I decided to add the following to my earlier post about science and religion.
Humans and chimpanzees have over 98% of their DNA in common. But we also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas.
A writer in New Scientist magazine recently remarked that this fact does not make humans a kind of advanced banana; nor does it make humans a kind of advanced chimpanzee. Since the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial” in the 1920s, there has been a serious breakdown in relations between science and religion, but much of the debate has been as silly as arguing whether or not humans are bananas.
Humans, apes and monkeys all share “building blocks” from the bin marked Primates. However, these blocks are assembled differently between humans and chimpanzees. So we share a family resemblance because God has been remarkably economical in reusing components in the making of humans; yet we are also uniquely human and not just "Chimps version 2.0".
This has theological implications.
Although there is clear evidence of biological processes which led to the appearance of humans, it is also clear that humans have always been humans: similar to, but different from the apes.
So science is right to categorise us as being in the same group as the apes; Christianity is right to insist on our uniqueness as God’s creation.
But, most importantly, we are capable of rational response to God, something quite different from biology; and it is that, supremely, which most makes us human.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Observations concerning Genesis
I've been watching, and avoiding participation in, a Facebook discussion about interpretations of Genesis. My avoidance is because I believed that the discussion would have been inappropriate to the particular context.
So I decided to provide a more fitting context as well as broadcast my views, such as they are, more widely than to my Facebook friends. I am opening the topic for discussion rather than attempting to provide a definitive statement, because I am not sure that we can really do that.
My first observation is that a person's salvation does not depend on his or her views about the creation. Salvation is soleley on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ. I make that observation because some of the talk I hear almost suggests that you can't be saved if you don't hold to six-day creationism. And that is a heresy. We need to be very clear about that. To require something of a person other than trust in Jesus is to subtract from his finished work, and that is grievous error. I also point out that there never has been an agreed consensus about how to interpret the creation accounts, which is quite different from, say, the doctrine of the Trinity.
My second observation is that the early chapters of Genesis are open to many interpretations. Six-day creationism is entirely possible and was held for centuries until questions were raised in the 19th Century about how this book fits in with scientific observations. More recently, Bernard Ramm has suggested (on the basis of analysis of the Hebrew) that the days of Genesis are not literal 24-hour periods, but merely a schema to describe how God both formed and previously shapeless and empty creation. The point to remember is that these are both interpretations. Neither says that Genesis is irrelevant or that it should be discarded. They seek to understand the text. That is something we all must do.
My third observation is that science and religion deal with different questions. Science deals with "what?" and "how?", religion deals wih "who?" and "why?" Science can't, for example, tell us about God, because God, by Judaeo-Christian definition, stands outside the creation. If he could be directly detected or subjected to testing, he would be less than God. On the other hand, the Bible can't really provide all the evidence needed to get anywhere near full answers to the big scientific questions. It is not that kind of book.
My fourth observation is that the Hebrew of Genesis seems very literal and then suddenly subverts the literalism, such as by having God remove "a rafter" or "a beam" from Adam's side to make Eve, or the use of almost barn-yard language about the Spirit of God in chapter 1. It doesn't mean that the passages are not largely literal, but it does mean that caution should be exercised.
My fifth observation is that young earth varieties of creationism fail to provide convincing answers to the complexities of scientific data from a range of disciplines. Everywhere you look, the data points towards an old earth, with life forms coming and going in an amazing variety. Those who hold to this group of interpretations seem to believe that those who hold evolutionary views essentially reject the idea that God did it. This is a serious misrepresentation of the position. For example, one way of understanding the creative process is that, in the most minute changes of molecular chemistry, God did it. For example, the fusion of two chromosomes -- reducing the 48 in apes to the 46 in humans -- is one of the mechanisms by which we are differentiated from apes. Analysis of the structure of the DNA reveals that a fusion has taken place. Is there any reason to suggest that this is not the work of God? Some of the anti-evolutionary views circulating these days verge on the heresy of deism: the view that God started everything going and either left it to its own devices or only gives it all a push every now and then.
My sixth observation is that what can broadly be described as theistic evolutionary theories have difficulty in accounting for death and decay before the Fall. They may, themselves, also fall prey to a kind of deism of their own if they fail to recognise the tiny steps by which change occurs.
My seventh observation is that "Intelligent Design" is not answer to the science-v-religion debate. Because it relies on the idea of a Designer, it ultimately falls foul of the same problem noted under my third observation, that an observable divine Designer would be less than God. It is entirely appropriate for people from a theological or philosophical perspective to seek evidence of design in the creation and feed that evidence into an understanding of God, but it is not a question which science should consider or is capable of considering.
My eighth observation is that vocal minorities on the various sides of the debate seem more interested in gaining power and sole recognition than they are in exploring questions of truth. They are often led by people with limited theological or scientific credentials (some with limited credentials in both fields) who are happy even to threaten and bully those with whom they disagree in the hope of obtaining capitulation and agreement. That is a far from Christian approach and should be resisted.
