Download Creation and Evolution - Shanghai Community Fellowship

Keith Campbell, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Scripture
Tradition
Reason
- “Why Does God Let Bad things Happen?”
- “Removing Western Glasses: Reading Scripture with Global Eyes”
- Today: “Creation and Evolution: Navigating a Modern Dilemma”
- April 19: “The New Atheists”
Experience
For full schedule of Dinner Lectures and for PPT’s visit
http://shanghaifellowship.org/resources/sunday-lectures/

Biblical Accuracy/Nature of the Bible.




Bible in conflict with science?
Must I reject science to be a Christian?
Important for the doctrine of salvation
Should creationism be included in
school curriculums (U.S.A.)?

Christian testimony (Example: Copernicus)

A divided Church

Strict atheistic evolution = Moral Relativism

Example: Killing and raping 5 year old little girls

Core beliefs (philosophical presuppositions)




Is the supernatural even a possibility?
God’s existence
Defining science and theology as mutually exclusive
Genre of Genesis 1–3



Myth/legend?
True and Literal?
True but Figurative/Poetic?

Days in Genesis: Literal?

Origin of animal species

Humans: origin, Adam/Eve, sin, death

Geological record: fossils, flood

Scientific Evidence





Is Darwinian Evolution conclusive?
Micro vs. Macro evolution?
Age of the earth/universe?
Is it an either/or choice: Creation or evolution?
In essence, can/should Scripture and science be
harmonized?

Evolutionary naturalism
No God. Universe and humans are here by chance
 The debate is silly and unscientific


Young Earth Creationism (Genesis completely
literal)

Old Earth Creationism (Genesis essentially literal)

Theistic Evolution (Genesis essentially non-literal)

Summarize and critique 3 of these 4 positions (omitting
Evolutionary Naturalism):



(1) Young Earth Creation
(2) Old Earth Creationism
(3) Theistic Evolution
In essence, how do those who accept the Genesis account harmonize
it with the findings of modern science?


Conclusion
 Summary
 My personal conclusions
Discussion along the way



Sincere Bible believers hold all three positions
Some theologies necessary for orthodoxy. Is this
one of them?
Not my specific field



Area of interest but not expertise
Hence our title: “Navigating a Modern Dilemma” instead
of “Solving a Modern Dilemma”
Needed: A good dose of humility and kindness on
all sides!

Often called “Creationism”

Reading Genesis 1–3 literally is more natural

God created the earth in 7 literal days roughly
10,000 years ago:

Derived from adding up the dates of the genealogies
in Gen 5 and 11.

Some believe in a very old universe while retaining
young earth
 “Gap Theory” (long time-gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2)

Earth appears old b/c God created it in a mature state
like he created Adam and Eve (“Apparent Age
Theory”)

Origin of Animal Species

Evolution cannot explain origin of complex living
organisms (irreducible complexity: Ex. Mousetrap)

Animal species do not share a common origin of life
(“After their kinds” Gen 1)
 Rather, God supernaturally created the different
species in 7 days
 Species evolve within species but do not evolve into
other species (microevolution)

Macro-Evolution is incorrect (intermediate fossils
lacking)

Humans:

A Literal Adam and Eve are parents of all humans

Their sin (“the fall”) profoundly affected the
universe

Death (animal and human) did not enter creation
until after sin (Gen 3:14)

Geological Record (many fossils, etc.):

Noah’s flood (Gen 7) was a historical, global event
 It produced all the fossils we have today (“Flood
Geology Theory”)
 And gives appearance of a long fossilization process

Genre and purpose of Gen 1–3?

Is it historical narrative? Poetry? Scientific
monograph?

Is its purpose to answer process-oriented questions
of modern science?

Are the “days” in Gen 1 literal 24 hour days?



“Morning and evening” created before the sun
Literal days, but a literary framework for God’s creative
activity (chart):
Biblical genealogies can have gaps (Matt 1:1–16);
they are often thematic.

World wide flood?

Evidence of a worldwide flood is lacking; evidence of a
local flood is quite strong
 Did kangaroos and platypuses from Australia come to the Ark?

Fails to consider global language in other parts of
Scripture that have limited references: Gen 41:57; Deut
2:25; 1 Kings 18:10; 2 Chron 9:23; Acts 2:5; Col 1:23 (global
from the perspectives of these writers)

More sediment layers than one flood can explain

World wide flood?

More fossils than one flood can explain
 If all of those animals were alive at the same time, they
would have to be several feet deep when alive

Uncrushed fossils suggests that the sediment containing them
was solidified into rock before very thick layers were added

Some layered deposits give every evidence of being annual
layers.

Fossils:

Many Fossils found all over the world in many different types
of sedimentary rock indicate formation in very different
geological conditions than a flood.

