For a few weeks now, I have been teaching in my church on the topic of belief and doubt, so I have been on a personal journey to understand the mind of the atheist so I can better understand the mind of the serious person who cannot cross the line of faith and possibly understand the mind of the person who wants to believe but is having difficulty taking the final step of commitment.
In the process, I have been learning things about the Theory of Evolution that have really interested me. I’ll get to a couple of those things in a moment, but first, let me tell you my perspective on the whole evolution and creation issue.
My Baseline Perspective on Biblical Creation
Two things inform my understanding of the teaching of the Bible regarding the Creation event.
- Genesis never claims to give us the mechanism of God’s creative process, but there is insight in the grammatical structure of God’s creative commands. They are mostly structured in the passive voice. God commands that something should be done, but doesn’t directly declare the mechanism by which they should be done except in a few cases. In one case, God says, “Let the land produce vegetation” (Ge 1:11). In one case, he says, “Let the land produce living creatures” (Ge 1:24). Finally, in the climax of the scene, God says, “Let us make man” (Ge 1:26). Therefore, it is biblically supported that God gives the power to produce life to the earth itself, but he himself presides over the creation of the first human beings.
- The days of creation may be literal days or metaphorical days or something in between. For example, they could be put into a framework where the author of the creation story is writing a first-hand account of what he saw during 6 consecutive days of visionary revelation. It’s possible that Moses, on Mount Sinai was given as it were a timelapse video vision of the history of the earth from the perspective of an observer hovering just above the surface of the earth. Nevertheless, the mathematical calculations of the age of the earth and the age of the universe are based on our understanding of the timeline of current-day natural processes (i.e. Carbon 14 decay). It is entirely plausible to me that the creator of the universe could have made everything as it is in six days and on the seventh day “rested” by slowing down the natural processes of the universe to the speed at which we observe them today. Was the universe actually created 13.7 billion years ago? Possibly. I accept that number as a mathematical reality expressing the consistency of scientific discovery even though I also accept that God could have started his creative work 6000 years ago. I am not threatened by the math indicating the earth is 5 billion years old.
So, about evolution
With these two things in mind, I have generally been able to reconcile my belief 100% with the theories of modern evolutionary science. I am not threatened by the claims of Darwinists that natural selection is capable of producing all the biodiversity that we see, and I am not scared by the theory that natural selection is capable of producing the appearance of design and even rudimentary social morality.
However, I have always maintained that human beings were a categorically different thing than all other animals. The account of Genesis 1, the account of Genesis 2, and Jesus’ later confirmation of the historicity of Adam and Eve have led me to believe that humans were specially created by God to be a completely new thing on the planet.
How do I deal with all the “hominid” claims in science like Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, and others? Well, I have always maintained that those animals were highly skilled primates, but categorically different from Adam and Eve and the species we call Homo Sapiens. Humans were formed from the dust of the ground.
Recently, though, I have learned some things that have challenged my thinking regarding the potential link between homo sapiens and other hominid species. Here are a couple of the things I have learned:
- The laryngeal nerve in humans is exactly like that in other mammals and is an example of a confusing design element. The nerve goes from the spine to the larynx (voice box) by traveling all the way down to the heart, looping through the aorta and back up to the larynx. It seems to be an incredibly inefficient design, but a look at the evolutionary “tree of life” gives a clear demonstration of animals where that pathway makes sense (in fish for example). Therefore, humans maintain a characteristic of other animals that in our case (and in the case of all mammals) doesn’t make sense.
- During the development of a human baby in the womb, there is a yolk sack present in the first few weeks of gestation. That sack is empty in human development, but it is exactly the same in many respects as the yolk sack in a reptile’s egg. Finally, humans have the same yolk-producing genes in our DNA as reptiles and birds do, but in our case, they are non-functional.
- Also during fetal development, at roughly the six month mark, human babies develop a thick coat of hair, that later falls off before birth. (I wonder if that’s why Esau was born so hairy?) This development of hair exactly mirrors the development of hair in primates like chimpanzees.
These three things indicate that God did not design Adam and Eve from scratch but that he reused a huge amount of the DNA of existing animals.
That in and of itself is not totally disturbing to me, but it shows me how there is a clear sequential set of developmental steps that connect us to other species on earth.
