A work in progress …

Creation v Evolution - The conflict

Jesus said “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46–47)

'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' Luke 16:31.

A culture's cosmic geography plays a significant role in shaping its worldview and offers explanations for the things we observe and experience. In the ancient world they also had a cosmic geography that was just as intrinsic to their thinking, just as fundamental to their worldview, just as influential in every aspect of their lives, and just as true in their minds. The prevailing cosmic geography in Genesis must be seen in the context of the nations with whom Israel had dealings who believed that the universe is controlled by a pantheon of gods.
Our modern, western cosmic geography developed over centuries through a process of observation, experimentation, and deduction. We are fully convinced that it is "true," though minor adjustments take place all the time. It is the result of what we call "science."

A big influence on the modern cosmic geography is the theory of evolution which states that plants and animals came into existence though a lengthy natural process driven by natural selection called evolution. It has its own momentum and does not need or is not directed by an ’intelligent force’. Evolutionary scientists proclaim that life originated through pure, natural processes.

The Bible, on the other hand, declares that the universe and all in it originated from God. The contradiction and conflict between the Bible's message and the theory of evolution is clear.

And centre to the whole controversy is the interpretation of Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4-3:24. Gen 1:1 to 3:24 deals with what is commonly known as the ‘creation story’. The Biblical creation saga depicts God who is actively involved in every stage of creation. Most Bible scholars acknowledge that the primary message of the Bible is theological and concerns the relationship between God and his creation. The differences of opinion seem to arise when there are secondary, or incidental, references to natural history in the Bible.

Part of the question is whether these references are part of the inerrant revelation from God? Can they and should they be correlated with our modern day scientific observations?

Some Christians is of opinion that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific facts in the Bible well before their discovery by modern science. As a result, they believe that statements regarding the physical world in Scripture are inerrant like those assertions revealing the nature of God and his will. Today this hermeneutical [interpretive] approach characterizes the origins debate within certain evangelical circles.

Others are of opinion that all references to natural history/science in the Bible must correspond to actual physical events. This is a high degree of concordism. At the other end of the spectrum is the opinion that the Bible does not intend to teach us about natural history and is only using the language of nature and natural history to aid our understanding of the spiritual truths. This is the minimal degree of concordism. In between these extremes we find every shade. Some find concordance with human history but not physical natural history. Others expect concordance in some passages and not others. (http://www.asa3.org/users/randyisaac/weblog/ce81e/ )

We can ask many questions about the Bible and science and the scientific relevance of Gen. 1 but the critical question remains: "What does Scripture really say in Genesis 1 - 3?" What is the Biblical message? Is that Biblical message in conflict with current scientific observations and beliefs?

One could not just ignore scientific discoveries and observations. One must not fall into the trap of fidelism i.e. the idea that religious statements belong to the realm of faith while scientific statements to the realm of reason.

Principles of Interpretation
Interpreters have been trying to solve "the problem" of Genesis 1 in various, often conflicting, ways and a study on this subject is at best confusing. A multitude of models have seen the light over the ages. Some try to construct an alternate science opposed to those who accept a literal approach. Others address the problem by contending that the text is purely theological and not scientific whilst some ‘solve’ the problem that the creation account is purely poetic and thus figurative, non- literal material.

My approach will be to follow an exegetical method as is accepted in the Protestant tradition. In other words – we have to follow a method of interpretation which first and foremost seeks to understand Scripture and the original Biblical message. The purpose of interpretation is to discover what God was saying to the original recipients of Scripture, how they understood it and then apply that to today.

If interpreters were free to transform text, the text is stripped of its pure, God intended message and lose its power to transform lives. One of the prime advantages of the Protestant Reformation was the return to the pure interpretation of Scripture. Scripture has no need for external ‘keys’ for interpretation.

We must first of all look at the original meaning of the words. We must consider the grammatical significance of the words and sentences according to the way they were normally used by the speakers of that language at that time. Because of the big time gap modern individuals might misunderstand certain words written in ancient Hebrew of 3500 years ago.

No language exists in a vacuum. Words are shallow concepts without historical and social context. An honest approach is to familiarize yourself with ancient literature rather than allowing modern culture to dictate the meaning of words and concepts. The consequence is that we do not put pressure on the text to address current issues and rather discover the text's issues. As an example, we will not be able to transform "in the beginning" into either a scientific statement or a theological treatise.

We obviously should take into account literary forms and devices. So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth.

