Biblical Creation: Is there a better model?
by L. James Gibson
AUDIO IS CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE FOR THIS ARTICLE
Every month seems to bring out some new point of discussion in the ongoing J debate between many of the branches of the science and the direct positions of Scripture when it conies to the question of the origin of our world.
Everyone recognizes that a distinct majority in the scientific community present a view of origins differing radically from what is presented in Scripture.
Many Christian scholars have wrestled with the Bible's depiction of the creation of this world in an attempt to coordinate contemporary scientific theory with the biblical account. In this quest, several theories have been constructed in an effort to find harmony between the biblical story and scientific theories about our primeval history. I would like to briefly describe some of these models of creation and offer a concise evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses.
Worldwide, six-day creation theories
It is tempting to propose that the six-day creation took place millions of years ago, but this proposal is untenable. It is inconceivable that species living together for millions of years could be selectively fossilized to produce the observed fossil sequence. Some other resolution must be sought.
A single, six-day creation of life on Earth
The theory. This is the official Adventist view, and most readers will be familiar with it. The creation was global, accomplished by fiat (Gen. 1:3) or direct intervention (Gen. 2:7), and accomplished in six days. The ancestors of all living organisms were created, together with the environmental conditions required for their survival.
Three major variants of this theory differ in the extent to which creation extended beyond our biosphere. 1
A. The entire universe was created during Creation week.
B. The Creation account refers only to our Earth and solar system, the rest of the universe having been created previously.
C. The Creation account refers only to the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth, and the living organisms. The universe, including our planet with its water and minerals, had been created at some previous time.
Biblical evidence. The biblical text does not seem to rule out any of these variants. The most straightforward reading of the biblical text points to a worldwide, six-day creation although there are some uncertainties about the details.2
The traditional interpretation of the creation account provides the logical foundation for many biblical teachings, such as the fallen nature of humanity and the meaning of Calvary.
Scientific evidence. The scientific evidence for this theory is mixed. There is abundant evidence for design in nature, and the geological record has much evidence of catastrophe. However, the geological record is difficult to interpret if a short chronology is envisioned.3
Evaluation. A recent six-day creation seems to me the theory best supported by Scripture. However, most scientists feel it has been falsified by scientific discoveries. Despite its scientific problems, I find much to recommend this view. Recent creation presents a much more favorable view of God than any of the alternatives. Pain and death are natural consequences of our sinful choices, not the method freely chosen by God to govern His creation. Thus, evil is tolerated by God only because the alternative is to remove our freedom of choice.
As one who accepts this view, I look forward to new understandings of nature that will permit a more satisfactory harmony between science and Scripture.
Gap theory, or "ruin and restoration" theory
The theory.4 This theory includes both a long history of life and a recent creation. The Earth was populated long ago by organisms now preserved as fossils. These were all destroyed at some time in the past. Later, God re-created life on the earth as recorded in Genesis. In one variant, the previous world was controlled by Satan, thus explaining the evidence of predation and pain. This theory was popular in the nineteenth century, but is much less popular today.
Biblical evidence. Advocates of this theory point to Genesis 1:2, which states that "the earth was without form and void." They reason that God would not create the Earth in such a condition, so it must have become that way. Genesis records only the more recent creation, when life was restored to the Earth.
Scientific evidence. The scientific evidence for this theory is mixed. The geologic column is easier to explain in a long chronology. However, one would expect to find a worldwide gap in the fossil record, with humans and familiar types of organisms above the gap, and extinct types of organisms below the gap. No such gap has been found. Relatively abrupt changes in fossils are sometimes seen in the geologic column, but the changes are incomplete and humans and familiar animals do not appear together abruptly.
Evaluation. Neither the Bible nor science suggests this view of history, and I see no reason to adopt it in preference to the historical interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Views involving an "ancient" interventionist creation
The terms "ancient creation" or "progressive creation" are used here for a category of models proposing the direct, interventionist creation of living organisms over long ages of time. Several such models exist, with widely varying details.
Any creation model must address both the time and process of creation. Interpretations of the six "days" for models of ancient/progressive creation fall mostly into three groups:
1. The creation "days" are literal, sequential 24-hour days, but not necessarily consecutive or recent (e.g., the intermittent creation hypothesis),
2. The creation "days" are sequential, consecutive periods of time, but of indefinite length (e.g., the day-age hypothesis),
3. The creation "days" are only a literary device, and are not sequential or of definite length (the framework hypothesis).