Reconciling Evolution with Adam and Eve
So how can I reconcile the evidence of human evolution with the teaching that Adam and Eve were both specially created and also the first human beings?
Here’s my thinking on that:
- God created Adam by taking the best DNA available (hominid DNA) and shaping a being from the material of earth. He may have had a biological parent (and therefore a bellybutton); although, I tend to believe he did not.
- God breathed into Adam the breath of life (Ge 2:7). If he were the biological child of a hominid, this was the transformative moment that changed him from “hominid” to “human.” If he were a completely new biological entity, this was the moment that started his life as a human.
- Anthropology indicates that the first humans began in Africa, but the Bible prefers Mesopotamia as the origin of humanity. It is a conflict unless we recognize that (1) we don’t know where Eden actually was, and (2) Genesis 2:8 tells us that God placed Adam in the garden after he was formed. God did not make Adam in the Garden of Eden.
- After the fall, Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and would likely have encountered other hominids. This could explain where Cain got his wife, and this could also explain why God chose to have such similar DNA between humans and other hominids. Finally, it could also explain the strange account in Genesis 6 when “the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.”
Therefore, I find it still plausible that God could have made Adam and Eve from completely new biological material choosing to reuse a huge percentage of existing DNA code, but I am also open to the possibility that Adam at least was the biological child of a soulless hominid but became a “living soul” when God breathed on him the “breath of life.”
What do you think?
Consider that God who exists outside of time could have created everything with an age, just as he did with Adam. Adam may have existed only for seconds after God breathed life into him but he was obviously not a baby. The same could be said about the creation of the earth. just something to consider.
Well, you lost me on this one.
Sorry, but you are so VERY wrong! Creation is one of the basics of Christianity. GOD said HE created the world in 6 days, not 6 million years.
Hmmm… Interesting, I have often considered the possibility that no one really knows if the Big Bang, or evolution was true, but that it occurred when God told it to as it doesn’t really state HOW God’s command was carried forth… And as to the creation in 6 days comment by Ms. Foust, I wonder… in the old testament, there are times when a week refers to a period of 7 years rather than 7 days, and I believe (not quite sure I remember correctly) that in the Hebrew, a week can also mean 700 or 7000 years… With this in mind, is there a possibility that if we were to take the “days” literally, that it could be translated to a meaning that could be maybe 1 year, 100 years, 1000 years, etc. rather than just 24 hours? Also, if that is not the case, I have to think of Joshua holding his arms up and time essentially stopping and the day continuing on… this could have occurred as well… Joshua is a case where in one day, there would have been more than 24 hours because God stopped the sun in the sky… and by his definition, a day isn’t 24 hours, but a period of light as night is a period of dark… so maybe it would be feasible that if the days were literal, maybe each day was rather how long the period of light was rather than a specific amount of time… What do you think Pastor Jeff?
That’s very possible. The passage doesn’t say, “There were 24 hours, the first day.” It says, “There was evening and there was morning, the first day.” Clearly, the writer didn’t care how long a “day” was except that it took place over the span of an evening and a morning or a period of night and a period of daylight.
To deny what we are plainly told in Genesis regarding creation puts every other passage of the Bible in question. God evidently meant that everything was created in 6 days. ‘For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Exodus 20:11.
Think about it! The Exodus passage said He created in 6 days. If I question Genesis, now I would have to deny Exodus. Where does it end? After all, it mighty strange to think of languages being confusion at the Tower of Babel, some critics deny the parting of the Red Sea, and while we’re at it, why not question the virgin birth of Christ or the resurrection? The Word of God is true, Old Testament and New Testament, Genesis to Revelation. All of it.
I think you would benefit from investigating the number of frauds involved in “evidence” provided for evolution. I don’t discount the possibility that timelines are flexible, given that God is outside of and beyond time, but the insistence with which atheists cling to evolution(and vice-versa) makes me think there is something very threatening about literal creation. The notion of spontaneous generation without a Designer, however, is a non-starter for me. So far, no scientist can explain creation as perfectly as the Bible can, and no science has been able to explain creatures whose design requires entire creation, such as the bombardier beetle, which contains two deadly chemicals that cannot be mixed, but which mixes them in a defense mechanism that creates an explosion. It is ridiculous to assume such a creature could have gradually developed such a process without dying out immediately. Evolution has a lot of ‘splaining to do, but refuses to go where the real answer lies: an interested, hands-on, omniscient Designer.
