Our Current Courses

What about Genesis and evolution?

There is no definitive formula universally agreed upon by all scientists which explains clearly how the universe and life on earth began. Theories and counter theories abound – but which one is right? Fresh discoveries are being made at such a rate that scientific fact can soon be relegated into scientific fiction. Theories which were once viewed as groundbreaking can soon become obsolete even before the print has had time to dry on the pages of the National Geographic or New Scientist magazine.

All this goes to show that the human race, despite its advancements in technology, exploration and science, is stilllearning about the world we live in! Although we are intelligent, we are not ‘know-it-alls’ and there are limitations as to what science can and cannot confidently say for certain. This fact needs to be stressed all the more when it comes to the issue of evolution and God’s existence.

The overwhelming majority of people who struggle to believe in God’s existence claim to do so on the basis that science has disproved God, yet this is a totally unproven claim. God’s existence (or for that matter his non-existence) has never been “proved” from science, but then in all fairness, it can’t! For it stands to reason that if there is a God he would be vastly superior to us in every conceivable way. Even the brightest human mind would not be capable of fathoming God let alone attempting to explain him away.

I have no doubt that science may well explain mechanisms within God’s created universe, but it must never step beyond itself by excluding even the possibility of the God who created those mechanisms in the first place. This I fear, has been the great mistake of virtually every scientific or natural history programme screened on television today, whose bias towards an atheistic philosophy is very blatant.

Speaking of TV documentaries, I was interested to watch a Channel 4 programme screened in 2001 called “Testing God” where a Cambridge University Physicist candidly said: “If you ask it at a very deep level, if you want to know why is the universe the way it is, we are nowhere near answering that question in science. And we’re no closer now than the Ancient Greeks were.” At least there was a scientist who was honest enough to admit that science really doesn’t have all the answers.

I firmly believe that on this issue of our origins, the Bible clearly speaks and I would like to present a reasoned response to those who are interested, not only in questioning the Bibles claims, but also the atheists claims around this issue!

What about evolution?

When it comes to this subject of evolution, it might surprise you to know that even among Christians (amongst whom are many fine scientists) there are differences of opinion as to exactly how God made the universe. But whatever theory the Christian believes in it will always have its origins in God as the creator and designer. As Peter Lewis put it: “All Christians have a theology of creation. They may disagree on processes and time-scales, but at the centre of their understanding of the origin of things and their ongoing existence is the personal Creator and upholder of all things: the God of wisdom, power and goodness in infinite degree” (Peter Lewis, The Living God, published by IVP 200 pg 27)

If it were by means of a ‘big bang’ that the universe was formed then I am convinced that it was God who created and commanded that big bang to take place. And if life formed from some biotic soup, then I am still certain God designed it to happen that way. Likewise if God created the world in six days then I believe that this too is possible for God, even if it appears implausible to the atheistic mind. Whichever one of the many possible explanations to the creation of the universe which is ultimately correct, the one thing I am absolutely convinced of is that God designed and orchestrated it all.

Essentially every one of the theories of evolution put forward by scientists, simply describe possible processes – that’s all! There has never been a theory found in evolution which has proved that God was not behind the process itself! Indeed, it requires far less blind faith to believe God had chosen evolution as the means to create the world than to believe that it all happened by random chance!

Surely you cannot believe the Genesis account?

One of the greatest misunderstandings regarding the book of Genesis is this. Genesis was not written as a science book to answer questions from physicists or biologists living in the 21st Century. Rather it was written against the flawed polytheistic and pantheistic accounts of creation found in the Ancient Near East at that time. This is vitally important to grasp hold of, for it sets the opening chapters of Genesis into their rightful context, to a time when people knew nothing about microbes or supernovas

By taking this into consideration (which we must) we can see that the creation story as outlined in Genesis is quite uncomplicated. It does not mention, binary fission, the laws of thermodynamics, DNA or any other biological details which interests scholars today. In other words the very things, which we find so important to us today in reconciling Genesis 1, which were incomprehensible (and therefore unimportant) to people back then.

However, the burning question of ‘who made this Universe and why?,’ was as vitally important to people back then as it should be for us today. So, God provided an answer - this world was made by God and the pinnacle of his earthly creation is mankind, whom he has created to be in a relationship with their creator.

As Dr Earnest Lucas says: “It is argued that the more closely one looks at Genesis 1 in the light of the religious ideas with which the Hebrews had to do battle, the clearer it is that the meaning of the Genesis passage is essentially theological, not scientific. It deals with the questions which theology asks, not those which science asks. Those theological questions are just as relevant today as they were 3,000 years ago. They are more important than the scientific questions, since they go to the heart of the meaning and purpose of the universe in a way that science cannot” (Dr Earnest Lucas Can we believe Genesis today? IVP 2001, pg 100).

Let us now consider three of the main Christian interpretations of the creation account as found in Genesis 1-2.

Understanding the 6 days of creation

According to Genesis chapter 1, the world was made over a 6 day period. Is that possible? Well as I said at the very beginning of this page, Christians have differing theories as to how God made the world and these are based around their interpretation of Genesis chapter one. And just as the different atheistic theories of evolution have their difficulties, there are difficulties too with each of the theories of interpretation of the Genesis passage as I will outline below.

The Literal ‘Six Days’ of Creation View

There are those who take the literal approach to Genesis 1-11: Those who hold to this view believe that

God created the universe in six days - from the first molecules and rays of light on the first day, right down to the making human beings on the sixth day.

All creatures were made to reproduce according to their distinct kinds. This subsequently resulted, by natural selection process, in the many different species we see today. God’s creation was originally at peace in His paradise heaven.

However death, decay, disease and suffering arrived in the world as a result of a holy and just God’s curse on the original rebellion by the first human couple: Adam and Eve. Further judgment against mans human rebellion was delivered via a catastrophic flood (as recorded in Genesis chapter 6). This global cataclysm and its disastrous after-effects would have drastically reshaped and restructured the Earth’s surface. As a consequence of this catastrophic hydraulic and tectonic event millions of creatures would have been entombed in rock layers across the entire world, as can be observed today in fossilized remains.

This literal view does offer an alternative explanation for the formation of the geological layers, fossils and features that we can see today. A view which is quite different to the often-stated slow, uniform, processes of erosion and deposition which requires millions of years.

I appreciate that some reading this view might be tempted to dismiss it without any further consideration. But in defense of this view I would like to point several things.

First of all, that if God exists, then it stands to reason that he is quite capable of doing that which seems utterly impossible to us! To God, the miraculous and the supernatural, are natural to him. He operates within these realms all the time. Nothing is impossible for God. At the natural level, it is just as impossible for dead men to rise from the dead….but Christians are convinced that Jesus did just that!

Second, those who hold to six days of creation believe that the earth is young and what is more they argue that the geological evidence of fossils supports that very claim. For example since almost every fossil used in support of evolution is found in sedimentary rock, one must question whether or not these layers were laid over hundreds of millions of years; slowly and gradually or whether they were formed in a brief period of time.

An observation of the effects of minor flood-water disasters today show clearly that sedimentation layers actually build up very quickly. The vast numbers of petrified remains in rock show clearly that animals and plants were indeed fossilised rapidly. There are examples of fossilised tree-trunks discovered in Germany (and visible today) which pass through several feet and more, of different sedimentary rock layers. This would either mean that this tree was fossilised in this position over a period of millions of years (which would be utterly impossible as the tree should have decomposed within 50 years) or that it was fossilized by different deposits occurring in a rapid period of time, possibly over several years.

There is little dispute even amongst atheistic scientists that vast floods have happened in the earths lifetime. Indeed Two senior scientists from Columbia University proposed a theory that a massive transfer of water occurred about 5600 BC - over seven and a half millennia ago. They wrote: "Ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls ." "The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days." 60,000 square miles of land were inundated. The Black Sea shoreline significantly expanded to the north and east. The lake's water level was raised many hundreds of feet. It changed from a fresh-water landlocked lake into a salt water lake connected to the world's oceans.

They have drawn on the findings of experts in agriculture, archaeology, genetics, geology, language, development of textiles and pottery, etc. They postulate that this deluge had catastrophic effects on the people living on the shore of the Black Sea . It triggered mass migrations across Europe and into the Near East, Middle East and Egypt . It may have been the source of many flood stories in the area. Some researchers believe that the story of Noah's flood in the Biblical book of Genesis describes this cataclysmic event.

Sue Bowler of the New Scientist commenting on this research said: The [ Black Sea ] flood is a fascinating story, all the better for being told by working scientists. What comes across clearly is the thrill of discovery....The mixture of disciplines and ways of doing science is exhilarating and paints a realistic picture of the way research works."

In all fairness we can see from the literal six days of creation view that it is not the facts of science that are disputed but how the evidence is interpreted. Interpretation of the same given data is a fascinating study in itself and it is well worth looking at the following websites in order to see how commonly held views regarding the age of the earth and fossilized material can be interpreted just as convincingly by scientists who hold to a literal six days position.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk

This is however, one possible view of Genesis held by some Christians – but not all, so lets consider the others.

The Literal- Cultural View of Genesis

There are those who take a more flexible literal-cultural interpretation whereby one reads the Genesis account as through the eyes of the original Hebrew readers. For instance the sun and moon are described simply as ‘lights’ in the sky as Genesis chapter 1 verse 5 says “God called the light "day", and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.” Dr Earnest Lucas points out that ‘in the Semitic languages, of which Hebrew is one, the words ‘sun’ and ‘moon’ are also the names of gods. The peoples around the Hebrews worshipped the heavenly bodies as gods and goddesses. Genesis 1:14-19 is [therefore] an attack on all such thinking. The heavenly bodies are simply ‘lights’ (just like great big oil lamps!) created by the God of Israel to serve humans (not for humans to serve!) as calendar-markers.’ As we see from this example we do not dislocate the text from its original context. Indeed, the original context of the Hebrew and Ancient Near East culture sheds much light on the texts meaning.

Secondly, the Hebrew verb bara’ (‘to create’), which in the Old Testament is used only of God’s creative activity, occurs three times in the story, in verses 1, 21 and 27. It seems understandable that it should be used in the initial statement about God’s first creative work in verse 1 and of the final act (the creation of humans) in verse 27. But why is it used in verse 21? The only convincing answer has to do with the significance of sea monsters in one of the creation stories of Babylon… in that story the creator god has to subdue the forces of chaos, depicted as sea monsters, before creating the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1 rejects this Babylonian view by stressing that the sea monsters are just part of God’s creation. He did not have to fight and subdue them, he made them! (Dr Earnest Lucas Can we believe Genesis today? IVP 2001, pg 99).

So this view asks the question “Is the Genesis account to be understood literally or metaphorically?” Given the fact that metaphors usually take the form of picture language and are not meant to be taken literally then this is highly probable. However, it is absolutely clear as one examines the Bible as a whole that God’s existence is to be taken as being literally true. God’s existence is not questioned, nor is it even open to question. But are the 6 days of creation to be taken as literal or metaphorical? That point is open to debate. So, God’s existence is never in question with this interpretation of scripture, neither is the fact that it was God who created the universe. But what may be open to question is the length of time and the process with which God made the universe.

The literary–cultural approach to interpreting Genesis therefore leads us to conclude that Genesis1:1-2:3 is primarily theological rather than scientific and leaves open the how question of God’s creative act. Science may well find out the answers to the how question, but it can never answer the more important questions of who made it and why? Although discovering how God made the universe is interesting to examine, it is not nearly as essential as the why question.

The Days Mean ‘Age’ View

This view closely ties in with the literal-cultural view. The day’s of creation are taken figuratively rather than metaphorically in this view. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom) in the Hebrew language can mean an ‘age’, in other words an unspecified period of time! Certainly, this view like the view mentioned above, would then allow scope to claim that the earth is old and would perhaps allow for evolution being the mechanism whereby God made all life over a period of considerable time. However, one weakness in this argument is that Genesis one records the phrase “And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.” This does seem to point to a 24 hour period. The fact too that on other occasions where the phrase “Yom” appears, it again is used to indicate a normal earth day. So this view is not without its difficulties.

Dr Earnest Lucas, who holds to a literary-cultural view, said: “There is no strong theological reason for denying the possibility that God used an evolutionary process to bring into existence the life-forms he wanted. The literary-cultural approach is not directly affected by the scientific arguments about the age of the earth and evolution. This is because it leads to the conclusion that the message of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is theological rather than scientific. It concentrates on the nature of God and the world he created, and his purpose in creating it. The question of how he did it is left open.” (Dr Earnest Lucas Can we believe Genesis today? IVP 2001, pg 104).

Science may well discover the answers to many of those how questions, but it cannot answer the why and who question. The Bible itself provides only 2 pages to explaining how God made the entire universe, but it devotes 1,200 other pages on why he made the universe. Given that amount of evidence, it would not require an Einstein to work out that God was far more concerned that we knew who made us and why rather than working out how he made us.

These then are three of the most common views held by Christians. As I pointed out, all of them affirm that God is the creator. All of them are possible, though perhaps the last two would have less conflict with current atheistic evolutionist views (with the exception that all atheistic scientific theories do not allow for even the possibility of God to be on the scene, let alone in the directors chair!).

Christians who are scientists

There are many Christians who are scientists who see no conflict between their faith and their respected field of study. The most enriching thing a scientist can do is to come to a personal experience of knowing the true and living God in whose universe they explore. Your science will become more alive with ever deepening wonder and marvel at the God who made the laws which govern our universe. Exploring a purposed universe is far better than exploring a purposeless universe. To explore a purposeless universe is, in a way, like meaninglessness finding even more depths of meaninglessness. However, a purposed universe is full of meaning and direction.

