Tag Archives: Young-Earth Creationism

A Genetic or Genealogical Adam and Eve? (… An Alternative to “Deconstruction”)

In the era of social media, we find out about a number of (relatively) well-known Christians walking away from their faith, commonly described as a process of “deconstruction.” In 2020, we have heard of Jon Steingard, lead singer and guitarist for the Christian band Hawk Nelson, and his “deconstruction” (for an excellent dialogue with Steingard, watch this conversation between him and Sean McDowell). We also have heard of Rhett and Link, former staff workers with Cru, a Christian ministry focused on outreach to college students. Rhett and Link are originators of the popular YouTube channel, Ear Biscuits, where Rhett describes in a video how doubts regarding Darwinian evolution led to his faith “deconstruction.

What do we make of all of this?

Readers of Veracity will know that I write a lot about the creation vs. evolution controversy on the blog. To date, I have authored over 100 posts on the topic, in nearly 8 years. While many Christians display little interest in scientific matters like this, the polling data shows that a loss of confidence in what the Bible says about human origins, is one of the number one reasons why kids from Christian homes walk away from the faith, when they grow up.

One of the biggest concerns is about the existence of a historical Adam and Eve: Did Adam and Eve really exist, or is this simply a biblical fairy tale? (See this video segment from Rhett’s deconversion story).

S. Joshua Swamidass’ The Genealogical Adam & Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, aspires to build bridges between Bible-believing Christians and scientists

The current scientific consensus, in the exploding discipline of genetics research, indicates that it would have been genetically impossible to account for today’s biological diversity, among humans, based on a solitary human couple, less than six thousand years ago.

A number of Christians see implications from this scientific pronouncement, but they differ on the specifics. For example, Canadian evangelical theologian and scientist, Denis Lamoureux, contends that science rules out the possibility of a single, Adam and Eve couple, since there had to have been an initial human population, of about 10,000 people, to produce the type of genetic diversity we see among humans today. For Lamoureux, without an Adam and Eve, you have no cosmic Fall event. Ironically, Lamoureux still believes that humans all sin; thereby, upholding historic Christian doctrine.

Lamoreux’s conclusion is therefore puzzling. For without a cosmic Fall event, where Adam and Eve were eating the forbidden fruit, it is difficult to determine a historical reason for exactly how sin entered the world, and corrupted the human race.

Rejecting an historical Adam and Eve bothers many Christians, and it is not that difficult to imagine why.

Many evangelicals remain blissfully unaware, but even C.S. Lewis, the Oxford don and great Christian apologist of the 20th century, did not believe that an historical Adam and Eve is required by a faithful reading of Scripture. However, the picture painted by a number of mainstream scientists today, including many Christians, goes beyond Lewis in insisting that the scientific data makes an historical Adam and Eve impossible.  What makes this situation all the more striking, and perplexing, is that the vast majority of prominent Bible teachers, over the past fifty years, all believe that Adam and Eve, as historical persons, are central to the biblical story. A massive array of essays, published as Theistic Evolution, in 2017, by Crossway publishers, slams Neo-Darwinian formulations for evolution, for having denied the existence of an historical Adam and Eve. Furthermore, some of the greatest preachers in the past fifty years, like J. I. Packer, John R.W. Stott and Tim Keller, have all believed in an historical Adam and Eve. My late pastor/teacher, Dick Woodward, thought the same.

Where does this leave us? Does this impasse signal an irreconcilable conflict? Does the historical reliability of the Scriptures crumble under the weight of not having a “real” Adam and Eve? Is there a way that science and Christian faith can come together, and make peace with one another? Or should we expect the inevitable, with more and more “deconversion” stories coming to light?

Enter S. Joshua Swamidass, a doctor and scientist teaching at Washington University, who runs a website at PeacefulScience.org.  Unlike those who favor the deconversion narrative, Swamidass is optimistic. He has proposed a very interesting answer to these questions, an answer that might resolve the difficulty. In short, to quote from his new book, “Evolution fractured the origin story of Adam and Eve, but we can recover it now” (The Genealogical Adam and Eve, ch. 14).

Dr. Swamidass grew up in a home where Young Earth Creationism was taught, and interestingly, he even shares the same birthday as Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, the world’s leading Young Earth Creationist ministry. However, Swamidass suffered a crisis in his faith as a young person, as is the case with a number of young people today, who have his type of background. Yet in 2019, Swamidass published a book that he believes will help to bridge the divide between the church and science, regarding the historicity of Adam and Eve. The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry is Swamidass’ proposal to try resolve this perplexing problem, and it deserves serious attention from thoughtful Christians, and skeptics and seekers alike… as well as those who might be prone to faith “deconstruction.”

Over the past few years, Swamidass has been bringing Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Evolutionary Creationists, and even atheists together, to try to find a solution to this question about Adam and Eve. Scholars from across spectrum, including veteran apologist William Lane Craig, Reasons to Believe’s A. J. Roberts, the Discovery Institute’s Ann Gauger, and atheist and molecular biologist Nathan H. Lents, have joined in these discussions, which form the thesis behind Swamidass’ book. The atheist here, Nathan H. Lents, actually wrote an endorsement of Swamidass’ book, as found in USA Today!! Lents is not planning to run forward for an evangelical altar call, anytime soon, but he does believe that the science behind Swamidass’ book is perfectly sound. Therefore, mainstream scientific critics of Christianity should take notice of what is being said here.

As I wrote about a few months ago, some post-Reformation era scholars, several hundred of years ago, began to reexamine the Bible, and noticed that there is evidence in the Scriptures that there were humans living on earth, as created by God, prior to and concurrent with the arrival of Adam and Eve. The exploration of this  idea helps to answer the age-old question of “where did Cain get his wife? This was the infamous question that Clarence Darrow asked William Jennings Bryan, while Bryan was on the witness stand, at the 1920s’ Scope Monkey Trial, the turning point moment in both the classic play and movie, “Inherit the Wind,” which were based on that trial.

Swamidass takes this idea of other humans, living alongside of Adam and Eve, outside of the Garden, and explores it, both in terms of its biblical and scientific possibilities. His conclusion? Pay close attention here: Neither the Bible, nor does science, indicate that all people today are genetically related to one another, as coming from a single human couple. Yet both the Bible and science can find room to agree, that all humans today are genealogically related to one another, from a single human couple, namely Adam and Eve, who lived about 6,000 years ago. Science, therefore, does not rule out the possibility of Adam and Eve being created de novo, by God, with no direct biological link to any other creatures.

