Dinosaur Religion and Religion as Dinosaur:
The Encounter of Science and Faith in Genesis 1

On Christmas Eve 1968, the first astronauts in orbit around the moon appeared live on TV in millions of American homes. Frank Borman read the opening verses of Genesis:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the water. And God said, "Let there be light;" and there was light.

While these words dealing with creation and primeval time seemed utterably appropriate then, they have not gone unchallenged in prime time of the academy. What was so simple and beautiful that night -- that "Silent Night, Holy Night" is much more complex -- as is most of life, post-Christmas.

Nevertheless, as Westermann observes: "The achievements of science and technology in the first phase of the technological age gave rise to arguments for questioning the belief in Creation. An achievement in this same area in the second phase provides the occasion for the recitation of the Creation story.¹ Does this suggest that there is room -- some room -- more room in recent scientific thought and accomplishment for the Genesis 1 creation story? Is there then a desire or a basis for rapproachment? We will return to this question subsequently.

Martin Luther once said of Genesis 1 that "it contains matters of the utmost importance" and yet was "very difficult to understand."² He cites Jerome's assertion³ that among the Hebrews it was forbidden for anyone under thirty to read the chapter or to expound it for others. They must have a good knowledge of the entire Scripture before tackling this chapter.⁴ But, Luther notes, this practice did not achieve anything worthwhile for in the commentaries of the Jewish Rabbis "men twice thirty and even older prattle most childishly about these extremely important matters."⁵

But Luther does not spare Christian exegetes. He maintains that there was none in the church before him "who has explained everything in the chapter with adequate skill. The commentators, with their sundry, different, and countless questions, have so confused everything in the chapter as to make it clear enough that God has reserved His exalted wisdom and the correct understanding of this chapter for Himself alone . . . . "⁶ He concludes by declaring that God "has left with us this general knowledge and that it was created by God out of nothing."⁷

Perhaps I should yield to Martin Luther and quit my lecture at this point. One needs only to survey the voluminous literature here to recognize the truth of Luther's claim that commentators have confused everything in this chapter. But the fact that we keep trying (Luther himself was not deterred, devoting 73 pages to Genesis 1 in his Lectures on Genesis 1-5⁸) reflects our belief that the text was written to be understood.

But anyone who would claim to offer an interpretation of Genesis 1 must do so with considerable caution. I read of a Dutch anthropologist who worked for many years with five old men of a small stone age tribe in New Guinea. He carefully transcribed their stories and sent this material back to learned European journals. He also included his professional interpretation of their stories thereby gaining recognition as an authority on this tribe in the European academic community. One day after many years of fieldwork the five men called him aside and told him that since they now trusted him they would at last tell him what their stories meant. After all, were they not the ones most likely to know what their stories meant?⁹

As Hyers notes of Genesis, "There have been many different interpretations sent back to Europe, so to speak, not only of the meaning of the whole but of every verse, even every word. Perhaps this great variety of interpretation is an indication of the richness and subtlety of the creation stories themselves, which can suggest such a diversity of meanings. Perhaps, too, this variety is a reflection of the interpreters themselves, coming to these ancient texts from such a diversity of ages, cultures, philosophies, academic fields, methodologies, and religious persuasions."¹⁰

Indeed, the text of Genesis 1 is rich and subtle (more on this later) but perhaps more significant in accounting for the many different interpretations is the baggage that the interpreters bring with them. Armed with all our modern skills, methods, procedures, biases, and knowledge we approach Genesis 1 to make sense out of it. Instead of being characterized by humility we often reflect a spiritual or intellectual arrogance. This ancient text must yield to and must fit our theological prejudices or our modern intellectual advances. As with the anthropologist above we assert we know more about the text than the writer of it himself.

Genesis 1 has been subjected to all sorts of comparisons with the latest scientific findings, resulting in, on the one hand, a rejection of the account as the myth of a prescientific culture and, on the other hand, a demonstration of the amazing scientific correctness of its pronouncements. Two groups, each regarding themselves as preeminently scientific, view the text through the lenses of conflicting orthodox paradigms -- same text but differing presuppositions and paradigms, resulting in conflicting conclusions. These antithetic conclusions reflect an amazing mutual arrogance.

The secular mind sees this as a head-on clash between prejudiced religionists and open-minded scientists (scientific imperialism) while the fundamentalist views this as one more joust between God and Satan (biblical literalism).¹¹

Such amazing arrogance!

Allow me to demonstrate this arrogance both of biblical literalism and scientific imperialism. These outlandish statements of the creationist are all too typical: "All the ills from which American suffers," declared Bryan, "can be traced to the teaching of evolution. It would be better to destroy every other book ever written and save just the first three verses of Genesis."¹²   Or the words of Henry Morris: "If man [sic] wishes to know anything at all about creation . . . his sole source of true information is that of divine revelation."¹³

As for scientific imperialism, we all know the late Carl Sagan who in his TV series and book Cosmos attacked Christian ideas of God at a number of points. He capitalized nature and indicated that it replaces God as the object of reverence. At the beginning of his popular television series he would triumphantly announce: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or will be."¹⁴ What arrogance from a new kind of high priest of unlimited confidence in the scientific method which he pontificated would bring in the age of peace and justice.