Some claim discoveries of intermediary fossils (Carroll,
Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution; Kemp, Mammal-like Reptile
and the Origin of Mammals)

“Apparent Age Theory” seems too speculative;
evidence for an old earth is nearly overwhelming:

Radiometric clocks, development of coral reefs, continental drift,
thousands of feet of widely varying sediment, how stars age, light
travelling to earth, size of the universe relative to its expanding

Perhaps understandable why God would create functional things with
the appearance of age (for the purposes of Adam and Eve’s survival:
trees with rings already in them), but why create non-functional things
this way (starlight en route to earth)?


Necessary biological activity (bacteria in our stomachs)
requires death for life to exist
Suggesting that animals could not have died before
Adam and Eve sinned is biblical over interpretation



Nothing is said in Gen about when animal death occurs
Romans 5:12 teaches that human death occurs through sin, not
animal death
God’s warning, “when you eat of it you will surely
die” (Gen 2:17), would have little or no meaning if
Adam had never observed death of any plant or animal

The evidence discussed in “Critique of YEC”
above and content of Gen 1–3 requires a less
literal reading of Gen 1–3

“Morning and evening” before the sun is created

Various theories in understanding the “days”
in Genesis:

Long periods of time (“Day Age Theory”)

Literal days separated by long periods (“Intermittent
Day Theory”)

Literary device rather than an actual chronological
sequence (“Framework hypothesis”).
 Days may or may not be long periods of time.
Arrangement of days may be topical rather than
chronological (recall earlier chart)

Origin of Animal Species (similar to Young Earth
Creationists but with more variety):

Evolution cannot explain origin of complex living
organisms (irreducible complexity)

Animal species do not share a common origin of life
 Rather, God supernaturally created the different
species in 7 days
 Species evolve within species but do not evolve into
other species (microevolution)

Origin of Animal Species cont…

Some allow more room for trans-species evolution

But, God supernaturally created Adam and Eve (a
teaching continued throughout rest of Bible)

Humans (similar to Young Earth Creationists)

A literal Adam and Eve are parents of all humans

Their sin profoundly affected the universe

Death existed prior to Adam’s and Eve’s sin

Geological Record

Extent of Noah’s flood viewed variously

The flood did not produce all fossils

Fossils occurred over a long period of time

God used some means of a combination of
supernatural intervention and providential
guidance to construct the universe over a long
period of time (perhaps over billions of years)


Doesn’t take the Bible at face-value
How do you determine what is literal and
figurative in Genesis?

Anachronistic/unnatural reading of the Bible?


Did the Genesis author not really think in literal 6
days?
Literary framework anachronistic

“Day” almost always used in the Bible to mean 24
hours (minus 2 places)

Genesis 1–3 in Hebrew doesn’t read like poetry


God created the universe and fully gifts it for
self-organization and transformation
Gen 1–3 constitutes but one (albeit the most
important) source for creation knowledge

Other sources include: Science, archaeology, etc.


Gen 1–3 should be read literally but poetically
Interpreting Gen. 1–3 literally exaggerates the
proper use of biblical texts (2 Tim 3:16–17).
 Primary function: Train in righteousness
 Secondary function: Satisfy intellectual curiosity

Origins of animal and human species and
physical objects


All share a common biological cause and ancestry
Randomness does not rule out divine purpose
 Example: Casinos depend on the random events (roll of
a die) to accomplish an intended larger purpose (a
profit)

Geological record is as evolutionary science
suggests because Gen 1–3 is not literal

Bible
Events in Gen 1–3 viewed as fictitious history.
 Too blithely glosses over the biblical account
 Minimizes the role of the miraculous in
understanding the biblical text
 Forbids the Bible to speak on scientific matters
 Insinuates that the Bible only answers the “who”
and “why” questions but not “how”
 Rest of the Bible assumes a literal Adam and Eve
(Jesus as the second Adam).


Creation is reduced to a “functional deism”


Deism: God “winds up” the universe and lets it
“unwind” on its own. Looks like this:
Fails to consider the weaknesses inherent
within the theory of evolution

See earlier slide

Young Earth Creationism (completely literal view)

Old Earth Creationism (essentially literal view)

Theistic Evolution (essentially non-literal view)


Agreement among Christians: Science and the
bible can be harmonized
Disagreement: What this harmonization looks
like






Intellectual humility needed
Limited methodological naturalism is a must (leaves ample
room for supernatural)
If certain beliefs are true about God and the Bible, then true
science and true Bible should never contradict
We need to give both nature and scripture a fair hearing
Authorial intent of Genesis is paramount (but difficult to
know)
The believer’s question is not “What can God do?” but
“What did God do?”
***************************

I land somewhere on the continuum closest to Old Earth
Creationism, but I’m open to change!


Three Views of Creation and Evolution (This lecture
depends heavily on this resource)
For many online resources see the small link at the
bottom of:
http://shanghaifellowship.org/resources/sunday-lectures/