Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Evolution or Creation Science?
Source:
Orthodox Church in America
URL Source: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-law ... /evolution-or-creation-science
Published: May 30, 2012
Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley
Post Date: 2018-02-14 09:59:32 by A Pole
Keywords: orthodox, creation, evolution
Views: 24606
Comments: 211
In my years as a priest and of sharing the Gospel, I have heard many reasons offered for not becoming a Christian: scandals associated with clergy, the wealth of the Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. I thought I had more or less heard it all, and so was unprepared for a reason one young man offered to justify his rejection of Orthodoxy—namely, that dinosaurs were not in the Bible. I blinked a few times, and was left temporarily speechless (something of a rarity with me, to which those who know me well can attest). His idea was that since dinosaurs obviously existed (their skeletons adorn our museums), then if the Bible was God’s Word, he should be able to read about dinosaurs in the Bible. Since he could not find them there (I refrained from mentioning certain fundamentalist interpretations of Leviathan and Behemoth in the Book of Job), then obviously the Bible could not be God’s Word and he could not remain Orthodox. He was referring of course to the old supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and in this arm-wrestling match, it was clear to him that Science had won. No Biblical dinosaurs, no more church-going. So, what’s the deal about dinosaurs? Why aren’t they in the creation stories in Genesis? Apart from the absurdity of supposing they’re not there because they aren’t mentioned by name (the duck-billed platypus isn’t mentioned by name either), it’s a valid question, and one that leads us headlong into the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Interpretation of the creation stories too often degenerates into an argument between the theory of evolution vs. what is sometimes called “creation science”. By “evolution” the average non-scientific person means the notion that Man descended from the apes, or from a common ancestor of apes and men. The name “Darwin” is usually thrown about, regardless of how the ideas in his On the Origin of Species have fared in the scientific community since Darwin wrote it in 1859, and most people’s knowledge of evolution is confined to looking at the famous evolutionary chart in National Geographic, showing how smaller hominids kept walking until they became human beings like us. By “creation science” is meant the view that the Genesis stories are to be taken as scientifically or historically factual, so that the earth (often considered to be comparatively young) was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. Since the time of the “Scopes monkey trial”, the argument between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has been going strong, and is often fought in the nation’s courts and departments of education. Arm-wrestling indeed. Happily for people with weak arms like myself, the Church does not call us to take part in this arm-wrestling match. The creation stories in Genesis were not written, I suggest, to give us a blow-by-blow account of how we got here. Rather, they were written to reveal something fundamental about the God of Israel and the privileged status of the people who worshipped Him. We assume today that the ancients wanted to know how we got here, and how we were created. In fact, they were mostly uninterested in such cosmic questions, and the creation myths that existed in the ancient near east spoke to other issues. Most people back then, if they thought of the question of cosmic origins at all, assumed that the world had always existed, and the various gods they worshipped were simply part of that eternal backdrop. That is where the creation stories were truly revolutionary. Their main point was not merely that God created the world; it was that the tribal God of the Jewish people was sovereign over the world. We take monotheism for granted, and spell “god” with a capital “G”. For us, God is singular and unique by definition. It was otherwise in the ancient near east. That age was populated by different gods, each with his or her own power, agenda, and career. And this is the point: in the Genesis stories, none of these gods are there. In the opening verses we read, “In the beginning God (Hebrew Elohim, a Jewish name for their God) created the heavens and the earth” and “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” The creating deity is called “Elohim” and “Yahweh”—the names for the Jewish God. Other rival deities are simply not there. It is as if they do not exist. They had been dethroned and demoted by their omission from the story. The opening verse of Genesis is a salvo fired into the world of polytheism, a ringing declaration that their gods were nobodies. We keep reading and discover that this Jewish God made everything that existed by His simple word of command. He simply said, “Light—exist!” (two words in the original Hebrew), and light sprang into existence. In the creation myths of the pagan cultures of that time, the gods created by lots of huffing and puffing (in an Old Babylonian myth, the god Enlil uses a hoe), but not so the God of the Jews. He is above all that. For Him, a simple sovereign word suffices. In fact, in the first chapter of Genesis, all the cosmos was brought into being by Him uttering ten simple commands (yep, it does foreshadow the Ten Commandments, given later). And Man is portrayed in these stories as the sum and crown of creation, giving the human person a dignity never before known. Man is said to have been made “in the image of God”—a revolutionary statement, since in those days, only kings were thought to be in the divine image. Despite this, Genesis invests the common man with this royal dignity. And even more: it says that woman shares this image and rule with him. In the ancient near east, women were chattel; in Genesis, she is a co-ruler of creation with the man. The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity. These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 114.
#4. To: A Pole (#0)
This is a thoughtful, candid write-up on the issue that is indeed very much in line with the sentiments of many, though not all, Christians. Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here, but that God is real regardless of the method. That is certainly my own sentiment. For that reason, I'm a bit surprised to see you post it Stone. It in no way makes any case for Creationism over Evolution.
