How do we read the first chapter of Genesis? First of all as a scientific treatise, one that may help us reconcile the claims of modern science with Scripture? This is frequently the position Christians take in our days, and in a sense it is understandable, given the cultural situation wherein we find ourselves. But if understandable, it is also regrettable. Reading the first book of Scripture primarily for what is considered its scientific information threatens to hide from us the fact that the book is part of God's redemptive-historical revelation, his message of his dealings with his people and with the world; indeed, his message of salvation. As one Reformed theologian rightly said, Genesis 1 is ultimately a revelation of Jesus Christ. A single-minded concentration on the age of the earth and the length of the days of creation has very little to do with this central message. We must learn again to read Genesis 1 from the proper perspective.
I have suggested one way of doing so in the three-part series "Genesis 1 in Context" (see under "collected papers" in the sidebar, direct link here). Herein we look at Moses' account as the divine proclamation that the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt is also the all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth. Israel, which is ready to enter the promised land, must learn to trust in Him alone and to ignore the gods of the surrounding nations. These gods are in focus, however. In the series I argue that Genesis 1 is at least in part a polemic against the religions of Babylonia, Egypt, and Canaan. The first of these is described in some detail in Part 1. Part 2 focuses on such elements as the symbolic meaning of the number seven (in Genesis 1 and throughout Scripture) and the principle of separation (which again we frequently meet in both Genesis 1 and elsewhere in the Bible). Part 3 returns to the Babylonian creation story and provides further evidence of the polemic nature of Genesis 1. It focuses, among other things, on the creation of sun, moon, and stars, the role of the "creatures of the deep," and the differences between the nature of humanity according to Genesis 1 and the Babylonian account of creation respectively.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
History of nature
On April 17, 2009 Herman van Barneveld included this question in a comment on Tony's article:
"Is it within the realm of science to speak authoritatively on historical matters? (especially when it contradicts the Word through which God "...makes Himself more clearly and fully known as far as neccessary ......to His glory (Belgic Confession Art. 2)) Science can try to speak on history, but it can't do so without saying 'maybe' or 'we think' and make numerous assumptions."
Thank you, Herman, for your question. You do not explain what you mean by history. I shall take you to ask whether science can speak authoritatively on the history of nature because that is what science deals with. I know that some natural scientists include religion and morality under their conception of nature. This would make the history of religion and morality part of the natural sciences - a very controversial move indeed. For now I shall answer the former question.
First, three areas of the natural sciences that deal with history are the history of the cosmos in astronomy, the history of the earth in geology, and the history of life in biology. All can speak on history. Since I am a biologist, I will give you a biological example. Perhaps someone else can contribute one from astronomy.
One of the implications of continental drift is that South America, the Antarctic and Australia were once connected. Fossil studies show that pouched mammals (Marsupials) lived in both Australia and S. America before these three continents broke up. The prediction was made that there should be fossils of pouched mammals in the Antarctic. They were found in 1982. For the original publication, see
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/218/4569/284 . For a recent confirmation, see http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5r16469kqr06560/ . For a popular rendition, see http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/introducing/about_marsupials_5.htm . This shows that in biology theories about historical events (continental drift, biogeographical distribution) can be used to make predictions which can be tested and accepted or rejected. For an animation of continental drift showing the distribution of fossils see http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/antarctica/ideas/gondwana2.html .
A second example concerns cladograms (binary phylogenetic trees). The procedure of making a cladogram works exclusively with extant animals or plants. Specific DNA sequences are compared say between living fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, and the number of differences in nucleotides counted. The more differences the longer the organisms concerned have been separately accumulating mutations. That is, the longer ago it is that they had a common ancestor. This information is used to construct a cladogram which shows the theoretical sequence in which the various groups compared separated from the ancestral line. In other words, this cladogram is a hypothesis which is then used to predict the sequence in which fossil representatives should be found. Again this shows that a theory (the tree) leads to predictions which can be empirically tested and rejected or accepted. For more background see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistic .
Assumptions are made as you say. The assumptions of scientific knowledge do not set it apart because all human knowledge makes assumptions. This compels us to be humble about knowledge claims.
"Is it within the realm of science to speak authoritatively on historical matters? (especially when it contradicts the Word through which God "...makes Himself more clearly and fully known as far as neccessary ......to His glory (Belgic Confession Art. 2)) Science can try to speak on history, but it can't do so without saying 'maybe' or 'we think' and make numerous assumptions."
Thank you, Herman, for your question. You do not explain what you mean by history. I shall take you to ask whether science can speak authoritatively on the history of nature because that is what science deals with. I know that some natural scientists include religion and morality under their conception of nature. This would make the history of religion and morality part of the natural sciences - a very controversial move indeed. For now I shall answer the former question.
First, three areas of the natural sciences that deal with history are the history of the cosmos in astronomy, the history of the earth in geology, and the history of life in biology. All can speak on history. Since I am a biologist, I will give you a biological example. Perhaps someone else can contribute one from astronomy.
One of the implications of continental drift is that South America, the Antarctic and Australia were once connected. Fossil studies show that pouched mammals (Marsupials) lived in both Australia and S. America before these three continents broke up. The prediction was made that there should be fossils of pouched mammals in the Antarctic. They were found in 1982. For the original publication, see
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/218/4569/284 . For a recent confirmation, see http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5r16469kqr06560/ . For a popular rendition, see http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/introducing/about_marsupials_5.htm . This shows that in biology theories about historical events (continental drift, biogeographical distribution) can be used to make predictions which can be tested and accepted or rejected. For an animation of continental drift showing the distribution of fossils see http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/antarctica/ideas/gondwana2.html .
