In a similar vein, I do not require that the stuff of science and engineering show proof of a Biblical foundation. The Bible is no more a science textbook than a math textbook. That said, we know from the historical record that the men and women who made great advances in scientific pursuits did so with a firm understanding that understanding was only possible because an orderly God had created an orderly Creation, and an orderly Creation was therefore subject to experimentation. There can be no laws governing gravity, energy and the like except there is a Lawgiver who has established these laws. That view has admittedly fallen out of favor, but not because it is disproven, rather because it is disliked. Man having devised the religion of humanism has had to despise and depose all other gods from his sight, else the foolishness of its new religion would stand exposed. Scientism is but sect of humanism, and posits a moral certitude to science which simply does not apply. The scientist is no more fit to provide moral guidance than a theologian is to provide financial guidance. It is possible that a particular scientist has fine morals, or that a particular theologian has gained wisdom in matters financial, but in neither case is the skill connected to the training of their chosen profession.
This has devolved to a running war between faith and science, at least as perceived by most folks. Again, there are scientists – and more than might be supposed – who still acknowledge the hand of God in all that they explore, and discern the wonders of God’s creativity in what they discover and discern. There are theologians – again, likely more than might be supposed – who do not consider science anathema, only the atheistic insistence that anything that brings God into the picture must be rejected out of hand. Yes, there have historically been conflicts between the Church and the sciences, and that has led to distrust. Copernicus is the standard bearer here, having proposed something that the Church saw as a mortal threat, although his observations and conclusions really had no bearing whatsoever on matters of faith. So the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe. That didn’t change God in the least.
We see a similar hardening of position in regard to evolution, and particularly Darwinian evolution. People of faith, by and large, are conditioned to reject anything that mentions evolution in any form out of hand, and people of a scientific bent are conditioned to reject anything that suggests any intelligence behind the design. This, it seems to me, is a sad and counterproductive outcome for all parties. The scientific community, for its part, has difficulty coming to terms with doubts cast upon Darwin’s theories, even though they come from within the scientific community. In fairness, I think it has to be said that the scientific community has, in large part, had difficulty coming to terms with science. We hear it too often anymore. “The science is settled.” But, such a statement declares little more than ignorance of science. Science is never settled. It offers its best explanations based on the data as we have it at present, at least science properly pursued takes this course. But, when the evidence demonstrates that current, so-called ‘settled science’ is in fact wrong in its theories, then those theories have to change. After all, the evidence will not.
As concerns the faithful, we put ourselves at risk of being just as wrong as those who rejected Copernicus because his theory didn’t fit their ideas. But, their ideas were based on interpretation of a text, whereas his were based on observation of the world in which we live. The Church was holding forth theory opposed to the data at hand. Theology being itself a science, although the scientific community would by and large deny it that label, its theories must give way to contrary evidence as well. The challenge is recognizing when and if such evidence is valid, and when it is either falsified or misinterpreted in its own right.
With all that said, I think it worthwhile to explore, at least in some small degree, some of those places where church and science appear to collide in this present day. I suppose I shall have to start with the subject of evolution, for that remains the great point of contention, and seems most inclined to present difficulties for the man of God. I cannot speak to it in great detail, for it is not a topic I have studied in great detail, but perhaps we can tease out some points nonetheless.
i. Evolution
[10/05/19]
To begin, I suppose we must have some understanding of terms, and at least some contact with the theories around the topic of evolution. Evolution describes a process of change, in its simplest form. In that sense, we may use it to describe changing ideas, changing architectures, or changing political structures as readily as for matters pertaining to the development of species. But, it is in this latter application that the term begins to rub up against matters of concern for theology.
Before we can deal with that, though, we need some further definition. It is primarily to do with gradual change or development, as opposed to radical, instantaneous shift. That latter would be more a revolution than an evolution. I suppose we might also posit that evolution is necessarily change from within the changing organism, rather than change imposed from without, but that only holds true in a limited sense, at least so far as the main theories are concerned. Evolution of species is generally perceived as species response to external pressures, so while the change may be within, the cause remains without in a larger sense.
Now, within the matter of species evolution, we have at least two major aspects to address. There is what is called microevolution, which would account for successful mutation within a species over time. In some degree, this could be simple adaptation requiring no particular mutation, but I suspect in those cases, the theory would not account it microevolution at all. The theory is more concerned with physical changes to the species. It should be clear that microevolution is a matter largely of genetics. As we have bountiful evidence of genetic mutation visible around us, it would seem rather impossible to reject the idea. We also recognize from bountiful evidence around us that the majority of genetic mutations prove to be dead ends. We would likely term them diseases. Cancer, for example, may be recognized as something of a genetic mutation, I think, though not a successful one.
That said, can we include behavioral changes in the animal kingdom in the scope of microevolution? I’m not sure. I think where we see adaptations passing down generation to generation, perhaps it would count, but I can’t say that it is positively the case.
Macroevolution is of a similar sense, and may differ only in scope. The general application is to development of species. It is an observation that several species are similar and yet distinct. It suggests, then, that one or more of these species branched off from the original, a successful mutation having altered the line from that point forward such that they were better adapted for some situation. Perhaps it was adapting to a new climate, or to a different availability of foodstuffs. Perhaps it was response to new predators entering the region, or old predators disappearing. Whatever the case, the similarity of species suggests a common ancestry somewhere along the way, eventually diverging sufficiently to render the multiple species distinct.
We can look around and see plentiful examples. Looking out my window, I can see any number of grey squirrels, and occasionally some reds. The similarities are clear, as are the distinctions, and the two will generally have nothing to do with one another. Why the distinctions? One developed small and ornery, and seems to keep to smaller groups. The other remains larger, a bit more inclined to flight, and tends to multiply just as much as the food stocks will allow. Then, on rare occasions, we may see a lone black squirrel. This does not appear to be an entirely distinct species, but mutation within the species, microevolution. The fact that we don’t see herds of them roving the woodlands suggests it is not a successful evolutionary path, probably because it makes them that much easier for raptors and the like to pick out and pick off.
Now, this connection of evolution and survival brings us to Darwin’s particular theories. Every successful change was one that served survival. It rendered the species more fit, more suitable as a mate, better able to obtain its prey or to fend off those who would make it prey. This theory also appears to take up the idea of evolution being towards greater complexity. Thus we have the popular image of man’s ascent according to Darwinian theory; successive species of monkeys, chimps, apes, and the like eventually arriving at early forms of man, and onward to the present form. Presumably, whatever it is that has caused this increasing complexity continues, and man will evolve further at some future date. I fear it is this last that has fueled any number of utopian ideals, for which perhaps the greatest problem always seems to be how to get man to evolve to fit the ideal. Yet, I see nothing in what little I have seen of these theories to suggest that evolution is a process that can be guided or self-induced.