Interpretations of the creation process fall mostly into three groups:
1. New forms of life were directly created ex nihilo,
2. New forms of life were directly created from non-living materials,
3. New forms of life were produced by direct modification of other living forms.
Some important forms of "ancient" or "progressive" creation are briefly described in the following sections.
Ancient creation hypotheses maintaining the creation "days" sequence
Some hypotheses. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the six creation days as other than a literal week. Since these hypotheses generally do not address the nature of the creative process, they are not actually theories of creation, but hypotheses concerning the meaning of a portion of Scripture.
Day-age hypothesis.5 The day-age hypothesis proposes that the creation "days" were much longer than our or dinary days, probably extending for millions of years. Supporters of the day-age hypothesis sometimes point to Psalm 90:4 or 2 Peter 3:8, which says that a thousand years is as a day to the Lord. However, nothing in the Bible suggests applying this verse or this way of thinking to the days of creation.
Relativistic days hypothesis.6 This hypothesis can be considered a variant of the day-age hypothesis. The creation occurred in the sequence indicated in Genesis. However, the period of time involved depends on the location of the observer, as in Einstein's theory of relativity. Thus, the creation events took place in six days as observed by God, but the same events occupied billions of years as observed by humans.
Intermittent day hypothesis.7 Ac cording to this hypothesis, the days of creation were literal, ordinary days, but were separated by long ages of time. On certain days, God intervened to create certain features. Ordinary processes of nature occurred during the long ages between creation days.
Biblical issues. All long-age theories have the theological problem of trying to explain the presence of pain, predation, and death before sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12)8 Another problem is that each of the "days" of creation have a dark period (evening) and a light period (morning), indicating literal twenty-four-hour days.9
Scientific issues. All theories that accept the sequential nature of the creation "days" over long ages are in conflict with the fossil sequence. The sequence of creative acts differs greatly from the sequence of fossil groups, as can be seen in the list at right:
Evaluation. The differences in sequence in the two lists are profound. I see no reason to adopt one of these ideas in preference to the traditional reading of Genesis. The framework hypothesis (below) provides an alternative view in which the sequence of events is not important.
Ancient creation hypotheses not maintaining the sequence of creation days The framework hypothesis
The hypothesis. The "days" of creation are merely a literary framework used to teach the theological truth that God is the Creator of all. Neither the time periods, the sequence of events, nor descriptions of the events themselves are to be taken literally.
Two variants related to this hypothesis are occasionally used to attempt to explain the six "days" as literal time. One of these, the "Days of Revelation Hypothesis," proposes that the days in Genesis 1 were six successive days of visions, in which God revealed Himself as Creator to Moses. The visions were symbolic and not depictions of the actual creation events.
A second variant is the "Days of Proclamation Hypothesis." This is the idea that Genesis records the actual series of creative commands given by God in six literal days, but instead of being carried out at once, they were fulfilled over long periods of time.
Biblical evidence. Biblical writers use important elements of the early chapters of Genesis, including the Creation story, as the basis for explaining reality. Every New Testament Bible writer indicates acceptance of some element of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. 10 On the basis of Scriptural usage, the literalness of the Creation events and days seems to me to be in controvertible, in contradiction to this hypothesis.
Scientific evidence. This hypothesis concerns how to interpret Genesis. It does not address scientific issues, but must be incorporated into a creation model such as the two models discussed next.
Evaluation. This model lacks biblical or other direct support. Further evaluation requires a more complete model.
Multiple local or individual creations
The theory. 11 This theory proposes that God has directly created new individual species or groups of species in many separate acts over long ages of time. For example, the creation of humans and the Garden of Eden might be regarded as the most recent example.
Biblical evidence. This theory seems difficult to reconcile with the description in Genesis of an earth that was "without form and void." A more serious problem is how to explain the presence of death before the entry of sin at the time of Adam and Eve.
The scientific evidence. The proposed abrupt appearance of humans seems contradictory to the conventional long-age interpretation of the sequence of increasingly modern hominid fossils.
Evaluation. This appears to be a "god-of-the-gaps" theory that explains any feature of the fossil sequence by simply saying that God intervened at that point. Although it reduces conflict between science and Scripture on some issues, it retains serious conflicts on other issues. This theory does not provide the resolution I am seeking.
Providential evolution
The theory. This term will here be applied to any theory that claims (1) all living organisms have a single common ancestry; and (2) descent with modification was directly guided by God.
God might have guided descent with modification by directing mutations12 or by selecting preferred individuals. This could occur episodically, or He may be constantly "experimenting." 13 The two ideas can be combined so that God is directly controlling both processes.