It doesn't matter to you because you're not a Christian. It does matter though. Very much. Also if Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us. If it doesn't matter why do biased scientists try to prove something that happened in the past by making stuff up with their fervid imagination? Have a good day sir. I might add that I respect you as a person and a poster. You handle yourself well and are always courteous and kind. Unlike me sometimes.
Indeed. Nail hit on the head. There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus. It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam): a) Was CREATED BY GOD, sinless (all men as a result are revealed as "sinners.") It is obvious that Believers should take Jesus at His word -- that no one will come into the Presence of the Father but by through belief in the Son, of His Blood and Redemption...
Some people, in a Christian context, take Genesis not as a complete fabrication per se, but as something that, while not literally true, is still metaphorically true. For example, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil being representative of a time when evolving man became aware of the concept of morality concerning the well being of his fellow man. While you certainly disagree, others who have no less claim to being Christian would nonetheless defend their understanding/perception on this point.
Yes, your characterization is valid. "Some" people, true. Still many others disregard it as a "Fairy Tale." Within those ranks, "Believers." That said, Genesis isn't intended to be a metaphor, but literal. God created by merely speaking the Word. For example, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil being representative of a time when evolving man became aware of the concept of morality concerning the well being of his fellow man. True. Yes, this was indeed the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. But in this case it was specifically Adam AND Eve partaking. The two of them were the first of God's human creatures to "become aware of the concept of morality" -- but more than that, they'd become aware of committing their first sin. Disobeying God led to THAT mortality as God had implicitly warned them not to eat the fruit, "Or you shall surely die." The rest of mankind obviously followed suit, leading to the necessity of Redemption and Redeemer. The "First Death" die has already been cast; It's the SECOND (and Final Life/Death) that we must concern ourselves with and be absolutely certain about resolving.
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
I respectfully disagree; It is clear as day. The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.) The meat of the matter -- what God wants ALL to "see" and understand is what is transparent.
Your comment is silly, Liberator. Genesis did not predict Christ's GOSPEL.
You aren't understanding the context of my post, Buck.
Genesis was only written about 1000 BCE. It was written after the Babylon expulsion of the Jews. You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
Probably not the final version. However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that. They didn't exactly have word processors or even printing presses in Moses' time.
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery. You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. Why? They were nomadic in nature before the Babylonians taught them otherwise.
You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. So are you telling us that Hebrews, Jews, or their ancestors would not nor could not have learned ANOTHER or different language and written history?
They were pretty much at war between themselves and others such as Syria and Mesopotamia to perform anything constructive other than goat herding before 1000 BCE. Once the Babylonians crushed them, and educated them to the maximum extent possible, they were expelled and created the foundations for the Torah. Of course, the information was taken from the Oral Torah which was briefly mentioned, although not identified. With a little social structure by the Babylonians, the Hebrews stepped away from just being goat herders. Pretty remarkable!
Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians... Moses lived in the 1400s BC. Are you claiming any events that occurred BEFORE 1400-1000 BC and been documented/validated by Moses (yes, like Genesis) and the Prophets CAN'T be true or factual?
Are you claiming any events that occurred BEFORE 1400-1000 BC and been documented/validated by Moses (yes, like Genesis) and the Prophets CAN'T be true or factual? Yes, i know. I think there were written records before that ( too conservative says they were all verbal). I can't show evidence of the written records, though.
Facts, figures, places, people, dates, events -- ALL validated. Whether CNN or the Babylonians were there to record it. Some folks also forget that Moses consulted with The Almighty directly. But again, TC might dismiss that as a source for Moses' Ten Commandments tablet and Genesis because rumor has it that Christiane Amanpour or a New York Times reporterette wasn't standing there to interview Moses at the base of Mt Sinai.
There are no replies to Comment # 114. End Trace Mode for Comment # 114.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here,
#36. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13, no gnu taxes, Pinguinite (#6)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
b) ALL Sinners must be mortal and die (along with ALL life and matter) within this Material Realm as a result
c) Can not nor will NOT enter the holy presence and spiritual Realm of God- the-Creator as a Sinner
d) As a result, a substitute/proxy "sinless" man (Jesus, God-in-the-flesh) is required to "pay" for the sin-debt. Only the sin-less can be in the presence of God
Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6, (KJV 2000)
#46. To: Liberator (#36)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
Indeed. Nail hit on the head.
There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus.
It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam):
#50. To: Pinguinite (#46)
Some people, in a Christian context, take Genesis not as a complete fabrication per se, but as something that, while not literally true, is still metaphorically true.
#61. To: Liberator (#50)
Genesis isn't intended to be a metaphor, but literal
#63. To: A Pole (#61)
(Edited)
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
#65. To: Liberator (#63)
The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.)
#66. To: buckeroo (#65)
#67. To: Liberator (#66)
#69. To: buckeroo (#67)
You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
#71. To: no gnu taxes (#69)
However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that.
#89. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes (#71)
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery.
#90. To: Liberator (#89)
#107. To: buckeroo, no gnu taxes (#90)
You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE.
#109. To: Liberator (#107)
Moses lived in the 1400s BC.
#114. To: no gnu taxes, Tooconservative (#109)
Yes, i know. I think there were written records before that ( too conservative says they were all verbal).
Replies to Comment # 114.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]