Perhaps it was a similar modern arrogance that Dick Gregory has in mind when he said, "You gotta say this about the white race: its self-confidence knows no bounds. Who else could go to a small island in the Pacific where there is no poverty, no crime, no unemployment, no war, and no worry, and call it a primitive society?"¹⁵

As Elizabeth Barrett Browning expressed it in "Aurora Leigh":

"Earth's crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God:
But only he who sees, takes off his shoes,
The rest sit around it, and pluck blackberries."¹⁶

It seems most unlikely that Genesis 1 has waited in obscurity all of these many years for modern science to provide its meaning. Our contemporary preoccupations could hardly have been the preoccupations of ancient Israel.¹⁷ The ancient text must have said something and meant something to those who first received it. We must keep in mind that "God's word to us was first of all his word to them."¹⁸ It was conditioned by the language, time, and culture in which it was written -- more correctly, by the oral history it had before being reduced to writing. The issue then was not evolution but polytheism, divinization of nature, the eternity of matter, the threat of chaos, location of human life in a cosmic order and the ordering of human experience relative to a meaningful world. We must first attempt to understand what was said to them back then and there (necessitating exegesis) and then proceed to hear that same text in the here and now (necessitating hermeneutics).

Our modern western preoccupation with science understood and applied either by the secular mind or the fundamentalistic mind must not be substituted for the mind set of ancient Israel.

1. The Importance of the Biblical Teaching Concerning Creation

It is not by chance that the Bible opens with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," or that historic Christian creeds do the same, such as the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth,"¹⁹ or the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth of all that is seen and unseen,"²⁰ or that contemporary affirmations of faith begin in the same way, such as the statement of the United Church of Canada: "We are not alone, we live in God's world. We believe in God who has created and is creating,"²¹ or that of the Korean Methodist Church: "We believe in one God, creator and sustainer of all things. Father of all nations, the source of all goodness and beauty, all truth and love."²² Or this traditional Jewish morning prayer, which uses the present tense:

Praised are You, O Lord our God, King of the universe.
You fix the cycles of light and darkness;
You ordain the order of all creation . . . .
In Your goodness the work of creation
Is continually renewed day by day.²³

The foundational significance of creation faith is caught by Nahum Sarna: "Genesis is but a prologue to the historical drama that unfolds itself in the ensuing pages of the Bible. It proclaims, loudly and unambiguously, the absolute subordination of all creation to the supreme Creator who thus can make use of the forces of nature to fulfill His mighty deeds in history. It asserts unequivocally that the basic truth of all history is that the world is under the undivided and inescapable sovereignty of God. In brief, unlike Enuma Elish in Babylon, the Genesis Creation narrative is primarily the record of the event which inaugurated this historical process, and which ensures that there is a divine purpose behind creation that works itself out on the human scene.²⁵

I repeat, it is not by chance because traditionally Judeo/Christian theology has claimed that there is perhaps no more fundamental affirmation about God than that of creator. It is the bed rock, the foundation on which all other affirmations about him are made. The opening chapter of Genesis presents the main pillars upon which the Judeo/Christian faith rests.

Creation is critical to redemption. Redemption presumes creation and is unintelligible without it. The divine/human relationship rests both upon creation and redemption. The Fatherhood of God must be predicated both on His role as Creator and Redeemer. Redemption must not be viewed as a repudiation of creation, nor as an addition to creation. Rather, redemption is the renewal of creation.

Paul notes in Romans that even sub-human creation, animate and inanimate, awaits redemption, awaits restoration to its Edenic perfection, yearns for a return to the divine recognition that it, all of it, was good, very good. It has been unable to fulfill the purpose of its existence, God having appointed that without human beings it should not be made perfect.

In the words of Cranfield: "We may think of the whole magnificent theatre of the universe together with all its splendid properties and all the chorus of sub-human life, created to glorify God but unable to do so fully, so long as man the chief actor in the drama of God's praise fails to contribute his rational part."²⁶

Creation is thus also critical to eschatology. There is a decided relation between creation and consummation. The salvation expected at the end of history corresponds to the orderly world of Genesis 1. The book of Revelation concludes the canon not only in location but also in thought for it pictures the return of humanity to paradise. Even as in Genesis where God is the source of light, not the sun, so in Revelation: "they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light."²⁷ Consummation is possible only in the light of creation. The Apocalypse new heaven and earth can only be understood in the light of the first heaven and earth.²⁸

Not only is creation essential to theology, it is equally essential to anthropology. Being made in the image of God the question of who humans are can only be answered by determining who God is. The imago dei can only be understood in terms of creation.

Psalm 8 parallels Genesis 1 and defines the image of God as a "being made a little less than God." In both Genesis 1 and Psalm 8 the intention is to say that humans are made for relationship with God, a relationship which elevates them above the natural world and enables them to have dominion over the realm of nature.

The concept of man's dominion over nature is revolutionary when measured against ancient religions which declared that the gods were natural powers and that man's life was embraced within the mysterious depth of nature, with its rhythmic cycles of fertility. The God of Israel is not a natural power: he transcends the realm of nature, for he is its Creator. And in a lesser sense man, though related to the animals, stands over against nature as the creature who is commissioned to have dominion over the works of God's creation, as one who is the representative or vicegerent of God's sovereignty (kingdom) on earth.²⁹

2. A Two-Fold Challenge to the Genesis 1 Text

Two dramatic publication events in the mid-nineteenth century have profoundly affected the historic position of and the exposition of creation theology.

