of the genre of ancient cosmogony or mythology rather than a scientific or strictly historical genre. Pay attention to the poetic repetition of phrases like “and it was so”, “it was good”, and “there was evening and there was morning”. Pay attention to poetic naming: Adam is not just a name but also means ‘human’ more generally. Look at the wordplay in how Adam is formed from the Adamah (Hebrew for ground). Eve means ‘woman’ more generally.

If you read Genesis 1 and compare it and contrast it with Genesis 2 you’ll notice that in Genesis 1 the order of creation goes such that the earth yielded vegetation on day 3, and humans were not made till day 6. In Genesis 2 the order of creation states that when no plant of the field was yet in the earth then God formed man from the ground. Only after did God plant a garden in Eden. Similarly, animals were made before humans in Genesis 1 and after humans in Genesis 2. Were the Biblical authors just too stupid to notice these contradictions even when they’re only a single chapter away from each other? Or did the biblical authors intentionally allow these contradictions here as a way to help show the genre of the texts and that they weren’t meant to be taken strictly literally? The latter seems more likely to me.

Am I positive I know the correct answers on these issues of how to meld science and the Bible? No. Some young earth creationists have said God could’ve created the world with the appearance of age, similar to how Jesus, when he made wine from water, likely made good wine that had been aged. That’s possible. Evolutionary theory on its own without God makes little sense either, it can detail a story of progress, but not explain how matter came to exist in the first place. Nor can it explain phenomena like how things like reason and music developed. As you look at the wonders of creation it makes more sense to me that there was a divine hand guiding the evolutionary process than that pure randomness created things so intricate and wonderful like an eye that could see or a brain that could think. One need not be wholly certain of all aspects of the theory of evolution, but one need not condemn those who believe it either.

So, in the end, I don’t care all that much what you believe about the exact way the world was created, so long as you believe the main theological points Genesis 1 and 2 are trying to get across: that God is the creator, that humans are made in the image of God, that sin has infected God’s good creation, etc. There are many good and faithful Christians who believe in evolution, and many who don’t. To me, it’s not an essential tenet of the faith. We can allow for some gracious disagreement on difficult and contested issues of interpretation like this one. But mostly, I want to get across that you shouldn’t view topics like evolution as a reason to disbelieve in Jesus and the Christian faith. You can believe in both. To try and hold both to the Bible and to science is not going to be wholly easy or simple. It will raise some questions on how best to interpret various verses and passages of scripture. But trying to believe in young earth creationism or non-theistic evolution is not easy or simple either. Any of these belief systems will leave you with some doubts and some questions about how exactly everything works. But just keep wrestling for answers. Find what you believe, and be gracious to those who disagree. For our faith is far less about evolution vs. a 6-day creation, and far more about loving God and neighbor, being generous and peaceful and kind, forgiving others, and repenting of evil.

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Barbie and the Crisis of Identity

Image
  Below are some scattered thoughts on the new Barbie movie (spoiler alert):                 The movie begins by noting girls used to have to play with baby dolls only until the invention of Barbie. The play thus shifted from play focused on how to care for another to play focused on imagining who one might be and how one might act when they grow up. And while there is good progress in this as a woman’s role on this earth can surely not be reduced to simply mothering, one must note that this change took place in the midst of the larger cultural transformation taking place of thinking of life less in terms of duties to others and thinking of life more in terms of self-actualization. And whereas it is in many ways good to be asking questions of identity, we must nevertheless be cautious of the culture we swim in that more often encourages us to ask, “Who do I want to be?” and less often causes us to ask, “Wh...
Read more

Reformation Sunday: Scripture Alone

Image
        Today, we celebrate Reformation Sunday. And one of the focal points of the Reformation, of course, came in the year 1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. Primarily, Luther sought to contest the practice of the selling of indulgences, this idea that if you donated enough money to the church that you could be granted forgiveness of sins. This practice went against so much biblical truth. Jesus said blessed are the poor, and yet this practice seemed to give the rich extra favors in making it to heaven. The selling of indulgences reminds me of Acts chapter 8 where we encounter Simon the Sorcerer who thinks that he can buy from Peter and John the power of the Holy Spirit. He was of course sharply rebuked. The power of God is not something that can be bought. Neither can salvation be bought. As it says in Psalm 49:7 there is no price that one can give to God as ransom for their lives. Our debt is too big. On...
Read more

We’re Sorry: An Apology from Christians

                 I cannot speak for all Christians, but I think can speak for quite a few of us when I say, “We’re sorry.”             A large number of people who don’t believe in Jesus or who don’t attend church cite a reason why being the hypocrisy of Christians. Understandably, the sincerity of our belief in a God of love can be questioned when we at times act so unlike the God we profess to believe in. Some people may cynically wonder if even those in the church really believe; and if not, why should they? An oft cited hypocrisy is some of the problematic alliances made between politicians and certain religious groups or leaders when those very politicians seem to act or legislate in various unchristian ways. I’m sure many, many examples from American politics might be springing to your mind, but a particularly egregious example I thought of is how the Russian Orthodox churc...
Read more