Peter, Paul, and Luke contradict science

[chadrmangum]

Hi Gabe,

I’d first like to ask a few clarification questions of you. When you say “struggling with reconciling…” I wonder what precisely you mean. In particular, what would be your response if you were to find a Biblical worldview and science to be incompatible (hypothetically, as I don’t think you will)? Would you abandon one in favor of the other? Would you be committed to holding both in high esteem and then reinterpret one or both so that they accord? Do you find one of them to be inherently more trustworthy? Does one of them serve as the benchmark of truth for the other in your view? I ask mostly so that you reflect on those questions, not necessarily so that you will answer or “defend” your position to me (I ask genuinely, not to subtly accuse).

Echoing the sentiment of a few others, I’d also like to comment that I don’t consider a Biblical worldview to be dependent on a particular interpretation of the above passages. Saving faith, one that is growing in the likeness of Christ, is not contingent on agreement in hermeneutics, and I view the issues in the above passages as secondary. Thus, while you may find it difficult to interpret these passages (I do!), that need not prevent you from pursuing Christ more fully while still being a committed scientist. Human understanding of theology and of science are both partial and incomplete, so there will always be parts of the Bible (and, in particular, its relationship to our current understanding of the revelation in the natural world) that we struggle to understand/reconcile. Faithful, educated believers have a wide variety of views on the interpretation of such passages, and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Given the ever-changing nature of the “view du jour” in science and theology, it is healthy to approach both with a critical eye. Having such discussions with grace toward alternate views and humility about one’s own uncertainty (as I think you have done) is wise.

I’m not saying “it doesn’t matter, so just give up.” If it is a question that is important to you, then it is worth pursuing (and taking to God for His guidance!). But I am saying that it might never be answered to your satisfaction, and moreover, that fact needn’t cause despair because the issues raised here are not primary to saving faith. (If the question is indicative of a broader skepticism of Scriptural revelation, though, that may be a different issue.)

Whatever resolution to your question you eventually settle on, I will be praying for the Holy Spirit to draw you closer to Christ through your search.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

The “world” of the ungodly that Peter refers to is kosmos. Not even young-earth advocates suggest a flood affecting the whole universe. The most frequent New Testament usage is “world” in the bad spiritual sense of humanity united in opposition to God, not geographic. It has a range of meanings. Peter’s statement would be geographically accurate if a flood devastated the relevant wicked population.

The point of looking at the genealogical Adam and Eve is that a representative pair of humans (not necessarily separately created) who existed more than a few thousand years ago could readily be ancestors of all modern humans. Of course, this begs the question of whether physical descent is in mind in these passages in the first place, but population genetics does indicate that all humans from more than several thousand years ago who have any living descendants are ancestors of all living humans. (Exact dates will depend on your assumptions about how well people mix.)

As obvious examples of DNA from ancestors not continuing, most animals have mitochondrial DNA only from their mothers. If you’re a male human, you probably missed out on all the gene variants in your father’s X chromosome. Meiosis and recombination do mean that not all ancestral DNA will be preserved in future generations, besides the changes from mutation.