You will all likely know the first of the two books: Charles Darwin's great work in 1859, The Origin of Species. Up to this time the subject of human origins was almost exclusively the domain of religion. From now on the sciences would address the topic as well.

The second book, not as widely acclaimed, was The Chaldean Account of Creation, authored by George Smith, an Assyriologist of the British Museum. Published in 1876, it was triggered by the 1853 discovery at ancient Nineveh (Kuyunjik, Iraq) of the library of Ashurbanipal, the last great king of the Assyrian Empire. In this library was the Babylonian Epic of Creation -- written on seven clay tablets, each averaging 150 lines-- named Enuma Elish, after the opening words of the poem.

This creation epic contains the story of the birth of the gods (theogony), the creation of humans, and the elevation of Marduk from one of many other gods to the city-god of Babylon.³⁰ Smith and others who followed him noted the indebtedness of the biblical account to this Babylonian account, claiming that the Genesis 1 text was a part of a long and varied tradition in which creation accounts occurred in not one but many forms, starting with the early Sumerians through the Babylonians and Assyrians right down to the later Greek versions.

As Anderson observes, the Genesis account was now confronted on two sides with challenges from the modern scientific world view and from the history of religions. "The history of biblical creation theology in the twentieth century may be regarded as a response to this pincers movement, whether in defensiveness, accommodation or retrenchment."³¹

In addition to these two publication events -- or perhaps at least in part due to these two books -- dialectical theology in this century, between the two world wars, resisted creation theology. Barth's radical attack on and rejection of creation theology became the most definitive modern critique of this concept. According to Barth "God can be known only as he has revealed himself in Christ and is acknowledged in faith. No argument, from the world, no attempted "natural theology," can reach the transcendent God who in his freedom has disclosed himself in history -- and not except very ambiguously, in nature . . . Religious faith depends entirely on divine initiative, not on human discovery of the kind by which science advances."³²

These forces, plus others which I cannot consider (such as feminism and ecology) due to time constraints, have caused creation faith to be set aside, viewed as chronologically late and theologically secondary in the development of Israel's faith. This, I believe, is unfortunate.

Such a treatment of creation faith represents a radical departure from classical reformed theology as expressed by Calvin, who in response to the question "How do we know anything about God?" affirmed that a general knowledge of God was discernible in creation. He argued that anyone by intelligent and rational reflection upon the created order, should be able to arrive at the idea of God. He thus commended the material sciences on account of their ability to illustrate further the wonderful ordering of creation.³³

Creation faith should be prominent in theology because it also has a significant and central role in Scripture. In the words of H.H. Schmid, "All factors considered, the doctrine of creation, namely, the belief that God has created and is sustaining the order of the world in all its complexities, is not a peripheral theme of biblical theology but is plainly the fundamental theme. What Israel experienced in her history and what the early Christian community experienced in relation to Jesus is understood and interpreted in terms of this one basic theme."³⁴

The opening chapter of Genesis is not alone in the scriptural treatment of creation. Several Psalms celebrate the Lord's enthronment as creator.³⁵ In Job the Lord demands of Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"³⁶ In Proverbs wisdom is personified as God's agent in creation. But it is Isaiah who gives us the most powerful presentation of creation.³⁷ Insisting that God, not the Babylonian Marduk, is the creator of all humanity and all nature! "The Lord is the everlasting God, the creator of the ends of the earth."³⁸

But God's role as creator is not restricted to the Hebrew scriptures. In the New Testament John affirms that "all things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being."³⁹ The writer of Hebrews states: "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God . . . "⁴⁰ Paul gives Christ a cosmic role: "In him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or powers -- all things nave been created through him and for him."⁴¹

Fortunately there is a renewed recognition today of the considerable importance of creation to theology and, as was noted at the beginning of this, a creater willingness to refer to it and to invoke it. There appears to be a growing awareness in the scientific community that the Genesis account of creation cannot summarily be dismissed. When it comes to theology, recognized scholars such as Westermann⁴² and Anderson⁴³ are emphasizing the importance of creation to theology. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson of the World Council of Churches observes that: "Christian theology today, throughout the globe, is in the massive task of renewal and reconstruction regarding its understanding of God the creator . . . "⁴⁴ Bruce McLeod of the Canadian Council of Churches concurs in the renewed interest in creation by stating that global warning "is a spiritual issue, not just a technical problem."⁴⁵ Indeed a kind of new eco-spirituality that has been developing Einstein's observation that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," seems to be receiving broader credence today.⁴⁶
 

3. The Nature and Purpose of the Genesis 1 Text

If Genesis 1 is to play its strategic role in theology its nature and purpose must be understood.

A. Nature. The Genesis 1 text is ascientific, that is, it is neither scientific or unscientific. The privative "a" in front of scientific serves the same purpose as it does in front of moral. The amoral is neither moral nor immoral. It simply identifies a practice outside the sphere in which moral distinctives or judgments apply. So ascientific indicates that the interest of and the measurement of Genesis 1 is not science.⁴⁷

"Language is an amazing malleable instrument . . . Each type of language has its own specialized vocabulary or jargon, its own mode of presentation and its own objectives."⁴⁸ So it is critical to know the type of language of a text such as Genesis 1 and to apply the appropriate canons of interpretation

A legitimate criticism of scientific imperialism is its viewing its form of knowing and its body of knowledge as having the first and the last word on the subject of creation. A consequence of such imperialism is the reduction of knowledge to its own dimensions, resulting in a failure to appreciate genres and language foreign to it.

