Incompatible Trajectories [Creation vs. Evolution]
Recent days have seen numerous attempts to harmonize the creation account in the Bible with the evolutionary science accepted by most of the scientific community. These attempts to harmonize creation and evolution have come primarily from the Christian community. Atheists either ignore or summarily dismiss creation (and creation science) because they view the Bible as a fairytale. They have no interest in harmonizing science with a fairytale. Christians, on the other hand, have a vested interest in the Bible. Therefore, many want to accept both science and the Bible (dismissing neither).
Most young-earth creationists begin with the authority of Scripture. Then they proceed to evaluate scientific data in a way that is consistent with Scripture. Any element of evolutionary thought that contradicts the Bible is rejected. Most young-earth creationists are not anti-science. They see great value in the contributions that science makes to everyday life. They reject only those scientific conclusions that are not supported by a literal reading of the Bible. In this way, most young-earth creationists view the Bible and correctly interpreted scientific conclusions as compatible.
Most old-earth creationists begin with the authority of science. Then they proceed to evaluate the interpretive conclusions of the Bible made by believers. Any interpretation of the Bible that is contrary to the “facts” of science is rejected. Most old-earth creationists are not anti-Bible. They see great value in the truths of Scripture for everyday life. They reject only those interpretations of the Bible that are not supported by an evolutionary approach to science. In this way, most old-earth creationists view science and correctly interpreted Bible conclusions as compatible.
As a result, most old-earth creationists reject a literal interpretation of the creation account in the Book of Genesis. Instead, they prefer an interpretation of Genesis 1–11 that is in some way figurative. If, as scientists suggest, the earth is billions of years old, one cannot accept the six days in Genesis 1–2 as literal. This approach is championed by individuals and groups such as BioLogos. On the main page of its website, “BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.”1 The president of BioLogos, Deborah Haarsma, says, “We are working to show Christians (especially Evangelicals) better ways to understand the harmony between God’s Word and God’s world—including a clear presentation of the evidence in God’s world for evolution and age, and a serious discussion of what the Bible really teaches on these topics.”2 For Haarsma, it is the interpretation of the Bible that needs to change, not the interpretations of the scientific data.
In order to justify a figurative interpretation to Genesis 1–11, some claim that the early chapters of Genesis are simply a poem or myth or fable. These chapters have some spiritual purpose (to communicate a message of faith) but are not written to provide any scientific information. A more recent figurative approach to the Bible appeals to the concept of accommodation. Proponents of this view say that the Holy Spirit accommodated the revelation in Scripture to the scientific understanding of the human author at the time of writing. For example, Denis O. Lamoureux writes that when Moses spoke of the waters above the firmament in Genesis 1:7, he “believed the blue of the sky was a body of water that God made on the second day of creation. But today modern science has determined that this is a visual effect due to the scattering of short-wave light in the upper atmosphere.”3 Because Moses did not understand shortwave light, the Spirit moved him to write about a water canopy (which he could understand). Lamoureux goes on to explain, “Despite these radically different understandings of the physical work, the inerrant Message of Faith remains steadfast: the blue body/effect overhead was created by God.”4
Based on this concept of accommodation, proponents argue that every time Moses wrote something that is different than the modern scientific consensus, it was just an accommodation to Moses’ limited thinking of the day. However, it did nothing to threaten the inerrant theological message that Moses communicated via the Holy Spirit.
It is noble to claim that God’s inerrant theological message remains steadfast. However, one must consider whether adjusting the interpretation of the Bible so it harmonizes with current evolutionary consensus ever threatens the inerrant theological message of the Bible. If God’s message is changed, it does threaten (even damage) the theology of the Bible. As a case in point, consider what accepting the inherent upward trajectory of evolutionary theory does to the downward trajectory of God’s inerrant theological message.
Biblical Trajectory
The Bible presents a downward trajectory for God’s creation. God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and pronounced His creation “very good” (Gen. 1:31). God’s original creation was not marred by sin. It was the best it would ever be. When sin entered the human race, all creation was impacted negatively. Sickness and death came into the world, and God cursed His creation (Gen. 3). Now all creation is in bondage to corruption and is subjected to futility (Rom. 8:20–22). Because of the bondage to corruption the earth is wearing out like a garment (Heb. 1:11). God created man as a healthy, intelligent being. After sin entered the human race every aspect of man is corrupted by sin: his body, his soul, and his mind. Nothing God created is getting better. It is decaying and getting worse.
Evolutionary Trajectory
Science presents an upward trajectory for the earth and its inhabitants. Life began with single-cell creatures. Through billions of years of evolution those single-cell creatures eventually evolved into more advanced plants and creatures. Eventually, Neanderthals evolved and then primitive man. Man continued to evolve upwards into a more sophisticated social being. While scientists do not all agree on the path of evolution, the consensus is an upward path: simple to complex, primitive to advanced. Nothing that evolved is getting worse. This may be a bit of an oversimplification, but it accurately describes the overall trajectory of evolution.
