The Lost World of Genesis One (19 page)

WE HAVE NOW COMPLETED THE presentation of the view that
Genesis 1 presents an account of functional origins and will begin
to integrate this view into the broader issues of science and society.
The following chapters will explore the implications of this view in
relation to evolution and Intelligent Design, as well as a consideration of some of the issues of policy in public education. As a prologue to that discussion, this chapter will draw some distinctions at
the metaphysical level that will seek to probe some of the philosophical questions and reality outside of the material realm.

Many people who feel caught in a perceived origins conflict
between the Bible and science subconsciously think of the origins
question as a pie. Various aspects of origins are evaluated to decide
whether God did it or a naturalistic process could be identified.
The "origins pie" is then sliced up with each piece either going to
"supernatural" or "natural" causation. The inevitable result as science progresses is that God's portion gets smaller and smaller,
and overall, God becomes no longer useful or necessary.

Chapter one already discussed the issue that the distinction
between "natural" and "supernatural" is not readily evident in the
Old Testament and its world. One could go through passages such
as Psalm 104 or Job 38 and see that the things attributed to God
can also be explained in "natural" terms. The ancients were not
inclined to distinguish between primary and secondary causation,
and everything was attributed to deity. We can see, then, that the
pie model is characterized by a distinction that is essentially
unbiblical.i

Ifwe want to adopt a more biblical view, we have to switch desserts! We need to think in terms of a layer cake.2 In this view the
realm of scientific investigation would be represented in the lower
layer. This layer represents the whole realm of materialistic or
naturalistic causation or processes. It is subject to scientific observation, investigation and explanation. Discovery in this layer does
not subtract from God or his works. This is the layer in which
science has chosen to operate and where it is most useful.

In contrast, the top layer represents the work of God. It covers
the entire bottom layer because everything that science discovers
is another step in understanding how God has worked or continues to work through the material world and its naturalistic processes. In this way, the bottom layer might be identified as the
layer of secondary natural causation while the top layer is identified as ultimate divine causation.'

Science, by current definition, cannot explore the top layer. By
definition it concerns itself with only that which is physical and
material.' By restricting itself to those things that are demonstrable, and more importantly, those things that are falsifiable,
science is removed from the realm of divine activity. Though scientists have their beliefs, those must be seen as distinct from their
scientific work. It is unconvincing for a scientist to claim that he
or she finds no empirical evidence of God. Science as currently defined and practiced is ill-equipped to find evidence of God.'
The bottom layer may continue to have areas for which science
cannot offer explanation, but that is only evidence of science's
limitations, not evidence of God. A believer's faith holds that
there is a top layer, even though science cannot explore it.

That top layer addresses ultimate causation, but it also addresses purpose, which in the end, is arguably more important.
God is always the ultimate cause-that is our belief whatever secondary causes and processes can be identified through scientific
investigation. But we also believe that God works with a purpose.
Neither ultimate cause nor purpose can be proven or falsified by
empirical science. Empirical science is not designed to be able to
define or detect a purpose, though it may theoretically be able to
deduce rationally that purpose is logically the best explanation.'
As the result of an empirical discipline, biological evolution can
acknowledge no purpose, but likewise it cannot contend that there
is no purpose outside of a metaphysical conclusion that there is no
God. It must remain neutral on that count since either contention
requires moving to the top layer, which would mean leaving the
realm of scientific inquiry. Science cannot offer access to God and
can neither establish his existence beyond reasonable doubt nor
falsify his existence. Therefore science can only deal with causation sequences-it cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that
a purpose governs or does not govern that which they observe.

The term for the technical philosophical interest in purpose is
teleology. Teleology is the study of the goal of some intentional
process that is usually the byproduct of purpose. That is, God
works intentionally with his own purposes in mind to achieve a
final goal. This concerns the realm of theology, or more broadly,
metaphysics, and is not the stuff of empirical science.

The scientific observations and theories that compose the lower
layer of the cake do not in and of themselves carry teleological conclusions (though they might be consistent with such conclusions). They cannot do so, because the presence of a purpose cannot be falsified. So some scientists might believe that the lower
layer is all there is. For them the naturalistic causes are all that
can be affirmed, and they do not believe in a purpose, for their
layer, their worldview, their metaphysics, have no room for God.
This view is exclusively materialistic and could be described as
dysteleological (no discernible purpose).7 This is not a scientifically
drawn conclusion, but one that is drawn from the limitations of
science. It would be like a fish claiming that there was only water, no air (despite the fact that they could not breathe if the water were not oxygenated by the air).

In contrast, there are many scientists who believe that there is
indeed a top layer-that there is a God involved in ultimate
causes and carrying out his purposes through the naturalistic operations of the cosmos. This belief does not change their approach to their scientific study-it does not affect their perception of the bottom layer nor does it affect their methods for
studying the bottom layer. But their metaphysical position would
be described as teleological. Nothing is random or accidental.
Many of the great minds in the history of science were in this
category (e.g., Galileo, Newton).

I have proposed here that Genesis is not metaphysically neutralit mandates an affirmation of teleology (purpose), even as it leaves
open the descriptive mechanism for material origins. Affirming
purpose in one's belief about origins assures a proper role for God
regardless of what descriptive mechanism one identifies for material
origins. Since Genesis is thoroughly teleological, God's purpose and
activity are not only most important in that account, they are almost
the only object of interest. Genesis is a top-layer account it is not
interested in communicating the mechanisms (though it is important that they were decreed by the word of God). Whatever empiri cal science has to say about secondary causation offers only a bottomlayer account and therefore can hardly contradict the Bible's
statements about ultimate causation. Whatever mechanisms can be
demonstrated for the material phase, theological convictions insist
that they comprise God's purposeful activity. It is not a scientific
view of mechanism (naturalism) that is contrary to biblical thinking,
but exclusive materialism that denies biblical teaching. Naturalism is
no threat but materialism and its determined dysteleology is.8

The functional orientation proposed for Genesis 1 in this book
is fully in line with a penetrating teleology. God's purposes and
intentions are most clearly seen in the way the cosmos runs rather
than in its material structure or in the way that its material structures were formed (although the material structures can point to a
designer). Instead of offering a statement of causes, Genesis 1 is offering a statement of how everything will work according to God's
purposes. In that sense the text looks to the future (how this cosmos will function for human beings with God at its center) rather
than to the past (how God brought material into being).' Purpose
entails some level of causation (though it does not specify the level)
and affirms sovereign control of the causation process.

The principle factor that differentiates a biblical view of origins
from a modern scientific view of origins is that the biblical view is
characterized by a pervasive teleology: God is the one responsible
for creation in every respect. He has a purpose and a goal as he
creates with intentionality. The mechanisms that he used to bring
the cosmos into material existence are of little consequence as
long as they are seen as the tools in his hands. Teleology is evident
in and supported by the functional orientation.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Lamoureux, Denis. Evolutionary Creation. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf
and Stock, 2008.

NOW THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED A modified view of the creation account in Genesis and a corresponding modified view of
what constitutes creative activity, we can explore how these give
us a renewed vision of God as Creator.

Two extremes need to be avoided as we seek to understand God
as Creator:

1. that his work as Creator is simply a finished act of the past
(potential for deism), or

2. that his work as Creator is in an eternally repeating present
(potential for micromanagement)

The first extreme is most common in popular Christianity today. In this view Genesis is an account of material origins and the
creation of the physical universe took place in the past (whether
the distant past or the more recent past). Consequently God's role
as Creator was focused on a particular time and a particular task,
and has been completed. This view can easily result in a practical
deism in that it generally assumes that in creation God set up natural laws and physical structures subject to those laws so that the universe now virtually "runs by itself." This view potentially distances God from the day-to-day operations of the cosmos.