The Lost World of Genesis One-Session 17

Scientific Explanations of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Unobjectionable

The view offered of Genesis 1 recognizes that it was never intended to be an account of material origins. Rather it was intended as an account of functional origins in relation to people in the image of God viewing the cosmos as a temple. Though the Bible upholds the idea that God is responsible for all origins (functional, material or otherwise), if the Bible does not offer an account of material origins we are free to consider contemporary explanations of origins on their own merits, as long as God is seen as ultimately responsible. Therefore whatever explanation scientists may offer in their attempts to explain origins, we could theoretically adopt it as a description of God’s handiwork. Scientific discussions of origins include a variety of different sciences including physics, geology, biochemistry and biology. As we consider these areas we might say that if there was a big bang (the current leading scientific explanation adopted by physicists and cosmologists), that is a description of how God’s creation work was accomplished. If it turns out that some other explanation works better, God was at work through that. If the universe is expanding, God is at work. If geological strata were laid down eon by eon, God is at work. If various life forms developed over time, God is at work. Since biological evolution is the hot spot for controversy, we will focus our attention on that aspect of origins.

One possible objection is that too much in an evolutionary system is difficult to reconcile to the character of God. While it has been noted over the centuries that the cosmos is ideally suited for human habitation (anthropic principle), we also observe many disturbing features. Survival of the fittest seems cruel. Pseudogenes seem useless and wasteful. Why were chromosomal aberrations not corrected instead of just being transmitted down the line?

In response to this objection, note that when Job believed that his understanding of the world and how it worked could be reduced to a single model (retribution principle: the righteous will prosper; the wicked will suffer), his suffering took him by surprise and was without explanation. How could such a thing happen? Why would God do this? The book is full of Job’s demand for an explanation. When God finally appears he does not offer an explanation, but offers a new insight to Job. By confronting Job with the vast complexity of the world, God shows that simplistic models are an inadequate basis for understanding what he is doing in the world. We trust his wisdom rather than demanding explanations for all that we observe in the world around us and in our own lives. Scientific theories offer explanations concerning how the world, which we attribute to God’s design, works. The objection to evolution raised above asks why God would do it that way. This is one of those “if I were God I would do it differently” (read, “better”) kinds of arguments that humans presumptuously engage in. This is unhelpful in the same way as questioning God’s justice with the implication that we could do it better. God did what he did, and we cannot second guess him.

This is a lesson we still need to learn. God in his wisdom has done things in the way that he has. We cannot stand in judgment of that, and we cannot expect to understand it all. We can still explore the what and the how questions, but the why will always lie beyond our understanding and beyond our models. Relative to God, as humans we are by definition simplistic. We must also remember some of the key lessons of Scripture. In our weakness he is strong. He can use suffering to strengthen our character. He can use evil to accomplish good (precisely the nature of the discussion in the book of Habakkuk). God’s sovereignty is demonstrated in that whatever personal or nonpersonal agents do, God takes it and turns it to his purpose.

Our question then cannot be whether one model or explanation for the cosmos and its origins is reconcilable with the nature of God. We don’t have enough information to make that assessment. We can only ask what Scripture requires us to defend.

In chapter one we pointed out that the common dichotomy drawn today between “natural” and “supernatural” did not exist in the ancient world. I would also propose that it is not theologically sound. God cannot be removed or distanced from those occurrences that we so glibly label “natural.” When we so label phenomena, it is an indication that we understand (at least to some extent) the laws and causes that explain it. Be that as it may, that does not mean that God does not control that process. What we identify as natural laws only take on their law-like quality because God acts so consistently in the operations of the cosmos. He has made the cosmos intelligible and has given us minds that can penetrate some of its mysteries.

Let us take an example to comment on this dynamic.

In Psalm 139:13 the psalmist declares to God: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

This and other statements in the Bible affirm God as the creator of each human being in the womb. The first observation is that this act of creation is not instantaneous but involves a process. Yet it is the work of God. A second observation is that this process is well understood by science. From the process of fertilization, implantation, fetal development and birth, scientists find that which is explainable, predictable and regular. The field of science called embryology offers a complex sequence of naturalistic cause and effect for the development of a child. Yet this blossoming of a life remains full of mystery.

Our biblical belief does not associate God’s work only with those aspects that remain a mystery. God is involved with the entire process start to finish. He made us so that the process can work the way that it does, and each child is his handiwork. In like manner we should observe that our biblical faith in the statement of Psalm 139 does not require us to denounce the science of embryology. It is not an either/or decision. God knits us together in our mother’s womb and the processes observed by scientists merely explore the work of God. We have no cause to reject the science, yet science is incapable of affirming or identifying the role of God.

These same phenomena are also true in history. We believe that God is in control of history and shapes events moment by moment. It is all subject to his sovereignty. Despite that theological affirmation, no historian is able to see God’s hand clearly, though depending on one’s presuppositions one may conclude that God is at work. Some of those conclusions would be the result of incredible coincidences, while others would be the result of that which is otherwise unexplainable. We might notice that these are the same issues that drive Intelligent Design in their assessment of the sciences.

We believe that God controls history, but we do not object when historians talk about a natural cause-and-effect process. We believe that God creates each human in the womb, but we do not object when embryologists offer a natural cause-and-effect process. We believe that God controls the weather, yet we do not denounce meteorologists who produce their weather maps day to day based on the predictability of natural cause-and-effect processes. Can evolution be thought of in similar terms?

It would be unacceptable to adopt an evolutionary view as a process without God. But it would likewise be unacceptable to adopt history, embryology or meteorology as processes without God. The fact that embryology or meteorology do not identify God’s role, or that many embryologists or meteorologists do not believe God has a role makes no difference. We can accept the results of embryology and meteorology (regardless of the beliefs of the scientists) as processes that we believe describe in part God’s way of working. We don’t organize campaigns to force academic institutions that train meteorologists or embryologists to offer the theological alternative of God’s role. Why should our response to evolution be any different?

There are, of course, some differences that come to mind. First, meteorology and embryology are advanced sciences—they are not taught in middle school. Therefore evolution is more of an issue in public education than the others are. Second, there is a sense in which evolution is “closer to home” in that it potentially touches on our identity, our place in the world, our sense of significance. As such it threatens us at personal levels in ways that meteorology and embryology do not. Third, the teaching of evolution is more likely to eventuate in metaphysical implications if not in explicit metaphysical statements. That is, it is more likely that evolution will be offered as an account of origins that explicitly denies God a role, thus setting up a conflict and demanding a choice. Such a choice is unnecessary and unacceptable (to be discussed in a future chapter), but should lead to adjustments in how the subject is taught, not in the total rejection of the principles and role of biological evolution.

This does not mean that all aspects of evolutionary theory should be accepted uncritically or even that evolution provides the best model. Meteorology and embryology are being constantly modified, and biological evolution is no different. I am not suggesting a wholesale adoption of evolution, merely suggesting that neither Genesis 1 specifically nor biblical theology in general give us any reason to reject it as a model as long as we see God as involved at every level and remain aware of our theological convictions.

As I have thought about the issues, it seems that there are three major reasons that people who take the Bible seriously have troubles with biological evolution.

1. Theology

The problem people have on the theological level, as we have discussed, is that evolution is often construed in such a way as to leave God out of the picture—as if it denies the existence of God or even can establish beyond reasonable doubt that he does not exist. This is not a problem with evolutionary theory, only a problem with some who propagate evolution in dysteleological ways (absent of purpose). This problem is easily resolved by an affirmation that whatever evolutionary processes may have taken place, we believe that God was intimately involved in them. This is a metaphysical and theological decision that can only take place outside of the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory. The choice we make about God’s role eliminates the problem without requiring that all evolutionary theory be rejected.

2. Genesis 1

Genesis 1 presents many challenges in people’s minds to accepting evolutionary theory. As we have been discussing, many believe that the seven-day structure of Genesis 1 requires a young earth, while evolutionary theory requires long periods of time. Likewise some would point out that in Genesis 1 creation takes place by the word of the Lord, from which they infer instantaneous creation. The first of these objections is resolved if we see Genesis 1 to be an account of functional origins as proposed and defended in previous chapters. The question of the age of the earth can only be addressed from Genesis 1 if it is an account of material origins. If it is not, then the Bible offers no information on the age of the earth.

The second objection can be addressed by looking at the wide range of phenomena that are brought into being by divine speech (divine fiat). God is sovereign and his word is an effective decree. While some of what he decrees comes about immediately, in other instances his decree initiates a process. One need not conclude that divine fiat implies instantaneous fulfillment. God does everything, and everything that he does is by his decree.

If Genesis 1 does not require a young earth and if divine fiat does not preclude a long process, then Genesis 1 offers no objections to biological evolution. Biological evolution is capable of giving us insight into God’s creative work.

3. Genesis 2 and Romans 5

The third reason that people who take the Bible seriously object to evolution is related to the nature of humanity as being in the image of God, to the nature of sin, and to the question of the historicity of Adam and Eve. Here we are talking about theological realities taught clearly in the Old and New Testaments. How can human beings be considered the result of an evolutionary process and the biblical teachings be preserved? A solution that some offer suggests separating the material issues in human origins from the spiritual or metaphysical ones. In other words, they propose considering that humans develop physically through a process and somewhere in that process, undetectable by science, the image of God becomes part of the human being by an act of God. This would be followed by an act of disobedience by those image-bearing humans that constitutes the Fall and initiates the sin nature. Some suggest that this is what occurred with a single, historical human pair (a literal Adam and Eve) while others conjecture that this transpired with a group of persons so that “Adam and Eve” would be understood corporately as the first humans, not as a single original human pair. Such views, which I continue to find problematic on a number of levels, have been proposed in attempts to reconcile the supposed contradictions between the Bible and the anthropological fossil evidence, and they stand as examples of continuing attempts to try to sort out this complex issue. Unfortunately no option is without difficulties.

As always, in our commitment to defend an accurate interpretation of the text and sound theology we must consider carefully and try to determine precisely what issues we must defend. The image of God and the sinful act of disobedience dooming all of humanity are biblical and theological realities linking us to Adam and Eve, whom the biblical text treats as historic individuals (as indicated by their role in genealogies). That God is the Creator of human beings must be taken seriously. We continually seek understanding of biblical texts for what they communicate in their own theological and cultural contexts. Whatever evolutionary processes led to the development of animal life, primates and even prehuman hominids, my theological convictions lead me to posit substantive discontinuity between that process and the creation of the historical Adam and Eve. Rather than cause-and-effect continuity, there is material and spiritual discontinuity, though it remains difficult to articulate how God accomplished this. The point I want to make is that perhaps Genesis 2 and Romans 5 do not pose as many problems as some have thought, allowing us to reap from science understandings of how life developed up to and including the creation of the first humans.

If the theory proposed in this book is on target, Genesis 1 does not offer a descriptive model for material origins. In the absence of such a model, Christians would be free to believe whatever descriptive model for origins makes the most sense. The major limitation is that any view eventually has to give God full control of the mechanisms if it claims to be biblical. A biblical view of God’s role as Creator in the world does not require a mutually exclusive dichotomy between “natural” and “supernatural,” though the reigning paradigms are built on that dichotomy. It does not matter that there may be perfectly acceptable and definable empirical descriptions and explanations for observed phenomena and aspects of origins. Such would not exclude divine activity because without the natural/supernatural dichotomy, divine activity is not ruled out by empirical explanation. I can affirm with the psalmist that God “knit me together in my mother’s womb” without denying the premises of embryology. Likewise those aspects of evolutionary mechanisms that hold up under scrutiny could be theoretically adopted as God’s mechanisms.

Technical Support

Bube, Richard. Putting It All Together. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1995.

Collins, C. John. Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003.

Giberson, Karl. Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. New York: HarperOne, 2008.

Glover, Gordon. Beyond the Firmament. Chesapeake, Va.: Watertree Press, 2007.

Hayward, Alan. Creation and Evolution. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985.

Lamoureux, Denis. Evolutionary Creation. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2008.

Van Till, H. J., et al. Science Held Hostage. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988.[1]

[1] Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (pp. 131–140). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.