 
No one could ever conclude that Genesis 1 is a manual on how to create a universe. And yet the scientific imperialists and the biblical literalists too often read it that way. I repeat, Genesis 1 is ascientific, being neither scientific nor unscientific.

Genesis 1 with its ponderous rhythm (repeated phrases) is a hymn, a heavenly liturgy, a litany of praise -- a festal celebration of God's interest in and knowledge of the world. It is a hymn that asserts characteristics about God and the world in every moment of time, not being simply statements about an event in the past. These statements emphasize the ontological more than the temporal relationships, emphasizing the world's absolute dependence on God in every moment.

1. Science is dated; Genesis 1 is timeless. That science is dated hardly needs to be established. There were evolutionary ideas before Darwin but his writings give us the first systematic treatment along with extensive supporting evidence.⁴⁹ But the idea that evolution occurs through the gradual accumulation of small changes has been challenged by punctuated equilibrium which claims that fossil records reveal millions of years with very little change but interspersed with rapid speciation in relatively short periods.⁵⁰ Or consider physics. All three of Newton's assumptions - realism, determinism, and reductionism have been challenged by twentieth-century physics resulting in nothing less than a scientific revolution.⁵¹ Or in the area of astronomy where there is now a concession that the universe had a beginning -- a beginning that science cannot explain -- namely the Big Bang theory. Avoiding the problem of a beginning by postulating an infinite span of time -- steady state theory -- has now essentially yielded to the big bang with its emphasis on a beginning.⁵²
 
Now the implication of all this is most obvious. If Genesis 1 is to be attached to science the question of the date of that science must be addressed. If it represents the scientific thought of time of the writer it would be woefully outdated now. On the other hand, if it is attached to the present level of scientific thought then we are forced to recognize that it would have been at least difficult if not impossible for the readers of previous centuries to understand it, plus the matter of obsolescence as scientific thought continues to develop.

2. Science is concerned with "when" and "how." This seems most obvious to me. Science seeks explanations of phenomena and events in terms of other finite causes, thus dealing with the "when" and the "how."
 
Unfortunately and inappropriately, the Genesis text has been subjected to the questions of "when" and "how."
 
In 1650 Archbishop James Usher (1581-1656) published his Annals Of The Ancient And New Testaments⁵³ in which he concluded that the world was created in 4004 B.C. His verdict was based on the assumption that the genealogical data of the Old Testament is complete, which allowed him to perform simple mathematical procedures. His verdict was widely accepted as final with his dates being inserted in the margins of the authorized version of the English Bible and were soon practically regarded as equally inspired with the text itself.⁵⁴

Not to be outdone, Dr. John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, a great rabbinical scholar of his time, in his book Prologomena claimed that "heaven and earth centre and circumference were created together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on the twenty-third of October, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."⁵⁵
 
Alas such claims have been pinned on the Genesis 1 text when all it affirms was that creation was "in the beginning."
 
Likewise, the six days structure has been viewed as responding to the question "when." Some have insisted that these days were literal twenty-four hour⁵⁶ days while others have considered them as a kind of geological age.⁵⁷ In such cases a modern arithmetical reading is substituted for the original meaning -- the establishment of and the sanctification of the Sabbath. The pattern of days correlates with the six days of work and the seventh day of rest in the Jewish week.⁵⁸

It seems to me, then, that the Genesis text is content to allow the "when" of creation to stand undefined as "in the beginning."
 
Nor is the text inclined to be any more definitive relative to the "how" of creation. Ten times it simply asserts that "God said."⁵⁹ In eight of these ten instances the words "let there be" follows "God said"⁶⁰ These eight commands called all things into being. Their power is expressed in the phrases "and it was so," and "there was" which are repeated seven times.⁶¹ Furthermore an assessment is made of what has been done by the phrase "it was good" which appears seven times.⁶²

Such strong language leaves "no room for notions of a universe that is self-existent, or struggled for, or random, or a divine emanation."⁶³ In the words of J.B. Phillips, "At the beginning God expressed himself."⁶⁴ Indeed he did.
 
Note carefully the absence of any intermediary or secondary cause. The text is content to leave it at the level of the divine fiat. Thus again demonstrating the ascientific nature of the text. At best science can only deal with "secondary causes," that is, with "explanations of phenomena and events in terms of other finite causes. Scientific inquiry can investigate only the interrelations between finite events. Divine power cannot be brought into the laboratory to be tested . . ."⁶⁵

An example of forcing a scientific explanation on the Genesis 1 text is the treatment afforded the word "kind." This word appears ten times in Genesis 1⁶⁶ with reference to birds, sea creatures, and land animals, and is read as a biological or genetic term, designating family, genera, or phyla, and is thus seen as a term appropriate to introduce "extended discussions of reproduction, fixity of species, genetic mutations, natural selection, missing links, and stratigraphic evidence."⁶⁷
 