Though Swamidass hopes his proposal will have a wide appeal, there are those at various extremes of the debate, who probably will not be convinced by what Swamidass lays out. For example, it is highly unlikely that Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, will be persuaded to change his mind, by Swamidass’ thesis. The idea of people existing outside of the Garden of Eden could be a bridge too far for those fully committed to Young Earth Creationism. A variety of creationists, Young Earth and Old Earth, have their doubts about Swamidass’ thesis. Furthermore, the folks at the Discovery Institute, who pioneer thought about Intelligent Design, are less than enthusiastic. Veteran apologist William Lane Craig critically interacts with Swamidass’ proposal in several videos (#1 and #2), applauding Swamidass for his peaceful efforts, but ultimately remains unconvinced.

But on the other side, those several contributors (but NOT all!) to Biologos, the Evolutionary Creationism think tank, founded by NIH director, Francis Collins, who are convinced that Adam and Eve never really existed, will be reticent as well (for a compilation of reviews at Biologos: #1, #2, and #3). Then, of course, there are atheists, like Jerry Coyne, who are quite dismissive of any proposal, suggested by a Christian.

In other words, Swamidass’ proposal seeks to build bridges across wide divides, but in doing so, he breaks all of the older molds. But perhaps the older molds all need  breaking. Perhaps those who are less in entrenched in their particular silos might be open to what Swamidass has in mind.

This is the reason I am really excited by professor Swamidass’ peace proposal. We see all kinds of issues where Christians will divide from one another: separating churches, damaging friendships, and even causing tensions in family relationships.  In an age when the church is divided about a number of issues (charismatic gifts, the EndTimes, women in ministry, etc.), it is really encouraging and refreshing to see how someone is creatively willing to try to get a number of Christians, with very different views of human origins, into a room, to try to hammer out a peace proposal, as a sincere attempt to try to build unity among believers, without compromising truth.

That is a pretty tall order.

But it is necessary, if we really believe that Jesus meant business when he prayed for his people to be united as one, in John 17. It is also necessary, if we really want to stem the tide against the increase of deconversions. In an age where it seems like Christians (myself included) can easily get caught up in debates, that can so easily divide us, in a world that is already dividing at an accelerated rate, such peace attempts are worth the effort.

When it comes to Adam and Eve, the dispute is quite simple. The theologian or pastor insists on an historical Adam and Eve. The scientist insists that there is no way that a solitary Adam and Eve can account for the evidence, regarding today’s biogenetic diversity among humans. Swamidass frames the dilemma sharply: “This is the impasse. It has been the impasse for over a century. Pastor explains his honest understanding of Genesis. A scientist objects. The conversation ends. A fracture.” (Kindle location 171). Having been stuck in the middle of these type of conflicts before, I can feel the pain. But Joshua Swamidass’ peace proposal has helped me to re-read the first few chapters of Genesis with new eyes.

Will Swamidass win over the critics? Who knows, but this does stand as a possible way forward. For readers of the book, you should know about the errata page that Dr. Swamidass has, where he is making updates, whenever readers find errors in the book itself. I have read a good chunk of the book, and it is totally refreshing and different, and I would encourage everyone who is interested in this topic to check it out, or at least start with one of the videos below.

The Genealogical Adam and Eve is also a good response book to the Biologos book project, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, by Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight, which I have only had only a small amount of time to dabble in. You can find some very interesting discussion at PeacefulScience.org.

For digging deeper……The following YouTube videos explore the questions raised by The Genealogical Adam and Eve. First, there is an episode of the Unbelievable? podcast, where Dr. Swamidass, and an atheist colleague, explains the thesis of The Genealogical Adam and Eve. I would start with that video first. Second, with a greater amount of depth, there is an interview with Dr. Swamidass, by two of my favorite young Christian YouTube apologists, Cameron Bertuzzi, of Capturing Christianity, and Michael Jones, of Inspiring Philosophy.  The third video dives into more of the nitty-gritty, as it is an engaging conversation between Dr. Swamidass and Dr. William Lane Craig, hosted by Capturing Christianity. Enjoy!!


We Believe in Dinosaurs: A Film Review

Dinosaur at Toronto Airport

Veracity founder and blogger, John Paine, shows where he found a dinosaur at the Toronto airport….. Many Christians never bother with the thought of dinosaurs, but some Christians lose a lot of sleep over the existence of dinosaurs. Do you believe in dinosaurs?

We Believe in Dinosaurs is an independent documentary chronicling the story of the Ark Encounter museum in Kentucky, and will be featured as part of PBS’ Independent Lens programming in February, 2020.

Ten years ago, the world’s most well-known Young Earth Creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AiG), announced that they would build a full-scale replica of Noah’s Ark, as a Christian theme park, in Kentucky, deep in the heart of the American Midwest. Ken Ham, the president of AiG, envisioned that along with the AiG Creation Museum, the Ark Encounter would inspire a new generation of Christians to rethink how they read the Bible, to show how the story of a global flood, as taught in the Bible. according to Ken Ham, provides a better explanation of earth history, as the most Scripturally faithful alternative to a secular worldview, the latter which is currently undermining morals and other Christian values in the Western world today.

A full size replica of Noah’s Ark!!? Many Christians look to the work of Answers in Genesis as a way of supporting their belief and confidence in the Bible, whereas other Christians have the opposite reaction, and struggle with doubt, as to how accurately Answers in Genesis portrays science and faith. Others are curious and not sure what to think.

In February 2014, Ken Ham publicly debated famed TV personality Bill Nye, the “Science Guy,” which has since garnered millions of views on YouTube. The debate gave Answers in Genesis the exposure needed to make the Ark Encounter a success. Once the Ark was completed, Nye even returned to the Ark Encounter, for yet another impromptu, casual debate with Ken Ham, as they walked together through the exhibit.

Ken Ham has envisioned the possibility of “seven billion people” coming to the Ark Encounter. Given the record breaking attendance, over the past few years, Ken Ham maybe on the way to see this vision becoming a reality.

Humans existing side-by-side with dinosaurs, at Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum, in Kentucky, in stark contrast with the narrative nearly every public school educated child learns from the modern scientific consensus, namely, that the dinosaurs died out millions of years ago before modern humans entered the scene.

