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 bei 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. [↩]
Discover more from Proclaim & Defend
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
