Can Creation and Science Coexist?

Intro

Open with my Bible jokes with Reg -> “In the big inning”

Had to start lighthearted, because Genesis 1 can be a pretty controversial topic

This whole series I aim to treat your doubts and questions with care, humility and an open mind

I ask that you do the same for me

Today we are asking, “Can Creation and science co-exist?”

Short answer: Yes! Let’s see how this is possible...

Faith vs. Science

Open with a dubious shout out to the Ken Hamm v. Bill Nye debate in 2014 (both with only bachelor degrees)

Not in conflict… when each respects the realm of authority of the other

The Bible is uninterested in teaching modern scientific details

It is instead much more focused on teaching us about God (and our relationship with Him)

Science is unable to make existential claims

Use Denis Lameroux’s analogy of cell information from his Tedx Talk

Instead, it is possible for faith and science to coexist

Introduce Ian Barbour’s spectrum: Conflict -> dialogue -> integration -> independence

Both extremes are unhelpful; moderate views work best when “science and religious faith recognize their respective spheres of authority”

The coexistence of faith and science has been very true for years

Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Michael Faraday, Galileo, Blaise Pascal and many others viewed their scientific endeavours as an act of worship

“To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate in degree the wonderful working of His laws, surely all of this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.” (Nicolaus Copernicus)

Ironically it was the church that rejected his notion the earth orbited the sun (conflict)

Don’t listen to polarizing rhetoric on either side; faith is still present in science today

Point to the study in Tim Keller’s book: read page 92

Deeper Dive into Genesis 1 - 2

When it comes to Creation and science, can we still see dialogue and integration, or only conflict?

In particular, we are talking about Genesis 1 - 2 in the Bible and “big bang” cosmology and biological evolution as sceintific theories

Big bang = The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began. It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is still stretching! (nasa.gov)

Evolution = In biology, evolution is the change in the characteristics of a species over several generations and relies on the process of natural selection. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time.

Since I am not a scientist, we won’t dive into the deep end here, but instead in Genesis 1 - 2.

Let’s use our ground rules to properly interpret Genesis 1 - 2 (laid groundwork last week)

Ground rule #1: The message of the Bible must be understood by the original audience

Ancient science as opposed to modern science

Show picture again and draw parallels to the description in Genesis 1 by reading verses 1 - 19.

It is inaccurate for us to expect Genesis to give details on modern science

Genesis is not focused on the science, and any scientific “details” are to fit an ancient point of view

This is an example of “accomodation”

God is using language that is understandable to explain a concept that is far to big for us to grasp (the Creation of the entire universe as described in days)

Imagine an Israelite elder sitting down around a campfire with younger students and saying, “In the beginning...”

Ground rule #2: Genre makes a difference

We read history differently than poetry, etc.

But what genre is Genesis 1 - 2? This question is the heart of the debate as to how we understand it

The genre of Genesis 1 is unique

Some say myth, others poetry or song, still others historical narrative (play-by-play)

I contend that Genesis has 3 distinct sections that show us clear shift in genre

Illustrate using the analogy of a camera panning out and then zooming in

Genesis 1 = fully zoomed out (big picture)

It is the big ideas that are the focus, not the details (like timeframe)

We can call this “cosmic history”

Genesis 2 = Zoom in closer (details become more clear)

Why does Scripture seem to tell 2 Creation stories? The first gives the big picture, while the second slows down and talks about specific people and relationships

Genesis 2:4 = the transition between accounts

Concludes the previous section (generations = accounts); provides clear shift

adam = humankind in Genesis 1:26; begins to be used as a personal name in Genesis 2 (or at least the man)

The stories we read in Genesis 2 - 12 are historical, but unlike any history we have ever known or can relate to

We have no concept of the Garden of Eden, 900+ year life spans, giants (Nephilim) a catastrophic flood, the confusion of Babel, etc.

Still not to the point of where the fine details are the focus (i.e., years and genealogies)

We can call this “primeval history”

Genesis 12 = Zoom in all the way

Once we meet Abraham, the story slows down dramatically, giving focus to the details

What kind of person he was, who he loved, how many livestock he owned, etc.

It is also beginning with Abraham where we can reasonably attempt to find his place in history

This is now more familiar historical narrative

We know approximately when and where he lived; timeframe now makes a difference

Do not be overly focused on the fine details in Gen 1 - 2 (timeframes, order of days, etc.)

Another important aspect of the genre of Genesis 1 - 2 is that they are written as a polemic

Polemic = Story written in a similar fashion to others; used to highlight differences

Tell a story changing “yellow” -> “red;” “lollipop” -> “candy cane;” “paid” -> “given”

The beginning of Genesis shares many similarities with other ANE creation myths

As Genesis retells familiar oriental stories about the origins of the world, it dramtaically transforms them theologically. Polytheism is replaced by monotheism, divine weakness by almighty power. Human beings are no longer seen as a sideline but central to the divine purpose. God looks after man by supplying him with food, not the other way round.(Gordon Wenham)

When read with genre in mind, the “big ideas” of Genesis 1 - 2 start to become clear

Ground rule #3: Use Scripture to help understand Scripture

The most poignant example: Was Adam a historic person? (Big implications for evolutionary theists in particular)

Luke goes all the way back to Adam in his genealogy of Jesus

Cf. Luke 3:23; 38.

Paul also treats Adam as a person in human history whose actions had a huge impact

Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20 - 22.

The claims about Jesus and Adam are parallel; this gives us great clues

Where does all of this leave us?

Freedoms and Limitations

[Francis Schaeffer] articulated an approach to origins that he called “freedoms and limitations”: there is a range of reasonable scenarios by which we may address the apparent conflicts between the bible and the sciences, and yet there are limits to this range, limits set both by basic Biblical concepts and by good human judgment. (C. John Collins)

Reading Genesis 1 - 2 with our ground rules has given us our “limitations”: these things are meant to be easily understood as ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to the biblical account of origins

Yahweh is the one and only Creator God

Not polytheism; also not Yahweh + some necessary scientific/natural force

Yahweh reigns supreme over all of Creation

He did not need to battle against other dieties or get help from any other area

God “spoke” and it came to be; God is in complete supreme control

Yahweh created humankind in His image

Human beings are central to the whole creative process; the crown jewel of Creation

This gives EVERYONE immeasurable value, dignity and worth

God created humanity in His image as male and female

Speaks to the equality and necessity of gender in His design (another sermon altogether)

God also gave humanity with the task of being stewards of God’s Creation

Yahweh made Sabbath rest the goal of Creation

Sabbath rest = God at perfect peace with His people

Cf. Hebrews 4:9-11.

Hopefully, we can ALL agree on these limitations, and allow maximum freedom within these bounds

This would mean that young earth creationists (6 literal days, 6,000 years old), old earth creationists (figurative 6 days, really old earth) and evolutionary creationists (God used evolution to His creative ends) could all hold a viable biblical worlview that interacts with science

All will have issues and questions, but none of those views necessarily undermines the authority of Scripture

It is vital to extend freedom (within limitations) so that we do not place unncessary obstacles to the Gospel

Paraphrase Gregory Boyd’s early Christian experience

Creation is a hugely important topic to address and understand, but Christ alone transforms lives and gives the gift of grace and eternal life

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

It has always been about Jesus