Since the opening of the Ark Encounter in July, 2016, I have known dozens of my Christian friends who have visited the museum. Regardless of how my friends view the Scriptural accuracy of Young Earth Creationism, everyone I know who has seen the exhibit has walked away overwhelmed with the top quality and workmanship of the park. The Ark Encounter makes for quite an impressive visit, though it does represent a significant development away from the version of the Young Earth Creationist story that I learned during my years in college, at my college church.

Back some 35 years ago, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) was one of the premier Young Earth Creationist groups in the world, as the American version of Answers of Genesis, did not exist in those days. The Young Earth Creationists at ICR could not imagine how evolution could work, to account for the biological diversity we see today, except at the micro-evolutionary level, a biological process generally found within species. For example, Young Earth Creationists readily accept that the flu virus mutates every year, requiring a new flu vaccine on a yearly basis. This is a type of micro-evolution, which is compatible with a biblical view of history. The version of Young Earth Creation I was taught in my college church, as promoted by ICR, did not allow for any case for evolution beyond that.

So, what has changed over the years? Well, one big challenge for the Young Earth view of Creation, is in demonstrating how the placement of the animals on the Ark, in a global flood model, can adequately explain the great wealth of biological diversity we see in our world today, less than 6,000 years after the global flood occurred. Today, at Answers in Genesis, the solution has been to propose that Darwinian natural selection took place after the great flood event, but at a greatly accelerated rate.

Instead of the standard Darwinian view, which sees all of biological life within a tree of life, where all living organisms share a common ancestor, the Answers in Genesis view proposes an orchard of life, whereby the diverse animal populations on-board the ark, represent different trees within the orchard, that are responsible for generating all of the future diverse animal populations we find on planet earth today.

Old Earth Creationists do not accept a global flood, but rather say that the message of the Bible is consistent with a large local flood. Such Old Earth Creationists, who accept the standard view of a 4.34 billion year old earth, as being compatible with Scripture, are skeptical of the Answers in Genesis orchard of life proposal, in that it assumes that the animals on-board the Ark, were somehow genetically supercharged to accomplish this amazing feat. But Old Earth Creationists maintain that such genetic “supercharging” could never have been sustainable, in such a short period of time, in less than a few thousand years. That is part of the reason why a large local flood makes more sense, wiping out only a part of the earth’s creaturely world, at least from a scientific perspective, compatible with Old Earth Creationism.

While biology informed by the scientific consensus affirms a “tree of life,” the Christians with Answers in Genesis believe in an “orchard of life.” Yet other Christians believe in a “lawn of life.” What diagram of life do you affirm, and why?

But Old Earth Creationists are not the only ones who find the ideas offered by Answers in Genesis, to visitors of the Ark Encounter, to be less than convincing. The Institute for Creation Research, (ICR), whose material I read back in the 1980s, argues that Darwinian natural selection, in any form, including Answers in Genesis’ version, is completely incompatible, not only with science, but with the Bible as well. But if natural selection is off the table, as ICR proposes, what then actually is the mechanism that could result in today’s biological diversity? One should note that Answers in Genesis founder, Ken Ham, once worked with ICR, eventually splitting off to form the U.S. version of Answers in Genesis, in 1994.

It all makes for a confusing situation, for those who try to examine the details of Young Earth Creationist views of the Bible, and how they relate to science. Which version of Young Earth Creationism is correct?

One of those avid Young Earth Creationist thinkers, who has since had serious second thoughts about Young Earth Creationism, is David MacMillan. MacMillan was interviewed by independent filmmakers, Monica Long Ross and Clayton Brown, to create the documentary We Believe in Dinosaurs. MacMillan was interviewed by Christian apologist, Randal Rauser, detailing how he got involved in the making of the film.

One of the strengths about We Believe in Dinosaurs is that there is no narrator in the film. The film is made up of interviews with people deeply invested somehow in the Ark Encounter project.  On the side sympathetic towards Answers in Genesis, is the talented Doug Henderson, who headed up the sculpture team, who produced all of the animal representations found in the Ark Encounter exhibit. Outspoken critic of the Ark Encounter, Dan Phelps, a geologist with the Kentucky Paleontological Society, is also interviewed in the documentary.

Though several Christians are interviewed in the film, Christian viewers of We Believe in Dinosaurs might feel uncomfortable about the film’s secularized approach to the topic of Creation. The film sides clearly on the side of promoting evolutionary science, but its stance towards biblical Christianity is undecided, offering multiple Christian viewpoints in the film’s interviews.

Yet regardless as to how Christians might think about this documentary, one think is for sure: Christians themselves today are divided about how to think about the relationship between Creation and the Bible, and this division threatens to have a profound impact on the Christian witness for the Gospel, in an increasingly non-believing world.

Some Christians are quite content to believe in a 6,000 year old earth, and never give it that much thought. Other Christians have wrestled with the Scriptural text, and have come to different conclusions as to how God might have created the world, and how long that process took place. Even other Christians are aware of such problems, that face the Christian believer today, but who are wholeheartedly convinced that the scientific argument is still there, waiting for us to discovery it in nature, and that argument will eventually win over, even the most skeptical scientists, towards a more traditional, six-24-hour day interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. And yet, sadly, there are also others, for whom the cognitive dissonance between the Bible and science is so great, and so disturbing, that they walk away from the faith, in disbelief.

As a Bible-believing Christian, with an interest in sharing my faith with others, I tend to steer clear of such topics, like the age of the earth, or evolution, unless the discussion of such topics would provide an opportunity to talk about Jesus. I want to stay focused on the Gospel, and not get sidetracked by conversations, that would leave Jesus off to the side. Nevertheless, science-based topics can be a real stumbling block for those, who wonder how the Bible and science fit together. With that in mind, We Believe in Dinosaurs might give some good food for thought.

We Believe in Dinosaurs would be a helpful discussion starter, for Christians to view, to help gain a more balanced perspective, as to why the topic of Creation and the Bible, is so divisive in Christian communities today. Is Christianity and science fundamentally at odds with one another, or are they in harmony? Watch We Believe in Dinosaurs to explore that question. We Believe in Dinosaurs will be broadcast on PBS television stations, on February 17, as part of their Independent Lens programming.


Tenacity: John C. Whitcomb

John C. Whitcomb Jr., one of the early pioneers of the contemporary Young Earth Creationist movement, died on February 4th.

John C. Whitcomb, Jr. 1924-2020

In 1961, John Whitcomb teamed up with a hydraulic engineer, Henry M. Morris, to write The Genesis Flood, the foundational book that launched today’s Young Earth Creationist movement. Whitcomb was a theologian at Grace Theological Seminary, and he sought out Morris, who was then the chair of the civil engineering program, at Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Virginia. Combining Whitcomb’s knowledge of the Bible and Morris’ knowledge of science, the two collaborated in articulating the now, well-known thesis, that a global flood, as described by a traditional interpretation of the Book of Genesis, could sufficiently explain the existence of the fossil record, in an attempt to show that science could be synchronized with a traditional understanding of the Bible.

Other leading evangelical thinkers, such as Edward John Carnell, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, were determined to persuade Whitcomb and Morris, that their project was ill-advised, and at one point, the preferred publisher, Moody Press, refused to publish the book. But Whitcomb and Morris persisted with tenacity, and so the idea that the earth was only 6,000 years old, and not 4.34 billion years old, as maintained by the scientific consensus, took off in the imagination of thousands of Bible believing Christians.

In subsequent years, organizations such as Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis would expand on the themes articulated by the Whitcomb/Morris “flood geology” thesis, proposing that dinosaurs lived together with humans, in recent earth history, before the great flood. Such ideas have stood to be contrary to the reigning contemporary scientific consensus, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, long before the appearance of humans on planet earth.

Despite the fact that The Genesis Flood has had virtually no impact on the modern scientific enterprise, as taught by a plethora of public schools, universities, and Smithsonian museums, Whitcomb and Morris’ thesis has continued to generate controversy in evangelical churches across America. Dr. Whitcomb was also known for his defense of a classic 6th century B.C.E. date and traditional authorship of the Book of Daniel.

The Genesis Flood. The 1961 classic text that upset well over a century of sophisticated evangelical views supporting “millions of years” of earth’s history in favor of a radical concept of “flood geology,” in attempt to bring back an appeal to a literal, 24-hour day view of a Young Earth Creation.

I first made an attempt to read The Genesis Flood during my years as a mathematics major in college, while studying other scientific disciplines as electives. While I was attracted to Whitcomb’s appeal to the Bible’s authority, I remained unconvinced by his thesis. It was not until 20 years later that I actually began a written correspondence with Dr. Whitcomb. In his letters, between the two of us, over several months, I was impressed by his earnest appeal, and even more impressed by his gentle piety, in commending his ideas towards me. In particular, Dr. Whitcomb was clearly tenacious in holding his interpretation of the Bible, despite my attempts to encourage him to consider other alternatives.

“Agreeing to disagree,” on non-essential matters of the Christian faith, can lead to having some difficult conversations. But in my interactions with Dr. Whitcomb, I came to treasure his candor and gentle demeanor when engaging in controversial subjects. God used that time of correspondence with Dr. Whitcomb in my life, to help me to have a greater love for others, and encourage an interest in building bridges with other believers, even when agreement in sensitive matters, is not always easy to be had.

While I am open to the possibility of Dr. Whitcomb’s thesis, I am still not convinced that his understanding of Scripture, nor his understanding of the science, is correct. Nevertheless, I consider Dr. Whitcomb as a dear brother in the Lord, who genuinely desired that others may come to know and love the Creator of the universe, and so I grieve his death, yet knowing that he is surely with the Lord Jesus now. One day, I hope to be able to have a conversation with Dr. Whitcomb, where we will both surely learn the exact extent of what the flood really was, and exactly how old the earth really is.

The Baptist Bulletin has published a generous remembrance of Dr. Whitcomb’s life. Ken Ham, at Answers In Genesis, also wrote a remembrance of Dr. Whitcomb.


The Fool and the Heretic, A Review

What happens when Christians disagree about the Creation story described in Genesis? Was the universe created in six, 24-hour periods, or did God use biological evolution, as part of the process of creating the universe, over millions of years? Are those who accept the former “fools?” Are those who believe the latter “heretics?” Can Christians, who take different views on Creation, find common ground with one another?

 

As a study in deeply profound contrasts, many Young Earth Creationists believe that evolution is attacking the very foundations of the Christian faith. Many Evolutionary Creationists believe that Young Earth Creationism is inviting ridicule to the Christian faith.

It would seem like these two views of Creation are in irreconcilable conflict with one another. So imagine this: What would it look like, then, if a Young Earth Creationist scientist and an Evolutionary Creationist scientist, both with PhDs in scientific fields, were to sit down in a room together? What would they say to one another? Could they become friends?

 

A Dialogue Between Christians in Deep Theological Conflict

The Fool and the Heretic: How two scientists moved beyond labels to a Christian dialogue about creation and evolutionis a book length dialogue of such a series of meetings. The Fool and the Heretic chronicles the story of two Christians, with doctorates in science, who met together on and off for five years, to see if they could find common ground with one another.

Todd C. Wood is a Young Earth Creationist. As a scientist, with degrees from Liberty University and the University of Virginia, Todd Wood understands the science of biological evolution very well. He just does not accept the story of neo-Darwinian evolution to be true. To him, the traditional interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, with a 6,000 year old earth, is the correct one.

On the other hand, Darrel Falk is an Evolutionary Creationist. As a scientist, who helped to start Biologos, a ministry that seeks to educate Christians about the modern scientific theory of evolution, Darrel Falk understands the science of biological evolution very well, and he finds the scientific evidence compelling. Nevertheless, Darrel Falk believes the Bible to be true, and he accepts the Bible as God’s Word. For Darrel Falk, there is no contradiction between the current scientific consensus, regarding human origins, and the teachings of the Bible.

Putting these two believing scientists together might be a recipe for disaster, or it could be an opportunity for God to do something great. A mediation group, the Colossians Forum, sought to bring these two men together over several years, to see if they can see past their differences. But it was tough going at first, and reading this book was pretty emotional for me as well, as I will explain a bit more below.

The two most emotionally difficult chapters to read were entitled “Why Darrel’s Wrong and Why it Matters” and “Why Todd is Wrong and Why it Matters,” which really gets at the heart of why Todd Wood thinks Darrel Falk is wrong, and harming the church, and why Darrel Falk thinks Todd Wood is wrong, and harming the church.  The slight downside to reading these chapters is that they were written by scientists, and the scientific concerns seem to override biblical concerns…. at least initially.

The “Fool”:  Biologist Todd Wood: Young Earth Creationist scientist.