All of these theories share something in common. They all view evolution as a process primarily of random chance, random change. Everything becomes effectively a throw of the dice, and as the numbers happen to come up, so goes the process. These dice, however, are not loaded, nor are they subjectable to manipulation. They shall roll as they roll, and you, dear being, are stuck with the results. Therein, I think, lies the major problem. For one, while we have evidence of these random sorts of shift, they are primarily in the range of microevolution, small adaptations within the species, and do not account for the great leap changes, say, for instance, the relatively sudden rise of the mammalians. Second, at least according to some in the scientific community, the random mechanisms of current evolutionary theory do not account for preceding conditions from which to begin the process of mutation. One author puts forward the example of birds learning to build nests in some particular style, more generally the capacity to adjust the environment to suit I guess. On what prior condition was this bird operating? Whereby did it obtain the necessary information and art to do this new thing? As he observes, those trying to fill the gaps in Darwinian evolutionary theory as it stands today have a tendency to simply accept that a priori knowledge without explanation. It was just there.
It strikes me as a very similar problem to those considering the origins of the universe. There, too, however far it gets chased back, and to whatever sort of initial event, the question remains: What came before that? And, if the answer is nothing, then what exactly was it that caused nothing to suddenly (or even gradually) become something?
[10/06/19]
Our answer, trite though it may seem, is, “In the beginning God” (Ge 1:1). With that as our inception, there is no further cause to seek. There is no before to consider, for our thoughts have touched upon eternity. But, while this answer may serve in considering what came before time, does it speak at all to the question of how various creatures have come into being? Not directly. Yet, if we are to come to grips with questions about evolution, it must require us to consider the creation account as we have it in Genesis. We might also do well to consider that this is not the only creation account, but that is a rather large undertaking in itself and beyond the scope of this effort. Suffice to say that this account is not the only one which perceives something formless and chaotic preceding the form of the universe as we have it.
The Genesis account, is rather earth-centric in its development, which should hardly surprise, given that Earth is indeed our home, and by and large, the full extent of our experience of the universe. Yet, it does at least touch upon the rest of the universe, at least as perceived from Earth. These are attributed to the fourth day, and I shall have to think upon that somewhat as we proceed. It seems out of place, if considered in light of current knowledge, but it may simply be misunderstanding of the account, perhaps.
At the moment, I am more concerned with the development of life. As that goes, we see that plant life precedes animal, and follows the arrival of dry land. We see the seas populated next, followed by avian life. Only then, on the sixth day, with everything else pretty well established, do we arrive at ‘living creatures’ that abide on land, and among their number, man arises last. So far, with the possible exception of day four, things seem loosely in agreement with general scientific understanding of the sequence of events. The primary issue lies with timing. It would be a difficult thing indeed to maintain a six day schedule, in keeping with our measure of days, in which this transpired. The physical evidence for a much, much longer span of time is simply too much to ignore.
We may ask, what of dinosaurs? Where is mention of them? I suppose one might see hints of them in mention of ‘the great sea monsters’ (Ge 1:21), but I could as readily ask, what of them? Their existence, or the lack thereof, had absolutely no bearing on the daily life of man, near as I can see. Moses would not have much cause to so much as suspect there had once been such creatures roaming the area. At the same time, the question of dinosaurs has no bearing on God’s purpose of salvation and redemption, the whole overarching point of the biblical record. We can pretty readily treat dinosaurs as John treats the many things said and done by Jesus that he and the other gospel authors did not choose to include in their writings. Lack of mention did not mean those things weren’t said or done, does not deny such matters. So, too, the apparent lack of reference to dinosaurs. Yes, I know there are other texts in there to which some point as being evidence of dinosaurs having their place in the Bible, but I honestly find the question rather uninteresting. If they are there, great. If not, it says nothing either about the accuracy of the Biblical account or of the existence of such beings. As to their existence, I should think the uncovering of bones that pretty clearly belonged to something much larger than is known to us today might suffice to establish the fact of their existence, if not necessarily to give us a proper idea of their shape, appearance, or diet.
As to the development of animal life, for the most part we find nothing here that rejects the basic premises of evolution, as I say, excepting the apparent timeframe. I will suggest one further, and quite major, point of divergence. As concerns mankind, we have a fairly distinct breaking point. Again, that man should be singled out as special is hardly surprising in a text written by man and for man. Of course we take center stage. But, as concerns our discussions of scientific theory, the bigger issue is how we arrive on stage.
We are given, as it seems, two accounts of the creation of the universe. There is the familiar six day account of Genesis 1, with its culmination in man, made in the image of God, male and female, to ‘rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Ge 1:28). It’s all for you, He says, the whole works, and so, having finished all, God rests. But, then we arrive at Genesis 2, and things get confusing. It seems we start over. There’s no plants yet, and there is God already forming man. And worse, as concerns evolution, we find man formed from the dust of the ground, not evolved from some prior species (Ge 2:7). Man having been thus formed, he is, as it were, planted in Eden, the garden wherein was ‘every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food’ (Ge 2:9). Woman is made soon after, also apparently formed of the dust, albeit with the starting point of Adam’s rib.
We have two issues to consider. First, does this not, as many attempt to establish, contradict the account in Chapter 1? It certainly has the appearance of doing so, given that man now precedes the plants, which would set us back on day three. Even if we were to suppose (and this really goes off into the stuff of fantasy) that man was formed off-planet somewhere and held in stasis or some such until those early plants in Eden had established themselves before being planted there, it seems to run somewhat afoul of the earlier description. Is this a second myth that Moses hoped nobody would recognize as such? Did he just figure that nobody would notice the differences? I rather doubt that this is the case. I do think the focus has changed.
We see that focal shift in the transition that begins the chapter. It begins with notice of God’s day of resting after He had completed this work (Ge 2:1-3). It then proceeds, as Moses is wont to do, with an introductory declaration. “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” (Ge 2:4). Okay, so I notice immediately that we now have what appears to be a single day encompassing the whole affair that was just laid out as seven. It is indeed singular, and the term at base does indicate the day, the period with the sun overhead. But, it is also used more widely of pretty much any great span of time, much as we might utilize it to speak of an era or an age, although I think we use it in that sense more rarely than was once the case.
Well, then. I am in theory at least contemplating the compatibility of the biblical record with evolutionary theory. I am going to posit something that may or may not be a unique take. As I think I have said previously, this is not a topic I have expended a great deal of effort exploring, and I’m not inclined to expend too much effort now. But, let me suggest this. As concerns the general development of the cosmos and of the various species we see around us, I don’t see anything here that denies evolution outright. In point of fact, I would say that evidence to support most of the ideas contained in the theories of evolution is sufficient to allow acceptance thereof. But, when it comes to man, we cannot, so far as I can see, continue to hold to that acceptance. So, what if mankind is in fact exceptional, is in fact an exception to the general order?
We do find fossil record indicating what are presumed to be early hominids. We can, to some degree, posit a course of development by which evolutionary theory arrives at these early hominids from a starting point of some other species. Thus, we have the proposed linkage of ape and human. But, what if? What is as yet missing is a defining link between this line and our own. We can, I guess, trace ourselves back genetically to some of these earlier hominids, but the full linkage seems to evade us. What if that is because the full linkage never existed? We are agreed on this much: The whole of mankind traces back to one man and one woman. We are even agreed, at least generally, on where this original couple lived. To the best of my knowledge, there is no particular consensus as to whether it was the man or the woman who came first, so the Bible’s establishment of Adam first and Eve second doesn’t conflict with any contrary position, not on the basis of any evidence.
The issue is that man is created effectively out of nothing. That is the account we have before us, and that is firmly and inexorably opposed to the view that man slowly evolved his way from amoeba to his current complex and intelligent state. Here, I think we must stand, for here Scripture stands. But, I am not at present convinced that this needs to, or even should, lead us to reject the whole idea of evolution. Again, the physical evidence in support of the evolution in general, certainly in its micro form, and I would argue in its macro form as well, simply defies attempts to reject the whole business out of hand. We are, it seems, faced with two unopposable forces, two bodies of evidence at odds one with the other. On the one hand, we have the revealed word of God, which cannot err for God cannot err. On the other hand, we have the creative work of God, which I cannot believe He would create with a whole body of false evidence, just to amuse Himself with the crazy theories man would devise based on these planted items. Both have to hold. I see no other alternative. In my limited view, I see no way for this to transpire except that man in some fashion breaks the pattern.
ii. Days or Ages?
[10/07/19]
I know I have but scratched the surface of the topic when it comes to evolution, and I have not even begun to touch on the theory of intelligent design, which is the primary system put forward by the so-called Creationists. These views, at least as publically perceived, have the appearance of being so utterly mutually exclusive as to share absolutely nothing in common. I suspect a portion of that perception falls to those generally inclined to take up the debate within the scientific community. Debates can become heated under the best of circumstances, and in all fairness, where matters of faith impinge upon the subject being debated, it’s all but assured that heat will be produced. Light, on the other hand, is not assured of production in such climes.
The Creationists have, to my thinking, one particularly major bone to pick with the evolutionists, and it is a pretty major one. They look at the theory, and in particular at the random number generator at its core (I speak metaphorically, lest there be any question), and do some math. The number of random outcomes that were required to fall exactly right in order to arrive at the present state of development is staggeringly large, and would require far longer, given the mathematical odds, than even the longest estimates give to the life of the universe. That is to say, the theory itself effectively declares the theory impossible. I am sure I am oversimplifying the argument, and I’m okay with that. We take the vanishingly small chance of random genesis arriving at mankind from a starting point of ‘formless void’, and recognize that while the path described might well be correct, still the engine described as driving the development cannot be. Add to this the unanswerable question of how creation made the leap from absolute nothingness to anythingness, and from the creationist viewpoint, the whole thing pretty much falls apart. At least, as I say, that is the perception the public (myself included) are left with.
But, I don’t suppose that those who have truly examined the evidence and the theory really hold to so start a division from the ideas of evolution. In theological circles that may be the case, but within the community of science there are men of faith, who are by definition theologians. I have little doubt that one can find men of scientific leaning amongst the professional theological ranks as well, but science is a wide field of which matters of evolution are but a small part, really. Arguably, as an electrical engineer, I must class myself amongst the scientists, but I can hardly suggest that my training or experience in that department provide any data pertinent to matters of evolution and genesis of the species. I would suggest it perhaps gives me a bit more willingness to accept the conclusions of the scientific community, where there appears to be sufficient data and experiment, and sufficient freedom from coercive pressures of politics and funding.
As such, as may be clear by now, I do not automatically toss any idea of evolutionary development aside as obvious rubbish. Indeed, I would likely incline to toss aside any idea of simply tossing it aside as obvious rubbish. The evidence is too abundant, and God too free of chicanery to reasonably believe otherwise. Yes, there are connections that can be observed, and any graduate of high school science has likely observed this process in action, on some small scale, via experimentation with fruit flies. One with a modicum of exposure to agriculture recognizes genetic mutation has been part of the story, one way or the other, for long ages. It’s not just the modern methods that introduced such mutation. Hybridization and splicing and such are at least as old as the New Testament, and almost certainly quite a bit older. But, these only describe those variations introduced by the handiwork of man.
What I think can readily be held by the creationist viewpoint is that yes, evolution happens. Again, I think it would be utmost folly to pretend it does not. But, and it is a major point, that evolution happens under guidance. It is not the product of random chance, but rather the clear and purposeful result of the One who forms all things as He pleases. I get it. That’s an offense to the modern scientist, but only, I think, because the modern scientist has set humanity (if not science itself) as his god, and therefore cannot accept a competitor. Of course, they would suggest that this is exactly our problem, in holding to the God revealed in Scripture. So, where does that leave us? At impasse, I suppose.
All of this comes by way of suggesting that, so far as days are concerned, what we have described in the opening chapters of the Bible are not twenty-four hour units of measure such as we account them today. They are not even the sunset to sunset measure of Jewish practice, as we see it in Scripture, and to some degree, even to this day. Trust me, having shared church space with a synagogue, sunset, particularly those bracketing the Sabbath, are still matters of great concern. They may be assigned a time stamp now, but it is not the hour that matters. It is the place of the sun; and in that particular branch of Judaism that owned this synagogue, it is the place of the sun relative to Jerusalem.
But, as concerns our assessment of scientific theory, I do not see any great reason to try and hold forth that these are literal, twenty-four hour days that Moses describes. I don’t see any reason to suppose that’s what he thought he was portraying. As I have already observed, as we transition from the six days of Chapter One into the discussion of Eden and the Fall in Chapter Two, we see the meaning blur, for those six days collapse down, near as I can tell, into one day; ‘the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven’ (Ge 2:4b). Whether heaven, in this instance, applies to the immediate heavens of the atmosphere, the cosmos more generally, or effectively everything that is not earth, the preceding account has these things covering more than one day. Yet, here it is but one. That seems rather clear indication that ‘day’ is not to be taken literally, but rather as some undefined passage of time.
