The Bible presents what we might call, “The Grand Assumption.” Simply, the Bible begins with the assumption of God’s existence. Nowhere in the Scripture do we find an attempt to prove God exists. None of the Biblical writers plays the role of Aquinas or Anselm, crafting elaborate arguments for God; from Genesis through Revelation, the writers take for granted the fact of God. Esther, an account of a young Jewish woman whose courage saves her people, famously does not mention God; yet, its author possessed a worldview that sees a Hand moving in history.
For many in modern Western culture there is another grand assumption. It underscores best-selling novels, blockbuster movies, and even situation comedies. Recently I walked through the vast wing of a museum, a wing looking at the opening chapters of Earth’s four-billion-year history. Within this wing were exhibits of a cooling Earth, images of single-celled animals that would change into more complex creatures, recreations of strange creatures leaving the primeval ocean to check out beachfront property, dioramas of big dinosaurs eating smaller dinosaurs; and, finally, a review of the mammalian take-over. The designers of this chapel dedicated to Charles Darwin in no way echo the Bible’s grand assumption found in the words, “In the beginning God….” Instead, their credo seems to be, “A long, long time ago something just happened.”
I would never suggest the designers of that exhibit or the trustees of the museum are atheists. But their work reminds us that two grand assumptions exist in our culture. In the minds of many, the two cannot exist together. This conclusion is understandable; after all, one assumption posits the existence of an active Creator who maintains a “hands-on” relationship with all around us, the other assumption posits the notion that all around us is the product of time plus random chance. One assumption is the go-to explanation for most who deem themselves atheists (that term probably fits Darwin); the other, the explanation favored by theists. You can hold one or the other assumption, not both.
Yet, many Americans attempt to do just that. Well over half the American population (89%) believes in God (not necessarily the God of Jewish-Christian-Islamic orthodoxy but some Entity who transcends the natural world). Fewer Americans, but still over half (58%), believe in some form of evolution. Those within the overlap apparently hold some form of both assumptions. How well they juggle this juxtaposition of views probably varies from individual to individual.
Before moving on, let me say that many American Christians would reject most, if not all, of what I saw in the museum. According to a 2014 Gallup poll, nearly 70% of Christians who attend church weekly believe God created the earth as it is about 10,000 years ago (Frank Newport, In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins. http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx. Accessed 13 June 2016.).
Frankly, I find that statistic troubling; in fact, I doubt its validity, though a statistic being troubling is no grounds for rejecting it. I have served as a pastor in a tiny rural community and in a large metropolitan area. I cannot say with certainty how many of the members of those churches believed the “young earth” interpretation of Genesis; yet, I am fairly certain the percentage of those holding such views did not approach 70%. In the last church I served, one of the most conservative members, a geologist, believes the young earth creationists are actually hurting the cause of Christ.
It is generally reported that about 40% of Americans attend religious services weekly (though some sociologists believe that figure is inflated). Since the poll already claims that about 30% of those who attend weekly reject what Gallup calls the “Creationist” view of origins, a significant number of those who attend less frequently or not at all must believe that “Creationist” view. Accepting those figures, I believe they suggest about 14% of Americans may be described as “unchurched creationists.” Though church attendance may not be part of their lifestyle, it may be that vestiges of Sunday school lessons or sermons remain in their memories to inform their view of the world.
While I may question the high percentage suggested for those who believe the earth is only about 10,000 years old, many Christians obviously believe just that. Some believe the standard interpretation of the fossil evidence is completely wrong, reflecting either the ignorance of the scientists or their duplicity. Some offer other explanations for the data seemingly pointing to a very old earth. For example, some thirty years ago I knew a woman from Oklahoma who offered this explanation for the fossils: they were “created by Satan to cause people to doubt God’s Word.” I’ve never met anyone else who embraced that interpretation but I’m sure she was not alone in holding it. As it happens, she was a member of the Creek tribe in her mid-eighties; her opinion dated back to her childhood introduction to Christianity at the reservation church.
It is more common to find those who believe God created the universe with an illusion of great age. God’s aim, these folk suggest, was to test our faith rather than undermine it. Each of these interpretations has serious problems. The one ascribes creative power to Satan that is not evidenced in the Scripture. The other calls into question God’s integrity. Consequently, neither view has much merit.
Another popular view attempts to blend the idea of an ancient earth and a relatively new creation (or re-creation). In their respective reference Bibles, both C.I. Scofield and F.J. Dake posit a great period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. With this, comes the assumption of a pre-Adamic race of “humans” who were destroyed in an act of Divine judgment. Dake goes as far as making this an article of faith one must believe in order to be saved. This interpretation provides an explanation for the evidence of “cavemen” who existed before modern humans. While many more Christians hold this view than the two views just mentioned, it also has some serious flaws. Much of it is based on conjecture and demands reinterpretation of key Bible passages. In short, while many good Christians have held and do hold this view, it does not seem to be Scripturally sound.
