|
|
|
|
FAITH AND SCIENCEIntroduction 1. The Supernatural 2. The existence of God 3. Creation and evolution 4. Has science disproved creation?
INTRODUCTION In the Middle Ages they used to ring church bells during storms to drive away the storm demons. In many parts of world today if someone is sick call witchdoctor / medicine man / shamen to cast a spell to heal the sickness or to break the curse which has caused it. Things have changed in Western world by the 3rd Millenium. For 3 centuries our world has been turning away from beliefs in magic and religion and trusting instead in science. Isaaac Asimov has even described scientists as the New Magicians. We no longer explain the world world in terms of God or evil spirits but in terms of atoms and molecules and forces and reactions. When we are sick most people no longer pray - we turn to doctors, the new miracle workers. So religion and magic have lost their sway over lives of ordinary people. This process of "disenchantment" has one simple cause - the rise of modern science which leaves no room for God in His world.
I have to declare a Personal Interest in this area. I studied science at Cambridge and then taught chemistry and I.T. for 5 years at Watford Grammar School. It makes me nostalgic and almost sad to say that I can probably no longer call myself a scientist. I have also studied theology at London Bible College for 5 years and been a Baptist Minister for 23 years.
Of course there have been and still are many notable scientists who have a deep Christian faith. Many in our own church work in different branches of science. At university there were more Christians in the science and medical faculties any other departments. But there is the popular view that "science has disproved religion", that "science has replaced religion", "we dont need God any more", even that "with the rise of science human beings have outgrown God." This popular view comes not from science itself but from the media's presentations of science and religion, from David Attenborough' subtly atheistic natural history programs to Richard Dawkin's explicit attacks on Christian faith.
I want to touch this evening on three big areas where science and religion clash. Or rather I should say "where bad science and bad religion clash". Because Id want to argue that there is no conflict between GOOD science and GOOD religion at all! But the claims that "science has disproved religion" often focus on three areas: questions about the supernatural in general and miracles in particular, questions about the existence of God, and questions about creation and evolution and the Bible.
1 THE SUPERNATURAL
One popular view is that science has explained away everything supernatural. Science has explained away God. God couldnt have made the world, God couldnt answer prayers, God couldnt speak through prophets, because science has explained away God.
Of course this is a claim, an assertion and not an argument. The last quarter century has seen an immense backlash against the claims of science in the growing interest in the supernatural, the paranormal and the occult. People want to believe. The immense popularity of the X-files shows popular beliefs that "the truth is out there." "Why is it" Government agent Deep Throat asked FBI agent Fox Mulder "Why is it that in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary you are not dissuaded from your beliefs (in the paranormal)?" Mulder replied "Because the overwhelming evidence is not entirely dissuasive."
Very many people do have an instinctive belief in the supernatural. But because there is also the popular belief that "science has disproved religion" they no longer look for the supernatural in the church or even in the other world religions, but instead turn to the occult, to mediums and seances and tarot and astrology. In this way mistaken ideas about science are proving very very dangerous!
The reason science can appear to exclude the supernatural is that its underlying presuppositions exclude the supernatural. At deepest of levels Science presumes that the only things which exist are those which can be observed and touched and experimented on. That is an assumption, a presupposition. Its a necessry assumption if you want to do work in science. But its a dangerously mistaken and limiting assumption if you want to live in the real world. Science is used to dealing with certain kinds of evidence - observations and measurements. The hardest thing I found in moving from studying science to studying theology was learning that there are different kinds of evidence as well as scientific experiments, the evidence of historical documents, or of personal testimony for example. These other kinds of evidence need different skills if you are to handle and interpret them properly. The world is overflowing with evidence for existence and activity of God - but sadly some scientists are so locked into their ways of handling evidence and their ways of looking at the world that they cant accept the testimony of Christians about answers to prayer or god speaking in dreams and visions. They want to put the Bible under a microscope instead of letting its truth touch their hearts.
