Who best reconciles the Bible and Evolution?

Faith & Science Conversation
249

Because it can’t. There is nothing testable about someone who claims God healed them for example. There is no way to detect the direct interaction and trace how a non-material being just interacted in the physical world. Yes, God is called the healer in the OT and Jesus clearly healed people, but it is not a scientific question. The healing prayer experiments have turned out quite badly in general. Or someone who claims that God spoke to them. Did He? Well maybe but it is not a scientific question, especially if it is a non-audible/metaphysical voice that produces no signal for an instrument to detect.

Can you name some just wondering, that scientists just won’t touch? The beauty of science, as opposed to how many Christians view the Scriptures is that as there are no sacred tomes and no untouchable truths. If it can be tested and examined, it will be.

And I put the Lamoureux article in there, since he sums up what I was trying to say in many posts, knowing full well that you don’t agree with him (I was assuming you could remain somewhat neutral in this particular book chapter since it is not his particular interpretation of Genesis). Are there any actual examples of something you can point out that can show to me that this is not ancient science? In all my study of other Cosmologies in other creation accounts, the Bible is not unique in its scientific claims, though is unique in some of its theological claims. In other words, the whole reason I am talking about this point so much is that the Bible, being written in ancient science, can be very flexible in how it is understood concerning the material world while still gleaning and hearing the deep theological truths contained therein. So again, being ancient science, it doesn’t matter if the scriptures appear to contradict the Big Bang, Evolution, billions of years. I can still come alongside the text and hear God speaking through it without worrying about what science provides as a better idea of reality in those areas it can test.

250

It’s obvious to me, Bill, that you and I could agree on many things, but not on what you say here. As I understand it, you are saying that you do not need an alternative understanding of Genesis 1 in order to accept evolution. The difference between us would be the same if the focus was shifted to the age of the earth.

As I’ve said, I have no problem accepting scientific knowledge about the movements of the earth, sun, and so forth because I see nothing in the Bible that conflicts with it. I cannot say the same about evolution and the age of the earth. (Again, it’s a problem of history, not of science.)

The alternative biblical understanding that you do not need in order to accept evolution or a billion-year-old earth, I do. This doesn’t mean I’m right and you’re wrong; it just means you’re not the BioLogos person to give me a biblical argument that allows for evolution the way I see it allowing for the movements of the earth, sun, and so forth.

251

Please tell me more about what you mean by this sentence, especially explaining the words “modern,” “conceit,” and “objectivity.”

(My focus here is not directly on point, but it is a subject in which I have intense interest.)

252

Didn’t you just give a paragraph full of them?

It’s been several years since I’ve read and interacted with Denis; as a result, I don’t recall many details of what bothered me. The main issue between us was that I had, as you’ve come to see, a demand for a biblical explanation of why evolution didn’t bother him and he had no corresponding supply. [quote=“pevaquark, post:249, topic:36078”]
Are there any actual examples of something you can point out that can show to me that this is not ancient science?
[/quote]

I really don’t want to argue whether there is or isn’t such a thing as “ancient science.” I recognize that you want me defend the comment I made, but I’d rather just let my comment stand for people to show me some tolerance for definitional variation…or not. When I say it’s a semantic issue, I don’t mean to trivialize it; but I do mean that it is not on point to what I want to accomplish here and my time is growing short.

Here above @Mervin_Bitikofer made a helpful comment about the semantics, and I think others have said some helpful things along these lines though I don’t recall who they were just now. Suffice it to say that the query that brought me here, though driven by science, has to do with history.

253

@Mike_Gantt,

You are playing with all of us here. If a text book has one error, you disbelieve the whole thing?

The Slippery Slope argument that no part of the Bible can be questioned is accepted all too quickly by a manipulated audience.

Millions of Christians don’t accept the position, and thus they use their personal judgement for what is God’s word and what is man’s misunderstanding of his word. It might be a little messy … but it doesn’t endanger their faith…

It only endangers the endowment funds of Creationist groups around the country.