It's hard to resist the temptation to read modern knowledge of contemporary science back into the ancient creation account of Genesis 1, either inadvertently or purposefully, in an attempt to harmonize our modern science with our biblical faith. However, we are under no circumstances allowed is to superimpose meaning onto the Biblical text. We can not interpret in retrospect or hindsight from outside the Scriptures. If we interpret Genesis, for example, in terms of modern scientific criteria we are guilty of superimposing an alien authority (and message) upon the Bible.

I want to state categorically that we must first seek to understand Scripture as it was written with no concern for the opinions of science. Only then can we discover the pure and true meaning of Scripture.

Sola Scriptura
It is important accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God and to accept that the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21) We believe that, although the human writers' personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted – breathed by God.

Many take the stance today that a scientific theory, by its very nature and the breadth of its acceptance, has priority over Scripture. That is not acceptable. No scientific hypotheses can be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation or anything else. The authority of Scripture's resides in itself and no scientific theory or human philosophy has priority over Scripture. We can not superimpose alien authority, messages or meaning upon the Bible – not from science nor any human philosophy. It must maintain its own integrity and can not accommodate any kind of interpretation derived from science, sociology, history, etc.

We must accept the authority of Scripture. If we do not accept that the Holy Scripture is God's own Word, although it was written down by men. It has therefore infallible, divine authority. Scripture is without error (infallible) in all its teaching, also regarding the acts of God in creation.

If we accept that the Biblical text is riddled with mistakes and contradictions then it becomes impossible to accept the authority and divine nature of Scripture.

We can not downgrade the Bible to a simple religious book subject to subjective interpretation - in other words it can mean anything we want it to mean. I also accept that Scripture should interpret Scripture This underlines the divine unity and harmony of all Biblical text and teaching.


‘Bara’ – God created
The most apparent source of conflict at present is the literal interpretation of the Genesis account. Some Christians often referred to as creationists, follow a rigid, literal interpretation. A ‘pro-evolution’ interpretation will rejects such a rigid, literal interpretation - and that creates the conflict.

The question is: Is there really conflict and if so are we called to ‘synchronize’ the Biblical account of creation and evolution by natural selection to minimize the conflict. Are we called to separate the theological material from the “scientific” material and rewrite the chapter from our own scientific perspectives?

Some try to reach a compromise between creation and evolution by ‘sidestepping’ the literal interpretation in one of several ways:

Accepting the Genesis account as a myth alongside other well known creation myths or
Accepting an allegorical interpretation
Interpreting the Genesis account as a poem etc.

What is very clear from the Genesis creation account is that God is active in the whole process of creation. God directs His creation.

It is very important to note that there is an absolute beginning - "in the beginning God created heaven and earth" - and that this absolute beginning is the free and sovereign act of God of establishing something out of nothing.

The author use the words bara (to create (out of nothing)) and asah (to make or do) intermittently in Genesis 1. In the context of Genesis it is almost impossible to translate or interpret both bara and asah as anything but instantaneous, supernatural acts of God. We also get the impression ex nihilo - out of nothing.

The second of God's creative actions was the command "Let there be light." As with all of God's commands response appears to be instantaneous, "And there was light." The expression "Let there be..." occurs 15 times in Genesis 1.

The verb ‘bara’ occurs about fifty times in the Old Testament and is always closely linked with God’s own creative activity and His personal involvement and runs like a golden thread through the entire Old Testament.

It is interesting to note that the word bara’ is used more frequently in the Old Testament for “God’s creation of liberation and salvation in history than for the initial creation of the world.” We all know that the truest meaning of a text is found in what the author and hearers would have thought. “…analysis of ancient Near Eastern creation literature confirms that ancient priorities were focused on the functional rather than the material.” [I] It can well be, according to Walton, that Genesis 1 is not describing the creation of materials as such but rather the creation of functions meaning that the author did not intend to describe the mechanics of how the world was made. He was interested in describing how God organised the earth.

The doctrine of creation also says that there are various creatures. This is the distinction of creatures, "each according to its kind”. We were also created with God-like qualities, able to enjoy a vital relationship with the living God who is spirit.

The Bible was not written from the scientific point of view and is not a text book on science. It was written long before the rise of modern science as we know it. It was intended primarily not for scientists and intellectuals but for the common people. If we aspire to understand the culture and literature of the ancient world, whether Canaanite, Babylonian, Egyptian, or Israelite, it is therefore essential that we understand their cosmic geography. That will help us understand the “scientific” material in the Bible.

