Skip to main content

Believe the Bible or Science?

One of the more frustrating conversations to have is when you try and suggest that the scientific theory of evolution does not really contradict the creation accounts of Genesis. It doesn't matter if you are talking to a young earth creationist fundy or a frothing at the mouth anti-theist, they both think that you are trying to wriggle out of the 'plain meaning' of scripture. The argument really runs either:
  1. people have always read creation accounts as literal scientific historical accounts and you are just trying to change that because of the proof for evolution
  2. if you are not going to take the creation accounts literally then you cannot take the gospels literally either

Both are simply based on false assumptions about the nature of the texts concerned and the history of their interpretation.

The most obvious reason for thinking that even the original prescientific authors and readers of the creation accounts did not take them in the same way that we do a scientific historical account (apart from the fact that science and history as we understand them were not relevant concepts to these people) is that they provide two totally different accounts right next to each other. In Genesis 1, the world is made in seven days in a particular order, in Gen 2 it is made in one day (or age) in a totally different order. There are many more interesting differences between each account, but I think the point is made.

Then there is the history of interpretation. In fact the literal scientific (read literalistic) reading of Genesis is a relatively modern idea. Christianity Today recently ran a very useful article describing Augustine's interpretation of the creation accounts. Augustine's issue was not evolution, but the doctrine of creation from nothing (which was in those days considered scientifically absurd, but these days sounds remarkably similar to some understandings of the big bang). But he shows that even long before Darwin the creation accounts in scripture were not being understood in a literal scientific historical manner. It is actually young earth creationism which is the novelty.

The creation accounts are sources of theological truth, and careful reading of them shows what their theological concerns are. While they express theology, they make no attempt to answer the questions of science. The complaint that this then disallows a historical reading of the gospels stems in turn from a misunderstanding of the literary nature of the Bible. That is, the Bible, although usually packaged as such, is not one book. It is a collection of ancient books each of which need to be approached slightly differently depending on the type of book it is. If you try and interpret a letter to a dysfunctional church (e.g. 1 Corinthians) in the same way you do an erotic poem (e.g. Song of Solomon) you will become unstuck pretty fast, for reasons which i hope are obvious. The gospels, while not historical accounts as we would understand a modern historical account to be, are intended to be eyewitness accounts of actual historical events. While this by no means proves their accuracy or reliability (that is for another day), it does demand that they be interpreted differently to the stories of creation, and means that someone (like me) committed to the truth of the Bible, is not being inconsistent when they accept evolution (as science not as worldview) but also believe in the literal historical resurrection.

Science, properly understood is not in opposition to faith. Science is merely the observation of the world around us. Science can prove things, in the sense that it on the basis of all the observations we can make (taxonomy, DNA, etc) evolution appears to be the process by which the world has arrived at this wonderful array of diverse forms of life. But Science cannot disprove or prove the resurrection which is by its very nature outside the realm of the observable and repeatable. Neither can science answer the questions of purpose and ethics, although it can inform them. So I don't believe science, but I do accept the observations of scientists. The problems arise when some scientists try and argue the implications of their observations in regard to things outside of their domain of expertise. Science is neither an argument for or against God. Rather it is an exploration of the world that God has given us. The fact that it only gets more interesting and complicated with each new discovery should not surprise or dismay us, it is just further evidence of the greatness of the Creator.

Comments

  1. It always amuses me when YECs get offended that an atheist will not accept their testimony, and yet they will not believe the evolutionary observations of biologists who daily submit papers to reputable peer-reviewed journals.

    Once I accepted that God was the God of evolution, my understanding of Him became so much wider and so much more mysterious. He no longer fitted into my nice, dogmatic, WASP box.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please find a completely different Understanding of God, religion and science via these references.

    http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx

    http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science.aspx

    http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm

    http://www.dabase.org/christmc2.htm

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .