The Lost World of Genesis One (26 page)

3. that administrators in public education should develop courses
in which metaphysical options can be considered and that are
taught by those who are educated in metaphysics, because it is
important for students not only to be competent scientists, but
also educated philosophers equipped to make the complex decisions that challenge public policymaking;

4. that people of faith should cease trying to impose their own
teleological mandates on public science education; and people
who are skeptical of faith should cease trying to impose their
own dysteleological mandates on public science education;

5. that those who honor the Bible should allow it to find its theological affirmations as a functional cosmology rather than
pressing it into service in public education as if it offered a descriptive mechanism for material origins.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Fowler, Thomas B., and Daniel Kuebler. The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2007.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK has been to introduce the reader to
a careful reconsideration of the nature of Genesis 1. I have proposed that the most careful, responsible reading of the text will
proceed with the understanding that it is ancient literature, not
modern science. When we read the text in the context of the ancient world we discover that what the author truly intended to
communicate, and what his audience would have clearly understood, is far different from what has been traditionally understood
about the passage.

The position that I have proposed regarding Genesis 1 may be
designated the cosmic temple inauguration view. This label picks up
the most important aspect of the view: that the cosmos is being
given its functions as God's temple, where he has taken up his
residence and from where he runs the cosmos. This world is his
headquarters.

The most distinguishing feature of this view is the suggestion
that, as in the rest of the ancient world, the Israelites were much
more attuned to the functions of the cosmos than to the material of the cosmos. The functions of the world were more important to
them and more interesting to them. They had little concern for the
material structures; significance lay in who was in charge and
made it work. As a result, Genesis 1 has been presented as an account of functional origins (specifically functioning for people)
rather than an account of material origins (as we have been generally inclined to read it). As an account of functional origins, it offers no clear information about material origins.

The key features of this interpretation include most prominently:

• The Hebrew word translated "create" (bara) concerns assigning functions.

• The account begins in verse 2 with no functions (rather than
with no material).

• The first three days pertain to the three major functions of life:
time, weather, food.

• Days four to six pertain to functionaries in the cosmos being
assigned their roles and spheres.

• The recurring comment that "it is good" refers to functionality
(relative to people).

• The temple aspect is evident in the climax of day seven when
God rests-an activity in a temple.

The account can then be seen to be a seven-day inauguration of
the cosmic temple, setting up its functions for the benefit of humanity, with God dwelling in relationship with his creatures.

This proposed reading of Genesis 1 then led to a consideration
of the implications for thinking about theology, evolution and Intelligent Design. If Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins,
then it offers no mechanism for material origins, and we may safely
look to science to consider what it suggests for such mechanisms.
We may find the theories proposed by scientists to be convincing or not, but we cannot on the basis of Genesis 1 object to any mechanism they offer. The theological key is that whatever science proposes that is deemed substantial, our response is, "Fine, that helps
me see the handiwork of God." Accepting at least some of the
components of biological evolution as representing the handiwork
of God, we could propose a mechanism for material origins designated teleological evolution meaning that evolutionary processes
may well describe some aspects of origins (noting that human origins need to be discussed separately), even though much controversy still exists about how evolutionary changes took place. The
use of the adjective teleological differentiates this view from standard Neo-Darwinism, as teleology affirms the conviction that the
process understands material origins as God's creative work with a
purpose and a goal. Consequently we are not surprised that there
are evidences of design.

We proposed that this view is not only exegetically sound, it
is also theologically robust and actually strengthens our theology of creation. With confidence in reading Genesis 1 as supported by the original context, and the confidence in the theological vibrancy of our commitment, we have discovered several
advantages:

1. When discussing our faith with skeptics, we need not fear the
science discussion. We can relax and respond to any proposal
they make with, "Yes, but there is no reason God could not have
been involved in that process." The supposed conflict between
science and faith is often simply a misunderstanding. There is, in
fact, evidence that the conflict was promoted from the science
side before it was ever taken up from the faith side.1

2. A second advantage is that by holding the cosmic temple inauguration view of Genesis and the teleological evolution
view of material origins we may be able to curb the constant attrition of faith that takes place as students interested in science have been told that they have to choose between science
and faith. Such a choice is not necessary.

3. A third advantage is that we may begin refocusing our concerns about public education. Rather than trying to push the
agenda that young-earth creationism or Intelligent Design
needs to be taught in the schools, we can focus on demanding
that metaphysical naturalism, a matter of belief rather than science, not be bundled together with the teaching of evolution.
We can call schools, teachers and textbook publishers to account for the ways that they insert dysteleology (which is not
science, but belief) into the curriculum. Furthermore public
education should be interested in teaching evolution with all of
its warts and problems, and not overstating the case.

