A Tale of Two Buses

What is Genesis one telling us? And what is it not? This is an interpretive basket of snakes, and I don't particularly care for snakes. But we seem to have tumped the basket over yesterday, so we might as well devote some time to snake sorting.

I want to work up to this question: What biblical basis is there for the days of creation to be understood as twenty-four hour days? Jumping right to this question will probably be counter-productive unless we first deal with some pre-conceptions and assumptions.

First, this issue is not central to a man's salvation. A man is saved by trusting in the accomplishment of Christ on the cross. From the Bible's point of view, this is a work of divine power that dwarfs even the creation of a universe. To create the universe is mere word-work for God. He speaks and it comes into existence. In Ps. 8:3, the heavens are called God's "finger work." To say this is not to diminish the greatness of this creative endeavor. But it must be put into proper perspective.

Our salvation required the death of God's own Son. Here is "difficulty" at the highest order of magnitude for God. The greatest triumph is captured in Jesus' exclamation on the cross, "It is finished!" So when a man is trusting in Jesus for his salvation, He is believing in the greatest miracle of all time. I am not a big fan of evangelism that depends on convincing someone of "twenty-four hour days of creation." If he receives salvation in Jesus, then he has already affirmed God's ability to do lessor things, like create a universe. All He lacks is God's disclosure of the mechanics of how it was accomplished. God can handle this in His good time.

Second, we must recognize the difference between the scientific method and biblical interpretation as means to understanding the truth. Science and the Bible are like two buses traveling in opposite directions from very different starting points. In the case of the Bible, it represents a bus traveling from truth to man. The Bible bus comes from God who IS truth; It has Him as its point of origin; it is God breathed. So it delivers to man what is pure, concentrated, and reliable. It is true we must interpret it, that is, identify exactly what it teaches. But when we can say - This is what the Bible teaches; this it what it says happened - we are getting truth straight from the source.

In the case of science, it represents a bus traveling from man to truth. The scientific method involves the pursuit of an elusive target. One seeks truth by gathering evidence through observation and experimentation. This is followed by proposing a hypothesis to account for the evidence. A good hypothesis explains all the evidence and seems a worthy candidate for the title, "truth." But it's claim is always tenuous. New evidence (that doesn't fit the theory) can pop up without notice. Now it's back to the drawing board for more tests in the relentless pursuit of truth.

This challenge is made more difficult (IMPOSSIBLE?) by a filter that the modern scientist uses to "prescreen" his data. Scientific "objectivity" has come to mean that the scientist factors God out of the equation in order to limit his inquiry to only the physical world. This creates "destination dissonance" for the science bus. If God is the truth, then the closer the science bus gets to truth, the closer it gets to what must be avoided. Passengers on the science bus are rigorously attempting to go somewhere that they tenaciously believe must be avoided. Sounds like being pulled in two directions more than a "greyhound adventure!"

It isn't supposed to be this way. For example, David observed, The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands (Ps. 19:1). David sees no disconnect between scientific observation and theological implications. He is convinced that study of the nature and scale of the cosmos will propel us toward a better understanding of God. God Himself invites this kind of inquiry. He told Job, "Listen to this, O Job, Stand and consider the wonders of God" (Job 37:14). God is commanding Job to do some science. Set up an observation station, run some tests, evaluate the data - and when you are done, allow your observations to propel your apprehension of who I am! God has it right (as always). And He says there is no essential conflict between robust and rigorous study of His created world and understanding Himself.

So we do not have to be afraid of the data. Let's roll up our sleeves, put on our safety goggles, and look at what the created world tells us about what God has done. But let's recognize that whatever is on the Bible bus comes direct from the source and can give us useful coordinates and road markers to guide the travels of our science bus.

Comments

[Austin]

Obviously, I'm more than willing to account for scientific/natural phenomenon through a biblical paradigm--I believe God's word is true, and that, if understood correctly, its text reveals much about man's nature and the natural world.

A persuasive appeal to scripture, however, is not a particularly effective technique for building credibility with someone who has not yet come to trust scripture as I have (i.e. nonbelievers).

It would seem obvious therefore, that genuine scientific discussion can be a handy tool in the winsome witness' testimony-tool-box.

However, I have to admit that I find one thing, common to members of both the "secular" and "not secular" scientific communities, unhelpful: whether from one camp or another, each sides' members seem to let their assumptions guide their analysis and their conclusions.

For example, one scientist might assume that only empirical evidence is scientific, and thus will not acknowledge explanations that might rely on "spiritual" data. His assumption that "God-theories don't equate to science" limits his amenability to all possible explanations for natural phenomenon. This is certainly frustrating.

These types of scientists are not hard to find: Richard Dawkins, and others life him, believe fervently that anyone who does not believe in evolution is, per se, not a scientist. The relationship between his assumptions and his conclusions is not hard to see.

Equally frustrating is the scientist who assumes that a "God-theory" is the valid explanation for natural phenomenon. He has reduced his objectivity just as fatally as his counterpart--closed the door to all possible explanations--and can lay claim to no greater scientific integrity than his "secular" counterpart.

Anyway, I would really like it if some scientists, especially the Christian ones, would allow everything onto the table. If scripture is true (and I firmly believe it is) and science really is an honest pursuit of discovery, then what harm is there in giving a look at evolution, or punctuated equilibrium etc?

Metaphorically speaking, I would really appreciate ANY scientists, of any religious or political stripe, with the courage to conduct their inquiry on a blank blackboard, rather than with a patchwork of politics and posturing already filled in.

[Lilly]

I frequently hear Christians posit that all truth is God's truth. Do you agree? How would you respond to that statement in light of the fact that many times what is verifiable scientifically is attributed to God as His? For instance, in the case of the Hittite civilization, many said the Bible was wrong, and then archeologists discovered and verified its existence. We could have believed the Bible in the first place. But what about things that are discovered in science, that the Bible does not specifically address? Are those discoveries God's Truth?

[Jeff]

I'm with you completely Austin. If we have the truth (which we do) and if we are not to live in a spirit of fear (which we're not), then let everything out onto the table and let the truth be concluded rather than assumed. Some people's hearts may be hardened even in the face of truth, but that doesn't change what the truth is.

I had an uncomfortable lesson taught to me about this a couple years ago by our esteemed blog host. Someone had asked the question as to what the Bible said about the big bang. And I spoke up right away, said that it couldn't have happened because the implication is that evolution happened, yadda yadda. And Jim, after I talked, said simply, "There is no evidence given in the Bible to deny that the Big Bang happened." Woah!! Yeah...that was a lesson I would've preferred not learning that way, but God always knows what he's doing, even dealing with a narrow-minded jerk like me.