I love your example, “Seanmom.” Evolution cannot explain DNA, either. WHY not take the Biblical creation account at face value? WHY trust science with their continually changing theories and ever-expanding time periods. I think Christians need to follow the example of Jesus Christ, who believed, who knew that the Bible is inerrant.
The Example of Jesus Christ He consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including:
1.) The Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6)
2.) Noah’s Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27)
3.) Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41)
4.) Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15)
5.) The account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).
I Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I forgot to give my source on the information above. Ron Rhodes has an excellent article that explains what sound Biblical interpretation looks like. The five points were direct quotes from the article Rightly Interpreting the Bible on Ron Rhodes website. I apologize for my oversight.
This is an interesting discussion. However, I want to say a few words to contribute to the conversation and to remind us to keep a proper perspective.
on biblical interpretation
In the article referenced on Ron Rhodes website click here to see it, we read the following:
One fascinating thing about the Bible is that prophetic revelation is almost always recorded in the poetic genre. Scan through many modern English texts, and you will see that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the prophetic writings are predominately written like the Psalms—as poetry. That’s why English translations do all the funny indenting. It’s to maintain the poetic structure of the underlying Hebrew.
Now what’s really fascinating is that Genesis 2 is written in prose while Genesis 1 is written in poetry. From that basic grammatical observation, we might conclude that Genesis 2 is intended to be taken as a historical narrative (Jesus understood it to be historical), but we might also conclude that Genesis 1 was written to record a revelation that God gave to the author (Moses). Certainly, Moses never saw the Creation event unless God gave him that privilege through a visionary moment. Therefore, the poetic writing of Genesis 1 plus the nature of the topic discussed indicate that the purpose of Genesis 1 was not “science” or “history” but “significance.”
It could be accurate history, but the text does not demand we take it thus to be nor does any other text in the Bible. Yes, the Sabbath command is sometimes associated with the Creation event in Genesis 1, but the pattern of 6 + 1 is prevalent throughout the Bible. 6 days of work + 1 off. 6 years to work the land + 1 to let it lay fallow. 6 groups of 7 years + 1 year of Jubilee.
on rational thought
The second important thing to remember is that God gave humans their brains initially so that they could represent him as his image-bearers in this world and so that they could have dominion over the earth. Such dominion implies that humans must have the capacity to gain knowledge over the world they are to subdue.
Granted, sin has damaged the image of God within us and has darkened our hearts and minds to the things of God, but has sin destroyed our ability to reason? I would argue that it has not. Again from the Rhodes website:
Humans were given by God the gift to use reason to communicate objective truths via symbols.
That is a good definition of the scientific process. For example, the phrase “13.5 billion years ago” is a linguistic symbol which means, “If we extrapolate from the present on into the past, we can trace a sequence of processes that implies 13.5 billion trips around the sun.” The young-earth believer says, “God could have launched the whole thing literally 6000 years ago, but the way he created it demonstrates the result of 13.5 billion years of process.”
That young-earth believer need not deny the 13.5 billion. Rather, he simply gives God direct, divine, miraculous credit for the first 13.499994 billion years. The evidence indicates 13.5 billion, but God could have started this show 6000 years ago “already in progress.”
However, that same line of reasoning could be used to say that God started the entire universe last week with the apparent age of 13.499994 billion years + 6000 of recorded history written on texts and etched in our brains. The universe could have started 5 seconds ago with the appearance of great age.
See, the problem with that line of reasoning is that it fails to make use of a fundamental human gift from God… our ability to think logically from the framework of personal experience and trusting others.
On the other hand, if all the physical evidence points to great ages for the earth and the universe and all the Biblical revelation still makes sense within that evidential framework, let’s rejoice in the gift of reason given to us by God and thank him for the knowledge we gain through science and the knowledge we gain through revelation. Let’s thank him for both!
All that remains is to put the pieces together where we can, to remain humble where we can’t, and to live in surrender to the God who made us and who gives us meaning.