Why Proponents of Different Views of Creation, Think the Other Person is So Deeply Wrong

For example, in Todd Wood’s essay, “Why Darrel’s Wrong and Why it Matters,” he makes the often repeated argument that Evolutionary Creationists do not take God at His Word. They simply do not believe what God says to be true.

At one level, Todd Wood’s argument makes sense, as it sounds pretty straight-forward, following a traditional reading of the text of Genesis 1 and 2. A “day” in Genesis 1 is a 24-hour day. Attempts to turn a “day” into a “long period of time,” or any other interpretive tweakings, are manipulating a “plain reading” of the Bible. Science needs to bend its knee to the traditional reading of Genesis. End of story.

But I also found this to be really frustrating, as it is the same type of reasoning that has been used to justify the so-called “Flat Earth” movement, among a growing number of Christians, who contend that the earth is NOT a curvy globe, and they have Bible verses to supposedly prove it. After all, Job 38:4-5 “teaches” that the earth is to be measured with a line, and not a curve, right? That is the supposedly “plain reading” of the Bible. Any other interpretation compromises the “clear” interpretation of Scripture. The Bible proves those fairy tale makers at NASA, who concocted the idea, of landing a man on the moon, to be a bunch of liars, right?

When I hear Christians talk like that, I want to crawl into a hole and disappear.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it moves from identifying what the Biblical text says; that is, the observation of the text, directly to what the text means to me; that is, the application of the text. It completely skips over the most often neglected part (or at best, skims lightly over it), as to what the text means. In other words, what did the passage mean to the original writer and the original audience; that is, its interpretation, in its historical context, as the primary key to understanding how God meant the passage to be understood to all readers, regardless of where they stand in history. That task is an essential one, but sadly neglected by many students of the Bible today.

Frustratingly, Todd Wood has a tendency to simply equate the authority and truthfulness of the Bible with his own interpretation of the Bible. Whether Todd Wood realizes it or not, the two are simply not the same. Making the assumption that ancient Israelites 3,000+ years ago would have read Genesis 1 & 2 the same way Americans in the 21st century would have read it, requires evidence to support that assumption, not mere assertion.

Likewise, in Darrel Falk’s essay, “Why Todd is Wrong and Why it Matters,” Darrel Falk notes that he takes a figurative view of the early chapters of Genesis, as compared to a “literalistic” view, which Todd Wood holds. After all, science has proven to provide a very accurate, reliable description of our world. This is fine, as far as it goes, but you do get the sense that it is the science that is ultimately driving Darrel Falk’s interpretation of the Bible.

This is a weakness, that Young Earth Creationists can so easily expose. It gave me the impression that it is okay to read the Bible figuratively, if science requires it. But the actual context for the Bible itself was left unaddressed, which was disappointing to this reader. In other words, the intention of the biblical author, and the reception by the author’s original audience, is secondary, according to how Darrel Falk presented his argument. For Christians uneasy with broadly figurative or metaphorical interpretations of certain parts of the Bible, Todd Wood’s position comes across as more on solid footing.

However, as the book unfolds, you get a better sense as to why these two scientists differ. Todd Wood believes Darrel Falk to be wrong, in that the Evolutionary Creationist position puts doubts in the minds of Christians, about the truthfulness of God’s Word. As a result, Evolutionary Creationism harms the church, because it encourages Christians to question a view of the Bible, that has been largely accepted by many, many Christians, for hundreds of years.

Darrel Falk believes Todd Wood to be wrong, in that Young Earth Creationism flatly rejects the most well accepted and attested narrative of the modern, scientific consensus, regarding human origins, as taught in public high schools, universities, and public science museums, all over the Western world. This conflicting view, between Christianity and science, is unnecessarily driving people, mainly young people, away from the church, and away from the Bible.

What makes this dialogue really insightful and challenging is that the process of dialogue led both men to learn things about the other that they never considered before.  For example, like many proponents of macro evolution, Darrel Falk went into the dialogue believing that all Young Earth Creationists simply do not understand the science. All Young Earth Creationists are fools. But Darrel Falk soon realized that Todd Wood really is not a fool.

Todd Wood understands the science very well. He knows that the evidence supporting the validity of neo-Darwinian evolution is very strong. Todd Wood even controversially said, “Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it,” much to the chagrin of his Young Earth Creationist colleagues.

Nevertheless, along with his fellow Young Earth colleagues, Todd Wood believes the modern narrative about evolution to be completely wrong, because it goes against a classic reading of a crucial Scriptural text. He is of the school that says that, in time, the Young Earth Creationist narrative about creation will be proven correct. Young Earth Creationists simply have not yet discovered a testable, scientific model, that successfully makes predictions that align with a traditional reading of Genesis. But he believes they eventually will. He is completely convinced that the scientific evidence is on his side. He just needs to keep searching diligently to find it. On his website, Todd Wood’s motto is, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. (Prov. 25:2)” Todd Wood is no fool, but this does not mean that Darrel Falk is convinced by Todd’s argument.

The “Heretic”: Darrel Falk. Evolutionary Creationist scientist.

Moving Past the Standard Talking Points, in the “Creation Controversy”

Darrel Falk understands the science, but he also loves to study God’s Word. The Bible is the source of life and meaning for Darrel Falk, despite whatever he may find in his scientific studies. Since he views the Bible as God’s Word, Darrel Falk concludes that the Bible is completely trustworthy and true.

To this, Todd Wood concluded that Darrel Falk is not completely a heretic. In other words, Todd Wood is not convinced by Darrel’s interpretation of Scripture, but he does acknowledge Darrel to be a true brother in Christ.

Those are the very encouraging things I found in reading The Fool and The Heretic. Still, there are remaining difficulties that are hard to resolve. While Todd Wood is hopeful that the scientific evidence will eventually prove his way to be correct, his perspective is at times an outlier within the broader Young Earth Creationist movement. You still find a lot of Young Earth Creationists who simply do not understand the science, who fit right in with Darrel Falk’s stereotype, such as those who repeat the canard of saying that evolutionists believe that “humans have descended from apes.” While this makes for great rhetoric, it simply is not true, as it does not accurately reflect the views of scientists. Humans and apes, according to mainstream biology, share a common ancestor. But it does not mean that the apes we see today are the ancestors of today’s humans.