This has its challenges, admittedly. Moses does speak of there being evening and morning, even on this first day of creation in which God separated light from darkness (Ge 1:4-5). Yet, I am unconvinced that the expectation here is that things necessarily happened all in a flash. We then have that truly odd depiction of events on day two, with mention of waters being divided into those above and those below, and an ‘expanse in the midst’. You know, reading that, the mind sort of naturally leaps to thoughts of land formation, but that’s on day three, so no, that’s not what is in view. Rather it is the formation of the atmosphere. Again, though, while we have reference to a morning and an evening, I’m going to be hard pressed to accept that this was the stuff of moment.
Let me back out from the picture just a bit. It seems to me that Moses describes events not from Creation’s perspective, but from God’s. It’s clearly not from man’s perspective, because man isn’t around to see most of it. He has not experience of it, and therefore really no basis for positing any sort of theory as to how things came to be. He had not the science to measure it, nor the opportunity to explore it to such degree as has been necessary to arrive at modern views. The data wasn’t there to offer more than opinion, and what is given in Scripture is something far more than opinion. I do think Moses, like Paul and John and friends in much later years, understood the significance of what it was they were writing, and knowing God to be behind it, were careful of their words.
So, then, if we are viewing these events from the perspective of God, who has revealed these things to Moses in order that they might be recorded, a day, we are told, is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day (2Pe 3:8). That is not literal, any more than the idea of a single day is literal in this instance, at least not the day of earthly measure. Given the timeless realm of God, I’m not sure what measure one could give to the concept of day, if any at all. We simply have no point of reference to indicate the passage of whatever passes for time in such a place. Assuming time has any meaning whatsoever, about the most we can say as concerns the days of Genesis 1, is that from the perspective of Creation, time passed. How much time? Who knows?
I will observe that the same lack of a point of reference plagues those who wish to establish a time table for the end times. So many have tried, and in keeping with the words of our Lord Jesus, so many as have tried have failed. That record will hold perfectly until He comes. I really don’t get the fascination with pursuing answers that you have already been informed in terms most certain shall not be given, but man is ever curious, and usually to his detriment.
So, then, let us accept that these days of Genesis are unmeasured expanses of time. In those expanses of time we have the slow arrival of regularity of days. I don’t know the astronomic measures of how long it would have taken for formless Earth to take form and position where we have it. I have seen a few of the ideas, and one of the more current is that a rogue planet shifted the Earth from its earlier orbit to that place where it finds itself now. I gather that this is based on observations made of more distant galaxies, and noting the general arrangement of planets around their stars; where the gas giants tend to be, and where the more solid orbs like our own. Ours is not in its ‘expected’ place, so far as these things are understood. I believe there have been observations of this rogue planet phenomenon, as well, but I may be incorrect.
At any rate, we’re discussion scales of geological ages here, just to get to the beginning of Day One, let alone that point where dark and light are separated. Oh, and I suppose I need to observe that we are not yet at that point where day and night are obvious on the Earth, where the lights that govern day and night from our perspective are visible. That’s way down the line yet. What does this do for scientific theory and its compatibility with a Biblical worldview? Not sure, honestly.
But, if we have days that measure out in geological ages, I think the whole account begins to work pretty well with scientific theory. I will stress once again, at this point, that the Bible is not attempting to put forward scientific theory; not here, not anywhere. Yet, what it does say on the subject has to hold together with the stuff of reality. For, I will simultaneously stress that nowhere does the Bible advise us to toss out the evidence of reality around us, to deny what is clearly there to be seen and heard and touched. Rather, the Bible makes constant appeal to that which can be seen and heard and touched as clear evidence of the Creator, whose invisible attributes are clearly to be seen in the workmanship of His hands in creation. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Ro 1:20). The Bible does not reject or condemn science. At most it points out the folly, and dire peril of those scientists who willfully blind themselves to the evidence they so scrutinize. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them” (Ro 1:18-19). The verdict? “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Ro 1:22).
It seems to me that the general flow of development as we have it presented in Genesis 1 fits rather well with modern understanding of events. First, we have the earth taking shape, and establishing something of normal orbit. Next we find the development of atmosphere. It seems to me that most any science fiction novel that considers terraforming recognizes this as first step. Got to have an atmosphere if life is going to take hold; at least any life form such s we could recognize. You may find it odd that I would be dragging in science fiction as any sort of evidence, but while these things present fictional accounts, it is generally done by scientists, and often as a means of exploring where certain theories and ideas might lead, given the possibility of pursuing them in real conditions.
Okay, so we’ve got atmosphere, and then we’ve got the upheavals that result in land formation, the watery surface having been there already. Fine. A planet suddenly (in astronomical terms) finding itself much nearer the sun is likely to find a goodly portion of its ice melting. We see it in those passing comets, little ice balls that draw near the sun and find that ice is not really up to the task of solar exploration. The difference is that in earth’s case, the planet was able to capture the evaporating waters into atmosphere; that obscure separation of the waters above from the waters below. It may be primitive in its description, and lacking in the finery of modern science, but it doesn’t seem inaccurate.
Now we have the arising of plant life. Did that precede animal life in the evolutionist’s thinking? I don’t know for certain, but it seems to me, again, that those books that explore the idea of transforming a planet for human habitation tend to begin with plants, which are, after all, a rather necessary component for our survival. Only then do we see the account give rise to aquatic life; again in reasonable keeping with evolutionary ideas of the progression. Avian life is next. That may or may not be out of the generally accepted sequence. I don’t honestly know, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable that avian life might precede the land animals. After all, there is far more of this orb that is submerged than isn’t. If one accepts that there was a time, long ages past, when all the continents as we know them were one, this only amplifies the ratio. So, if far more of the Earth has a watery surface and you wish to emerge from the water, would it not make sense that flight would find a place? Even now we know of bird species, such as the albatross, whose landfalls are separated by months and years; brief stops in an otherwise flight-filled existence. We could consider the flying fish, which seems an early prototype of this evolutionary development. Why not? But, for them, it seems the ability to escape the waters for a brief period sufficed, and development stopped.
Now, isn’t it interesting that it is at this juncture that we find sun, moon, and stars becoming visible and distinct? I would not find it reasonable to insist or even to suggest that what is intended in verse 14 is a depiction of the creation of sun, moon, and stars. I can readily see it as describing some sort of clearing of the skies such that those things were finally made visible to the creatures of the Earth. The cataclysmic forces that led to planet formation, led to the Earth being in this sublimely perfect orbital slot, waters boiling off into atmosphere and colliding tectonic plates throwing up great masses of land… all of these lead to a rather densely clouded atmosphere. Think Venus, perhaps, although I would not wish to be under her clouds. Or, think of those gas giants farther out; Jupiter with its roiling, cloudy atmosphere that by all appearances will never settle out. But, for Earth, more pleasant results were found. The clouds did not disappear as escaped atmosphere, but the system seems to have established some sort of equilibrium. The atmosphere cleared, and more of it became breathable. One rather pities those early bird species, for they could not have had near the expanse in which to fly.
Now, however, the stage is set for the arrival of land species, species which by and large require that cycle of night and day more so than aquatic species, and maybe more than avian species as well. As I think I have probably sufficiently described, the order of events does not seem to be at odds with evolutionary ideas. It is only when the scales are artificially (in my opinion) held to orbital days that we are forced to part ways; at least until we get to discussion of the rise of mankind.
iii. The Formless Void
[10/08/19]
I am moving through these ideas rather quickly, but I desire to move on. I want, in fact, to return to what is seemingly prior to that first day. Recall that the first day consists in the separating of light from darkness. But, there is a before. In that before, ‘the earth was formless and void’ (Ge 1:2). If I must allow my theological understanding of things to peacefully coexist with such scientific theories of cosmology as are in fact founded on scientific principles, then I think this is a key to that coexistence. We are pointed to a before, at time prior to the Earth really having any proper existence.
I recall an attempt made to find evidence in this for an entire earlier creation, one in which even Satan had not as yet fallen, but I don’t recall the basis for that position, if there was one. On the other hand, if current understanding of planet formation is at least proximately correct, this fits image to theory. I have to accept that such theories are based on observation, from however great a distance and in however fragmentary a view, of these processes in action. The planet doesn’t just pop into being, in place and already at orbital velocity. It takes time on a grand scale.
Before there can be a planet, there are immeasurable ages during which random bits of matter are slowly being attracted by the gravity of a particular star, and are captured by that gravity. Of that collection of matter, only a portion arrive with appropriate angle and velocity to wind up in orbit at some distance, rather than either falling in entirely, or whipping their way around the sun to shoot back out into space as comets tend to do. But, slowly, very slowly, a sufficient quantity of material gathers in similar orbit, and begins to become mutually attracted, gravity again doing its work on this smaller scale. Rock collides with rock, and either shatters (think asteroid belt) or adheres. The forces at play here are far in excess of the forces we see at play even in such things as earthquakes, although it may well be that earthquakes are, as it were, the aftershocks of these pre-first day events.
As rock joins rock, gravity increases, and the draw is greater on other surrounding bits which are in in turn drawn to join the growing object until at some point the gravitational attraction of the new planet has effectively cleared all debris from its orbit, and is not strong enough to reach further out. Besides, in a system such as our own, go too far out and other new planets are doing similar things, and sweeping up the matter from their own orbits. Reach too far out, and you’re going to get planetary collision. By that point, planets are too large to suppose a joint venture going forward. I believe that by many accounts this includes the events that gave us our moon – the after-effects of planetary collision, whether because earth reached out too far, as it were, or whether because the moon was that rogue planet that pushed us off our original trajectory and into this God-ordained orbit.
So, then, suppose all that we have learned of this process holds up. That’s always a question with science, because further evidence and further learning are always at risk of upsetting current theory. The good scientist welcomes the advance of learning. The bad scientist insists upon the theory despite the evidence. But, thus far, to the best of my limited knowledge, these ideas hold up. Well, then, ‘the earth was formless and void’. That would certainly fit with this period of planetary formation. The earth was very much void, for it was not as yet formed at all. Yet, we can say with confidence that God already had its form in mind, and in hand. It was formless because its various composite parts were still scattered through the vacuum of space.
My point is simply this: If we will move beyond a dogmatically literal perspective on the words used by men of limited to non-existent scientific knowledge, and yet remain far removed from those who would cast the whole thing as myth and nothing more, we find cause to accept that science and Bible are not at all opposed on this matter. There is no conflict, except of understanding.
Is that too bold a statement? Do I put my faith at risk by accepting that maybe the scientists, despite their propensity for atheism, are accurate enough within their fields of endeavor? I obviously don’t believe so.
While I’m on this track, and having been reminded of that business of moon as rogue planet, shoving us out of our original orbit even as it became captive to our own gravitational pull, let me return to Day One. On this day, we are told God separated light from the darkness. Well, now. Let us consider that period prior to the changed orbit. Let us imagine earth out at the distance of Pluto or thereabouts. How much light is there? We’ve seen the pictures, for the art of man has managed to lob a craft out that way with a camera, and our little robotic tourist sends back vacation photos for us to admire. Frankly, as awe inspiring as these developments really ought to be to us, the pictures are a bit underwhelming, as vacation photos tend to be if you weren’t there. Home is little more than an errant pixel, and the sun, that glorious sun that lights our day and heats our lands? It’s but a pin prick of light. For all intents and purposes, from that distance, there is no light in the darkness. There’s just the darkness. But, come Day One, and God separated the light from the darkness. Can you see, at least imagine, that this might very well describe that sudden (astronomically sudden, anyway) journey from outer band to inner band orbit? Suddenly, that pin prick of light is rather magnificent, and even painfully present. Things are going to change.
If indeed this is what we have in view on Day One, then again, I see at least a plausible explanation for the delay until Day Four, when it comes to the heavens clearing enough to discern sun, moon, and stars. Let me suggest to you that on Day One, or prior to Day One, there was no moon to observe, at least not until it began to approach close enough for the eye to detect. Let me offer one more thought. We see this whole period of development; land forming, plants developing, and so on, but as yet no life mentioned. We have, if my thoughts are correct, an earth in transition, shifted from the icy outer realms of the system into this more temperate zone where ice has melted, and yet the moisture has not simply escaped into space, ala Mars. It has been retained as atmosphere. The plants have wherewith to imbibe CO2, and exhale O. The sun is there for photosynthesis, its energy the most fundamental food source of life as we know it. Things were finally in position for life to come along.
But – and this is if anything more purely speculation than all I have put forward thus far – is it possible that the age of the dinosaurs is also contained in this formative period? Could it be that the beginnings of life as we have them on Day Five are actually matters that come after that cataclysmic event that put an end to the dinosaurs? Or could it be that the whole of that era is already encompassed in the days before light and darkness were separated? That, I suspect, is a step too far. Dinosaurs, from what we can learn of their descendants, have even stronger need for sunlight than we do. Could it be that the earth’s orbit was a tad wobbly in the period immediately following our changed orbit? I don’t know. Would it matter? Could it be that the arrival of avians on the scene includes those dinosaurs? I know there are current theories suggesting that at least some of these massive creatures were feathered, even if land-bound. We have no particular issue counting chickens or emus or ostriches amongst the avians, yet they are effectively land-bound. Why not these precursors to lizards as well? Again, pure speculation; but I have sufficient cause, I think, to accept that this record of Creation is sufficiently sparse in its details as to allow for much of current scientific understanding to exist within its gaps, and it does so, as it must, in such fashion as does not in fact contradict.
