Program / Course 17: Defending Scripture / Lesson 7.2
What you will learn
- Describe the main Christian positions on Genesis and the sciences: young earth, old earth, framework, evolutionary creation and intelligent design.
- State the official teaching of the Catholic Church and the range of Orthodox and Protestant opinion.
- Explain the strongest scientific objection to a literal reading and the strongest theological objection to evolutionary readings.
- Distinguish the historical conflict thesis from the actual history of science and religion.
The big idea
Christians who take Genesis seriously hold several different positions on how it relates to the findings of modern science. Young earth creationists read the days as ordinary days and date creation a few thousand years ago. Old earth creationists accept an ancient universe and read Genesis in ways that allow it. Others accept evolutionary theory and see Genesis as theology. Intelligent design proponents argue for evidence of purpose in nature. Each position has serious scholars, each faces real objections, and the disagreement is among believers as well as between believers and skeptics.
Key terms
- Young earth creationism
- The view that God created the universe in six ordinary days about six to ten thousand years ago, and that the flood shaped the earth’s geology.
- Old earth creationism
- The view that the earth and universe are billions of years old and that God acted in creation in special ways, often reading the days as long periods (day-age) or as a vision.
- Evolutionary creation
- The view that God created through the process of evolution. Also called theistic evolution.
- Intelligent design
- The proposal that some features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause. Its supporters differ on the age of the earth and on evolution.
- Common descent
- The scientific theory that living things share ancestors, supported by evidence from fossils, genetics and anatomy.
- Conflict thesis
- The idea that religion and science have always been at war. Most historians of science now regard it as a misleading simplification.
- Monogenism
- The teaching that the human race descends from a single original pair. The question of how this relates to genetics is discussed among Christians.
Background
Before the nineteenth century, most Christians in the West accepted that the earth was young, with exceptions. Geology in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries brought evidence of great age, and many Christian geologists accepted it, proposing that Genesis allowed long periods. Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Responses among Christians varied from early acceptance, as with some Reformed and Catholic thinkers, to rejection, and the debate has continued ever since.
A common account says that science and religion have always been in conflict, with the trial of Galileo as the chief example. Historians of science, including many who are not believers, reject this as an oversimplification that arose from nineteenth century polemics. The Galileo case involved politics and personal disputes as well as theology. Many early scientists were Christians who saw their work as studying God’s creation. Even so, there are real tensions, and this lesson sets out the main positions.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Young earth creationism
Young earth creationists hold that Genesis 1 to 11 is historical narrative and that the days are ordinary days. They argue that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12), which they think rules out millions of years of animal death before the fall. They read the flood as a global event that explains the fossil record. Organizations such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research promote this view, and its advocates include scientists with doctorates.
Critics, including most scientists and many evangelical theologians, say the evidence from physics, geology and biology points to a universe about 13.8 billion years old and an earth about 4.5 billion years old, and that the proposals of flood geology do not account for the data. Young earth advocates answer that these dates depend on assumptions that can be questioned, and that Scripture must take priority when it conflicts with the claims of scientists.
Step 2: Old earth positions
Old earth creationists accept the scientific dating of the universe and the earth, and hold that God created in successive acts. The day-age view reads the days as long periods, and the gap view reads a long interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Progressive creationists, such as Hugh Ross, hold that God created species at different times. They argue that the Hebrew yom can mean a period, as in Genesis 2:4.
Critics from the young earth side say that these readings bend the text to fit science, and critics from the evolutionary side say that they still reject common descent, which the evidence supports. Old earth advocates reply that their view takes both Scripture and nature seriously and avoids the problems of both extremes.
Step 3: Evolutionary creation and the framework
Evolutionary creationists accept the standard scientific account of common descent, and hold that God works through natural processes. They read Genesis 1 to 11 as theology in ancient forms, and some take Adam and Eve as symbolic or as representatives of early humans. The organization BioLogos, founded by the geneticist Francis Collins, promotes this view among evangelicals. Many Catholic and mainline Protestant thinkers hold similar positions.