However, we must keep in mind that it is quite possible that the Bible in some instances describes things phenomenologically, i.e. as they appear to the human observer. (Phenomenology emphasizes the immediacy of experience, the attempt to isolate it and set it off from all assumptions of existence or causal influence and lay bare its essential structure. Phenomenology restricts the philosopher's attention to the pure data of consciousness, uncontaminated by metaphysical theories or scientific assumptions.) For example the scripture speaks of the sun rising in the east. This is a phenomenological statement. Scientifically, the sun doesn’t rise at all. The Earth turns on its axis while revolving around the sun. But even the Naval Almanac uses the term sunrise and no one would charge tie Naval Almanac with error. We also know that the entire Earth cannot experience a morning or an evening at one given moment.

The Scriptures have been understood throughout history in all cultures because it describes things the way they appear (i.e. phenomenologically). The point is Scripture is not a scientific text book, and it is not written to the standards of modern scientific accuracy. But where it does touch on scientific matter, it does not impart misinformation. [H]

The critical questions are: "What does Scripture really say in Genesis 1?" and “Does the rest of the Bible confirm this?”

Creation ‘ex Nihilo’
Early biblical writers formulated the doctrine of ‘creatio ex nihilo’. The words ‘out of nothing’ do however not appear in the Bible.

Biblical exegesis, however, shows that it is not a mere theological invention. Rom 4:17 (where God call into being things that are not) refers to ‘creatio ex nihilo’. Heb 11:3 also states that the physical world was not created from anything observable.

I would call this a ‘development’ within the early church. The Church always had to defend itself. This principle was formulated by the church to defend (mono-) theism and God's goodness and absolute sovereignty against dualism, monistic pantheism, and Gnostic ideas of that time.

The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 formally declared: “We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God ... the Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal; who from the very beginning of time by His omnipotent power created out of nothing [de nihilo condidit] both the spiritual beings and the corporeal.” [G]

This concept is clearly in conflict with evolution which builds on pre-existing matter.

The Word ‘Yom’ in Genesis
Looking at the text of Genesis 1 it is clearly a record of "how", “when", "in what manner" and by "whom” the universe was made.

A critical look at all the evidence based on comparative literary and linguistic considerations points to only one conclusion – in the context of Gen 1 the word ‘yôm’ (day) means a literal 24-hour day.

Now what?

Are we to interpret the "days" to be literally 24 hour days? Or can we accept tem to be "revelatory" or "prophetic"? Logically there was no human around to witness what was happening. Furthermore, God is being spoken of as in the third person (He) as opposed to the first person (I), as if someone were viewing the events happening and recording them, as opposed to God Himself directly telling us what was happening.

If the purpose of the Genesis account was to be a scientific account (although ancient) it should be interpreted that way. But is it? Genesis is rather prose with a message. It tells the reader about God, His relationship with man and about His actions in history. Linguistically the creation days might well be literal 24-hour days, but should we not rather view them as part of a literary scheme intended to communicate a theological point?

We know that in Israel’s historical context Genesis 1 is in essence a confirmation of monotheism against polytheism. It confirms in no uncertain terms who God is and what He does. Moses also presents the reader with other theological truths like the role of the Sabbath – the seventh day of rest.

Can we now take for granted that the "who" and "why" is of importance and that we can wipe the "how" of creation off the table?

Can we take for granted that this is all about a message and that the whole sequence of the seven days of creation is not a chronological account of the sequence of historical events when God created our universe? In other words, is it is only a literary device the author uses to tell a story that conveys great theological truth. In other words, the "days of creation" happen to be the mould in which the writer chose to tell the story of God’s creation and sovereign rule of the universe. They should not be understood as teaching that God created in six literal days.

Once we remove the idea that the days teach a historical sequence, the age-day vs. twenty-four-hour-day debate ends.

The most natural thing to say about the days is that they are ordinary days like ours. That does the least violence to the normal meaning of "day" and of the original text.

However, and this is the crucial proviso, we have to look at the rest of the Bible to come closer to an answer. We have already seen that the Biblical concept of time is complex. We can not describe God’s ‘relationship’ in and with time in simple terms. We also know that God does not exist in time as humans do. God’s understanding of time is vastly different form that of humans.

The author had to use a concept and device which was easily understandable and acceptable for the original audience – and for us today. This means that the author chose the motif of seven days to make his theological points.

The concept of time is not as important to God as it is to humans. Our lives are regulated by hours and days and nights. God is not constricted by the boundaries of time. Looking at Genesis in this way means that the days are not actual historical days as we know them. We can say some things historically from Genesis 1-2, but not the time involved in creation.

What is abundantly clear form Genesis 1:1-2:3, though, is that God is the creator of everything. It glorifies God's power and omnipotence.

We can not take for granted that Genesis 1 is a piece of literary artwork and can not interpret it as such. If we do that nothing will prevent us from interpreting the rest of Genesis (or the Old Testament) in a similar fashion. Could the flood be a literary invention? Could the patriarchal narratives be a literary invention too? Is there proof that Abram existed?

Biblical View of Man
From where the vast difference between man and animal?

Animals are instinctive but humans are human to the degree that we use our intellect to control our behaviour. We have the ability to understand the meaning of behaviour and to know right from wrong. Humans can grasp and understand morality. We are different intellectually, emotionally, relationally and volitionally.

Arthur Koestler see the differences as such:- ‘The emergence of symbolic language, first spoken, then written represents the sharpest break between animal and man’. (Koestler, A., The Ghost in the Machine. London. Hutchinson, 1967, p.19.)

We know that the intention of the Genesis creation account is to give us a description of who God is, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God.

Man is different:
Right from the word go the Bible places animals and humans clearly on two different platforms. Man was created in the image of God - Gen 1:26-27. The Bible uses the Hebrew words “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demuth) – both are essentially the same concept. Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” (Also see Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:1–2, Genesis 9:6, 1 Corinthians 11:7, James 3:9)

But, The Bible does not define the precise content of the original ‘imago’ although it highlights the notion of the dignity and worth of man. It appears to indicate that humans, male and female, are like God in some way. Various attempts have been made to explain this in more detail, Thomas Aquinas, for example, said the image consists of memory, understanding, and will or love. Karl Barth said that “the human person is ‘imago Dei’ in that he or she has been created to relate with God and with other humans in community” (Demarest, 143; see Barth, Church Dogmatics, 3.1.192). Pelagius (c. 355–435) believed that the image of God was linked to man’s dominion to rule over the created order.

Whatever it might be, it becomes abundantly clear that the Bible depicts man in a way which is far removed from a being which purely evolved from other animals.

A pure natural process ignores, or does not leave space, for the fundamental fact of divine purpose of man. No matter how God created the biological body, we know He created man and woman distinct from the other creatures because He made us in His own image. This indicates spiritual life that distinguishes humanity and we therefore believe special intervention by God was required to impart spiritual life.

Body and soul:-
The Bible makes it clear that man not only has a living soul but that he is a living soul. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". (Gen 2:7. Also see I Thess. 5:23.) The Scriptures clearly teaches that man has a duel nature, both body and soul and that that there is a separation of soul and body when one departs from the flesh (dies).

Some believe in a tripartite nature – body, soul and spirit. “I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23 See also Hebrews 4:12). In my view soul and spirit refer to the same thing.

‘Soul’ sometimes refers to the human life or the entire human person. But ‘soul’ also refers to the innermost aspect of man – that ‘something’ which cannot be killed. From there the term ‘immortal soul’. According to Kings 17:21-22 man not only has a physical composition, but a soul which departs in death, but by the power of God can come back into a person.

There is a special relationship between man and God which is not the case with animals or plants. “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (Matt. 22:37) again highlighting human spirituality absent in other life forms.

Life after death:-
Another distinction the Bible makes is that man does not cease to exist at death. The body dies, and soon returns back to the dust but our soul, or spirit, returns back to God. (Ecc. 12) and we are awaiting the resurrection of the body. (1 Co 15:35-58)

Spiritual life cannot evolve since it is not physical. We can thus not look to the theory of evolution as a source of spiritual life.


Time & Culture
We must try to discover what God was saying to the original recipients with this creation account. Only then can we apply that message to our understanding today.

Genesis was written in a time of ancient ignorance and superstition, yet it does not contain the popular errors and fallacies common in those days. Moses must surely be instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians but he did not write that down – although there are sure signs of knowledge of Egyptian influences.

Modern readers encountering the Mesopotamian stories for the first time are most often struck by the similarities between them and Genesis. These Mesopotamian texts reflect the typical beliefs about origins current throughout the ancient world in the second millennium BC and probably later. We might see similarities but Genesis 1-11 stood out as distinctive for its first readers. They would not have noted the similarities between Genesis and other accounts so much as the differences.

Israel had been confronted by various pagan conceptions of gods and of creation which were represented in the creation accounts of surrounding nations at that time. Pagan mythology was in conflict with the true nature of God. We must read the creation account in the light of Israel’s conflict with those false religious cultures at that time. These first readers would have been struck that Genesis mentions only one God and no goddesses.

From the patriarchal beginnings, Israel was prone to import and retain pagan thought and practices. Other cultures, for example, recognized that humans were both physical and spiritual and believed that kings, at least, were the image of the god representing and ruling for him on earth. But Genesis affirms that every human being, male and female, is created in God's image to represent him and exercise dominion on his behalf.

What Genesis 1 did was to draw a line between false pagan mythology and conceptions of gods and God Almighty by whose Word heaven and earth have been called into being. This might not have been the main purpose of the Genesis creation account but it is in essence a major declaration of faith in a single all powerful God. In the light of Israel’s historical context Genesis 1 is in essence a confirmation of monotheism vis-a-vis polytheism, syncretism and idolatry.

The creation account was not interested in science. Science, as we know it today, did not exist when any of the Biblical books were penned. The author of Genesis was not out to prove creation or the existence of God, because everybody in the ancient world believed in creation. It was not a question to prove THAT God created neither HOW God created but WHICH God created.

Israel could be under no illusion about who God was and it is not the first chapter of the Bible by chance. The Biblical message begins by saying – this is God! - it is setting forth a vision of God which is fundamental to Biblical theology throughout the Bible.

Prose, Poetry or Allegory

Are we faced with an either-or situation? Either the entire account is symbolical, including the reference to God, or the account is historical or real.

There is nothing to suggest that Genesis 1-3 is an illustrative story or that its main terms are symbolical. As a matter of fact, it will be irresponsible to accept Genesis 1-3 to be symbolical as is the case with most parables. If "day" and "serpent" are symbols, then there is no reason for not considering "God" a symbolical term. "God" then would be a symbol for a great truth behind the word "God."

The creation account might well be a careful and symmetrical work of literary art but Genesis 1 is not poetry, a metaphor, a story or a parable - wiping any argument in favour of allegory off the table. The first readers did not think, "We know this is all 'myth' but it will have to do until science is invented to give us better answers."

The Massoretes (i.e. editors of the Hebrew Bible) identified only three poetical books in the Old Testament - Job, Proverbs, and Psalms. These are commonly known as the”meth” derived from the three consonants of the initial letters of the Hebrew names of those books.There is however a large amount of short poetic phrases in other parts of the Old Testament e.g. the prophetical books and the Pentateuch. Examples in Gen can be found in Genesis 2:23, 3:14-19; 3:23-24 etc. Genesis 1 is not one of them.Genesis 1 does not display any of the typical poetic language and/or ‘rules’ of the OT. There is no rhythm, parallelism, synonymous repetitive words and/or climactic chiasms (like in Judges) or imagery (present in a high concentration in Biblical poetry) to positively classify the Genesis literature as poetry.

Genesis is prose – plain and simple - whether it is ‘historical narrative-prose’ or ‘prose-genealogy’. Hebrew uses special grammatical forms for recording history, and Genesis 1–11 uses those. It has the same structure as Genesis 12 onwards and most of Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc. The author's clear intent is that we should consider this section as being historical.

Yet, it is logically not an eye witness account nor pure history because Genesis 1 is not written in the first person. It is rather as if someone is seeing and hearing what's happening.
Karl Barth called it "saga" - “an intuitive and poetic picture of a pre-historical reality of history" [F]. Events get described which no human being could have witnessed. Animals talk. People live for centuries. We're in a different genre here from that represented by, say, the Gospel narratives of Jesus' last days or the stories of the reign of King David in 2 Samuel, which read much more like eyewitness history.

In its intuitive, poetic way, saga communicates truths about the ultimate origins of things, just as the narrative history in the Bible presents truth in a different way, stories with a moral lesson like the good Samaritan in another, and the poetry of the Psalms in yet another. "We are," Barth says, "no less truly summoned to listen to what the Bible has to say here in the form of saga than to what it has to say in other places in the form of history, and elsewhere in the form of address, doctrine, law, epigram, epic and lyric." But we listen faithfully only when we realize what genre we are encountering.

God in Time
Science tells us that the earth was formed about 4.59 billion years ago. Those who subscribe to a complete literal interpretation of Genesis have serious problems with this idea because a literal interpretation tells us that the complete act of creation was completed in only 144 hours.

The Biblical concept of time and God’s relation with time is complex.

Psalm 90 gives us probably the best biblical perspective of time. This Psalm, the only one attributed to Moses, compares how man and God view time and life. His conclusion, of course, is that man and God look at time from entirely different perspectives.

The Scriptures seem to identify God in time, yet, a God that is somehow beyond time, not constrained by it the way we are. Genesis may very well teach that time was created along with the universe, and that God may be thought of as timeless. if nothing existed and then something existed, there is no absurdity in speaking of this as the first moment of time

This ‘confusing’ depiction of time becomes apparent in Genesis already. Genesis depict the days of creation as six 24-hour days. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."

We also see that the seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day." But not the seventh day. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long. In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labour to enter into God's seventh day of rest. Many scholars accept that the main intention of the author was to emphasise the theology of the Sabbath.

We also see that The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time. – Or does it? The phrase “the day of the Lord” is used nineteen times in the Old Testament (e.g. Isaiah 2:12) and four times in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 2:20) For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near” (Ezekiel 30:3). Some scholars believe that “the day of the Lord” will be a longer period of time, rather than a single day—a period of time when Christ will reign throughout the world before He cleanses heaven and earth in preparation for the eternal state of all mankind.

Scripture presents God to us as everlasting. This is an incomprehensible concept for humans. It becomes clear that God is in some form of time but not in any measured time duration as we know it. Measured time (clock-time) is time according to some metric. God is in time but He is not in any measured time. With that in mind it becomes clear that God’s ‘day’ is not to be identified with any of the relative "days" of measured time.

God is in human terms totally timeless. God could have existed for an ‘unmetered’ duration--or during no "time" at all. But when He acted to create He entered into our time, of necessity, now having a past and a present. God in his timeless state is omniscient. He is not lacking any knowledge at all.

Psalm 90:4 reads: "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night"

The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalms 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees to a certain extend with dates from palaeontology.

In several passages of the Bible, we are told of the ancientness of the Earth.

With all this in mind it becomes clear that a day for God’s have not necessarily to be identified with any of the relative "days" of measured time as we know them.

The Evolutionary Processes

Let’s look at the position of evolution by natural selection. The official Position Statement of the National Association of Biology Teachers in the United States of America defined evolution as such: - “an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environment.”[A]

This is where the crux of the conflict lies. By definition, it excludes God as a creator and hence will not be acceptable to all Christians.

Unresolved Problems with Evolution

The theory originates from Darwinism, which support the thesis ‘ the survival of the fittest’. Neo-Darwinism, its modern equivalent describes evolution of life from the formation of amino acids in the primeval sea of early earth to the great varieties of flora and fauna that exist on earth today.

What we should find are a multitude of ‘intermediate species’ (links) that should be present in the fossil records as one species evolves into another. But that is the problem. There is no intermediate species and for that reason they are called missing links.

Francis Hitching (an evolutionist) writes, “But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places”. [B] And there is thousands of record available. New species of plants and animals appear suddenly, completely formed.

The second significant difficulty with the theory of evolution concerns the duplication of the origin of life. It is a long way from formation of amino acids to complex proteins, let alone the super-complex plants and animals. Michael Behe, a biochemist, examined the complexity at the molecular level of the cell. He concluded that it cannot be formed except by design.[C]

A third difficulty is that no new species has been discovered. We can observe changes, variations and adaptations but no new species. We observe, for example, changes of colour of mice in certain coastal areas, different sizes of bird’s beaks within the same species, colour and shape of horses which arose in the last two or three thousand years - yet horses remain horses.

And finally the mechanism of evolution. It is generally accepted that mutations at genetic level is behind the changes within species. Yet, it has rather been noted that mutations are often detrimental to the organisms and they do not survive. Most foetuses with mutated genes mostly die in the early stages of pregnancy.

The ‘evolution’ of Man

Paleoanthropologists are still frustrated by the problem of two critical gaps in the fossil records.

Hominoid gap
This gap extends from 32 to 22 million years ago which is the time evolutionists suspect the ancestors of apes and humans were supposed to have split.

Hominid gap
The second gap, known as the hominid gap extends from 14 to 4.5 million years ago. This is the time where ancestors of the australopithecine and human groups are alleged to have split from the ancestors of the African apes, especially the chimpanzees.

These gaps in the fossil record are significant because it means that the alleged splitting into the various groups is still speculative.

Many ‘missing links’ has been suggested:[D]
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) – 150 years ago, Neandertal reconstructions were very stooped and very much like an ‘ape-man’. It is now admitted that the stoop posture may be due to disease and that the Neandertal may be just a variation of humankind.
Ramapithecus – widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it is now realised that it is an extinct type of orang utan.
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) – a hoax based on a human skullcap and an orang utan’s jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Parquet.
Pithecanthropus(Java man)- now renamed Homo rectus
Australopithecus africanus – this was once promoted as a missing link. It is no longer considered to be on line from apes to human. It is very ape-like.
Sinathropus ( Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now reclassified as Homo erectus.
Australopithropus afarensis – popularly known as the fossil ‘Lucy’. Similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
Homo habilis – there is growing consensus that this include bits and pieces of other types and it may have never existed.
Homo erectus – many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller that the average human today with a smaller brain size. However, the brain size is within range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like humans.