A good way of grouping different Young Earth Creationist approaches can be understood like this (courtesy of Randy Isaac, former executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation):

  • (1) Scientists, educators, Smithsonian museum curators, and the political left, are in a Satanically-inspired conspiracy together to mock God’s Word, by promoting evolution.
  • (2) The scientific data today appears to present the idea of an old-earth and old-universe, and a biological linkage between modern humans and pre-human creatures, but this is simply a matter of appearance. Nevertheless, this appearance of age is what we would expect when God performs a miracle.  Just as when Jesus turned the water into wine, which by its very nature, has age to it, the same could be said about, say, the de novo creation of Adam. Adam would have appeared to be about a 30-year-old man, even though he was created within a single 24-hour period.
  • (3) The current scientific consensus regarding human origins makes a lot of sense. But the evidence supporting the traditional interpretation of Genesis is still out there. Scientists have simply not yet discovered it …. but they will.

Todd C. Wood belongs firmly in this last category. Darrel Falk might shake his head in disbelief, but there Todd Wood is.

Nevertheless, there are those in the second category above, who argue for an appearance of age, when it comes to Creation. The nature of miracles makes exact, scientific description problematic. But someone like a Darrel Falk would reject such an argument, as it tends to suggest that God is a God of deception. Why make the earth appear to be millions of years old, when, in fact, it is only 6,000 years old? That seems like deception. And Darrel Falk does not believe that the God of the Bible is a God of deception.

This is all in contrast with the first category of Young Earth Creationist approaches, namely that a conspiracy exists to undermine the Bible, and that Evolutionary Creationists have gone right along with it, drinking the kool-aid. But the vast majority of scientists, whether they be Christian or non-Christian, hold to the scientific consensus that the earth is 4.34 billion years old.

While there is still some serious debate over certain aspects of modern, biological evolutionary theory (such as issues regarding Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity,” Stephen C. Myer’s argument about the evidence of Intelligent Design in DNA), the broad consensus of many thousands of scientists remains very consistent. It is difficult to imagine how a conspiracy among scientists, involving vastly separate disciplines, ranging from geology, to astronomy, to chemistry, to biology, could keep such a conspiracy together, without at least someone finding a serious discrepancy.

Nevertheless, to Todd Wood’s credit, he does have a point, in that there have been advocates of evolutionary theory, that have indeed adopted heretical ideas about the Christian faith, denying essential truths of Christian doctrine, all because they think that the science demands it. For example, I have read some proponents of theistic evolution, making the argument that Christians need to completely discard the doctrine of the Fall of humanity, because the evidence from science does not support the idea of a great cosmic fall, in human history.

This is why Evolutionary Creationists, like Darrel Falk, prefer the terminology of “Evolutionary Creationism,” and not the terminology of “Theistic Evolution,” which is altogether too vague and not sufficiently grounded enough, in a Christian, biblical theology.

There were points in the dialogue where some misinformation, or at least potential misinformation, persisted. For example, Todd Wood believes that Darrel Falk’s more figurative or metaphorical reading of Genesis 1-11 is somehow “new” and innovative. Unfortunately, Darrel Falk does not sufficiently answer Todd Wood’s contention.  So Darrel Falk remains vulnerable at this point.

However, as John Walton, a Wheaton College professor of Old Testament argues, a more figurative or metaphorical reading of Genesis 1-11 actually predates Todd Wood’s more literalistic approach. Walton contends, that due to discoveries within the past two hundred years or so, we now know more about the Ancient Near East, than did the fathers of the early church. Those early church fathers were working with the best information they had available to them, but they were still hundreds of years away from the original context of the Book of Genesis. But archaeological research, in recent times, has given us access to information, about the original context for Genesis, that the early church fathers simply had no contact with.

But perhaps Darrel Falk can be given some space here, as Darrel Falk is a scientist, and not a biblical scholar.

Todd Wood, on the other hand, expresses a concern shared by many other Christians. Christianity is indeed under attack, in the wider culture. Todd Wood believes that the prime target for the attack is the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis. If you can defend the first few chapters of Genesis as true, then that can serve as a bulwark against other compromises of the faith, down the line.

But is Todd Wood’s goal, to reinforce a traditional reading of a six-24-hour-period Creation story really going to achieve what Todd Wood is after, namely to uphold the doctrinal teachings in Genesis? Is Todd Wood’s task, to keep searching for scientific evidence to prove Young Earth Creationism to be true, worth the effort? For Darrel Falk, what Todd Wood is doing is a waste of valuable intellectual energy. The Christian faith can be defended in other ways, without spending Todd Wood’s great intellectual capital, on a dead end project, where the current scientific consensus remains increasingly settled.

Todd Wood and Darrel Falk: A Young Earth Creationist, and an Evolutionary Creationist: Unlikely dialogue partners, in an on-going in-house Christian debate.

My Response to The Fool and the Heretic

What is my take away from The Fool and the Heretic?

Well, I still continue to see this dilemma quite frequently in my own evangelical Christian circles. There are those, like Todd Wood, who believe that Evolutionary Creationists, like Darrel Falk, are corrupting the minds of the “sheep,” within our churches, causing needless confusion. Likewise there are those like Darrel Falk, on the other hand, who believe that Young Earth Creationists, like Todd Wood, underestimate the scientific understanding of too many of these same “sheep,” thereby dumbing down the Christian message, thereby inviting skeptics to poke fun at the Gospel.

Or to put it another way: On the one side, are those who do not comprehend the explanatory power that modern science has provided contemporary society, or they simply have no interst in science matters, hence these believers conclude that scientists, who embrace the scientific consensus are trusting in “man’s wisdom” and opposed to the knowledge of God. Those who are then “in the know” are willing to risk ridicule from the scientific establishment in order to protect the faith of the less informed “sheep.”

On the other side, are those who quietly smile and nod when they hear scientific nonsense being propagated by other uniformed Christians, but do not speak up, as they do not want to disturb the more childlike-faith professions of such fellow believers. And still, there are those in the middle who want to avoid the extremes of haughty skepticism, as well as uninformed hyper-literalism, on either side of the spectrum. It is in the midst of this tension that Todd Wood and Darrel Falk explore with one another.

Personally, I had a crisis of faith, back in my college years, precisely over this issue of Creation. I knew Genesis to be true, in that the Bible accurately and precisely described the human condition. But I found the particular, 1980’s Young Earth Creationist way of reading the Bible to be less than convincing, as taught by my well-meaning, but not scientifically trained, college pastor. I was not entirely sure about evolution, but I came to the conclusion that Young Earth Creationism was setting up otherwise unsuspecting Christians for a spiritual fall, and I did not want to have anything to do with this brand of Christianity.

