Recently a co-worker asked me about reconciling Genesis and the conventional scientific view of the origin of the universe. I have to admit this can be a challenging subject for one who takes the Bible seriously. Should I accept the evidence and theories presented by secular scientists and moderate my views of Genesis? Does the language of Genesis chapter one allow for an allegorical or symbolic interpretation? Or should I accept Genesis as a literal description of events and reject the findings of the scientific community? Or, perhaps, should I embrace the "alternative science" of the creation science community?
Evidence-based Faith
I believe than any faith worth having is one based on reason and evidence. I believe in the Bible because I believe there is abundant evidence that it is the revealed word of God. I believe in many (most) scientific theories because I believe they accurately and predictably describe the world we live in. If we are going to be honest with ourselves and with the facts, we can't ignore any evidence. We have to consider everything and continue to strive to understand the truth. If we allow ourselves to be biased or blind to one thing, how can we be sure what we believe is true?
The Problem
The biggest problem I see in the Bible versus conventional science is the age of the universe. Many people focus on the theory of evolution. I think evolution is a straw man and easily defeated. There are so many problems with that theory it is fairly straightforward to destroy it. To me the more difficult question relates to the age of the universe. If the Bible is to be taken literally, the universe is 5-10 thousand years old. How can the universe possibly be less than 10,000 years old? According to astronomers (and I have no reason to doubt their figures) we are receiving light from galaxies so far away it would have taken over 10 billion years for the light to travel that far. By observing the current state of the universe and projecting backward using the laws of physics that we know, astronomers and physicists estimate that the universe is at least 13 billion years old. Given the evidence they present, it certainly does look very old
How then should a person of faith proceed? One possible course of action is to interpret Genesis 1 differently. If the language of the Bible allowed it, this would be reasonable. However, I don't believe that interpreting Genesis 1 in that way is being honest with the text. Would I have been inclined to see this chapter as allegorical or symbolic had I not been motivated by external influences?
What do we do in other matters when we are presented with conflicting testimony or evidence? During a trial many times witness testimony does not agree. What should the jury do? They have to go with the most reliable and most credible accounts. When circumstantial evidence is in conflict with credible eye-witness testimony, the witness that was on the scene should prevail. He was there. He actually saw what happened. He didn't have to piece a story together later.
I assert that God's testimony represents the only reliable eye-witness account of creation. He was there. He is the creator. He knows what happened and how. Man is very ingenious in learning and working out the laws of the universe, but no man was present at the creation. Like a clever lawyer, he is merely presenting a plausible and sometimes very convincing story. He doesn't really know, but he can be persuasive.
So I am reluctant to trust in a man's story of how the universe came to be. In the same way I am very reluctant to accept everything the creation science community has to say. They stand on the same ground that the conventional scientists stand on. They are men trying to piece together a convincing story. I cannot accept everything they have to say just because I agree with their conclusions. They are still only men.
One Possible Solution
How can I reconcile the apparent age of the universe with the Biblical age? Here is one possible solution.
Have you ever wondered how old Adam appeared to be on the day he was created? I know he wasn't created an infant. He was old enough to walk and talk. He was old enough to marry. I always assumed he was "in his 20s". Whatever apparent age he was, he was fully grown when he was moments old. How about the garden of Eden? Was the garden a bare patch of land with all the seeds of the trees and plants lying just under the soil, or was it a fully-grown garden? I'm convinced that the garden was fully grown. There were trees and bushes at all stages of life from little saplings to towering (apparently) aged cedars. I believe there were dead things decaying in the soil. Biology involves many cycles to sustain a healthy ecosystem. I believe these cycles were created fully formed with plants and animals at every stage of life. The description of Adam and Eve and their interaction with the garden seems to bear this out. On the seventh day the garden would have appeared much older than one week.
If that is true of biological cycles, could it not also be true of the heavens? There are cycles in the universe as well -- much longer cycles. Could God have also created a mature universe, with cycles fully formed? Did He need to wait billions of years to get the light to the Earth for man to marvel at His magnificent creation? The garden appeared older than it was. Adam appeared older than he was. Perhaps, for the same reason, the universe appears far older than it actually is.
The Answer of Faith
In the end my answer is that I trust the Bible and I interpret it in a way I feel is consistent with the text. I don't have all the answers and I can't pretend that I do. But I'm ok with that. I know that man's understanding is limited. I know that man's reasoning can easily lead him down blind alleys. All I can do is believe what I'm convinced is the most reliable testimony.
- PG
No comments:
Post a Comment