Same problem comes when some scientists think about miracles "Miracles can't happen" they say. Underlying assumption in science is that the same things keep on happening in the world. U do experiment today and get a certain result then if u do same experiment again tomorrow under same conditions you'll get the same result. Thats how all "scientific laws" are worked out. If things didnt happen the same day after day u couldnt do any science at all!!! By definition a miracle is God breaking or suspending those scientific laws which He created and He sustains. God is Creator - He's allowed to do that if He wants to. But science has problems with God breaking His own rules. Science has problems with anything happening today which wont happen again tomorrow unless God does the same miracle again then. Science has problems with any events which cant be experimented upon, anything where u cant control all the factors and only vary what u want to investigate. So BAD science rejects reports of miracles because such reports cant be handled in the ways science likes to. To say "miracles dont happen" is an assumption. The most any person should say is that "if miracles do happen I havent seen any". Thats the limits of how far science should go. And many of us HAVE seen miracles - healings, answers to prayer. I have experienced miracles myself. So I believe in the God who works miracles! Good science should never reject evidence of miracles just because it doesnt fit into its philosophy or conflicts with its presuppositions. Scientists should always reexamine their assumptions so they fit with the real world! 2. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
“God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically-minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job.” J. B. Phillips (1906–1982)
Some people confidently declare ‘‘there is no God’’ as if this were a proven fact. All anyone can reliably say is, ‘‘if there is a God I haven’t seen evidence of his existence yet’’. People who say ‘‘God does not exist’’ are only expressing their personal belief. As a teenager I used to argue vigorously that God couldn’t exist. Then God proved me wrong. Someone who declares that God cannot possibly exist is making the same mistake as someone who insists that Australia cannot possibly exist, just because they haven’t personally been there (yet). Or somebody who says “the Queen doesn’t exist” because he has never met Her Majesty, and refuses to believe the pictures or the people who claim they have met her! Isaac Asimov made the same mistake as very many people - "I am an atheist, out and out. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he does not that I don't want to waste my time." Asimov had closed his mind to the evidence for God's existence - so in the end he could not see what many others can! But Christians HAVE seen that evidence. We have experienced the power of God and seen him at work! And scientists should NOT ignore that evidence, but rethink their scientific assumptions until their science fits with the real world!
“Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame.” ALBERT EINSTEIN
“Posterity will some day laugh at the foolishness of our modern materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature the more I am amazed at the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur
The way we all see the world, our "world view", depends on where we are standing, where we are coming from.
Two people were walking along a river bank one day when they saw a man across the river. “How can we get across?” They shouted. “Why would you be wanting to do that then?” The man asked. “We want to get to the other side” they explained patiently. “Don’t be daft,” the man replied. “You’re already on the other side!”
And we don’t always interpret what we see correctly. Our interpretations can be distorted by our presuppositions, our preconceived ideas, the things we assume and take for granted. Advert - "What do u see?" 1. Scruffy black man running along street behind a well-dressed white man. Is it a mugger chasing his victim? 2nd picture - pull back - wider picture shows Policeman in uniform running after the black man. Perhaps that confirms your interpretation. What do u see? Answer = picture of 2 policeman pursuing a criminal - black man was a detective in plain clothes. How we interpret what we see depends upon our point of view, our presuppositions, our world view. Especially if we only see half of the picture we may well completely misunderstand what we see.
Some scientists face this problem when they come to think about God. How we interpret stories, facts, events, evidence, is blinkered by our presuppositions. We all know the story of boy who cried wolf. How one day a wolf actually came and attacked the flock but when the boy shouted "wolf" the villagers thought he was joking yet again and didnt come so the sheep and boy were killed. What's the moral of that story? We probably think it is about the importance of never telling lies. But maybe that just reflects our presuppositions. In Star Trek DS9 when Garek the alien Cardassian who had been a leader in their secret police was asked for the moral of that fable, he saw things differently. “Surely it is the importance of never telling the same lie twice!” If a person starts off with the wrong assumptions, the same evidence can reinforce those wrong ideas! GESTALT SHIFT PICTURES - WHAT do u see in the picture above? A young woman or an old hag? BOTH are there in the picture. when mind switches from seeing one to other the picture hasnt changed, only your interpretation of it. Its possible to get so locked into seeing the picture in one particular way that u cant see the other. But once u have seen both it is impossible to argue that only one image is there and the other is not. Many examples of optical illusions where it takes a perception shift, a gestalt shift, to see the image in its different ways. Many people are so blinded by the way the media suggests that science has replaced God that they simply cannot see God. Some scientists are so locked into their way of looking at the world that they genuinely cannot see the evidence for God which is all around them. But for anyone who looks for it that evidence is there plain to see.