Little did I know, at that time, that for the next thirty-plus years, God would place a number of Young Earth Creationist believers in my life. I could not figure this out, but I can honestly say that I can count on a number of these Christians as very dear friends of mine, to this very day, even though we disagree about the age of the earth, and other related topics. So, reading The Fool and the Heretic really helped me work through what it means to try to have a dialogue, with fellow Christians, when there is such deep seated disagreement about the relationship between science and the Bible.

As I wrote about nearly five years ago, learning to be able to “agree to disagree,” on the topic of human origins and Creation, has been really difficult for me personally. A good fifteen years ago, I made the decision to revisit the whole “Creation controversy,” to see if I had completely missed something, when I was deeply wrestling with this issue, back in my college years.

I even engaged in a letter exchange with Dr. John C. Whitcomb, for about 6 months, after listening to a sermon he preached on the Bible Broadcasting Network. Dr. Whitcomb, who is well along into his nineties now, was the co-author of The Genesis Flood, the book that launched the contemporary Young Earth Creationist movement, back in the 1960s. What got to me is that Dr. Whitcomb came across, not as a complete lunatic, but rather he approached me in his letters as quite a godly man, who genuinely cared for my soul.

That letter exchange really softened my heart towards Young Earth Creationists as people, fellow believers, who also love Jesus, and who want the world to come to know the love of the Savior, just as much as I do. I still have struggles getting my head around why Young Earth Creationists read the Bible the way they do, but in reading The Fool and the Heretic, it made me realize that it really is worth it to try to find common ground between believers, who disagree so strongly about interpreting certain controversial passages of the Bible, just as Todd Wood and Darrel Falk clearly do. There simply is no other book like this, available from a Christian publisher.

As to the downside of the book, it really dealt with some of the more radically opposed perspectives that dominate the discussion, among evangelical Christians. With exceptions noted above, most Christians, that I know, are somewhere between Darrel Falk and Todd Wood. They are generally uneasy with the idea of a 6,000 year old earth, that flies in the face of the modern scientific consensus. But neither are they convinced by a full blown concept of biological evolution, that might leave God out of the story.

There are other dialogue partners, that The Fool and the Heretic left out. For example, there are Old Earth Creationists, such as those affiliated with Reasons to Believe, who accept the modern scientific consensus in most areas, while still rejecting macroevolution, when it comes to biological theory. Old Earth Creationists have no problem accepting a 4.34 billion year old earth, and they do affirm the unique, special creation of Adam and Eve, but they do so without believing in any evolutionary linkage with prior biological lifeforms.

Along a similar vein, there are also proponents of Intelligent Design, such as at the Discovery Institute, who are contrarian to the typical Neo-Darwiniam story. Such proponents believe that an “intelligent designer” can indeed be affirmed by the scientific evidence. For those looking at a dialogue among these four perspectives, I would recommend reading Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Designreviewed about a year ago here on Veracity.

Leaving those two other, mediating positions aside, Todd Wood and Darrel Falk represent the polar opposites in the Creation debate. Furthermore, The Fool and the Heretic, makes for a fairly quick read, which makes for a helpful introduction to the discussion. But if I had to pick one side that came out a little bit better in this book, it would be Todd Wood’s approach to Creation. In reading The Fool and the Heretic, I walked away with a more sympathetic view towards Todd Wood’s particular approach to Young Earth Creationism. If only more Young Earth Creationists were like Todd Wood, it would probably greatly enhance the public image of Young Earth Creationism, and lend more credibility to the movement.

Albert Einstein, The Famed Scientist, Was Once Just a Quirky Guy

Exactly one hundred years ago this year, our view of the world was changed by a solar eclipse. It can be argued that when Albert Einstein first proposed his theory of general relativity, that he was some sort of freakish madman, going against the well-attested, time-honored views of Isaac Newton, regarding the nature of time, space, and gravity. Frankly, if it were not for the persistence of Sir Arthur Eddington, who in 1919, made the crucial observations of a solar eclipse, that confirmed the predictions made by Einstein, we might never have known of the name of Albert Einstein (I would strongly encourage readers to take in Eric Metaxas’ interview of Matthew Stanley, the author of Einstein’s War, who chronicles the story of how Arthur Eddington confirmed Einstein, in the years during and just after the First World War).

Will Todd Wood, or another Young Earth Creationist scientist like him, emerge as the next Albert Einstein, or Arthur Eddington, to be able to take predictions, made by a proponent of Young Earth Creationism, and make observations that can confirm such predictions, for which the current scientific consensus can not adequately explain? The possibility is there, even though I would think that even Todd Wood would admit that this is an uphill battle.

However, it does bear noting that an Evolutionary Creationist, like a Darrel Falk, would probably reject the word picture of an “uphill battle,” as not being severe enough. Finding a successful Young Earth Creationist proposal  would be more like trying to climb a thousand foot sheer cliff, with no climbing gear. No ropes and no crampons. With the climbing surface covered with grease.

So be it.

The rigorous dialogue continues.

But hey, if Todd Wood thinks the evidence is there, …. well…. then…. he can knock himself out at it. More power to him. Go for it.

A Nobel Prize surely awaits a Young Earth Creationist who can successfully make a prediction, while still being falsifiable, based only on a Young Earth scientific model.

In the meantime, as far as I am concerned, it is a whole lot easier to defend a view of Creation, based on evidence we do have, as opposed to appealing to evidence we do not have. In that respect, Darrel Falk has a leg up on Todd Wood, so I would tend to lean a lot more towards Darrel Falk, as having the better argument.

Nevertheless, the benefit of reading The Fool and the Heretic is to illustrate how two sincere Christian believers, can disagree so strongly, with respect to human origins, while still finding some common ground. Both scientists care deeply about wanting young people in our churches to flourish in their faith, and not be sidetracked spiritually with chronic doubts about the truthfulness of the Bible. In reviewing their dialogue, Young Earth Creationist scientist Todd Wood landed on this hopeful note: The process of having these series of talks between Darrel Falk and himself, has “been rewarding and frustrating all at the same time, but one thing I know for sure: Darrel has made me a better creationist and Christian, and I’m grateful for that.

The more I think about that, the more I respect Todd Wood, and his search for evidence towards demonstrating the validity of a Young Earth, or what he calls a “Young Age” Creationist model.