What God chose to reveal explicitly would not be at odds with what He has revealed through His Creation. Our understanding of one or other might leave us with beliefs that are at odds with one or the other, if not both, but the reality of that revelation remains self-consistent in all its aspects.
[10/09/19]
Before I wander off to the next point, I would once again consider that depiction of the end in 2Peter. “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up” (2Pe 3:10). This also seems to comport reasonably well with the general understanding of how things go with suns and planets. The sun, however many long millennia hence, will eventually blow off its final spasms of energy in a nova, and the waves of that expulsion will pass their way out through the surrounding planets, including the earth. Will the elements indeed be destroyed? To the degree that all is pretty well reduced to cosmic dust and blown out into the surrounding void once more, that doesn’t seem a wholly incorrect description. It may not have the precision of scientific theory, but from the layman’s perspective, is that not exactly what has happened? Intense heat has enveloped the earth. The atmosphere is gone with a roar, and the oceans will evaporate rapidly enough, given the lost atmosphere.
I am not in position to say what happens in terms of gravity. Does the sun in nova lose mass? One would think it must with such an explosive expulsion of so much energy and plasma. So, then, do the tidal shifts of gravity have their own adverse effect on the planets? I would think so. If the force of the nova wave front is insufficient to push things out of their accustomed orbit, I should think dropping gravity might. At any rate, such an ending for a planetary system is assuredly cataclysmic, and the likelihood of any life form surviving to see it through would seem vanishingly small, if there is any likelihood whatsoever.
iv. Life on Other Planets?
I was going to address the order of life’s appearance as we see it in Genesis next, but it seems to me I’ve already addressed that point. That being the case, let’s move on to something else. I will only touch on this topic briefly, because I don’t really see that it requires more than the briefest of treatments. But, it has been a question with us at least as long as we’ve had some idea that we could in fact travel beyond our atmosphere. For all that, it was a question before we properly sorted out how to travel within our atmosphere. Is there life on other planets? And if so, what impact would such extraterrestrial life have on the Christian faith? More properly, I suppose, what impact should it have? For, we know all too well how readily the Christian faith has been willing to modify to fit the cultural shifts around it. We know, too, how poorly such modifications have fared for the Christian faith.
So, let’s take it in turn. Is there life on other planets? It can’t be ruled out, can it? With that vast array of locations out there just in this galaxy, and with the seemingly infinite number of galaxies available in the universe, maybe, just maybe, some other planet out there has managed to arrive, as ours has, at just the right orientation to star, and to other members of the system to fend off the sorts of cosmic cataclysms that would tend to cut short the development of life. Maybe, just maybe, the sequence of planetary formation managed to bring together the right mix of elements to capture an atmosphere of the right composition to allow the emergence of life, and to support that emergent life as it developed and evolved.
Of course, it’s just as possible, if such life exists out there somewhere, that it might very well take forms that we would find utterly unrecognizable. We tend to suppose that all life forms must in some degree operate on principles akin to our own, which is to say, carbon-based existence. Whether that is truly necessary to life, I don’t know, and I don’t suppose mankind collectively knows.
But, let us suppose there is life, recognizable life out there somewhere, and let us even suppose that life, having arisen and having not been wiped out by supernovae or cosmic bombardment or even just the sheer weight of stupidity, has arrived at intelligence, and has formed societies not wholly unlike our own concepts of society. Now we are stretching just a bit, and may very well find ourselves at odds with what we read in Genesis. I’ll return to that shortly, I think.
But, for the moment, accept the possibility. After all, we are coming to realize there are other species on the earth that have intelligence after their own right, even if they do not form societies as we understand them, or develop technologies such as we have at our disposal. We see that dolphins, for example, are intelligent, able to experiment and devise new methods for the hunt in adaptation to their environment. We see evidence of social structure. What we don’t see is some dolphin developed space vehicle, or a dolphin devised computation device, or any other sort of technological development by the species. Maybe we just haven’t been around long enough. We can read fictional accounts of a theoretical era of intelligent dinosaurs that developed technologies of their own. Of course, we find no evidence to support such fantastic accounts, and I don’t suppose it’s because they took it all with them when they left. Frankly, I don’t suppose they left. All this simply to say that sure, there’s the possibility of life elsewhere, and even intelligent life.
It is but a small thing to take the next step and suppose there could be life that is not only intelligent, but technologically developed. Whether their development would necessarily follow the same arc as ours is an open question, just as the general makeup of their physiology is an open question. But, nothing much precludes us from accepting that it could be so.
Here is our great challenge, as a people of faith. What we do have is this. “Then the LORD God formed man of the dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Ge 2:7). This does, at least given a quick read, appear to establish a rather distinct breaking point with evolutionary theory, at least as applied to mankind, and I am inclined to see it that way, as I have previously noted. At the same time, recognizing the telescoping viewpoint of Genesis 2, which, as I have noted elsewhere, suddenly merges the seven-day account into a single ‘day that the LORD God made earth and heaven’ (Ge 2:4). Again, without slipping into the imaginary worlds of myth, it is quite reasonable to recognize a certain looseness of term here, particularly in the use of ‘day’. Can the same not be said in regard for just how it was that God made man of the dust of the earth? Indeed, is this not rather in keeping with that admittedly drug-addled perception of scientific theory present in lyrics like, “we are stardust”?
If we follow the tenets of current scientific thought as regards the development of stars, planets, and life-bearing ecosystems, I should think we wind up having to acknowledge that said lyric, for all its light-headed implications, has a core of truth in it. All of life as we know it is effectively stardust. The rare elements that we are so eagerly mining to fuel development of our latest technologies? Stardust. The aluminum and steel from which we construct our greatest structures? Stardust. The fly dive-bombing your head, much to your annoyance? Stardust.
How did stardust come to take all these varied forms, whether inanimate or animate, whether mineral, plant, or animal? Yes, science has its ideas as to the mechanics and the chemistry. They can describe certain processes and surmise others. But, at core, we come back to the utter improbability of unmanaged processes arriving at such conclusion as we have playing out before us every day. The scientist would posit that life naturally (that is without any guiding impulse from without) inclines toward greater complexity. The observational phenomena would seem to support the result. But, I am not sure there can be any observational support for the position that it has transpired apart from any external guiding impulse. By what process of experimentation would one go about proving such an absence? Is it even possible, within the tenets of scientific practice, to prove an absolute absence of such a nature? Even if one can show it to be absent in some limited set of cases (which is already rather a stretch), can it be shown absent entirely for all cases? At minimum, I should have to insist that given present state of the art, the systems by which to measure the presence or absence of outside impulse are quite simply non-existent. All that is left is supposition, and it strikes me that by and large it is only supposition that fuels this seeming consensus, or majority view.
