The absurdity and unsustainability of the Fundamentalist and Literalist view of the Judeo-Christians Scriptures is most apparent in the Genesis account of creation! In numerous posts, this blog has demonstrated that the Bible should NOT be regarded as inerrant and was never intended by God to be used as a scientific or historical textbook! Likewise, a number of posts here have pointed out that forcing folks to choose between faith and science is a FALSE DILEMMA! Indeed, it is demonstrably illogical for anyone to state that the acceptance of evolutionary science is inconsistent with a belief in God!
The fact that so many folks frame this as a choice between creationism and evolution demonstrates just how widespread the ignorance is that envelopes many of our theists, agnostics, and atheists. How many of these people really understand that evolution is NOT about the origin of life on earth? Darwin's book was titled On the Origin of Species for a reason! Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life on this planet, and it is supported by a great deal of scientific evidence! Indeed, it is the ONLY explanation which fits all of the evidence we have gathered from the fossil and geologic records and genetic testing.
Evolution is premised on the FACT that ALL of the life on this planet is actively trying to perpetuate itself. Every organism on this planet is engaged in some form of reproducing itself, and science has conclusively demonstrated that this process regularly leads to genetic mutations which render each generation of offspring a little bit different from the ones which preceded it and can result in very profound changes over a long period of time (like millions and billions of years). Moreover, some of these naturally occurring variations will inevitably prove to be better adapted to the environment which the organism(s) inhabit. This is at the heart of the concept known as "natural selection." Moreover, scientists have observed that many organisms from distinctly different branches of the tree of life have developed similar features to deal with similar environmental challenges (e.g., appendages, eyes, ears, etc.). And, finally, the geologic record has provided us with overwhelming evidence for the great spans of time necessary for all of this to happen (there are more than 33.33 million human generations possible in one billion years, and we know that the earth is more than 4.6 billion years old)!
Nevertheless, it should also be noted that these FACTS do NOT necessarily contradict biblical statements which suggest that God created all of the life on this planet and has caused it to reproduce after its own kind. Who's to say that evolution isn't the vehicle which God has chosen to accomplish that end? In short, these scientific FACTS do NOT disprove or refute the notion that God is the source of life, or that God is the one who set this evolutionary process into motion - knowing what it would eventually produce. Moreover, there is also the problem of spontaneous generation to consider. You know - the notion that life can only spring from preexisting life! From whence did those primitive single-celled organisms originate? And, even if we eventually demonstrate that they arose from some kind of naturally occurring primordial soup that was zapped by electricity, doesn't that still suggest that the universe is organized to produce and sustain life? And what about all of the twists and turns that evolution has taken down through the eons of time? (Think dinosaurs, smilodons, etc.) How can anyone say with any degree of certainty that asteroids and ice ages are purely random events?
No, the notion of a Creator only becomes absurd in the hands of Fundamentalists, Literalists and Atheists. More particularly, I'm thinking of the folks who say that the earth is only six thousand years old, and that man has been here since day six! I'm thinking about the folks who think that day and night existed independently of the sun, and that the sun and moon were created after the plant life was ordered into existence on this earth. I'm thinking about the folks who think that the sun, moon, and stars only exist to give light to the folks and other living things on this earth. I'm thinking of the folks who believe that ALL of the different species of plant and animal life on this planet were created in a single day. I'm thinking of the folks who believe that man was created before a woman, and that snakes used to walk upright and speak in full sentences. Yes, these are the folks who insist on the false and unnecessary dilemma of choosing faith or science. The PLAIN TRUTH is that there are a great many Christians who both believe in God and embrace the findings of science. We are all entitled to reach our own conclusions about the available evidence, but please don't try to tell me that I have to choose between science and God - OR - that I must ignore/reject some of the evidence!
The purpose of the Creation account in Genesis is to draw a sharp distinction between Yahweh and the "gods" of other nations. It is not a narration of the scientific events that led to the formation of our planet as we know it. It is theological and focuses on God as Creator.
ReplyDeleteI believe the authors and post-exilic editors of Genesis knew this. If you can read and follow logical discourse you can see that Genesis does not flow in an orderly way. The ancient scribes did not seem to have trouble with this. Jesus when he came to earth did not renounce the sequence of events in the Creation account. It served its purpose. It said that Yaweh created everything with no pre-existing material mentioned. He did not fabricate, he created. It says that he created man in his own image. You do not find these ideas in the mythologies of the other ancient Middle Eastern nations.
But ornamenting these majestic concepts are human traditions including how the flora and fauna came about. And then there is the second Creation account that begins in Genesis 2:4. The scribes seemed to have had at least two pericopes for the entire Creation account.
Reading the Bible from a literalist perspective just does not work. And the Book puts you on alert about this from the beginning. This gave few readers heartburn until someone deduced that if God is perfect, then the Bible must be perfect. And then they defined what "perfect" meant. The Bible is perfect but in a different sense than the literalists would prescribe. It is perfect as a theological work that gives the essential principles and launches reflection and midrash. It does not anticipate science so much as it leverages science for heuristic purposes. And heuristics and literalism do not comfortably co-reside.
Well said. As a definitive statement about God as the Source of everything, and human rejection of Divine revelation, Genesis is a metaphorical and poetic masterpiece! It is the foundation of the theology which follows - the need for the Creator to redeem and reconcile humanity to himself. And, as you say, it is apparent that that is precisely what God and the human authors/editors intended for it to be.
DeleteIndeed, with just a little consideration and reflection, the notion that a Bronze Age composition should be regarded as a scientific explanation of our origins is absurd! Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is useful for teaching, convicting us of sin, correcting us, and instructing us in how to be righteous (II Timothy 3:16). Fundamentalists seem to completely overlook the fact that employing Scripture as a source for reliable scientific, historical, and geographical information is NOT mentioned there or elsewhere in Scripture. Yes, God is perfect, BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT ANYTHING TOUCHED BY HUMAN HANDS IS OR COULD BE! (Even Scripture) Moreover, it makes a mockery of the notion that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient to suggest that ANY book is sufficient to completely explain God or "his" work!
Miller, at the center of this issue is the decision as to what constitutes a faithful response to scripture. There are people, mostly of the evangelical inclination, who in sincereity believe that the view that you and I espouse is an attack on faith. They equate a faithful response to scripture with literalism. This means that even if they cannot explain the Biblical record in some cases, they trust implicitly that it is true nevertheless.
ReplyDeleteBut I regard my view of scripture - that "God let his children tell the story" - is a faithful response. To me, this view is more sustainable because it denies neither the Bible or Science but advocates a synergy between the two. But it does recognize a kenosis of scripture just in the way there was a kenosis of the Logos in the incarnation. The scripture reflects human involvement and its historical context.
The belief that if one word of the Bible cannot be believed then none of it can be is ultimately destructive to faith. The only way this view can be sustained is by not reading the Bible or not reading it at anything but a superficial level. Or knowing only about the Bible what their ministry avers. Such people must forever put God at a distance in pursuit of some personal concept of purity.