Might this dialogue between these two scientists draw some towards Todd Wood’s side, towards Young Earth Creationism, or will it draw others more towards Darrel Falk’s side, towards Evolutionary Creationism? That is hard to say.

But genuine dialogue like this vital today. As biologist Joel Duff says, in his review of The Fool and the Heretic, this book encourages all sides involved, that we “must do better. This book helps us toward that goal.” I complete concur.

Will the conflict between Young Earth and Evolutionary Creationism ever resolve? Who knows? But The Fool and the Heretic at least suggests that real dialogue is indeed possible between vastly different Christian viewpoints. My hope is that The Fool and the Heretic might offer some sort of path, to help Christians, with different interpretations of the Bible, with respect to human origins, learn how to be friends with one another, and not enemies.

 

 

 

 

 


Did God Create the World as “Perfect”… or As “Good?”

Most of us have heard the story.

God created the world in six days. On the first through fifth day, God declares what he has created to be “good.” Then, we get a step up on the sixth day, when humanity was created, God saying it was “very good.

But is “good” the same thing as “perfect?”

According to a few sermons I have heard over the years, “good” and “perfect” are synonymous. But is this Scripturally accurate? Is this really what the Bible teaches?

 

On the one hand, linking “good” and “perfect” sounds like a reasonable assumption. After all, Christians believe that God is indeed perfect. So why would God create anything other than something that was perfect?

Makes sense, right?

Many who take this view go onto believe that when Adam and Eve sinned, not only did they introduce human sin, suffering, and death into the world, they also introduced animal death and suffering into the world.  If humans had never sinned, then the animals never would have died either. This is consistent with what is considered to be a contemporary, Young Earth Creationist reading of the first few chapters of Genesis.

This is probably the strongest theological argument in favor of God creating the world, from nothing, within a span of six 24-hour days. It does make me wonder about where the mayfly fits in this timing scheme, with its life span of only 24-hours, but just go with me here….

In summary: God created the world perfectly. He would never create a world with millions of years of death, cancer, and suffering in it. For those things, we have Adam to blame. Not God.

This makes for a captivating story.

It might even be true.

But there is a difficulty with this reading of Scripture.

Take Genesis 1:2, the second verse of the Bible, before we even get to day one of Creation, for example. Here we read the first part of that verse:

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep….(ESV)

If God created this universe as “perfect,” why would he create the earth, starting out, with what was without form and void? Was this really God’s doing?

How is an earth, without form and void, “perfect?”

Or, how about a little bit later, when God speaks to the humans he has just created, on day six:

Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth…..(Genesis 1:28 ESV)

The word “subdue” is highlighted, because it sounds so… well…. rough and rugged, to say the least. If God created everything “perfect,” then why would humans be called upon to subdue the earth? Why try to subdue something, if it was perfect to begin with?

Some do raise answers to such questions. For example, some claim that God’s command to subdue the earth, only applies to the ground itself, and does not include the animals. To subdue the rocky ground, for farming, is quite different from trying to subdue the animal kingdom.1

I will leave it to the reader to consider if such an answer is compelling or not.

Biblical scholars tell us that, in the days of people like Abraham and Moses, the other gods surrounding ancient Israel,  such as Marduk of the Babylonians, and Atum of the Egyptians, were pretty much a disorderly mess, particularly when it came to the creation of the world. Pagan stories about creation treated the concept of creation itself as a kind of afterthought.

The Bible, on the other hand, tells a much different story.

It tells us that the God of the Bible is a God of order. He brings order out of chaos. Perhaps this is what Genesis has in mind, when in verse 2, we read about the earth being without form and void, which is consistent with a picture of chaos. As the reader proceeds through the days of Creation, the sense of a gradual movement from chaos to order emerges, such as when the creation of light, on day one, gets superseded by the appearance of the sun and moon, on day four, to mark off the days and years.

Then we read on down to day six, where God creates humanity to have dominion over all of the good that God has created. Perhaps, this is what is going on in Genesis, that God’s act of creation is a way of bringing order out of chaos. That might help to explain why God created everything good, but not necessarily perfect.

The perfection of creation was certainly on God’s agenda, but perhaps he created humankind specifically to help bring about that perfection of Creation…. However, as the story goes on, we pretty much blew it with the whole “eating of the forbidden fruit” in the Garden episode.

This still leaves the question open as to why there was chaos to begin with, and why the earth needed to be subdued? Unfortunately, the text of Scripture does not give us a direct answer to that question. It just leaves that question out unanswered… simply hanging there.

Thankfully, whatever we make of this state of chaos, in the initial creation, and the need to subdue the earth, the New Testament completes the story, that “for the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God” (Romans 8:19 ESV). As God’s people experience redemption, through the power of the Cross of Christ, we look forward to the day when Christ will restore all things, and cause all of Creation to have its eager longing fulfilled.

As Christians continue to debate about the age of the earth, and exactly how God brought about the creation of the world, and what sin, evil, death, and suffering have to do with it, it is a question worth thinking about.

Notes:

1. Terry Mortenson, a scientific historian, with Answers in Genesis rightly argues that “In Genesis 1:28 man is commanded to subdue (kabash) the earth…Kabash means to take complete control of something, to make it subservient.” But then Mortenson adds, ‘The text does not say that man should subdue the animals….The fact that God uses a different verb (radah) to refer to man’s “rule” over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and everything that moves on the earth, strongly suggests that “subdue” relates to the non-living creation and “rule” relates to the living creatures. But nothing in the context warrants reading into “subdue it [the earth]” the idea that the creation had been filled with natural evil (death, disease, extinction, asteroid impacts, tsunamis, etc) for millions of years prior to man.’ Isolated by itself, Mortenson’s argument has a lot of appeal. Hebrew parallelism could indeed be in play here. But look more carefully at Mortenson’s contextual argument. What Mortenson ignores is the whole context of the verse, by omitting the very first part of the verse: “And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” This is a command for humans to procreate and “fill the earth” with offspring. To suggest that “”subdue’ relates to the non-living creation;” presumably the physical ground of the earth, as Mortenson does, would suggest that humans are to fill the non-living creation with living humans. Once you fill the “non-living creation” with the “living creation” of human beings, then the “earth” is no longer a non-living creation. Terry Mortenson is a smart scholar, but his exegetical argument appears to be greatly forced. I am no grammar scholar, but why anyone would find this exegesis of the text convincing is baffling. But there you have it. 


%d bloggers like this: