The Lost World of Genesis One (22 page)

THE VIEW OFFERED OF GENESIS I 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 explana tion 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.2 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 pro pose 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 imagebearing 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.