Roy Peacock, a professor in aerospace science and an authority on thermodynamics, writes of his own research and his growing awareness that ‘What we are viewing is design, contrivance –not accident, chance.’ He continues: ‘The more I explore this subject, the greater is the conviction that, setting all else aside and from the scientific viewpoint alone, I see a designer who has contrived the most amazing cosmos whose characteristics are balanced on a knife-edge of improbability, ready to topple off should there not be the corrective ‘hand on the windlass’. But it is a cosmos so fashioned that it would be the residence of man whom he would create. Stephen Hawking, examining the uniformity of the initial state of the universe, concluded that, so carefully were things chosen that ‘it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.’ (Peter Lewis, The Living God, published by IVP 200 pg 34)

David Wilkinson, formerly a theoretical astrophysicist and now a Christian minister and author, makes the same point: “Why does the universe seem so well set up for life? Life in the universe is only possible because of a number of very sensitive balances in the laws of physics. Over the last 30 years, scientists have often been moved to ask the ‘why’ questions, as we have discovered more. For example, if the energy levels in carbon an oxygen were only a fraction of a per cent different to what they are, there would be no carbon in the universe and therefore no you and me. Sir Fred Hoyle, who pioneered work in this very area, stated that nothing had shaken his atheism as much as this discovery. (David Wilkinson, The Truth About Science, Idea magazine, September-October 1996)

If you are an atheist then I would ask you not use the name of ‘science’ to hide your atheism behind, for there is nothing in testable science which has denied God’s existence. What is more, if you genuinely want to apply scientific principles then I urge you not to come up with the hypothesis that ‘there is no God’ and then rubbish or ignore any evidence which suggests the contrary. To do so would be to breech the very scientific principles to which you appeal to support your atheism. Instead, I would urge you to examine afresh the gospels and in particular the claims of Jesus Christ. Here you will be examining evidence from only 2,000 years ago (relatively recent history by anyone’s timescale!)

What is more I would ask you to apply the same level of scrutiny to your atheism as you would to Christianity - that is only fair! I say this because I often find that atheists will expect Christians to come up with evidence for their faith whilst providing far less evidence for their own atheism. Atheists often grant themselves tremendous amounts of ‘grace’ that they do not afford to the Christian. But I can assure you that atheists rely just as much on ‘faith’ in their hypothesis being true as the Christian does with his belief. The question is…which of the two makes the most coherent sense based upon all the evidence at our disposal? Are you willing to put your atheism to the test? Are you willing to consider all the evidence at hand?

If you thought evolution was the big issue that prevents you from coming to God, then think again. That’s no longer the big issue - nor the real issue. The real issue is human rebellion against God’s rightful rule in our lives – that’s the real issue! We don’t want anyone telling us how we are to live our lives – that’s the real problem. Time and again I have found that if people were really honest enough with themselves, they would admit that it is not so much intellectual issues which prevent them from becoming Christians, but rather it is pride and morality which prevent them. Yes, you may well have questions remaining about the Christian faith. But a person does not become a Christian on what they don’t know about God, but upon the basis of what they do know about him.

“The secret of the universe is not a formulae but a person.” So wrote the theologian Peter Lewis. That person is God, and it would be a great shame if your whole life was spent looking at formulas and you missing out on the person who put them there in the first place. However clever you are, however many letter there are before or after your name, if you miss out on knowing the purpose for your life and why God made you then you will be severely impoverished. Impoverished in your life here below and far worse, eternally impoverished in the life that is to come.

May I therefore suggest that if you want a good starting point to knowing God then the starting point is Jesus Christ who most clearly reveals what God is like. You might like to contact us for more details.

If you live in Nottingham you can join a Discovering Christianity Course by e-mailing offce@cornerstoneuk.org.uk

Further reading:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk

• John Blanchard , Doe s God Believe in Athei s t s ? (Evangelical Pre s s 2001)
• John Blanchard Is God Past His Sell By Date? (Evangelical Press 2002)
• Peter Lewis The Living God (IVP 2001)
• Kirsten Birkett, Unnatural enemies (St Matthias Press 1997).
• Sir John Houghton, The search for God (Lion 1995).
• Phillip E. Johnson, Testing Darwinism (IVP 1997).
• Michael Poole, A guide to science and belief (Lion 1994).
• David Wilkinson, God,the big bang and Stephen Hawking (Monarch publications 1997).
• Refuting Evolution 2004 J. Sarfati. Master Books Inc 0890512582 As the name suggests.
• Refuting Compromise 2004 J. Sarfati. Master Books Inc 0890514119 suggests Bible cannot be "re-interpreted"
• The Answers Book. 2003. D. Batten et al. Triune Press . 0949906239 inc. fairly quick answers to where did Cain get his wife? what about carbon dating? was it a global flood? etc.
• 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. 2000. A. Lamont. Answers In Genesis 0949906212 inc. look at Faraday, Newton , Pasteur, Wright brothers .
• Stephen Gaukroger, It makes sense (Scripture Union publication s 1988).

To purchase these books online try www.we s leyowen.com or www.amazon.co.uk