But the Hebrew term will not sustain such a rendering. In the Hebrew Bible it is only applied to living organisms and then usually to animal life. In fact Genesis 1:11, 12 is the only place where it is used to denote plant life. A careful examination of the passages in which this term appears, will show that no clearly defined meaning of the word comes through. While used of broad groups such as cattle and creeping things here in Genesis, it is used elsewhere to designate specific kinds of birds. In Leviticus 11: 29-30 it includes all kinds of lizards but in Leviticus 11:22 only certain kinds of grasshoppers are designated. "It is obvious, therefore, that there is no justification for concluding that the word indicates a certain definite classification that would meet the standards of botanists or biologists."⁶⁸

Bernard Ramm notes that the language of scripture is phenomenal:
 

A language which is phenomenal is restricted to terms of description and observation. Its language about astronomy, botany, zoology, and geology is restricted to the vocabulary of popular observation. What can be seen through microscope or telescope is not commented on. Phenomenal language is true because all it claims is to be descriptive. One is not deceived when he sees the sun rise and the sun set. One is deceived only if he artlessly converts his observations into theories.⁶⁹

Does the biblical use of non-scientific language, therefore, make it less true or relevant? Not at all! As Hyers notes: "It is much like trying to argue that a photograph is a truer and more advanced representation of a subject than a painting, or that Sophocles' Oedipus Rex is superseded by Freud's analysis of the Oedipus complex, or that Michelangelo's "Pieta" has been surpassed by NASA's moonlander."⁷⁰

While the emphasis of the Genesis 1 text is on the "who" of creation it is critical to note that the Bible begins with cosmogony, not with theogony. There is no notion of the birth of God; no biography of God. In contrast to the often lurid accounts of the lives of the gods and goddesses, their family quarrels, their jealousies and power struggles, their sexual exploits and insane rage, and their cosmic battles, rape, and plunder, there is no divine story to be told. The story of this God is not a personal biography, but the story of interaction with the world of creation and with human history. "In Genesis a radical shift has taken place from the image of procreation to that of creation from a genealogy of the gods to a genesis of nature."⁷¹
 
3. Relationship between science and religion.
 
Throughout this paper the tensions which exist between religion and science have been noted. In this section I will struggle with what that relationship might/should be.
 
Following Ian Barbour there are four ways in which science and religion can relate: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.
 
A. Conflict
 
Scientific naturalism is clearly at the opposite end of the theological spectrum from biblical literalism. Both sides recognize this conflict, both sides seek knowledge with a sure foundation (obviously one from logic and sense data, the other from infallible scripture) and both sides make rival statements about the same domain. The result is that one must choose between them.
 
As Barbour notes:

"Both positions fail to observe the proper boundaries of science. The scientific materialist starts from science but ends by making broad philosophical claims. The biblical literalist moves from theology to make claims about scientific matters. In both schools of thought, the differences between the two disciplines are not adequately respected.
 
In a fight between a boa constrictor and a wart-hog, the victor, whichever it is, swallows the vanquished. In scientific materialism, science swallows religion. In biblical literalism, religion swallows science. The fight can be avoided if they occupy separate territories or if, as I will suggest, they each pursue more appropriate diets.⁷²
 
B. Independence
 
An obvious way to avoid conflict is to treat science and religion as independent and autonomous, their domains and methods are distinct. Each party must keep off the other's turf. "Each must tend to its own business and not meddle in the affairs of the other. Each mode of inquiry is selective and has its limitations. This separation into watertight compartments is motivated, not simply by the desire to avoid unnecessary conflicts, but also by the desire to be faithful to the distinctive character of each area of life and thought."⁷³

This is a good starting point as it recognizes the distinctive character of each and throughout this paper I have come close to following this approach. It is a certain way to avoid conflict but it rules out mutual enrichment and fails to come to grips with the wholeness and interrelatedness of life.

C. Dialogue

To offset independence minimally there needs to be some interaction between the two areas. Such dialogue is most appropriate since science arose in the Judeo-Christian tradition. With the demythologization and demoralization of nature in Hebrew thought science could now develop. However, such emphases have resulted in the exploitation of nature necessitating dialogue between religion and science.

As a basis for dialogue, John Bloom notes that it is worth noting that both science and theology benefit from the tensions that arise when the interpretations of the data from each field conflict. Neither field can claim to be an absolute guide to truth apart from the other: Theology learned from its geocentric/heliocentric debates with the natural sciences to be cautious in its interpretations, because some biblical language is phenomenological, just as many idioms of regular speech are Likewise science learned to be cautious in its metaphysical presuppositions when it became clear that the universe is not eternal but appears to be created, something Christian theologians have known for hundreds of years. In the case of human origins, no obvious resolution of the tension between the models seems possible at present. By watching for blind spots in our presuppositions, double-checking the validity of our data and seeking more of it, perhaps we can arrive at a consensus that is more charitable to all."⁷⁴

D. Integration

 
This option insists that some sort of integration is possible and necessary between two fields but not at the expense of the rich diversity these two areas have. As Barbour notes: "We distort it if we cut it up into separate realms or watertight compartments, but we also distort it if we force it into a neat intellectual system. A coherent vision of reality can still allow for the distinctiveness of differing types of experience."⁷⁵ McMullin expresses it this way:
 
The Christian separate his science from his theology as though they were in principle incapable of interrelation. On the other hand, he has learned to distrust the simpler pathways from one to the other. He has to aim at some sort of coherence of world-view, a coherence to which science and theology, and indeed many other sorts of human construction like history, politics, and literature, must contribute. He may, indeed must, strive to make his theology and his cosmology consonant in the contributions they make to this world-view. But this consonance (as history shows) is a tentative relation, constantly under scrutiny, in constant slight shift.⁷⁶

Unfortunately, the plea of William James at the turn of the century has often gone unheeded:
 
The universe [is] a more many-sided affair than any sect, even the scientific sect, allows for. What, in the end, are all our verifications but experiences that agree with more or less isolated systems of ideas . . . that our minds have framed? But why in the name of common sense need we assume that only one such system of ideas can be true? The obvious outcome of our total experience is that the world can be handled according to many systems of ideas . . . and will each time give some characteristic kind of profit . . . while at the same time some other kind of profit has to be omitted or postponed.