As has been observed in regard to some of the more vocally atheistic members of that community, if your starting point is to automatically discount any theory or proposition that involves God in any way, you are no longer allowing the evidence to form your opinions. You are now allowing your opinions to form the evidence. This is not scientific method. This is dogmatic scientism.
Obviously, at least to my thinking, we on the theological side of things run an entirely similar risk. The better theologians understand it. That is why you will find careful insistence on an exegetical approach to Scripture rather than eisegetical. Don’t just read your prefabricated opinions into the evidence of the text. Grant the text to speak for itself, and form your opinions on the result. This is in effect scientific theory applied to revealed religion. The text is true, but our understanding is at great risk of being quite false. It is an ever-present danger for theologian and scientist alike.
[10/10/19]
So, once again: Let it be granted that perhaps there is not just life on other planets, but even intelligent, ‘living being’ life, which is to say life of a form equivalent to that of man. What does this change? Nothing. I say this with the conviction of faith. Indeed, as egotistically specie-centric as it may sound, I would suggest that even in such a reality, man remains the pinnacle of the created order, for of no other is it written that he was made in the image of God Himself. Is it possible that some other creature out there, in spite of its radical differences from mankind, might also be said to be made in God’s image? I suppose so, for it is not the physiognomy that defines the likeness, but rather the soul and spirit. After all, we are already made in His image, yet we are informed that the body in which we live at present shall have to be transformed significantly in order to be fit for life in the new heavens and new earth. Whether that new body will be recognizable as the old body is, I think, an open question.
What gives me a greater certainty in my answer is found in places such as Colossians 1:20. I’ll start a verse prior to avoid starting mid-sentence. “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in [Christ], and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” That is a pretty thoroughgoing work that is described, and the whole of it centers on one thing: Christ having made peace through the blood of His cross. This, Hebrews reminds us repeatedly, was a once for all, singular and final act. The Son, our eternal High Priest, “does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself” (Heb 7:27). That ‘all’ may not include the whole sweep of existence in its scope, but it certainly includes the whole sweep of the redeemed. It spans heaven and earth, says Paul, which in this case speaks to the heavenly realms.
Again, Hebrews observes this singular and final event. “Not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12). This once for all event covered all believers across all time and space, and across realms both physical and spiritual. There is no corner of existence that is left uncovered. For our part, we “will have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10).
I stress this for cause. You will forgive me if I tend to keep returning to themes from science fiction as evidencing scientific theory, but the genre, at least in its better forms, is one populated by scientists for authors and exploring those theories in the course of these fictional pursuits. So, I think of a few such books which have, in their own way, considered what extraterrestrial life might mean for Christian faith. I recall one such that posited a fanatical sect out on some distant planet, whose leader thought to propagate Christian faith by acting the Christ for his followers, offering himself on a cross. But, this depiction cannot reflect a proper Christian understanding, even of space travel as applied to humanity and Christianity. Let it be supposed that such a leader led such a sect, and it must be recognized that he is a delusional leader, not so far removed from Jim Jones or others that have led people into deadly error in our own time and place. This is not, then, Christianity that is depicted, except through some horribly distorted lens. Rather, it is fanaticism, which in any form proves deadly and utterly contrary to faith.
The message of Scripture is clear. There is one Son, one Christ, our one eternal High Priest. He undertook in one earthly life of perfect obedience to present Himself the one, utterly necessary sacrifice for the sins of all. We tend to stop with all mankind, because that is the full compass of our experience. In this we are little different than those who looked at the spread of Christianity in the time of the Apostles and saw that the gospel had gone out into ‘all the world’. Well, if one inserts a ‘known’ in there, sure. But, all the world wasn’t even impinging on the awareness of those making the assessment. The New World had yet to be noticed, or even large parts of Europe and Africa. As for Asia? I’m not sure how much awareness there would have been of the full scope of its lands and peoples.
My larger point is this. Those who saw the gospel as having gone out into ‘all the world,’ as I say, could only assess the world as they knew it, and yet we could suggest they wrote prophetically, for as our recognition of the world’s scope grew, so too did the expansion of the gospel’s distribution into that world. At present, while we recognize that there are yet people groups and regions into which the gospel has not penetrated as thoroughly as it should, yet the effort goes on, and the general sense of that original idea still holds. However big the world has gotten, yet the gospel has gone out into all of it. So, then, let the ‘world’ expand in scope again. Let it expand to include other forms of redeemable life on other planets. In what wise does the message change? I say it changes no more than does the answer it gives. Christ died once for all, to redeem all through the offering of His own body, having lived once for all a perfect, sinless life. Wherever there is life to be found, whether it has Adam as its first Adam or some other, it will find itself in need of that last Adam.
As I think of that connection, I could see how one would derive a need for a modified Christ, suited to that other lifeform, and taking on a nature such as their own, in order to serve as federal head to their own. But, then, that also presupposes that our resurrected body will be sufficiently like the present one as to make no particular distinction to our perceptions. That, on one level, simply cannot be the case, else there has been no transformation whatsoever. It is also, I think, a limiting view. One need look no further than a butterfly to recognize that such transformations can be utterly thoroughgoing in scope, and yet leave the same living being intact. The butterfly is still the same being that was a caterpillar, though you would be hard pressed to recognize the one form in the other. If, then, such wild transformation is possible in the realm of nature, what exactly precludes even greater transformation on this scale? Is it possible that multiple, divergent life forms, as they exist in this universe might yet be transformed such that they become one, common life form in eternity? I can at least hold out the possibility of such an outcome without doing violence to reason or Scripture, I think. The one thing that gives pause is the exemplary use of seed and plant throughout Scripture. There is correlation, in nature, between what is sown, be it plant or animal or moral, and what grows from that seed. Given that nature is, after its fashion, modeled on heavenly realities, perhaps I cannot rightly posit a common new form for multiple seed forms. But, this is not something about which firm conclusions can reasonably be made, is it?
v. Other Universes?
Okay, we have one other, even wilder, theory to consider before I leave off this corner of my explorations. Much is being made, of late, of various conceptions of a multiverse. This goes to the ideas that all of reality is just some higher order’s simulation, I think. That seems a bit much, to my thinking, and is likely an attempt to have something god-like without having God. But, there are other ideas out there, that posit a perhaps infinite number of parallel universes. Perhaps there are universes existing on the far side of black holes, as I recall being one of the ideas. Perhaps they all more or less occupy the same space, but in such a way that they don’t normally impinge one on the other.
This gets us into various explanations, if you can call them that, for paranormal activities, which are also seeing a rise in popularity as we drift farther from our Christian roots. This, too, I think, is an attempt to have spirituality without the necessity of God. That is to say, it is all vain imaginations. This does not require us to discount paranormal activities out of hand, but rather to recognize them for what they are; demonic deceptions no different than the idolatries of old. They are lies to entice and distract, and to keep the chaser after such things from considering the God of Truth.
That said, it seems to me that we could reasonably view the spiritual realms that are clearly declared in Scripture as a form of parallel universe. The heavenly realms, for example, are not physically perceived around us, although we have record of some few who were taken hence, like Elijah and Enoch, and at least one who was taken hence and returned in the person of Paul, although by his own confession, it’s unclear that he went there other than in thought (2Co 12:2). I find the realm of Hades to be similarly separate from physical reality as we perceive it. But, returning to that image in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, we see to regions – that which we would deem hell, wherein the rich man suffered his just punishment, and that place wherein we find Abraham and friends – and between them an unbridgeable gulf or chasm. That could readily fit the idea of multiple universes, I should think. Crossing over from one to the other, at least if we consider heaven, hell, and creation as we know it, seems to be possible for certain orders of being. Angels apparently can make the transition from heaven to earth, and demons, those fallen angels, from hell to earth. I suppose for that to hold, it must also be true that angels can make a one way transition, at least, from heaven to hell. But, the return trip seems somehow to be rendered impossible.
vi. Summing Up
[10/11/19]
I have considered a few topics in this section, and all of them tend toward theory in one degree or another. I have to say that the last few of these tend more toward theory, if only because there is as yet no possibility of solid evidence to back the theory. But, where have I arrived? What is it I would say I believe? For it seems to me that even in the course of considering these things, I have seen my thinking shift this way and that.
I would have to say that while I can credit a great deal of what evolutionary theory proposes, I have difficulty squaring it with the account of man’s creation. I can’t rule it out entirely, for I do see how the passage describing man as created from the dust of the earth can be interpreted as describing the entire arc of man’s development. But, that is not in fact the way it is presented. Adam isn’t brought before our eyes as the end-product of some long-term development. He is fashioned directly, as it would seem; directly by God, and directly from the dust. Eve is likewise a matter of relatively immediate manufacture, if you will, and the inclusion of Adam’s rib in her being just makes the whole picture that much harder to square with any idea of evolution, unless we make the whole depiction far more figurative in nature than it appears to intend.
Given the genealogy offered by Luke, and its trace back to a real Adam, we cannot suppose this to be too figurative an accounting (Lk 3:38). There’s a real lineage there, comprised of real individuals. Like Jesus, the last Adam, this first Adam was a real man living a real life, and dying a real death. This bears so greatly on the whole overarching record of redemptive history as to really brook no argument. Adam was real, as was Eve his wife. The generations from his creation to the arrival of Christ, the promised Seed, are known, comprised of manifold individuals, all equally real, equally having lived and died in their turn. This is no fable, no mythology ala Olympus and that brood of characters.
As to the age of the universe and the earth, I am again perfectly comfortable accepting that scientific estimates, even though they change as new data comes in, are more likely to reflect the truth than the attempts to find its age by counting the generations recorded in Genesis and elsewhere. The six by 24 understanding of Genesis 1 seems too much at odds with the physical evidence of Creation to deserve any defense. To accept it, one would have to propose God as a trickster of the first order, for it would require that He had, in the course of this young earth creation, planted an absurd amount of false clues, false evidence whose only intent could be to lead those creatures created in His image to false conclusions. Either that, or we must suppose that the various fossilized remains, and even the appearance of distant solar systems are not in fact the stuff of God’s creation, but rather tares implanted in the work by Satan. But, that strikes me as equally as absurd as the first thought. No, I think we can and must accept a truly ancient, all but unfathomably ancient world in a truly ancient, immeasurably ancient universe.
That does not, however, lead me to conclude that man, in his various derivative forms, is equally ancient. Whatever may be said in regard to similarities with Neanderthals and other such upright species from the distant past, I find I suspect we shall discover in due course that the apparent connection was in fact a misinterpretation of the available data. I will grant that I may yet discover I am incorrect about this, but the question at present is what do I believe? And if that is the question, the answer remains, I believe that Adam was created by God, not evolved from prior forms. I also believe, even if it is somewhat a hedging of my bets, that if it turns out to have been otherwise, this in no wise alters the federal headship of Adam, in no wise alters the reality of his having experienced a period of existence in which he could truly be said to have walked with God in the garden of Eden. Whatever his nature and his origin, it does nothing to alter his position as our one common father, and again, I observe that even the least faith-involved theories of mankind concur. They just choose a different timeframe, and perhaps a different name, in hopes of distancing themselves from a God they cannot in fact evade.
As to the existence of other life on a par with humans, somewhere out there in the universe, while it’s assuredly an intriguing thought, I’m not sure I really buy it as a likelihood. I will state that on two primary grounds. First, the centrality of the first and the last Adam to the record of creation and redemption, and the finality of that last Adam’s death on the cross, as we saw in the Colossians verse, would seem to preclude any sort of ‘replay in type’ for other species akin to ourselves, and yet different. Second, in spite of our mania for being awed by seemingly inexplicable phenomena, I am disinclined to suppose that we have indeed already been visited by any such extraterrestrials. I find it much more plausible, in all honesty, that we have been visited by demonic imposters coming across from their less physical realms, and taking up forms suited to whatever their purposes may be.
Likewise, the more recent ideas in regard to parallel universes and such, while entertaining, strike me as unlikely to prove accurate, except perhaps as vague intimations of the reality of heaven and hell as realms unseen even though all around us. But, if we take, for example, the stray idea that every decision we make branches off a new universe somewhere, somehow, in which the decision is reversed, well, first, I think we wind up with an utterly ridiculous number of universes in very short order, which seems highly unlikely. Second, it seems to me that if this were indeed the case, we would find some hints of it both in the biblical record and the scientific. But, the only hints we have are of heaven and hell, a place of the dead that is not mere annihilation, but a place where the dead continue as living souls, however that may be. Of these, we have more than hints. We have direct statements, and some would argue direct evidence on the part of certain individuals who have come back from death. I’m not sure I would put much stock in those accounts, but I don’t suppose it’s impossible.
So, there it is. I cannot reject scientific evaluation of evidence out of hand, but neither can I reject the reasonably clear declaration of Scripture. To the degree that these two coincide, I am happy to concede the validity of scientific theory, even if it appears to run counter to the most rigidly literal interpretations of the text of Scripture. But, we do have these points wherein it seems that Scripture draws a line that cannot be crossed. That said, I have to accept that my understanding of Scripture, like proper scientific theory, must stand ready to alter in the face of new evidence, and greater understanding.