The main objections are theological. Critics say that it is hard to reconcile with Paul’s argument about Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, with the idea of a historical fall, and with the goodness of creation if death and suffering long preceded humans. Evolutionary creationists reply that Paul’s theology can be maintained in various ways, and that the problem of animal suffering is one for all who accept an ancient earth. The question of the historical Adam is one of the most debated issues in current theology.
Step 4: Intelligent design and the Catholic position
Intelligent design proponents, such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, argue that certain biological structures show features that are better explained by design than by unguided processes. Critics, including most biologists, say that the arguments are not scientific because they do not make testable predictions, and that the examples offered have been explained in evolutionary terms. Proponents answer that the critics rule out design by definition. Some Christians support design arguments on philosophical grounds while accepting evolution, and others reject them as theologically unnecessary.
The Catholic Church has no official position on the mechanism of creation. Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis (1950) allowed inquiry into the evolution of the human body, while holding that souls are created directly by God. John Paul II in 1996 said that evolution is more than a hypothesis. The Catechism teaches that creation is from nothing, that the world is good, that humans are made in God’s image, and that there was an original fall. The Church leaves open the number of original humans, though it has asked for care about how the teaching on original sin is kept.
Step 5: The objection and the response
The strongest scientific objection to a literal reading is that independent lines of evidence, from radiometric dating, the fossil record, genetics, cosmology and the structure of living things, converge on a very old universe and on common descent. A reading that requires all these to be mistaken seems to ask a great deal. The strongest theological objection to evolutionary readings is that they appear to change the Christian understanding of the fall, death and Adam, which are connected to the doctrine of redemption.
A fair-minded student can hold that both objections are serious. Christians who accept the scientific evidence are not necessarily less faithful, and Christians who resist it are not necessarily ignorant of it. Each group has to deal with the cost of its position, and each has a long record of fruitful engagement with its critics.
- Which position in this lesson is closest to your own, and what is the strongest objection to it?
- How should Christians weigh the claims of scientists when they appear to conflict with a traditional reading?
- What does it mean to say that the conflict thesis is a simplification?
- What difficulty does an ancient earth create for the doctrine of the fall, and how might someone respond?
- Why might some Christians support design arguments but not others?
- How can Christians of different positions speak to each other with respect?
Examples
Galileo
Galileo argued in the early seventeenth century for the sun-centered view of the solar system, and was condemned by the Roman Inquisition in 1633. Historians point to the role of Church politics, Galileo’s personality and scientific doubts of the time alongside the use of Scripture in the dispute. The case shows that the relation is not a simple war.
Christian geologists
Many early nineteenth century geologists were clergy or devout Christians, such as William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick. They worked out the great age of the earth, and tried to relate it to Genesis. The case shows that scientific discovery was not at first an enterprise opposed to belief.
A scientist who is a believer
The geneticist Francis Collins led the Human Genome Project and wrote about his faith, defending evolutionary creation. The astronomer and priest Georges Lemaitre proposed the expanding universe theory in the 1920s. Believing scientists hold a variety of views on Genesis.
Different perspectives
Catholic
The Catholic Church teaches creation from nothing and the special creation of each human soul, and permits the study of evolution. The International Theological Commission in 2004 said that an unguided evolutionary process would be incompatible with Catholic belief, and affirmed that divine providence guides the process. The Church does not require a literal reading of Genesis 1.
Orthodox
Orthodox opinion is varied. Some writers, such as Fr. Seraphim Rose, defended a literal reading of Genesis and rejected evolution. Others, including many academics, accept an old universe and some form of evolution. The tradition emphasizes the Fathers’ reading and the spiritual meaning of creation.
Protestant (young earth)
Young earth creationists make up a significant part of American evangelicalism. They hold that the authority of Scripture depends on a plain reading of Genesis and that accommodation to evolutionary views leads to a loss of faith. They have built museums, schools and research organizations.