And why, after all, may not the world be so complex as to consist of many interpenetrating spheres of reality, which we can thus approach in alteration by using different conceptions and assuming different attitudes?⁷⁷

George Marsden sees possible integration between science and religion by allowing that God may be using natural processes: "The relationship of the supernatural to the natural processes in questions of origins involves essentially the same questions as the issue of the relationship of the supernatural to the religious experiences can often be accounted for largely in terms of natural causes. Yet such accounts do not at all settle the question of whether a supernatural agent might be acting through such natural means. So with the question of origins. The fact that we may be able to describe fairly completely the natural probesses at work does not settle the question of whether a divine being might be using those processes as means of creating a certain type of universe. Once this is recognized -- that the scientific evidence is not going to settle the religious issue -- useful discussions between those who believe in divine creation and those who do not may ensue. Neither side should suppose that investigation of the technical issues will provide the key for settling the more ultimate issues of life and meaning."⁷⁸
 
4. The place of the Genesis 1 text in the public school curriculum.

As to the inclusion of the biblical account of creation in the public school curriculum I am somewhat reluctant.

 
I lament the absence of the Bible in general in public school curricula. How can any course in the great literature of the world ignore the Bible? But if it is any consolation the ignored Bible is in good company with other outstanding literature for its David, Moses, and Joseph join Micawber, Pips, Scrooge, et al., in the tomb of the unknown. No longer can one simply make a point by referring to David and Goliath, expecting the audience to appreciate the allusion and thereby providing the student with an image that allows for the fine art of comparison.⁷⁹
 
But before we romanticize about the inclusion of the Bible in earlier public school education we need at least to consider the words of Allan Bloom:

The gods never walked very tall in our political life or in our schools. The Lord's Prayer we mumbled in grade school when I was a child affected us less than the Pledge of Allegiance we also recited. It was the home -- and the houses of worship related to it -- where religion lived. The holy days and the common language and set of references that permeated most households constituted a large part of the family bond and gave it a substantial content. Moses and the Tables of the Law, Jesus and his preaching of brotherly love, had an imaginative existence. Passages from the Psalms and the Gospels echoed in children's heads. Attending church or synagogue, praying at the table, were a way of life, inseparable from the moral education that was supposed to be the family's special responsibility in this democracy.⁸⁰
 
A case, nevertheless, can be made for the inclusion of the Bible in the humanities curricula but what about science? Here I am uncomfortable.
 
As I have insisted throughout this lecture Genesis 1 is a statement of faith. The Bible presents its own commentary on Genesis 1:
 
"In him (Christ) all things in heaven and on earth were created."⁸¹

"All things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being."⁸²

"By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God."⁸³
 
As a statement of faith it should be taught by a person of faith. Teachers coerced to teach it contrary to their commitment could possibly reach some level of objectivity but most likely could not present it as an article of faith to be believed.
 
But what is most critical to me is that Genesis 1 was prepared to evoke worship and is to be used in the context of the worshipping community. Whether it was used in a new year celebration in Israel as was the Babylonian account of creation in its new year celebration is debated and seems dubious.⁸⁴ Nevertheless, it was used in worship as an instrument of praise and as such it belongs in the household of faith.
 
Such a use is seen in Isaiah 40 where the prophet advances a series of disputations -- a form of argument which proceeds by means of rhetorical questions, from ground common to both sides (in this case Israel and Babylon) to prove a disputed point -- namely that YAHWEH is the creator of the world, not Marduk.

Verse 27 seems to be the key to these disputations -- a complaint voiced by Israelites that God has deliberately refused to see their exilic plight. Not so, says the prophet.
 
To make his point he appeals through a series of questions relative to Creation. By these questions he establishes the superiority of Israel's God, contrasting Him with the idols of Babylon and showing Him to be a craftsman. It is YAHWEH alone that has created the world.
 
Having established the nature of Israel's creation faith and its superiority, in which he and his audience are agreed, the prophet moves from creation to history. If the universe itself is merely a tiny product of YAHWEH's hands, this must also be true of the nations which inhabit it. The implication is that, in spite of outward appearance, YAHWEH is not unmindful of Israel's plight, nor is He indifferent. He cares and He has the power to effect their release from Babylon. He who created the world is now stirring up Cyrus to do His work and bidding which will result in the second exodus.
 
This then is the context of these wonderful words:
 
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the faint,
and strengthens the powerless.
Even youths will faint and be weary,
and the young will fall exhausted;
but those who wait for the LORD
shall renew their strength,
they shall mount up with wings like eagles,
they shall run and not be weary,
they shall walk and not faint.⁸⁵
 

Response by James A. Marcum

Return to Carl Schultz' Links

Return to top
 

 2.  Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1-5. Translated by George Schick.  Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan.  (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), p. 3.