The missing links are still missing and it is possible that they cannot be found because they simply do not exist. Blocher concludes in this regard: - “When exactly and in what way mankind became mankind-the-image-of-God seems to be questions for which at the moment we have far too little evidence to make any statement. It may be better simply to note that modern man is psychologically and culturally (i.e. scientifically) a creature of an entirely different order from the other creatures that now exists on earth.”[E]

Creation – A Biblical Theme
The New Testament affirms the inspiration of the Old Testament. Jesus used the Old Testament as the reliable words of God (Matt 5:18; Mark 12:35; John 10:35).

Let’s employ the principle of ‘Scripture interprets scripture’. The rest of the Bible confirms that God created heaven and earth and it becomes is one of the corner stones of the entire Biblical message. The rest of the Bible confirms that:
- There is only one God
- God created different kinds separately
- God created Adam in His image.

John 1:3 -- All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

The rest of the Bible does not interpret the Genesis account as a fable or myth. It is consistent with the systematic theology and message of the entire Bible. Jesus does not follow the philosophies of the time but rather confirms that God, Himself, is the Creator: Mark 10:6, Jesus affirms that "... from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." In Matthew 19:4–5 Jesus refers back to Genesis, thus establishing its inerrancy and authority.

Jesus Christ is God and logically also the Creator. John 1:1-3 records, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made”

Paul also emphasizes the parallel between Adam and Jesus’ history, thus establishing Genesis as a real space-time event.

Christ was the driving force behind creation. Paul confirms this in Colossians 1:16 when he observed that “in Him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers: all things have been created through him and unto him”

The rest of Bible refers to Adam as a real person. See for example the genealogy of Luke from Christ to Adam: "Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God." (Lk 3:38)

Paul comments of Adam: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1Cor 15:22) When God created man, He chose for Adam (as a historical figure) to represent his posterity as "federal head" in the covenant of works. Hosea 6:7 speaks of this covenant which Adam broke, and Romans 5:12-19 also implies that there was a covenant involved with Adam because he represents the human race. Jesus Christ took man's place, fulfilling the covenant of works which Adam failed at, and thus Adam is an antitype of Christ. I Corinthians 15:45 speaks of Jesus as the "last Adam."

“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. . . . The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.” (1 Corinthians 1:21–22; 15:45–47).

Romans 1:20 -- For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

What does the Bible not do?

The Bible does not conform to any of the philosophies on the origins of the universe at the time of the New Tesatament. They also believed that universe had organized itself into its present state acting on itself and was responsible for all of life. Similar beliefs were held in Moses' day. The philosophy behind evolution is in line with these philosophies and is in essence pagan and nothing new.

Non believers of all ages denied God His creative acts, and their intellectual descendants still refuse to honour Him as Creator today.

Genesis stands in opposition to such a view insisting that God had called the universe and all in it into existence from nothing and the rest of the Bible confirms that.


The Bible and Science
The God of the Bible is also the God of science.
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:19,20)
So, if God says that we are going to be held responsible to infer His existence by observing nature, He himself affirms this concept of deriving truth through inferences of scientific observations. As I said, the God of the Bible is also the God of science.
We can deduct two things from the Genesis creation accounts. On the one hand, the creation accounts emphasize, in the sense of the production and dependence model, that God created the animals of the sea and air and made all species of land animals (cf. Gen. 1:21 and 25). On the other hand, and for precisely this process, the texts lay claim to the productive powers of the earth (1:24).

Can we therefore say that science and faith could coexist because they are "no overlapping" domains with no common ground on which to clash?

No! God has revealed Himself to us in both His book of His works (creation) and the book of his Word (scripture).

The opinions of Christians differ. Some believe that the Biblical message is theologically consistent with the theory of mutation and selection. Some believe that God is guiding the process from moment to moment. Others think he set up the universe from the Big Bang to unfold like a computer program. Some unfortunately, take a scientific position that is indistinguishable from those atheist materialists might take but say that their non-scientific intuitions or philosophical considerations or the existence of the mind lead them to deduce that there is a God.

This choice, science or scripture, is a false dichotomy. In fact, we need to honour both scripture and science since they both come from God. By the Bible's own terms, there should be no conflict between clear statements in Scripture and well-established scientific facts.