My ninth observation is that strident argument on these topics unnecessarily obstructs communication of the gospel with people of a scientific bent. Ultimately, we want them to trust in Christ. How they end up thinking about creation is very far down the line. The current heat of argument serves to drive them away and harden them against the Lord who died for them, and God will not hold us guiltless.
Personally, I suspect that Bernard Ramm is on the right track, but I am concerned that the good news of a God who created us, who loves us and who sent his son for us sould be recognised as far more important than working out an integration of Genesis with scientific creation theories.
The one position I do reject is Scofield's, though I respect his effort to relate science and the Bible. There is no evidence at all in the Bible for a dinosaur-destroying cataclysm and recreation between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
So I decided to provide a more fitting context as well as broadcast my views, such as they are, more widely than to my Facebook friends. I am opening the topic for discussion rather than attempting to provide a definitive statement, because I am not sure that we can really do that.
My first observation is that a person's salvation does not depend on his or her views about the creation. Salvation is soleley on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ. I make that observation because some of the talk I hear almost suggests that you can't be saved if you don't hold to six-day creationism. And that is a heresy. We need to be very clear about that. To require something of a person other than trust in Jesus is to subtract from his finished work, and that is grievous error. I also point out that there never has been an agreed consensus about how to interpret the creation accounts, which is quite different from, say, the doctrine of the Trinity.
My second observation is that the early chapters of Genesis are open to many interpretations. Six-day creationism is entirely possible and was held for centuries until questions were raised in the 19th Century about how this book fits in with scientific observations. More recently, Bernard Ramm has suggested (on the basis of analysis of the Hebrew) that the days of Genesis are not literal 24-hour periods, but merely a schema to describe how God both formed and previously shapeless and empty creation. The point to remember is that these are both interpretations. Neither says that Genesis is irrelevant or that it should be discarded. They seek to understand the text. That is something we all must do.
My third observation is that science and religion deal with different questions. Science deals with "what?" and "how?", religion deals wih "who?" and "why?" Science can't, for example, tell us about God, because God, by Judaeo-Christian definition, stands outside the creation. If he could be directly detected or subjected to testing, he would be less than God. On the other hand, the Bible can't really provide all the evidence needed to get anywhere near full answers to the big scientific questions. It is not that kind of book.
My fourth observation is that the Hebrew of Genesis seems very literal and then suddenly subverts the literalism, such as by having God remove "a rafter" or "a beam" from Adam's side to make Eve, or the use of almost barn-yard language about the Spirit of God in chapter 1. It doesn't mean that the passages are not largely literal, but it does mean that caution should be exercised.
My fifth observation is that young earth varieties of creationism fail to provide convincing answers to the complexities of scientific data from a range of disciplines. Everywhere you look, the data points towards an old earth, with life forms coming and going in an amazing variety. Those who hold to this group of interpretations seem to believe that those who hold evolutionary views essentially reject the idea that God did it. This is a serious misrepresentation of the position. For example, one way of understanding the creative process is that, in the most minute changes of molecular chemistry, God did it. For example, the fusion of two chromosomes -- reducing the 48 in apes to the 46 in humans -- is one of the mechanisms by which we are differentiated from apes. Analysis of the structure of the DNA reveals that a fusion has taken place. Is there any reason to suggest that this is not the work of God? Some of the anti-evolutionary views circulating these days verge on the heresy of deism: the view that God started everything going and either left it to its own devices or only gives it all a push every now and then.
My sixth observation is that what can broadly be described as theistic evolutionary theories have difficulty in accounting for death and decay before the Fall. They may, themselves, also fall prey to a kind of deism of their own if they fail to recognise the tiny steps by which change occurs.
My seventh observation is that "Intelligent Design" is not answer to the science-v-religion debate. Because it relies on the idea of a Designer, it ultimately falls foul of the same problem noted under my third observation, that an observable divine Designer would be less than God. It is entirely appropriate for people from a theological or philosophical perspective to seek evidence of design in the creation and feed that evidence into an understanding of God, but it is not a question which science should consider or is capable of considering.
My eighth observation is that vocal minorities on the various sides of the debate seem more interested in gaining power and sole recognition than they are in exploring questions of truth. They are often led by people with limited theological or scientific credentials (some with limited credentials in both fields) who are happy even to threaten and bully those with whom they disagree in the hope of obtaining capitulation and agreement. That is a far from Christian approach and should be resisted.
My ninth observation is that strident argument on these topics unnecessarily obstructs communication of the gospel with people of a scientific bent. Ultimately, we want them to trust in Christ. How they end up thinking about creation is very far down the line. The current heat of argument serves to drive them away and harden them against the Lord who died for them, and God will not hold us guiltless.
Personally, I suspect that Bernard Ramm is on the right track, but I am concerned that the good news of a God who created us, who loves us and who sent his son for us sould be recognised as far more important than working out an integration of Genesis with scientific creation theories.
The one position I do reject is Scofield's, though I respect his effort to relate science and the Bible. There is no evidence at all in the Bible for a dinosaur-destroying cataclysm and recreation between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
