The Problem of Evolution vs Creationism

The Dilemma

As fitting as it is, the topic of Genesis was not my intended first post for the year, but since it keeps coming up juxtaposed evolution in media and other blogs[1]  I have decided to weigh-in.  Let me begin by saying the Evolution vs Genesis 1-2 debate is a faulty one (given that Genesis is the creation account most often attacked).   I cannot offer much to the discussion of evolution, but I do know that science works off of empirical evidence to support its theories and while it does not have a lot to offer to the God vs no-God discussion, it does know a little something about biological progression.  In light of that evidence the Genesis-origin account does not add up. 

On the other side of this, and more to the point of my discussion, it has led many Christians to hold fast to young-earth theory, so to cling to Genesis as a literal account, and it has also led other Christians to see science as being correct and therefore looking at Genesis as a metaphorical text. This is to say that Genesis is not attempting to offer science because it has a much bigger point to get across.  Therefore, the endless debate has ensued over whether we should be reading Genesis literally or metaphorically.  Perhaps the answer is both so long as it is in the right context.

Whose Cosmology?

As with any text, ancient or modern, it helps to know a little something about when it was written, the circumstances driving its composition and the genre it belonged to.  If we begin with Genesis' authorship (or even the Pentateuch as a whole) by logic and tradition it has long been attributed to Moses dating as far back as the 15^th century BC, but the evidence shows that Genesis (as we know it) was composed somewhere in the exilic to post-exilic era from around 600-400 BC.[2] This aspect is critical because the authors of this time period were reframing their understanding of the creation-texts and traditions through the lens of common Near-Eastern cosmology, worldviews and assumptions that existed throughout the ancient world.  Thus we must first look at Genesis as ancient cosmology and not impose our modern science onto the text.  John Walton points out that there was not one revelation given to the ancient Israelites that sought to correct their thinking about the cosmos, rather YHWH accommodates his speech to fit their thinking so to communicate effectively.  In the ancient world the people “did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the birds flying in the air. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as to hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today.”[3]  This is the first set aspects to consider when interpreting Genesis.

 Material Origins is Our Thing

 The other main aspect of the Near Eastern world comes down to ontological factors (i.e. what does it mean to exist).  We in the modern age spend a lot of time attempting to understand the material ontology of our biological world, but this was not the case for the ancient people.  For them the material/physical aspect of the world was a blind presupposition that was, at best, of little interest.  Rather, their concern was functional ontology.  This is equal to the average person today caring about what materials and processes went into making their new phone, computer, car or whatever… they don’t!   The average person only wants to know how their technology works, how it is powered and what can it do.  This is function and function was not only the fascination of the ancient world about the world, but they went as far as to say that things which lacked function and order also lacked existence.[4]  For them an ancient temple could be materially built to all its specifications, but until people were in it actively doing their temple/priestly duties it was not a temple and so it was with creation.  We see this in the opening of Genesis.  It does not actually begin with nothing, but shows a lack of function and order in the cosmos.  This is seen in verse 2 which uses the Hebraic adjectives “tohu” (formless) and “bohu” (void) to describe the state of the earth.  However, Walton suggests that the word tohu translated as formless is the translator’s attempt to interpret from a material origin mindset when the technical translation of tohu should read “unproductive”.[5]  Accordingly, we can see the seven days of creation not as God materializing the physical universe, but rather it was the act of God establishing roles, order and functions for the universe.  Though I will not go into an in depth interpretation of all seven days, Walton makes an important observation that in days 1-3 God is establishing functions and in days 4-6 he is installing those functions.

God Took the Day Off?

The last aspect that offers no actual science, but gives purpose to the text, is day seven when we finally are given the genre of Genesis 1-2 and the climax of God’s role in it all, yet any modern reader is bound to miss it.  The verse says that it is on this day that God rested (Gen. 2:2).  Many in the past have considered rest an afterthought and quickly moved past it.  However, the Near Eastern reader, as Walton has shown, would have seen the action of God resting and knew this text was not myth, history, or science, but a temple text.  In ancient times deities only rested in their temples. Moreover, the essence of “divine rest” was not that of human rest, but it suggested that all was in order and now the deity was ready to engage in ruling. This is also the basis for the seven days as it too is a symbol of completion and it made way for the understanding that cosmos was and is God’s tabernacle. This imagery pervades the Old Testament (Psalm 132:7-8; 13-14) revealing that God is always ruling and always working in creation. This is the reason for the absence of miracles (God intervening) in the OT because God was never thought to have left.  Ergo, the functional origin is much more congruent with who God had always revealed himself to be.  One can then see that when we give ourselves to the material-origin interpretation, creation becomes digressed to an inaccurate event that was over and done with long ago, but in the functional reading it becomes the launching pad for God’s work that began and is constantly continuing forward.[6]  Terence Fretheim termed it the relational model of creation in which both God and creatures have an important role within the grand scheme of creative enterprise when it comes to function and effect.  God has created an overlapping sphere of interdependence and creative responsibility wherein the creatures can rest assured that God is unalterably committed to human care, life and remaining deeply immersed in it for the sake of a new creation.[7]  The act of God coming to tabernacle in the cosmos with humankind was his purposeful action from the beginning and it repeated itself through the Bible and is the end goal to come. 

So, for those who felt like they could not find compatibility between their science class and their Bible, rest assured that the two are working  with completely different sciences that are seeking completely different objectives. 

References

[1] The subject gained attention because the upcoming debate between “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and “Ken Ham the Creationist Man” in February.  Here are a few of the discussion links: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christandpopculture/2014/01/bill-nye-vs-ken-ham-continuing-the-american-tradition-of-spectacle-and-culture-war/;   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-hill/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-three-things_b_4570330.html;  http://scribalishess.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/reading-genesis-1-literally/

[2] The work done in form criticism and redaction criticism reveals that the Pentateuch compilation fits the profile of Hezekiah’s and Ezra’s time period and as Brueggemann shows was likely a response to the Babylonian exile. Israel was possibly looking to maintain or regain their identity as the nation chosen to reveal YHWH to the rest of the world, but it had to show how their God was different from what the surrounding pagan nations believed about their gods and those deities subsequent modes of creation.  Also Peter Enns offers a well structured analysis on how we can arrive at this conclusion.  Walter Brueggemann. Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress 1997), 74.  Peter Enns. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press 2012), 9-34.

[3] John H. Walton. The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2009), 16.

[4] Ibid, 35.

[5] Ibid, 48-49.

[6] Ibid, 72-73, 77.

[7]Terrence E. Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press 2005), 26-27.