Biblical evidence. There is no direct biblical support for this hypothesis, and considerable evidence against it. It seems to imply that God is responsible for death, that there were no Adam and Eve and no Fall, and thus no need for salvation. Providential evolution seems contrary to both the spirit and letter of Scripture.
Scientific evidence. The scientific evidence for this theory is mixed. The geologic column is easier to explain in a long chronology. However, both the fossil record and selection experiments suggest the existence of multiple lineages with separate origins. Conventional science holds that both mutation and selection are explainable without divine intervention.
Evaluation. This appears to be an other "god-of-the-gaps" theory that invokes supernatural intervention only to bridge gaps that have no other present explanation. It seems contradicted by both Scripture and science. I see no reason to adopt this theory in preference to the traditional interpretation of Genesis.14
Conclusion
I have not found any theory of origins that fully explains all the data. All theories have shortcomings in terms of their possible coherence with science, the Bible, or both. We cannot, and should not, claim to have complete understanding of our origins. Yet we need not be agnostics.
The theory of a recent, worldwide, six-day creation is the only theory that seems to me to be entirely consistent with the biblical account. All other theories have implications that seem to contradict important points formative to the thrust of Scripture. Those who prefer this theory will probably do so because they give greater weight to the evidence from Scripture than from science. However, they must recognize that the model leaves us with a lot of questions about science.
The various long-age models provide better explanations for some of the scientific data. Those who prefer one of these theories will probably do so be cause of the scientific evidence. How ever, every model I have encountered fails to explain some of the scientific data. It seems there is no fully satisfactory scientific answer to the questions surrounding origins. The long-age models I have examined also fail to give satisfactory explanations for some important biblical evidence. Those who accept one of these models should recognize that they leave us with may unanswered questions about Scripture.
Is it any wonder that Adventist scholars are challenged by this situation? We who have expected harmony between Scripture and nature are perplexed to find tension instead. We should not have been so surprised, be cause this condition of things was described a century ago.15
As a Seventh-day Adventist, I consider that the Bible more reliable than science as a record of supernatural activity, such as recorded in Genesis. I accept a six-day creation, not because science leaves me no alternative, but because that is my best understanding of what the Bible teaches.
The crucial question is whether the Bible is more reliable on questions of origins, or whether our present scientific perceptions and understandings are more reliable. That decision is not, and indeed cannot be simply a scientific decision. Instead it is determined by one's choice of presuppositions. One might even call it "faith."
1. See A. A. Roth, Origins: Linking Science and Scripture (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1998), 315-318.
2. For a bibliography of publications by Adventist theologians on interpreting Genesis, see the Web site http://www.grisda.org/resources/reftheosda.htm.
3. Several books are available on this topic. See, e.g., Hayward, Alan, 1995. Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany I louse Publishers, 1995); Daniel E. Wonderly, Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings (Hatfield, Pa.: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1987).
4. See W. W. Fields, Unformed and Unfitted: The Gap Theory (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1978).
5. This seems to be the view in Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (Colorado Springs: Nav Press, 1998). The book explains how he reconciles Genesis 1 with the fossil sequence and Big Bang model.
6. This proposal is described in G. L. Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible (New York: Bantam, 1990).
7. E.g., see Robert C. Newman, "Progressive Creationism" in J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (eds.) Three Views on Creation (Grand Rapids, Midi.: Zondervan, 1999), 105-133.
8. John T. Baldwin, 1991 "Progressive Creation and Biblical Revelation: Some Theological Implications." Origins 18 (2):53-65. Also available online at http://www.grisda.org/reports/or2105.htm.
9. Hasel.GerhardF. (1994) "The'days'of Creation in Genesis 1: Literal "Days" or Figurative 'Periods/Epochs' of Time?" Origins 21: 5-38. Also available online at http://www.grisda.org/reports/or2105 htm
10. Richard M. Davidson. "In the Beginning: How to Interpret Genesis 1." Dialogue 6 (3):9-12. 1994. See endnote 14.
11. This seems to be closest to the view expressed in Bernard Ramm, 77ft? Christian View of Science (Grand Rapids, Midi.: Eerdmans Pub., 1954).
12. G. C. Mills, "A theory of theistic evolution as an alternative to the naturalistic theory." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 47(2):112- 122.1995.
13. James O. Morse, "The Great Experimenter?" Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (2):108-110. 1997.
14. For a more detailed evaluation of theistic evolution, see L. J. Gibson. "Theistic Evolution: Is It for Adventists?" Ministry 65 (January): 22-25. 1992.
15. See, e.g., "Conflict Between False Science and Religion." in E. G. White, Evangelism (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn.: 1946), 593,594; see also "The Essential Knowledge" in E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1948), 255-262.