The concern of this book is neither to tell scientists how they
should or should not do science, nor to determine what scientific
conclusions are right or wrong. It should be noted that this book
is not promoting evolution. The issue I have attempted to approach concerns what scientific ideas or conclusions that the believer who wants to take the Genesis account seriously is obliged
to reject. Is there science that is unacceptable in biblical/theological terms? Or are only the metaphysical implications adopted by
some scientists unacceptable? Is it the Genesis account that serious scientists are compelled to reject? Or only the implications of
some traditional interpretations? Biological evolution is the
reigning paradigm, so we have asked whether this view requires
the believer to compromise theology or biblical teaching. We
have concluded that there is nothing intrinsic to the scientific
details (differentiated from the metaphysical implications that
some draw) that would require compromise.

Scientists should be committed to refining, modifying and even overhauling or overthrowing any reigning paradigm that is
proven inadequate. This is the nature of scientific inquiry. Having said that, whatever aspects of evolution that continue to provide the best explanation for what we observe should not, in most
cases, be objectionable for Christians. In promoting the theological position in the Bible and the interpretation of Genesis 1 presented here, there is no reason to believe that biological evolution
teaches something contradictory to the Bible (though some evolutionists are proponents of metaphysical conclusions that contradict the Bible). Believing in the Bible does not require us to
reject the findings of biological evolution, though neither does it
give us reason to promote biological evolution. Biological evolution is not the enemy of the Bible and theology; it is superfluous
to the Bible and theology. The same could be said for the big
bang and for the fossil record.

The view presented here presents a way forward through the
morass created by the entrenched positions of Neo-Darwinian
evolution and the commitment to Scripture and sound theology.
The problem is well articulated by Fowler and Kuebler:

The ante has been raised so high by the polemical nature of
the controversy that resolution in favor of one school will
have catastrophic implications for the other. On the one
hand, the scientific community by and large, including the
National Academy of Sciences, has staked the prestige of
science on a particular theory with considerable explanatory
power but known problems, in part because it is consistent
with a naturalistic philosophy. On the other hand, Creationists have for all intents and purposes staked the truth of
their religion on the falsity of that same theory, because of
the perceived need for a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Clearly, neither the proponents of Creationism nor those of Neo-Darwinism can permit their side to lose or even give
ground, regardless of the facts; the extra-scientific stakes for
both are just too high.'

In the view presented in this book, neither camp must "give
ground," but they both need to be willing to let go of their polemical antagonism. Neo-Darwinism proponents need not make
any concessions about what empirical science proposes for material origins. They only have to stop promoting dysteleology as if
it were an essential corollary to the science. They also have to
stop acting as if Neo-Darwinism has no flaws and no need of
modification.3 Creationists need not give up their theology of
God's total involvement in creation, nor do they need give up a
"literal" reading of Genesis 1. They only have to acknowledge
that traditional interpretations or understandings of English
words do not necessarily constitute the most faithful reading of
the text. We are not proposing that readers of the Bible back off
to a figurative or simply literary reading of Genesis 1. We would
suggest, instead, that the reading this book proposes is precisely
what the Genesis author and audience would have understood.

Finally, both sides need to give up their stubborn antagonism.
As Gerald Runkle writes in his book Good Thinking:-

It is the mark of stubborn and dogmatic persons to be oblivious to the need either to test their own beliefs or to recognize the successful tests that opposing beliefs have undergone. Copernicus caused widespread consternation when he
suggested that the earth revolved around the sun. Though
he had impressive evidence for his theory, it was received in
ill humor by most religious groups. Martin Luther complained: "People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove
to show that the earth revolved, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.... This fool wishes to re verse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still
and not the earth."4

We must keep in mind that we are presumptuous if we consider our interpretations of Scripture to have the same authority as
Scripture itself. Nobody is an infallible interpreter, and we must
always stand ready to reconsider our interpretations in light of
new information. We must not let our interpretations stand in the
place of Scripture's authority and thus risk misrepresenting God's
revelation. We are willing to bind reason if our faith calls for belief where reason fails. But we are also people who in faith seek
learning. What we learn may cause us to reconsider interpretations of Scripture, but need never cause us to question the intrinsic authority or nature of Scripture.