Examples of Incompatibility
The biblical and evolutionary trajectories are not compatible. Creation cannot be getting better and getting worse at the same. A couple of examples will clarify this conflict.
First, there are different views of civilization. Richard Leakey describes an evolutionary view of civilization.
For perhaps 100,000 years Homo sapiens were successful hunters and gatherers, living in small bands, part of larger social and political alliances. Their material worlds were surely limited, but their mythic worlds undoubtedly were rich, and these treasures passed from generation to generation. Then, between twenty thousand and ten thousand years ago, people began to organize their practical lives differently, sometimes exploiting plentiful food resources in a way that allowed less mobility, more stability, perhaps more possessions. Finally, from ten thousand years onward, food production— as against food gathering— became more common, villages sprang up, small towns, cities, city-states, and eventually nation-states. What we call civilization had arrived, founded on generations of slow cultural changes.5
The trajectory of evolution is upward: from primitive to civilized. And this upward trek took 100,000 years.
The Bible presents a view of civilization that is quite different. The first two people in the Bible were married (a mark of a civilized society). Their children were not hunters and gatherers. Abel was a shepherd and Cain was a farmer (Gen. 4:2). Cain’s son built a city (Gen. 4:17). Genesis 4 also mentions dwelling in tents, raising livestock, playing musical instruments, and iron and bronze workers. The very first humans mentioned in the Bible are already “advanced” in their civilization. The Bible presents mankind as “civilized” from the moment he was created.
It is incompatible to believe that man spent 100,000 years before he became civilized and to believe that the very first men who lived were civilized. These trajectories clash. Evolution and the Bible cannot both be right. In addition, there is no accommodation here. When the Bible says that Abel was a shepherd, he knew what a shepherd was. We do not have any advanced science today that makes Moses’ view of keeping sheep limited in any way.
Second, there are different views of the origin of religion. Robert Bellah, introducing a chapter entitled “Religion and Evolution,” says,
Chapter 1 was about religion and ontogeny. It was not an effort to understand the development of religion in the life course of the individual, though that would be a valuable undertaking; instead its purpose was to look at human development as the acquisition of a series of capacities, all of which have contributed to the formation of religions. This chapter is about religion and phylogeny, religion in deep history. When did religion begin? If we assume, as I do, that religion as defined in the Preface and Chapter 1 is confined to the genus Homo and perhaps even to the species Homo sapiens, where do that genus and species stand in relation to the whole story of evolution as far back as we can go? And what do I mean by evolution as a process that includes everything from single-cell organisms to contemporary human society and culture? That is what this chapter is about.6
While there are various explanations among evolutionists regarding how man developed religion, Bellah illustrates what is common. Original man was incapable of religious thought. Man had to acquire the capacities necessary before he could develop religions. As man evolved, he gained the capacities necessary to create and worship gods. The trajectory is upward. After man evolved to a higher level, he became capable of religious thought and worship.
The Bible presents a different view of the origin of religion. Adam and Eve were communicating with God on a regular basis in the Garden of Eden from the moment they were created (Gen. 1–3). Their children Cain and Abel were offering sacrifices to God (Gen. 4). Man was created with the capacities necessary for religion and worship. By Genesis 6 man had abandoned worship of God and was living only evil continually. This is a downward trajectory.
These two views of religion are not compatible. Either the first humans could worship or the first humans were not capable of worship (because they had not yet evolved the necessary capacities). This trajectory cannot be explained with an appeal to accommodation in language either. The Bible and scientific consensus cannot be harmonized on this point.
Conclusion
The trajectories of the Bible and evolution are not compatible. If one takes the Bible seriously, he will admit that it presents a downward trajectory. If one is honest with evolutionary thought, he will admit it presents an upward trajectory. In fact, an upward trajectory is inherent to evolutionary theory. Logic dictates that both of these trajectories cannot be true at the same time. Either Adam and Eve were worshipping, civilized human beings or they were cavemen that had not yet developed the capacities necessary for worship. We must choose whether we are going to trust the Bible or evolutionary consensus. Harmonization is not possible here.
Dr. Andrew Hudson is professor of New Testament at Maranatha Baptist Seminary in Watertown, Wisconsin.
Originally published in FrontLine • May/June 2016. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
Be sure to check out our new digital format! (Print still available also.)
Image by ChaosNet1701 on Deviant Art. Usage under a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.
- http://biologos.org, accessed February 8, 2016. [↩]
- http://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidentsnotebook/new-pew-poll-shows-that-strongly-religious-americans-see-less-conflict-with-science, accessed February 8, 2016. [↩]
- Denis O. Lamoureux, “Evolutionary Creation: Moving Beyond the Evolution versus Creation Debate,” Christian Higher Education 9 (2010), 40. [↩]
- Ibid. [↩]
- Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human (New York: Anchor Books, 1992), 351–52. [↩]
- Robert N. Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011), 44. [↩]