Romans 1 makes it clear that sinful man suppresses and distorts the revelation of the creation.

The Bible is not interested in science. Science did not exist when any of the Biblical books were penned. The author of Genesis was not out to prove creation or the existence of God, because everybody in the ancient world believed in creation. There were no atheists, and there were definitely no evolutionists. We should not attempt to make the Bible answer questions for which it has offered no answer.

Science and its understanding of things, changes constantly. I don't think it would be wise to put too much faith into science that may be shown false tomorrow.

Many people, including some Christians, make a false dichotomy between God's acts and natural processes. They claim that creation of man must be a completely special act outside natural processes.

In Isaiah 44:24 (King James Version) we read this: Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself”

It is quite clear that Scripture here and elsewhere (Job 31:15; 33:6; Psalm 139:13-16; Isaiah 44:24) holds that God is active in the physical process of, for example, human fetal development, which is a normal, natural process. So we find His creative nature active in this fascinating natural process.

Conclusions
Looking at the text alone a complete literary interpretation makes sense. Yet, some might argue that Genesis is rather describing progressive creationism – the flow of creation by God in time and space. Some modern Christians prefer a ‘concordist-literary’ approach. This will allow an easy reading of Genesis 1 while accepting the scientific data. Hence there will be no conflict for the scientific minded modern Christian to approach Genesis One.

One of the problems of modern Christians is that we (are forced to) live in two separate compartments at the same time. We have no problem to accept literal teachings of the Old and New Testaments while on the other side has a scientific worldview with its materialistic, humanistic approach.

We understand the tension in our compartmentalisation but fail to resolve it; because to resolve it is too costly. Can we accept that science is false and yet live in a technology intensive society as we do now? Can we throw away all the scientific data of astronomy, geology, sociology and taxonomy because it does not fit with Genesis 1?

That will obviously be irresponsible. There is no need for this confusion. In both theology and science we are looking at different facets of the same truth. Some of the conflict arises from the language we use. The language of theology and the language of science are different and we need to be sure that we are both referring to the same concept when we use the same word.

We need to recognise the genre of the Biblical theological studies as we need to know the difference between hypothesis, theory and law in scientific studies.

What do we know?

The most obvious answer is that it was written to counteract the false mythologies and worldviews that existed in those days. The Biblical message did not change and is still as relevant today as ever. Ancient philosophies believed that universe had organized itself into its present state acting on itself and was responsible for all of life. That is also what the theory of evolution promotes.

It is not an ongoing process: - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. ." (Genesis 2:1-2) The word says "finished" and "ended".

The message of the Bible is still: - There is only one God. He created Adam (in His image) and the rest of the universe. Nowhere in the Bible do we find any indication that God has left the universe to exist or develop on or through its own devices and momentum. The central truth that all that exists were created by God and that remains irrefutably at the heart of the Biblical teaching on creation.

We can not take for granted that Genesis 1 is only an excellent piece of literary work and to interpret it as such. If we do that nothing will prevent us to interpret the rest of Genesis (or the Old testament) in a similar fashion. Could the flood be a literary invention? Could the patriarchal narratives be a literary invention too? Is there proof that Abram existed?

Evolution proclaims that life originated through the natural process of natural selection but the Bible declares that life can only originate from God. Although the contradiction between the two cannot be bridged by any other acceptable translation of the Creation Story, it must be noted that no scientific theory on the origin of life has been proven conclusive.

The Biblical message is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution. You cannot coherently affirm the Biblical claim and the dominant model of evolutionary theory at the same time. The Bible clearly teaches that God is involved in every aspect and moment in the life of His creation and the universe. That rules out the image of a kind of divine watchmaker.

We must guard against spiritual relativism which dichotomizes spiritual truths from normal everyday objective truth. The Bible does not make such a distinction. The pressure from evolutionists is very subtle. Their stance is that the material world is all there is and that the natural world must be explained in purely natural terms – thus excluding God from His own creation.

[A] Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1997) p. 15
[B] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong (London: Pan, 1982) p. 19
[C] Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York; Touchstone,1996,1998)
[D] Paul S. Taylor, Who’s Who & What’s What in the World of “Missing Links”?
[E] Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1984) p. 230
[F] Carl Barth Church Dogmatics 3/1
[G] http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
[H ]See Gerstner, The Foundation of Biblical Authority, p. 24-25; also see Paul Little, Know What You Believe, 21-22.
[I] http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia/2008/09/we-have-been-di.html