************************************************************************** 3. CREATION AND EVOLUTION
Has evolution disproved the Bible Is the Bible account of God creating the world in 6 days true? Here I suggest the real issue is philosophical. It’s nothing to do with science and everything to do with how we understand the Bible. The real question is what do we mean by “truth”?
True or False? (a) 2 + 2 = 4 (b) force equals mass times acceleration (c) Henry the Eighth had six wives (d) "He's got a frog in his throat." (e) Romeo loves Juliet. (f) God is love. (g) "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them."
What do we mean by True and False? - Mathematical truth starts from certain basic assumptions, or axioms, and derives from them by defined operations other "mathematical truths" which are proved totally theoretically. - Truth in science is based on observations and experiments from which theories are deduced. A theory or model is only true if it successfully explains and predicts the results of practical experiments. - Truth in historical events and people can still be accepted even though there may be little evidence remaining of what actually happened many centuries ago. - "Romeo loves Juliet" cannot be proved scientifically or historically, but only in the experience of the people in love. (Here – true in the story world, but did they ever exist? Does that matter?)
There are many different areas of knowledge; mathematics, science, history, literature, morality, philosophy and religion too. Each area has different ideas of truth within it, with different ways of determining what is true or false. Historical facts cannot be proved "true" mathematically because the rules of mathematics do not apply to history. Moral questions of right and wrong, like "Is murder wrong?" cannot be decided using scientific principles alone, because the scientific method of reasoning is not necessarily valid when applied to moral issues.
Different Kinds of Language
The different kinds of knowledge can use language in different ways. Poetry is not always literal. Consider, "Tiger Tiger burning bright, in the forest of the night." This poetry does not mean that the tiger is actually on fire!
Religious truth is a distinct kind of truth concerned with things infinite, eternal and spiritual, things we can never fully understand or adequately describe. Religious truth cant always be explained in the language or judged by the sorts of ways of thinking which belong to other kinds of knowledge. Eternal and spiritual truths often can’t be expressed in literal language. So religious truth is usually expressed in words used symbolically or poetically, using similes and metaphors, sometimes bending language almost to breaking point. We make a big mistake if we try to understand literally language which was intended to be understood symbolically. It’s an issue of interpretation.
When we approach the Bible we must try to work out what kind of language it is, what kind of truth it is trying to communicate. There are many different kinds of language in the Bible -history, parable, law, letter, proverb, and the highly symbolic language of prophecy and revelation.
As an example, think about when Jesus told his parables. Was he quoting historical truth? Was the "Good Samaritan" a real living person? Did a genuine "Prodigal Son" ever leave his father? Were the parables history? Or were they instead carefully constructed stories which convey spiritual truth.
We have to ask similar questions about the Creation Narratives in Genesis chapters 1-2. "Are they intended to be scientific truth?" "Is the language literal or is it instead symbolic or poetical, or some combination of these kinds of language (genres)?" It seems very unlikely that the writers were trying to produce a textbook of science and history. For one thing science and history as we know them have only been invented over the last few hundred years! These Bible accounts of creation have been around for 3000 years or more. It seems much more likely that Genesis was written to present religious truth in an enduring form.
Let's remember another obvious but very important thing which makes the Creation Stories in Genesis different from every other part of the Bible. From Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 onwards people were actually there - people who could tell their stories to their children. But for the accounts of creation NOBODY was there! Everything in Genesis 1-2 must have been revealed by God to those writers in some way because before there were people on earth NOBODY was there! And it would have been revealed in ways that the people THEN could understand, not in the language of history and science which weren't going to be invented for thousands of years.