254

@Mike_Gantt

I invite you to one of our newest threads:

Perhaps when you have resolved the factual differences - nay errors? - between Chronicles and Genesis & Kings, you will be that much closer to a full embrace of what it means to rely on the Bible, word for word, or sentence by sentence…

Your position on Inerrancy (or anyone’s) does not survive a reading of Chronicles very easily …

255

Modern used loosely to mean “of recent vintage”; conceit used in the sense of a “thought or idea”; objectivity used in the sense of, well, objectivity. Haha. The point is that ancient authors were not unbiased reporters, as we expect a modern journalist or historian to be. They had a point of view, and and their histories were written to express that point of view. They arranged their material to make a point. We see this at the end of John’s gospel, for instance, when he says:

“Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

In other words, John has chosen what to write down and what to leave out, and he has done so in a way that will inspire the reaction that he desires – belief that Jesus is the Christ.

256

It’s not semantic. How about this: science = how they thought about the natural world. And then how they thought about the natural world = wrong. It was the best explanation they had in their day and that’s what made it into the Bible. If God did not condescend to their understanding, then they would not have understood His main message. This principle is seen even in the life in Christ (Phil 2:7-8).

The book chapter I linked is the entire point of Lamoureux. He doesn’t need an explanation of specific Scriptures because… let me write the logic here again:

  • The Bible contains ancient science.
  • You don’t need to reconcile the Bible and anything in modern science (including evolution) because the Bible contains ancient science.

My point is that you don’t need to reconcile the Bible and evolution.

1 Like
257

I think I understand the point you are wanting to make here, and in your previous post on the same subject, but how do you think it bears on the subject at hand? I could guess what you mean, but wouldn’t you rather just tell me?

258

Technically speaking, you are right: I do not need to reconcile the Bible and evolution. What I need to reconcile is the Bible’s apparent timetable for the history of the universe and evolution’s apparent timetable for the history of the universe.

259

@Mike_Gantt

It would seem that God doesn’t really care what the exact timetable. If he did, wouldn’t the genealogies in Chronicles and Kings be identical?

As soon as you start in on the apologia for why the scribes of Chronicles are allowed to write something differently from Genesis and Kings, you are opening up an unavoidable reality: the Bible’s details are irrelevant to the importance of its “affirmations”.

1 Like
260

Good gosh! Must you be so demanding! haha

Going back to a long-ago post, scholars recognize the stylistic differences in the Hebrew of Gen. 1 vs. Gen. 2-11 vs. Gen. 12-50. Is Genesis 1 history? The style says it is something other than that. It has more in common with Hebrew poetry than historical narrative. Gen. 12-50, on the other hand, is in the style of a typical Hebrew historical narrative. What about Gen. 2-11? It falls somewhere in between the near-poetry of Gen. 1 and the more straightforward style of Gen. 12-50. For a Hebrew reader of Genesis, then, the impression would be one of increasing “realism”, in terms of writing style, as it progresses toward the patriarchal narratives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their offspring. Even in English translation, that is the impression one gets reading Genesis from end to end. The farther back the author reaches into the distant past, the more poetic and stylized his language becomes.

This should tell us something about how to interpret the book. Genesis 1 should not be interpreted like Genesis 12, as if both were historical narratives. The author has arranged his material to make a theological point, not to instruct us about the exact chronological order of creation. The point is to place man in his proper setting, as related to his Creator, to his fellow man (male and female He created them), and to the rest of creation. Again, if you want a Scriptural example, so that Scripture may interpret Scripture, I point you to Luke. In Luke 9:51-19:47, he has taken certain events of Jesus’ life “out of context” and rearranged them to make a more important point, which is theological. The exact chronology was less important than the lesson to be taught to Jesus’ future disciples. Did Luke “mislead” us by not telling us the story as a modern biographer would, in exact chronological order of the events? Of course not. Similarly, Moses was less concerned with chronology than theology. He wanted his people to think rightly about the Most High God, and how all of humanity owes him allegiance as Creator. In that, I’d say the Lord’s word succeeded quite nicely in its purpose, despite whatever misunderstandings we have burdened it with yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

2 Likes
261

Even if one were to grant the literary structure for Genesis that you outline, and the biblical precedent of a non-chronological sequence of events, I don’t see what it gains you with respect to the problem at hand. If, for example, we posit that, analogous to saying that Jesus may have healed the ten lepers after His encounter with Zaccheus instead of before, God may have created fish and birds after He created animals and humans instead of before, where has that gotten us?

Maybe you are suggesting that “increasing ‘realism’” actually means “from fanciful to factual”? If that’s the case, I’m not sure you’re even safe coming away from Genesis 1 with “God did it.”

I’m actually open-minded about your Gen 1, 2-11, and 12-50 breakdown proposal, and I probably wouldn’t contend hard that Luke’s overriding purpose was chronological purity even though the NASB has him promising “consecutive order” in his prologue, but, given my exposure to all the Hebrew poetry extant in the rest of the Bible, I have a hard time imagining the God of Isaiah 55 inspiring a creation account as fanciful and divorced from reality as your thesis demands.

Morever, I thought one of the few points where EC’s (or TE’s) and YEC’s agreed was on the general order of God’s creative activity - that is, plants then animals then humans. And here you are giving that away at the git-go!

Maybe this is all just over my head.

262

P.S. All that said, if you could show me how this interpretive scheme better explains, or better fits, the way Jesus interpreted the book of Genesis, I could find a way to work past its difficulties.

263

As I said yesterday, I have to sign off now. Though I will stop posting now, I will eventually read and reflect on anything you continue to post to this topic.

I told my wife the other day, “This BioLogos community is not as hostile as many others with whom I have interacted; as a group they’ve been very gracious.” I have interacted with many discussion forums and blogs over the last ten years, always on Christian topics, but usually on topics other than the one that has engaged us here. It’s been rewarding. Thanks for that.

I do not know at this point where I will end up on this issue, but I pray to God that I don’t end up where I am now: the valley of decision, the haunt of the double-minded. Harry Truman longed for a one-handed economist (if the reference is unfamiliar, you can easily google it); may I once again find myself a one-handed servant of Christ, and - if at all possible, Lord - may the hand I choose be the one of Your choice.

5 Likes
264

@Mike_Gantt

You really should read @Reggie_O_Donoghue’s fine posting (link at the bottom) about what can be found “between the lines” of the Genesis creation account!

It’s quite good! He shows how readers can make conclusions about what was motivating some of the scribe’s writings that go a long way to explain why the text is written the way it is written.

To be concise, it wasn’t written because they thought this is how the Earth and life was created … it was written to demolish the pagan ideas - - which we know existed prior to the Biblical literature - - could only be expressed as a contest between multiple gods doing ridiculous things !

So, aside from needing an etymological explanation for why Hebrews should rest on the Sabbath, Genesis uses a pagan skeleton where the only actor is God and humanity … no other gods!

Here is a sample:

“On day four, he are told that God created the great sea beasts. The great sea beasts are the only creatures in 1:21 which are explicitly named, which assigns special significance to them. The Hebrew word used, ‘Tannin’, literally refers to a sea serpent, and is the name of a sea serpent in Canaanite mythology. All mythologies have what is known as the ‘Chaoskampf’, where the chief God battles a serpent or dragon who is associated with chaos; Baal and Lotan, Ra and Apep, Zeus and Typhon, Teshub and Iluyanka, just to name a few examples.”

“By addressing special significance to the Tannin, the author is directly rebuking these pagan beliefs, and stressing the goodness of God by saying that the sea beasts are not adversaries of God, but his own creation. Again, this is not ‘refuting these ideas because of real events’ . . . there would be no reason for this to be in the narrative unless these beliefs already existed”
[ ^^^ And thus in need of contradiction! Note from @gbrooks9 ]

265

You have been one of our most pleasant “guests.” Thanks for the discussion. I hope you come to an understanding you can feel at peace about.

3 Likes
266

@Mike_Gantt

Genesis says there were birds before there land animals!

Genesis 1:19-21
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Compare:

Genesis 1:23-24
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
.
Mike, are you really going back to your Creationist blog to reaffirm to the world
that they must understand that birds flew in the sky, produced from the
oceans … before there were beasts and creeping things of the land ???

267

It could be said that based on the modern view of what is science, hardly anything in the pre-modern era would qualify as science.

268

Agreed.

Which is why the very question at the beginning of this thread now seems like such a non-starter to me. For something to be reconciled, it must first have been at odds. And to be at odds it would have to have some relationship with the thing in the first place. Evolution has nothing to do with the Bible. It does however have much overlap and conflict in historical understandings with recent YEC understandings of creation accounts in Genesis. That is what seems to me to be irreconcilable.