Protestant (old earth and evolutionary)
Other evangelicals, as well as most mainline Protestants, accept the scientific dating and hold a variety of views from progressive creation to evolutionary creation. They cite Warfield, who accepted the possibility of evolution, and argue that the authority of Scripture is preserved by reading it in context.
Jewish and secular
Many Jews hold that Genesis is compatible with an old universe and evolution, with some Orthodox Jews defending a literal reading and others a non-literal one. Secular scientists generally regard the evidence for an old universe and common descent as overwhelming, and criticize creationism and intelligent design as unscientific. Some, like the biologist Stephen Jay Gould, proposed that science and religion address different realms.
Why it matters
The debate over Genesis and science affects how many Christians understand the Bible, and many young people leave the faith because they were taught that they must choose. A student who understands the range of positions, and the real costs of each, is better placed to make a considered judgment and to help others. This lesson aims not to settle the matter but to make clear how it is divided, and where the facts and where the interpretations are in question.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: All Christians reject evolution.
Correction: Many Christians accept evolution, including the Catholic Church’s teaching authorities in permitting it, most mainline Protestants and a number of evangelicals. Others reject it, and the debate continues.
Misunderstanding: The Church condemned Galileo because it opposed science.
Correction: The affair involved church politics, personal conflicts and unresolved scientific questions, as well as the interpretation of Scripture. Historians reject the simple picture of religion against science.
Misunderstanding: Accepting an old earth means rejecting the Bible.
Correction: Many Christians who accept an old earth hold to the authority of Scripture and read Genesis in other ways. Whether their readings are right is debated.
Misunderstanding: Intelligent design is the same as young earth creationism.
Correction: Intelligent design proponents differ on the age of the earth, and many accept an old earth. The two movements are separate, though they overlap in some of their supporters.
Knowledge check
List four Christian positions on Genesis and science.
Young earth creationism reads the days as ordinary days and dates creation a few thousand years ago. Old earth creationism accepts an ancient universe and reads the days as periods or in another way. Evolutionary creation accepts common descent and reads Genesis as theology. Intelligent design argues that certain features of nature point to purposeful design. Other positions, such as the framework, also exist.
What is the Catholic Church’s position on evolution?
The Church has no official position on the mechanism of creation and allows study of evolution, as in Humani Generis of 1950. It holds that each human soul is created directly by God, that creation is from nothing and that humans are made in God’s image. The International Theological Commission in 2004 said that guided evolution is acceptable but unguided is not.
What is the strongest scientific objection to a literal reading of the days?
Independent lines of evidence from radiometric dating, geology, cosmology, genetics and the fossil record converge on an old universe and common descent. A literal young earth reading requires all of these to be mistaken. Young earth advocates reply that the methods rest on questionable assumptions, and critics find these replies unconvincing.
What is the strongest theological objection to evolutionary readings?
The objection is that such readings seem to conflict with Paul’s teaching about Adam and the entrance of sin and death into the world, and with the idea of a historical fall. They also raise the question of how long suffering and death before humans fit with a good creation. Evolutionary creationists reply that these doctrines can be understood in other ways.
Think it through
- How would you speak with a friend who has been told that they must choose between faith and science?
- Which cost, scientific or theological, weighs most heavily on you, and why?
- What do you think the church should teach about origins in public school debates?
Independent assignment
State two positions fairly
In your own notebook, choose two positions from this lesson that differ from one another and from your own. Write 400 to 500 words stating each as a member would, with its best arguments, and then state the strongest objection to each. Ask yourself whether a member of each position would recognize your account. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Religion and Science Read for the models of the relation between religion and science.
- Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church Read the section on creation and the fall.
- Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity Read selectively for Augustine’s way of relating Scripture and reason.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fine-Tuning Read for the philosophical discussion of fine-tuning arguments.
- Romans 5:12 Sin and death entering the world through one man.
- 1 Corinthians 15:22 In Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive.
- Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God.