When it comes to creation science and religion are asking different questions. Science wants to know HOW the universe began, HOW did life begin and develop. Religion is asking WHO was behind it all, WHY did life begin, what is the PURPOSE of it all?
SO How did the Universe begin? And How did life on Earth develop?
If people are honest, we just don't know about the question of how the universe, and in particular life on earth, began. There are three kinds of approaches to the origin of the universe which many people believe today.
(a) Purely Scientific Views: The Universe began with a "big bang" or else it has always existed in a "steady state", or if Stephen Hawking is right it doesn’t even need to have a beginning at all. Then over the millenia, life has developed through evolution, a perfectly natural and chance process. This view is remarkably popular with non-scientists who often think that everything can be explained by "science". Good scientists know it's not that simple!
(b) Biblical Creation View: One Jewish and Christian view is that the account of creation found in the Bible (in Genesis chs 1-2) is literally, historically and scientifically true. So God took six days of 24 hours to create the world and evolution (which is after all only a theory, not a proven fact) cannot have occurred.
(c) Symbolic Biblical View: Other Christians, just as committed to the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God, believe that Genesis is teaching religious and not scientific truth. So the language of the Biblical account of creation is symbolic rather than necessarily literal. So Genesis teaches WHO it was who created the earth (God) and WHY, but not scientifically HOW it all took place. The issue is the correct interpretation of the texts.
This view regards the "days" in Genesis as long periods of time. This is a perfectly acceptable symbolic meaning for the word for day yom found elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. Psalm 90:4). Ps 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Other parts of the account are SURELY symbolic - God "said" (what language did God say it in?) God "breathed" into Adam's nostrils. when we're talking about God human language HAS to be symbolic. When it says "days" surely these are God's days. It's not necessarly, and probably a wrong way to approach the Bible as God's Word, to insist that the days are literal 24 hour periods. (There wasnt even a sun or a moon until the third day!)
Notice how well the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 actually fits with scientific ideas of evolution, ideas which didnt come alone till thousands of years after Genesis was written. So we can accept the idea of development or evolution. There probably were dinosaurs, living and dying out before humans were created in that long long period of the fifth "day" in Genesis 1:20 .
So evolution probably happened. But sensible scientists will realise that the probability of life in all its complexity appearing by the operation of mere random chance would be exceedingly low! So we believe God must have intervened by "guiding" evolution, continuing the process of creation.
Consider the wonders of nature; the complexity of human brain and eye, the action of enzymes, the interplay beween DNA, RNA and proteins in replication and inheritance, and countless other phenomena. It is so unlikely that these marvels "evolved" by pure chance, and sometimes in opposition to so-called natural selection. Design points to the existence of a Designer, the Architect of the Universe, "God".
In Genesis 1:27 and 2:7 man is created in the (spiritual) image of God by the inbreathing of the breath (or spirit) of life. Many Christians understand this as God giving the dimension of spiritual experience to animals which had already developed through evolution, making them "Man" by giving them rational, moral and spiritual qualities. Psychologists and philosophers find it impossible to explain how human beings developed consciousness and conscience, and appreciation of beauty and the desire to pray and worship. Evolution never claims to explain these things, and never could! The Christian explanation is simple - God made us this way, in His image!
Science describes the way the world works. Faith is concerned with the God who is above science, who created and sustains the scientific laws which scientists study but is inevitably Himself outside the scope of "scientific" study. Science does not, and cannot, prove that God doesn't exist. Science is very good at explaining how this world works and how we can control it. But it has its limits - and GOOD scientists recognise those limits. Science will never ultimately be able to explain how the world began. Science cannot give us any answers about things in the universe which we cannot see or touch, the whole spiritual realm.
The most important questions about creation are these. WHY did life begin? WHAT IS the purpose of our existence? WHAT IS the meaning of life? Science can't answer these questions. The Bible can!
Faith and science: the supernatural and miracles, the existence of God, creation and evolution - things to say to your friends when they ask, things to think about.