The desire to reconcile what the Bible seems to be saying and what nature as interpreted by scientists seems to be saying honors the imagery of Psalm 19 which begins, “The heavens are declaring the glory of God, and their expanse shows the work of his hands,” suggesting we may see evidence of the Creator in the sky above us. The psalm goes on to say, “the Law of the Lord is perfect,” a phrase usually interpreted as referring to God’s written word, the Bible. Taken together interpreters have long imagined God speaking in two “books,” the book of nature and the Bible. Christians insist these two books will not contradict each other. With that in mind, Christians who take the Bible seriously and Christians who take science seriously work hard to find ways to reconcile what each is saying.
Of course, within the overlap group are those who “just don’t think about it.” Such individuals compartmentalize the assumptions, never allowing them to create troublesome questions. Early in my study of women in ministry I discovered it may be wise to ask Christians two questions about Biblical issues. The first, what do you believe the Bible teaches? The second, what do you believe? Many people I talked to believe the Bible forbids women to be in public ministry yet they personally believe women should have full access to ministry roles. I wrote, in part, to demonstrate that it is not necessary to hold such contradictory views. I suspect some Christians experience the same tension when dealing with the issue of Creation. They believe the Bible teaches God created the world in one six-day week a few thousand years ago. Yet, they personally believe the weight of evidence contradicts such a view. As a result they just avoid any discussion of the issue except with their most intimate friends and would never raise the question in a church venue. I offer no comment on those men and women except to say I’ve ignored tough questions on enough occasions that I am in no position to judge.
Most who are willing to wrestle with the issues hold one of several schemes for reconciling the two seemingly contradictory viewpoints. This effort to reconcile the viewpoints recognizes some versions of both assumptions are irreconcilable. You cannot suggest the universe is the product of evolution that God initiated six to ten thousand years ago; nor can you suggest the universe is billions of years old, initiated by a Big Bang that occurred when God’s back was turned. While I do not believe the Christian can say the universe is the product of time plus chance, I do believe the Christian may say the universe is the product of time plus Providence.
Those who take both assumptions seriously often focus on interpreting Genesis 1-2 in a way that sees vast periods of time as part of the backstory to creation. However, unlike Scofield and Dake, these interpreters stress continuity rather than discontinuity with the past, Satan and rebellious angels did not thwart God’s plan. Instead, God worked throughout the eons of time to produce a world fit for humankind.
At this point, I am going to stop. I’ve long believed theologians who attempt to speak like scientists and scientists who attempt to speak like theologians have aggravated the so-called Creation debate.
For example—if you’ll allow me to cast myself in the role of theologian speaking as a scientist—I might repeat the argument that Darwin’s finches do not really prove evolution. It might be a good challenge to one of the earliest “proofs” of evolution, but I would only be repeating what I had read in an apologetics text. I actually know little about finches—except that they are very small birds. If I tried to sound like an authority, I would be out of my depth.
Now, consider this statement from famed atheist Richard Dawkins: “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Now, Dawkins is a highly regarded evolutionary biologist but that statement sounds an awful lot like philosophy, even metaphysics. And consider Carl Sagan’s declaration with which the popular series Cosmos began: “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Again, Sagan, who seems to have been more of an agnostic than an atheist, sounds more like a philosopher than a scientist. Whether Sagan, who died in 1996, still holds that view is beyond my pay grade to say. I will, however, say Dawkins, Sagan, and others who make such statements are coming perilously close to sounding like the Fundamentalists they disdain: they are claiming to know what they cannot possibly know.
Few individuals are capable of speaking both as scientists and as theologians. Those who can meet the criterion of blending good science and good Biblical interpretation. There are probably more I could name but the works of these writers would be a good place to start if you are interested in a fair appraisal of the issues regarding origins.
Though seldom mentioned today, Bernard Ramm (The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 1954) was one of the earliest evangelicals with credentials to speak authoritatively on both science and theology. Some might object to Ramm’s rejection of Thomist arguments for God’s existence but there’s little doubt he helped bolster the faith of many future apologists.
John Lennox, a Scott, is professor of mathematics at Oxford. His Seven Days That Divide the World (2011) treats the early chapters of Genesis. Try to find an audio of one of his lectures or his debate with Richard Dawkins; Lennox has a delightful sense of humor.
Hugh Ross, an astronomer, has numerous books on origins, some treating the weaknesses of young earth cosmology. His Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job: How the Oldest Book of the Bible Answers Today’s Scientific Questions (2011) shows that Job is about more than patience. Not every scholar will agree with the early date given to Job but Ross’s analysis is still intriguing. I especially enjoyed the chapter about ten animals that have a special place in human history (though I have mixed feelings about having an ostrich lunch).
Alister McGrath—a kind of Evangelical Martin Marty—has books and lectures on a variety of subjects including the relationship of faith and science.
William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher of science, has written extensively on intelligent design.
As you read these writers, be prepared to have your thinking challenged, to be asked to see certain Bible passages in a new way, to be criticized by fellow believers who assume you’ve lost your faith; and to become more confident in balancing the two grand assumptions.
