Читать книгу Creation in Scripture - Herold Weiss - Страница 7

These days, unfortunately, the United States is divided on a long list of issues. They range from social issues, like abortion and gay marriage, to political issues, like the role of government in the market and the proper use of military power in the territory of other sovereign nations. These issues certainly are very important and the positions adopted on them will make significant differences to the future history of our nation. I fear, however, that another issue that has been pestering our national life for over a century continues to have a significant impact on our society and its effects are increasingly deleterious. I refer to the debate concerning the scientific study of nature and Christian faith. Like the other issues mentioned above, it must be admitted, its importance spills over national frontiers. By referring to its impact on the American horizon, I am in no way saying that it is not also very significant in the lives of Christian believers in other countries.

That nature reveals an evolutionary process is not a recent discovery. The ancient Greeks as early as the third century B.C.E. knew that things in nature evolve. When Charles Darwin became a student at Cambridge University his professors were teaching evolution as a phenomenon clearly visible in nature. Of course, there were also prominent Cambridge theologians who opposed any deviation from a static view of nature. They insisted that nature be taken as a system that began six thousand years ago, as Ussher’s chronology of biblical history then being printed on the margins of Bibles told everyone.

Charles Darwin’s contribution to modern science was to offer an explanation as to how evolution takes place. He brought out the evidence collected during his three-year-long journey around the world on the Beagle to argue that the engine for the evolution of life forms was what he called “natural selection.”

Ever since Darwin, biologists have been studying the ways in which living organisms evolve. In the process they have been making modifications to Darwin’s explanations. As a result, the notion of natural selection has become a hotly debated issue among biologists. The decipherment of the genome and more generally the rise of genetics as the most rapidly advancing area of biology have made biologists realize that natural selection does not by itself account for all the changes taking place in living organisms. Natural selection is to be seen in conjunction with gene duplication and random (and not so random) mutations as the factors bringing about evolutionary change.

The commanding position of Darwin’s theory as the best way to understand how evolution works, however, gave rise to strong opposition to it by those who saw it as a threat to the authority of the Bible. In an effort to sustain belief in the biblical records within a society that was benefiting from the advances of science and their application in technologies that make life more comfortable, fundamentalists came up with creationism. This is an effort to make the creation account of Genesis scientifically valid. Such effort came to a head at a well publicized trial on December 7–9, 1981, at Little Rock, Arkansas. The trial tested the constitutionality of a law passed by the Arkansas legislature. Act 590 required that in every class in science in the school system of this state the “two scientific models” concerning the origin of “the universe, earth, life and man” should receive “balanced treatment.” The two models were defined as “creation science” and “evolution science.” While it clarified that no religious instruction was allowed in the classrooms, it insisted that the “scientific evidences and the inferences therefrom” were to be presented in favor of both scientific models. The trial resulted in Judge William Overton ruling that “creation-science” is not science but religion. A somewhat related law passed in Louisiana was tested at the Supreme Court of the United States. In the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard this law was declared unconstitutional. As these efforts by creationists proved unsuccessful and the courts declared that “creation science” was not at all science but religious doctrine, the fundamentalist point of view was renamed “Intelligent Design” in order to obscure its theological underpinnings. This subterfuge, however, has not deceived anyone.

The battle over evolution vs. creationism has been raging in our midst and, unfortunately, it has not been limited to the social gatherings of inquisitive adults. It is being fought in the school boards of the nation and has been having a deleterious effect in the science classrooms not only of our public schools but also in those of some religiously controlled colleges. Many professors in denominational colleges are being asked to offer creationism as a viable scientific alternative to evolution.

It may be argued that the pressure to denigrate scientific findings as “so called science” leaves students with a misunderstanding of science and a low estimate of its benefits. Comparative studies of the knowledge of science among secondary school students in different nations rate American high school students in seventeenth place. As a consequence the population at large is suffering from an ideological misdirection of the educational curriculum. This is particularly true among those who discontinue their formal education with a high school diploma. I think, therefore, that this issue has increasing significance on account of its multiple consequences.

Closer to home, it is to be noted that young people of this generation are growing up with distinctive traits and preferences. They are much less inclined than previous generations to wish to establish their own place under the sun by themselves. The rampant individualism of the near past is giving place to a more community-oriented style of life. But their idea of community is not necessarily institutionalized or ideologically delimited. This means that they are leaving the churches of their parents in large numbers. The Barna Group sponsored a five year study of the reasons young people leave the churches of their childhood. In the book making public the results of this study, You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith, David Kinnaman reports that thirty-five percent of the respondents said they resented that Christians are too confident they know all the answers. Twenty-five percent identified Christianity as anti-science as a reason for leaving, and twenty-three percent said they had been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.

Since I am neither a scientist nor a historian or philosopher of science, I do not feel I can contribute to the elucidation of the issues involved in this debate. Even if I were, probably I would not get into the fray after the highly commendable recent contribution by Conor Cunningham. His book, Darwin’s Pious Idea: Why the Ultra-Darwinists and the Creationists Both Get it Wrong, explains the twists and turns both among Darwinists and creationists through the years with admirable clarity and charts a path for bringing about a concordat between the camps. His argument is built on evidence from orthodox Christian theology which the creationists seem to ignore. Still, Cunningham argues, with the creationists, that all the biblical evidence on creation is found in Genesis’ first three chapters.

Furthermore, I am fortunate to be writing this book as a companion volume to one by my colleague Edward W. H. Vick. In his book he takes a look at the Christian doctrine of creation within the framework of systematic theology. Thus, I can concentrate my study of creation on the evidence available in the biblical texts. Still, I shall preface my study by some general observations concerning issues that sometimes interfere with the study of the biblical materials.

To affirm that God is the Creator of the heavens and the earth does not require that creationism control what is taught in science classes. To characterize nature as creation is a theological statement. To study nature scientifically is to use the knowledge already attained by evidence objectively studied to predict possible scenarios in areas yet to be studied. On the basis of such predictions, and the theories that support them, scientists design experiments and carry on expeditions to gather evidence and test whether their predictions are correct.

Is it necessary to say that it is impossible to predict possible results and design experiments on the basis of creationism? Creationism is neither theology, i.e., an affirmation of creation as a theological statement, nor is it science. It is an ideology and, like all ideologies, only serves to distract the uninformed and hide the agenda of those who espouse it.

No scientific experiment has ever been designed using the conception of the universe as a three-story building with the earth in the ground floor and the waters in the basement and the upper floor. It is safe to say that none will ever be. Who with open eyes can affirm that the plant and animal species extant are the same ones that were created by God six thousand years ago? What can be predicted and which experiment that advances our knowledge of nature can be designed on the basis of such a postulate? To offer creationism as science is to ignore what scientific theories are for.

All science deals only with theories. Theories provide the structure with which to make predictions and design experiments to test them. That is their function and as such they work well. Of course, as new evidence obtained by such experiments multiplies and knowledge of a particular corner of nature increases, the theory that helped in the process is continuously being adjusted, modified, and perfected. If creationists understood this, they would not wish to offer the Genesis accounts as a scientific structure. Would creationists be willing to adjust the biblical “scientific theory” according to the results of the experiments that may be used to test it? It is precisely because science is this way that atheist, agnostic, Jewish, Moslem, Christian, and other kinds of religious scientists are able to work together harmoniously in the testing and the interpretation of the data made available as science continues its advancement.

Scientists who are Christian have found different ways in which to hold firm their faith in God as Creator while doing their scientific work. Some have decided that the theory of evolution is a frontal attack to the Christian faith and try to find ways by which to interpret the data to harmonize with the biblical accounts of creation. A few have tried to show that the biblical accounts are better scientifically than what is reported on the basis of the theory of evolution. Most observers agree, however, that those taking these views cease to be scientists and have become merely misguided believers.

The evolution of species was recognized by all scientists when Charles Darwin was a university student. The factors influencing the evolution of species were what Darwin studied and what scientists are still studying and will continue to study. On the basis of these studies science has made the advances that have made our lives today much more pleasant than those of our ancestors. As far as I know, no scientific advancement has been achieved on the basis of creationism.

Darwin’s main contribution was to note that nature carried on a labor similar to that performed by breeders of pedigreed domestic animals. By selecting members of a species with certain specific characteristics, and selecting their descendants with the desired characteristics over several generations, eventually breeders produce a generation in which all members have the desired characteristics. In this way breeders produce cows, dogs, cats and horses of different breeds. Darwin postulated that a similar process takes place in nature without human intervention. Darwin’s observations opened up a way of understanding how evolution takes place, they did not show that it happens — that was already known. Based on Darwin’s observations scientists have made innumerable advances affecting evolution in its multiple aspects. These advances, however, do not detract from the value of Darwin’s foundational work.

Every scientist considers Charles Darwin one of the greatest scientists in human history. The British nation, an officially Christian nation in which the king or queen is the head of both the state and the church, is so proud of him that it has placed his portrait in one of the bills of its currency. With humility I thank Charles Darwin for having made possible the scientific advances that allow me to have lived already seventeen years more than either my father or my mother. I think it is impossible to be a responsible, honest and grateful Christian and not recognize the contributions Charles Darwin made to science. All modern life scientists stand on his shoulders. To deny it is at best ingratitude and at worst either ignorance or hypocrisy. The church may harbor many faults within and survive, but it may not retain these two in these days.

Scientists do not have faith in evolution. Faith is faith, and science is science. Scientists work on the basis of evidence. Those who have evidence do not need faith. Scientific theories are not believed; they are tested. The science laboratories do not provide evidence of the work of God. Scientists who have faith in God the Creator affirm by faith that God is at work in the natural processes they observe in their laboratories. Faith is not the ability to conceptualize. If that were the case, then, as the biblical book of James says, the demons have faith in God, and creationists have faith in Satan. Faith has to do with our trust and dependence on a Creator God.

To believe is one thing; to have faith is something else. In practice, the difference between faith in God and scientific belief is that faith, even while standing over against conceptual insecurities, exhibits one hundred percent certainty. Scientists affirm conclusions on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence, never achieving one hundred percent certainty. The certainty of faith is neither grounded on scientific knowledge nor on theological beliefs, i.e., freedom of the will. Every statement by a scientist, like the posted price for an airline ticket, is subject to change without notice. No matter how many times they change their minds about specific scientific beliefs, scientists who have faith in God may continue to affirm their trust in The Creator. The same is true of theologians who change their minds about predestination or some other theological belief.

Often one hears creationists charge that evolutionists have faith in science. This means, according to them, that the issue rests on one’s decision as to whether to believe the Bible or believe science. The same creationists would also admit that faith and presumption are not quite the same, that in fact presumption is an abuse of faith. To have faith is to trust unconditionally. To have presumption is to assume power and test the one being trusted.

It is obvious that scientists do not have faith. They have presumption. They assume power over the objects of their study and test their theories about the way in which they would behave. Christians have faith in God. Scientists have presumptions on their theories. Creationists don’t have faith. Like scientists, they have presumptions. But while scientists can test their presumptions on their theories, creationists cannot test theirs on their ideology.

To learn from Darwin has nothing to do with faith. It only says that one participates in the intellectual life of the twenty-first century. The battle cries shouted by the fundamentalists who pretend to be arbiters of what can be believed or conceptualized by a believing scientist only confirm what accumulated Wisdom teaches: beliefs neither win nor die “with their boots on” in intellectual battle fields. They only die abandoned in nursing homes without relatives who visit or bury them. The future of the seven days of twenty four hours and the six thousand years is the same as that of the flat earth and the geocentric universe, which are also biblical conceptualizations that were once defended and fought for as if Christian faith depended on them. We must all learn the lesson that the invincible war machine of the United States learned in Vietnam. It is impossible to win in the battle field the hearts and minds of those who are defending their fatherland or their freedom of conscience. Creationists who fight battles to defend the scientific validity of the Genesis accounts face a no-win outcome. Ultra Darwinist atheists who wish to defeat creationism make a category mistake misunderstanding the nature of ideologies.

The Bill of Rights issued by the founding fathers of the United States of America declares that “all men are created equal.” That is certainly not a scientific statement. We all know that nature endows each of us with attributes in different measures. Some are born with large lung capacities and excellent muscular coordination and reflexes, which allow them to be excellent athletes. Others are born with a lesser measure of this attributes. Some are born with superior powers of concentration and memory, while others suffer from deficiencies in these areas. From the point of view of nature, all men and women are not created equal. Is anyone eager to deny the inequality with which nature “creates” human beings? Is any one eager to have the words in the Bill of Rights discredited as “unscientific”? No one is even thinking of doing such things because every one understands that the founding fathers were making a theological statement. They went on to add: “and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.” The founding fathers were making a theological statement about the purpose and value of every human being. We continue to agree with their assessment and therefore consider that the child with severe mental or physical handicaps is just as valuable as the most gifted of our children. Even atheists agree. The same is true of the scientific and the theological ways of looking at the world around us.

I would like to contribute to this divisive issue, but not by engaging in an argument with ultra Darwinists or creationists. I consider myself a person who seeks peace. My contribution is an effort to place on the table the evidence that needs to be taken into account by those who affirm faith in the God of the Bible. Creation is a fundamental theme in the Bible, and faith’s affirmations of God’s creative action find expression in multiple ways. Creationism, on the other hand, is an ideology that manipulates biblical stories and pretends that they have scientific validity. Creationists and ultra Darwinists who deny the existence of what cannot be the subject of scientific study are involved in a battle that, as I have already said, cannot be won with the boots on.

Most scientists understand the limits of what science can study. I am not in any way wishing to enter the battlefield in which creationists wish to defeat evolution. For creationism I have no use. Given the centrality of the Creator God in the Bible, however, I would like to pay closer attention to what the whole Bible has to say about creation. That is, I do not accept the reductionist way in which the participants in “the battle of the Bible” limit the biblical evidence on creation to what is found in Genesis 1–3.

My aim is to explore what different parts of the Bible say about creation. My exploration does not aim to be exhaustive, but to be representative. I will try, as far as I am able, to bring out what must certainly be considered as the evidence. I leave it to my readers to draw the conclusions they think the evidence supports. Those who claim to form their opinions on the basis of what the Bible teaches cannot ignore most of the evidence and make arguments based on three of its chapters. A debate as divisive as the debate about the relationship of the Bible and science cannot be an honest debate if most of the evidence, whether from science or from the Bible, is overlooked. Thus, rather than entering the debate, I propose to my readers to bracket the debate and examine the biblical evidence as a whole. After the evidence has been duly taken into account, then an unbiased assessment is in order.

In the chapters that follow, each will focus its attention in a biblical book, or on books that belong together. The first section of each chapter will have a brief introduction to the main theme in the text being considered. Then I will try to show the role creation plays within the context of this main theme. Since each book, or cluster of books, deals with specifics at a particular time and participates in a concrete cultural environment, each chapter will try to show how creation within the Bible is viewed in varied and sometimes contrasting ways. By taking seriously the various ways in which creation is viewed within the Bible modern believers should find their warrant to understand creation in the twenty-first century in yet another way. No matter in which way the biblical authors viewed creation, they were free to affirm their faith in the Creator. We, like them, can also affirm our faith in the Creator God no matter how we view the natural world and the universe in which we live. The Bible itself demonstrates the independence of faith from any and all cultural descriptions of the material reality of which we are a part. This is the argument of this book.