4. HAS SCIENCE DISPROVED CREATION?
Hasn’t science disproved the Bible – specifically Creation? Genesis 1:1-27
In our sermons we are looking at “Questions People are asking” and here is the question for today. “Hasn’t Science disproved the Bible – specifically Creation?”
Do we really believe that God created the Earth? Lots of people don’t. The media don’t. Most scientists don’t. Only ten days ago the science academies of 67 countries including our own Royal Society spoke out very strongly against the idea of a seven day creation, and in favour of the theory of evolution. They were particularly critical of teaching of what is called “Young Earth Creationism” in universities, and even to schoolchildren in “faith schools” in the north east of England. You may have seen their protest reported in the broadsheets or on internet news pages. The best coverage was in no less than four articles in the newspaper for academics, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, with another article and six letters to the editor last Friday too.
“Hasn’t Science disproved the Bible – specifically Creation?” The world’s scientists have just put this question on the agenda for public debate. So this morning I want to set the record straight about what I believe about Creation and Evolution, Science and Faith.
I want to make six simple points. I want to tell you all the points right at the beginning, so you know where I am going, and then unpack them one by one.
1) All Christians believe that God created the universe2) Science assumes that everything came into existence by natural processes and random chance 3) Science will never prove decisively whether God created everything or not 4) Science gives us evidence which is consistent with intelligent design 5) 7 day “Young Earth Creationism” or “guided evolution” “Old Earth Creationism” is a matter of Biblical Interpretation for Christians
6)
Focus on proving a 7-day creation distracts people from the more
important task of pointing to God as Creator
So there are my six points – let me explain them in more detail. Some of them, like the first, will take a while to explain. Don’t worry because others are very short.
1) All Christians believe that God created the universei) The Nicene Creed:I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisibleii) Bible teaches that God is Creator: Creation out of nothing AND forming/shaping/designing
In Genesis 1-2 we read God created/made Gen 1:1 heavens and the earth 1:21 creatures of sea and every living and moving thing 1:25 wild animals and livestock 1:26-27 human beings, male and female in His image
2:4 heavens and earth 2:19 “formed out of the ground” all the beasts of the field and birds of the air
We also find God specifically named as Creator in Genesis 5, 6 and 14, Exodus 20 and 31, Deuteronomy 4 and 32 Psalms 89, 104, 148 Ecclesiastes
Prophets like Amos, Habakkuk and Malachi call God creator, but it is a special theme of Isaiah
Isaiah 40:26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Isaiah 40:28 The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. Isaiah 42: 5. This is what God the LORD says- he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: Isaiah 43, 45, 57
God is creator in PAUL: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy 4:4 And In letters of James 1:18, 1 Peter 4:19 and Hebrews
Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
God is declared creator in the words of Jesus Himself: Mark 10:6 6 and Mark 13:19
Jesus is named as Creator – Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
God is our Creator – this is at the heart of what we believe!
2)
Science assumes that everything came into existence by natural processes
and random chance From the subtle unchallenged assumption of evolution in David Attenborough’s natural history films, to the explicit anti-theism of Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones, science and the media are united in rejecting the idea of a Creator. Possibly the greatest Science Fiction author Isaac Asimov made the same mistake as very many people - "I am an atheist, out and out. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he does not that I don't want to waste my time." The large majority of scientists close their minds to the evidence for God's existence - so in the end he can’t see what many others can! But Christians HAVE seen that evidence. We have experienced the power of God and seen him at work! Scientists should NOT ignore that evidence, but rethink their scientific assumptions until their science fits with the real world! It was Albert Einstein who said “Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame.”
“Posterity will some day laugh at the foolishness of our modern materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature the more I am amazed at the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur
3) Science will never prove decisively whether God created everything or not
i) Knowing God as creator is a matter of faith Hebrews 11:3
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
This verse says to me that science will never ever give conclusive proof about the process of creation or even the existence of God. We will always need faith to interpret the scientific evidence correctly.