Jeff,
I am sure that you are aware that there are divergent views on whether Genesis 1 is poetry. I’ll share just one web site to illustrate this: http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/03/is_genesis_1_po.html. But even if it were poetry that would not negate its literal truth. Would it not be a false dichotomy to claim that it would? Ron Rhodes did not make that distinction in his article. You quoted this – “A parable should not be treated as history, nor should poetry or apocalyptic literature (both of which contain many symbols) be treated as straightforward narrative,” But he also wrote this – “Jesus Christ… He consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including: 1.) The Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6” So it is patently not his intent that Genesis should not be understood literally.
You assert that most prophetic revelation is poetic. Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 is literally true, is it not?
You wrote – Yes, the Sabbath command is sometimes associated with the Creation event in Genesis 1, but the pattern of 6 + 1 is prevalent throughout the Bible. 6 days of work + 1 off. 6 years to work the land + 1 to let it lay fallow. 6 groups of 7 years + 1 year of Jubilee. That does NOT disprove the literalness of Genesis 1. The pattern is based on the literal events contained in it.
You state that a fundamental human gift from God… [is] our ability to think logically from the framework of personal experience and trusting others. I would respond with our first need is to trust God Himself and not science. Unregenerate man interprets the physical evidence and in their conclusions from it have found a way to exclude God altogether. I have debated with them – they see no reason to include God in the equation. Just last week I discussed this with a gentleman with a PhD in physics. He assured me that evolution has all the answers. He is an atheist.
Jeff, if Genesis 1 is not literal – do YOU believe that the account of the flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, Jonah, Daniel in the Lion’s den, & his three friends in the fiery furnace are literal? I would greatly appreciate your response on each of these.
Hi Elizabeth,
I don’t really disagree with anything you have said here. However, you asked for a couple responses so here are a few thoughts:
I agree that Jesus interpreted portions of the Old Testament quite literally; however, he also never addressed the time-frame of Genesis 1. Further, I am convinced that some parts of the Bible are both literal and figurative at the same time. For example Psalm 19:6 tells us that the sun rises at one end of the heavens and makes its course to the other. This is both literal (how we perceive the sun’s motion) and metaphorical (the sun doesn’t actually rise and set, the earth rotates) as well as scientifically naive. The fact that the statement is technically, scientifically accurate does not diminish its truth. The Bible remains inerrant because we recognize that the Psalmist wasn’t making a scientific claim at all. He was using human language and metaphor to make a point of the consistency of the created order.
Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a poetic vision that became literally true through the events of Jesus’ life. Additionally, some parts of it are clearly using poetic exaggeration: “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). This is clearly not a literal statement about a man who could amass crowds of 5000 men to hear him teach or who could command sickness, demons and death. Jesus had plenty that was ‘attractive’ to people, but Isaiah’s prophecy is still true because Jesus didn’t attract people the same way celebrities attract people. He attracted people with the integrity of the power of Almighty God.
Could the pattern of 6+1 in the Bible indicate a literal 6 * 24 hour period of creative activity? Yes, it could. I don’t disagree with you.
Do unregenerate people use their reason to exclude God? Yep, all the time. Do we need to trust God himself first? Yep, I agree.
What’s my point, then. Here it is in a nutshell. I am a true Biblical literalist in that I base every one of my beliefs on the direct teaching of the Bible. I take the Bible at face value. There was a flood, Noah was saved, there was a tower where language was divided, there was a Sodom that was destroyed, David beat a giant, Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, and three men met the Angel of the Lord inside a fiery furnace. It all really happened.
However, there are many things Christians believe that are not directly found in the Bible. There is no direct evidence in the Bible regarding the origin of Satan. There is no direct evidence regarding a pre-tribulational rapture.
My point is that if we are to take the Bible seriously, we must be just as rigorous about what it does not say as with what it does say. We must be rigorous about the Bible itself. And on this point, the Bible says nothing about how many hours it took for God to speak light into existence and separate it from the dark.
So I am a Biblicist, and I take the Bible very seriously. Therefore, if you refer to my two points at the top of this article, you will see again that one possible literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is that Moses literally wrote down what he literally saw revealed by God during the span of a literal day. It took one full day for Moses to experience each segment of creation, and he wrote it down literally so. Genesis 1 is the literal account of Moses’ literal experience when God showed him how he made the world.