A second example concerns cladograms (binary phylogenetic trees). The procedure of making a cladogram works exclusively with extant animals or plants. Specific DNA sequences are compared say between living fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, and the number of differences in nucleotides counted. The more differences the longer the organisms concerned have been separately accumulating mutations. That is, the longer ago it is that they had a common ancestor. This information is used to construct a cladogram which shows the theoretical sequence in which the various groups compared separated from the ancestral line. In other words, this cladogram is a hypothesis which is then used to predict the sequence in which fossil representatives should be found. Again this shows that a theory (the tree) leads to predictions which can be empirically tested and rejected or accepted. For more background see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistic .
Assumptions are made as you say. The assumptions of scientific knowledge do not set it apart because all human knowledge makes assumptions. This compels us to be humble about knowledge claims.
Made from the dust of the ground
We received the following question from George van Popta on 15 April.
I have a question about Jitse's CC interview. [Here George refers to Bick (2009) in our 'collected papers'; direct link here.] If I understand it well, Jitse is reported as having suggested that man and chimpanzees may have had a common ancestor. My question is: How does that square with Article 14 of the Belgic Confession where we say, 'We believe that God created man of dust from the ground'?
Here is my response:
Article 14 of the Belgic Confession reads: “We believe that God created man of dust from the ground and He made and formed him after His own image and likeness, etc.” Commentaries reveal that the meaning of ‘dust’ ranges from dust to earth, to clay. As a minimum the meaning for the original audience as well as for us includes (1) and (2):
(1) Plants, animals and man are made of the same stuff because all of them are said to have been created from the ‘dust’ or from the ‘earth.’
Gen. 1:11: “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees”
Gen. 1:24: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures”
Gen. 2:7: “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”
Gen. 3:19: “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air”
To be sure, one cannot appeal to the fact that plants, animals and people were made from the same stuff in support of any form of biological evolution. That would be a clear distortion of the meaning of the text and, therefore, out of line with the intent of the Author not to give scientific information.
(2) Plants, animals and man are not divine as surrounding pagan creation stories had it.
Comparison with creation stories from the surrounding pagan cultures reveals the polemical intent of the creation story in Genesis. Whereas in pagan stories man is made from something divine, in the biblical story man is made of dust from the ground, meaning that man is not divine. That is, in Genesis 1 and 2 the fundamental distinction between Creator and creature is revealed.
I am not sure why you think there is something to square between Article 14 and the idea of a common ancestor for chimpanzees and humans, but let me make a guess. Some have taken Gen. 2:7 to mean that God acted like a potter. If you take that literally you might see a contradiction with the idea that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor. But other biblical scholars reject the literal ‘potter’ interpretation because they see this as coming close to disrespect: Did God fashion the liver, the lungs of clay? My conclusion is that the text neither justifies nor excludes the possibility that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor for the obvious reason that it is not a scientific text. Therefore, there is no need to square it with Article 14 of the Belgic Confession.
I have a question about Jitse's CC interview. [Here George refers to Bick (2009) in our 'collected papers'; direct link here.] If I understand it well, Jitse is reported as having suggested that man and chimpanzees may have had a common ancestor. My question is: How does that square with Article 14 of the Belgic Confession where we say, 'We believe that God created man of dust from the ground'?
Here is my response:
Article 14 of the Belgic Confession reads: “We believe that God created man of dust from the ground and He made and formed him after His own image and likeness, etc.” Commentaries reveal that the meaning of ‘dust’ ranges from dust to earth, to clay. As a minimum the meaning for the original audience as well as for us includes (1) and (2):
(1) Plants, animals and man are made of the same stuff because all of them are said to have been created from the ‘dust’ or from the ‘earth.’
Gen. 1:11: “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees”
Gen. 1:24: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures”
Gen. 2:7: “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”
Gen. 3:19: “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air”
To be sure, one cannot appeal to the fact that plants, animals and people were made from the same stuff in support of any form of biological evolution. That would be a clear distortion of the meaning of the text and, therefore, out of line with the intent of the Author not to give scientific information.
(2) Plants, animals and man are not divine as surrounding pagan creation stories had it.
Comparison with creation stories from the surrounding pagan cultures reveals the polemical intent of the creation story in Genesis. Whereas in pagan stories man is made from something divine, in the biblical story man is made of dust from the ground, meaning that man is not divine. That is, in Genesis 1 and 2 the fundamental distinction between Creator and creature is revealed.
I am not sure why you think there is something to square between Article 14 and the idea of a common ancestor for chimpanzees and humans, but let me make a guess. Some have taken Gen. 2:7 to mean that God acted like a potter. If you take that literally you might see a contradiction with the idea that chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor. But other biblical scholars reject the literal ‘potter’ interpretation because they see this as coming close to disrespect: Did God fashion the liver, the lungs of clay? My conclusion is that the text neither justifies nor excludes the possibility that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor for the obvious reason that it is not a scientific text. Therefore, there is no need to square it with Article 14 of the Belgic Confession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)