“God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically-minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job.” J. B. Phillips (1906–1982)
ii)
God is by definition outside/beyond/before the universe
iii)
We need a “change of mind” to see God Two people were walking along a river bank one day when they saw a man across the river. “How can we get across?” They shouted. “Why would you be wanting to do that then?” The man asked. “We want to get to the other side” they explained patiently. “Don’t be daft,” the man replied. “You’re already on the other side!” What we see depends on our point of view, on where we are standing to begin with
GESTALT SHIFT PICTURE - WHAT do u see in this picture? Young woman or old hag. BOTH are there in the picture. when mind switches from seeing one to other the picture hasnt changed, only your interpretation of it. Its possible to get so locked into seeing the picture in one particular way that you cant see the other. But once u have seen both it is impossible to argue that only one image is there and the other is not. Many examples of optical illusions where it takes a perception shift, a gestalt shift, to see the image in its different ways. Many people are so blinded by the way the media suggests that science has replaced God that they simply cannot see God. Some scientists are so locked into their way of looking at the world that they genuinely cannot see the evidence for God which is all around them. But for anyone who looks for it with the eye of faith, that evidence is plain to see. Scientists just need to switch their way of looking at the world – to move from a world which excludes God to a world which allows the possibility of God in it.
4)
Science gives us evidence which is consistent with intelligent design
i)
Examples of design - “Irreducible complexity” Consider the wonders of nature; the complexity of human brain and eye, the action of enzymes, the interplay beween DNA, RNA and proteins in replication and inheritance, and countless other phenomena. It is so unlikely that these marvels "evolved" by pure chance, and sometimes in opposition to so-called natural selection. Design points to the existence of a Designer, the Architect of the Universe, "God".
ii) The origins of spirituality
In Genesis 1:27 and 2:7 man is created in the (spiritual) image of God by the inbreathing of the breath (or spirit) of life. Many Christians understand this as God giving the dimension of spiritual experience to animals which had already developed through evolution, making them "Man" by giving them rational, moral and spiritual qualities. Psychologists and philosophers find it impossible to explain how human beings developed consciousness and conscience, and appreciation of beauty and the desire to pray and worship. Evolution never claims to explain these things, and never could! The Christian explanation is simple - God made us this way, in His image!
iii) A “finely-tuned” universe Design/Guidance could be step by step interventions, or could be in the “fine-tuning” of universal constants creating a universe where life as we know it would come to exist. If we believe miracles happen (or have happened) then there is no problem in an old earth / guided evolution, God steering the development of life at key stages.
iv) The improbabilities of evolution by random chance alone
Even if evolution was the mechanism by which life as we know it came into existence on earth, it seems obvious to many people that the probability of such complicated beings as ourselves evolving by random chance alone is infinitesimally small. But we did! So that suggests to the eye of faith that God had a hand in our development now and then!
5)
7 day “Young Earth Creationism” versus “guided evolution” or “Old Earth
Creationism” is a matter of Biblical Interpretation for Christians i) Whole weight of Young Earth Creationism rests on interpreting Day as literal 24 hours
ii) You don’t have to believe in a 7-day creation to believe in the infallibility of the Bible “Young Earth Creationists” say that if you don’t believe in a 7-day creation then you don’t believe in the authority of the Bible! That is just rubbish! Old Earth creationists are as committed to the authority and reliability of the Bible as anybody else – they are actually disagreeing over the meaning of just one word as it is used in just three passages of Scripture.
iii) Events of creation were revealed, not observed
Until Day 6 no humans around
so not from human observation, had to have been revealed in some way –
revelations subject to interpretation – more often symbolic than literal iv) There are different kinds of language in the Bible: some is symbolic or metaphorical
When we approach a Bible passage we must try to work out what kind of language it is written in. Eternal and spiritual truths, things we can never fully understand or adequately describe, often can’t be expressed in literal language. So religious truth is usually expressed in words used symbolically or poetically, using similes and metaphors, sometimes bending language almost to breaking point. We make a big mistake if we try to understand literally language which was intended to be understood symbolically.