However, there is one more point on this front. Genesis 1:11-13 literally tells us that God didn’t make the trees and plants. Rather, he commanded the earth to produce vegetation, and the earth did so. At least one significant part of God’s creative activity was accomplished by God issuing a command to nature and letting nature do its thing.
My point is that there is literal harmony between what the Bible actually claims and what we can learn from studying the world. It’s our job as humans to submit our lives and our research to God, ask him to reveal to us what we need to know, and then seek to live it out.
Stay literal, but stay clear on the lines between what people say about the Bible and what the Bible says for itself.
I don’t think just because Jesus confirmed the historical existence of Adam and Eve means that He necessarily endorsed a literal view of the entire passage. I think that viewpoint attempts to draw too much from the Bible. Just because Jesus did not do something, does not mean it is valid to infer Jesus prohibits it. Christ modeled a typical approach to biblical interpretation, but in the absence of a direct indication that He demands that I use one method of interpretation, I see no reason to enforce a single method in every case. However, given that Christ’s method of interpretation is literal, I am certainly inclined to try that first, and I would need a very good reason to diverge from that approach.
Clearly God gave us the ability to reason, and part of that is involves inference, logical reasoning, and critical thinking. Taking the Bible literally, how does one derive the theology of the Trinity? Nowhere does God directly state that He is a divine being consisting of three separate yet equivalent beings. However, this theology evolved (nice word choice, huh?) over centuries and is accepted by nearly every mainstream Christian denomination.
So I guess the $64k question the question is when do we diverge from a literal interpretation?
When Jesus says it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven, should I take that literally? I don’t think so, but figures of speech throw a curveball at a literal approach. Nobody would ever mean to be taken literally with that statement. But I guess this answers my own question. We diverge from a literal interpretation when the author clearly meant for us to do so. And how do we know when we have gotten to that point? We reason, and as long as we go someplace that isn’t forbidden and we end up with thoughts that are congruent with other accepted beliefs, our journey justified and valid.
I see no reason to view the ‘days’ in Genesis to be literal 24 hour periods. Jeff outlines an entirely possible scenario in which a non literal day can be accepted. Is he correct? I’m not sure (yet), but just as the doctrine of the Trinity was developed, I look forward to the discovery of new truths.
I do not think non literal day length interpretations undermine biblical inerrancy and it doesn’t create a slippery slope that attacks other accepted Biblical truths. The reason I diverge from a literal interpretation of the day length is because science has given me a reason to take that first step. And as long as I don’t end up in a place that starts to erode established truth, I see no reason not to continue on the journey and see where it ends up.
oops, I just realized Jeff wasn’t endorsing a non literal interpretation of the day length, but instead proposing a non traditional context that allows for a literal day, and it turns out he thinks we might be reading too much into the passage. I think it’s a plausible view.
Although, I wouldn’t mind comments in response to my post- this is an intriguing topic for me.
Good morning Jeff,
I appreciate your response. This is a subject we could debate almost endlessly and I have other subjects that I am working on now. I am also sure that you have many, many things on your plate. So this will (probably) be my last post. I am happy to hear that you do take the accounts of Babel, Jonah, etc, literally.
I have just one comment before I close. You wrote “Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is a poetic vision that became literally true through the events of Jesus’ life.”
God’s word is true from all eternity. It does not become true when we see it happen. Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Thanks for the discussion Elizabeth. Come back anytime. I’m unsure why you referenced Revelation 13:8 considering that nobody takes the “beast” of John’s vision to be a literal beast. The prophecy will come true, and when it does, those whom God blesses to see and understand it will view Revelation 13:8 as completely fulfilled. However, it’s unlikely to be a literal beast.
Dave,
Thanks for your comments. You might be interested in hearing a message I delivered back in 2007 on this topic: http://lafayettecc.org/news/036-05-why-why-do-science-and-the-bible-conflict/
I referenced it because of the last phrase: “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” i.e. the prophecy in Isaiah did not become literally true through the events of Jesus’ life. It is eternally true, as all of God’s word is.