 3.  Such is Jerome's report in his letter to Paulinus, Epistle LIII, Patrologia, Series Latina, XXII, 547.  The immediate source of the information, however, is probably Nicholas de Lyra in his introduction to Gen. 1.  Luther was heavily dependent on Lyra for the rabbinic learning cited in his Lectures On Genesis Chapters 1-5.

 4.   Luther, op. cit., p. 3.

 5.   Ibid.

 6.   Ibid.
 
 7.   Ibid.

 8.   See Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1-5, cited in footnote 1.

 9.   Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), p. 1.

10.  Ibid, pp 1-2.

11.  Langdon Gilkey, "Evolution and the Doctrine of Creation," in Science and Religion, edited by Ian Barbour. (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), p. 160.

12.  A. Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. (New York: Knopf, 1964), p. 122, 125.

13.   Henry Morris, Studies in the Bible and Science. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 14.

14.  Carl Sagan, Cosmos.(New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4.

15.  Hyers, op. cit., p. 2.

16.  Elizabeth B. Browning, Aurora Leigh. (Chicago: Academy Chicago Limited, 1979), p. 265.
 
17.  Hyers, op. cit., p. 3.
 
18.  Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth.  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), pp. 18-19.

19.  Reuben P. Job, et al., (editors).  The United Methodist Hymnal (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 1989), p. 881.

20.  Ibid, p. 880.

21.  Ibid, p. 883.

22.  Ibid, p. 884.

23.  Weekday Prayer Book. (New York: Rabbinical Assembly, 1962), p. 42.

24.  Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity (New York: Meridan Books, 1956), p. 15.

25.  Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: Schocken Books, 1966), p. 9.

26.  C.E.B. Cranfield.  The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark Limited, 1990), Vol. I, p. 414.

27.  Revelation 22:5.

28.  Revelation 21:1.

29.  Bernhard W. Anderson, Out of the Depths - The Psalms Speak To Us Today (New York: Board of Missions, United Methodist Church, 1970), pp. 112-113.

30.  E.A. Speiser, "Enuma Elish," in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James P. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 60-72.

31.  Bernhard W. Anderson, "Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Creation Faith," in Creation and the Old Testament, edited by Bernhard W. Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 2.

32.  Ian Barbour.  Science And Religion (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), p. 9.

33.  Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), p. 160.

34.  H.H. Schmid, Creation, Righteousness and Salvation" in Creation In The Old Testament edited by Bernhard W. Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 111.

35. Psalms 47, 93, 99.

36. Job 38:4.

37. Chapters 40-49.

38.  Isaiah 40:28.
 
39.  John 1:3.

40.  Hebrews 11:3.

41.  Colossians 1:16.

42. Claus Westermann, Creation (Philadalphia: Fortress Press, 1974).

43.  Bernhard Anderson, ed. Creation in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).  This volume is a series of essays seeking to further dialogue with the scientific community.

44. Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, "A Challenge to the Body of Christ from the World Council of Churches," in Theology, News and Notes (December, 1992, vol. 39, no.4), p. 5.

45. Quoted in "Environmentalism: The Triumph of Politics" by Doug Bandow in Beyond Integrity, edited by Scott B. Rae and Kenneth L. Wong (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), p. 488.

46. Quoted in The God/Man/World Triangle: A Dialogue Between Science and Religion, edited by Robert Crawford (United Kingdom: St. Martin's, 1997).

47.  Even if one insists upon the word "prescientific" for the Genesis 1 text this does not render it unscientific or necessarily obsolete.

48.  Hyers, op. cit., p. 14.

49.  Ian Barbour, op. cit., p. 154.

50.  S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge, "Punctuated Equilibria," Paleobiology 3 (1977), pp. 115-151.

51.  Barbour, op. cit., p. 96.  Kuhn uses this as a primary example of a scientific revolution, a paradigm shift.

52. Ibid, p. 128, 129.  Reaction to the Big Bang Theory is mixed: Pope Pius XII welcomed the Big Bang Theory as support for the idea of creation in time.  Pope Pius XII, "Modern Science and the Existence of God," The Catholic Mind, (Mar. 1952): 182-92.

Jastrow concludes his book God and The Astronomers with this well known passage: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.  For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.  He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rick, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.  Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978), p. 116.

Arthur Peacocke is not so sanguine: "Theology is agnostic about the how of creation . . . Whether the big bang wins out or not is irrelevant theologically."  Arthur Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), chap. 2.

Barbour's word of caution here is most pertinent, suggesting the danger of attaching theology to a tentative theory: "I want to start with a word of caution about identifying the religious idea of creation too closely with scientific ideas of cosmology. . . One reason for caution is that in the past God has often been invoked to explain gaps in the prevailing scientific account.  This has been a losing enterprise as one gap after another has been filled by the advance of science -- first in the seventeenth-century astronomy and physics, then in nineteenth-century geology and biology. . . because events at the time seem to be in principal inaccessible to science.  Yet this situation might conceivably change, for much of contemporary cosmology is tentative and speculative.  Barbour, op. cit., p. 128.

53.  The Latin title is Annales Veteris Et Novi Testamenti.

54.  Andrew D. White, A History Of the Warfare Of Science With Theology in Christendom (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1897), Vol. I, p. 253.

55.  Ibid, p. 256.  Brewster sarcastically said of this claim: "Closer than this, as a cautious scholar, the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, did not venture to commit himself."

56.  Henry R. Morris, "The Tenets Of Creationism," ICR Impact 85, July 1980.

57.  H.W. Magoun, "Are Geological Age Irreconcilable With Genesis?" Bibliotheca Sacra (88, 1931), pp. 347-357.

58.  Other explanations for the 7 days are:

A. Gives the idea of "form and fullness" Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p. 54.

B. Develops a polemic against sun worship by having light on day one before the creation of the sun or day force.  Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1957) Vol III, pp. 120f.

C. Provide a sequence of days of instruction rather than days of creation.  P.J. Wiseman, Creation Revealed In Six Days (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1948), pp. 33f.

D. Composed for a seven-day New Year Festival in Israel akin to the akitu Babylonian rite.  S.H. Hooker, In The Beginning (Clarendon Bible, IV, 1947), p. 36.

60.  Genesis 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 20, 24.

61.  Genesis 1:3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 24, 30.

62.  Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31.  This last one is qualified by the word "very."

63.  Kidner, op. cit., p. 46.

64.  J.B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1962), John 1:1.

65.  Langdon Gilkey, "Evolution And The Doctrine Of Creation," in Science And Religion, edited by Ian Barbour (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), p. 167.  In this same volume (page 15) Barbour notes that some philosophers of the school of linguistic analysis are inclined totally to isolate science from religion.  Science asks carefully delimited questions of a specific and technical kind.  Its conclusions must be testable by observations.  We must not expect it to do jobs for which it was not designed, such as providing an over-all world-view, a philosophy of life, a metaphysical system, or a set of ethical norms.  The scientist is no wiser than anyone else when he steps out of his laboratory and speculates beyond his strictly scientific work.  Later on I will have more to say about the relationship between science and religion.  For now, let me note that while science may be untheological it is not necessarily antitheological.

66.  Genesis 1:11, 12, 12, 21, 21, 24, 24, 25, 25, 25.  This term is always singular even though English translation renders it as a plural (in fact, it is a collective singular).  Further, it is always followed by one of five pronominal suffixes.

67.  Hyers, op. cit.. p. 89.

68.  G.C. Aalders, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), Vol I., p. 62.  Walter Kaiser notes: This is a gratuitous assumption because a link between the word min with the biologist's descriptive term species cannot be sustained, and because there are as many definitions of species as there are biologists."  Walter Kaiser, "Min," in Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, et al., (Chicago: Moody Press), Vol 1, p. 503.

69.  Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 210.

70.  Hyers, op. cit., p. 17.

71.  Ibid, p. 45.

72.  Ian Barbour, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 4.

73.  Ibid, p. 10.

74.  John Bloom, op. cit., p. 203.

75.  Ibid, p. 37.

76.  Ernan McMullin, "How Should Cosmology Relate To Theology?" in The Sciences And Theology In The Twentieth Century, edited by Arthur Peacocke (Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame Press, 1901), p. 52.  Allan Bloom sees the Bible as providing the order for wholeness:  "In the United States, practically speaking, the Bible was the only common culture, one that united simple and sophisticated, rich and poor, young and old, and -- as the very model for a vision of the order of the whole of things . . . With its gradual and inevitable disppearance, the very idea of such a total book and the possibility and necessity of world-explanation is disappearing.  And fathers and mothers have lost the idea that the highest aspiration they might have for their children is for them to be wise -- as priests, prophets or philosophers are wise.  Specialized competence and success are all that they can imagine.  Contrary to what is commonly thought, without the book even the idea of the order of the whole is lost."  Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 58.

77.  A. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (London: Longman, Green, and Co., 1902), p. 122.  Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry in their book The Universe Story utilize narrative to tell the story of the universe.  They seek to overcome the division between the humanities and the sciences by drawing from physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, biology, anthropology, sociology, and related subjects.  Dr. John Cobb in his review of this book sees it as having the potential to be "the antidote to fragmented commitments and nihilism -- the narrative from which future generations can live appropriately to our real natural-historical situation."
Unfortunately, the faith dimension appears to be minimal in this volume.  I found only one biblical reference -- Job -- regarding suffering.  The reference to the Judeo/Christian tradition are essentially historical.  No story of the universe can be complete without the Judeo/Christian faith dimension.

78.  George Marsden, "Understanding Fundamentalist Views of Science," in Science and Creationism, ed by Ashley Montagu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 112.

79.  Alan Bloom laments such a situation: "It is a complex set of experiences that enables one to say so simply, 'He is a Scrooge.'  Without literature, no such observations are possible and the fine art of comparison is lost.  The psychological obtuseness of our students is appalling, because they have only pop psychology to tell them what people are like, and the range of their motives.  As the awareness that we owed almost exclusively to literary genius falters, people become more alike, for want of knowing they can be otherwise.  What poor substitutes for real diversity are the wild rainbows of dyed hair and other external differences that tell the observer nothing about what is inside."  Bloom, op. cit., p. 64.

80.  Ibid, pp. 56-57.

81. Colossians 1:16.

82.  John 1:3.

83.  Hebrews 11:3.

84.  H.H. Schmid, op. cit., pp. 103-105.

85.  Isaiah 40:28:31.
 

Back to Carl Schultz's Links