For example, think about when Jesus told his parables. Was the "Good Samaritan" a real living person? Did a genuine "Prodigal Son" ever leave his father? Were the parables history? These carefully constructed stories convey powerful spiritual truth without necessarily relating to historical events. We have to ask similar questions about the Creation Narratives in Genesis chapters 1-2. Are they intended to be scientific truth? "Is the language literal or is it instead symbolic or poetical language?
“Old Earth Creationists”, like me, are just as committed to the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God. But we believe that Genesis is teaching religious and not scientific truth. So the language of the Biblical account of creation is symbolic rather than necessarily literal. Genesis teaches WHO it was who created the earth (God) and WHY, but not scientifically HOW it all took place.
Old Earth Creationists regard the "days" in Genesis as long periods of time. Other parts of the account are SURELY symbolic - God "said" (what language did God say it in?) God "breathed" into Adam's nostrils. When we're talking about what God “says” and “does” human language HAS to be symbolic. When it says "days" surely these are God's days. It's not necessarily right, and probably wrong, to insist that the days in Genesis 1-2 have to be understood as literal 24 hour periods. (There were not even a sun or a moon until the third day!)
Notice how well the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 actually fits with scientific ideas of evolution, ideas which did not come alone till thousands of years after Genesis was written. So we can accept the idea of development or evolution. There probably were dinosaurs, living and dying out before humans were created in that long long period of the fifth "day.
v) The word “day” does not necessarily refer to a 24-hour period: (a) 2 Peter 3:8 (quoting Psa 90:4) ¶ But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (b) Phrases such as “the Day of the Lord”
vi) Day could be from God’s perspective not human – no more problem!!!
vii) Language of Science or History as we know it is only 18th century onwards
The problem which I have with Young Earth Creationists is that they are fighting the wrong war on the wrong battleground! The challenge is NOT to prove to the scientific world that the earth came into being in 7 days only 8000 years ago. The challenge which the Young Earth Creationists keep dodging is to prove to the wider world and the mainstream Church that the word “day” in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis HAS to carry the literal meaning of a 24 hour period of time, and cannot possibly in any way shape or form be symbolic language. That is not a question of science but a question of Biblical interpretation and systematic theology, and NONE of the so called “creation scientists” has enough training or competence in theology or linguistics or hermeneutics to begin to give a decent answer to that question. Until the 7 day creationists actually address that issue, competent theologians are not going to take them seriously, and nor are mainstream scientists!
6)
Focus on proving a 7-day creation distracts people from the more
important task of pointing to God as Creator Almighty God is Creator of Heaven and Earth! Whether the earth was created in seven 24 hour days is an issue of Biblical interpretation, not science. The debate between science and seven day "Young Earth Creationism" is a red herring from the vital Christian message we have to proclaim about God as Creator.
i) Creation in 7 days is only mentioned in THREE places
Creation in seven days only THREE places –
Genesis 1-2, Genesis 2:3
Then the seven days of creation are given as the reason for the 4th commandment in Exodus 20 repeated in Exodus 31
Ex 31:17 the Sabbath, …. will be a sign between me and the Israelites for ever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'"
But there is an interesting CHANGE of reason in 10 cmdmts as listed in Deuteronomy 5:14 where the reason given for the Sabbath is NOT the seven days of creation but instead Deut 5: 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
NO other references to 7 days of creation apart from one reference to the Sabbath quoting Exodus in Hebrews 4:3-4.
ii) Battle for “young earth” is a major barrier for some, especially scientists
Public arguments over Young Earth Creationism is likely to drive people away from God, not bring them to God. That certainly happened to some of my friends who today are eminent scientists.
So, “Has science disproved the Bible, specifically creation?” You must make up your own mind. Science casts some doubts on whether creation took place over the space of seven 24 hour days just 8000 years ago. But I think that good principles of Biblical Interpretation cast doubt on whether the Bible really teaches Young Earth Creationism anyway. That all hinges on whether one single word should be interpreted literally or symbolically!! What the Bible DEFINITELY teaches is that Almighty God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. With the eye of faith, we can see the Hand of the Designer, the eternal architect, in all He has made. And science which studies the wonders of creation will never ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of the Creator who is beyond and above His creation.
Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
|
Send mail to
peter@pbthomas.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
