Let me be clear, I do not see this as a battle between science and religion, I see it as a battle between truth and a patent misconception of what the bible is saying.
There are many students of the bible who read Genesis Chapter 1 to be an account of the creation of the earth and take one of the following approaches to science 1) Genesis matches perfectly with science 2) Our knowledge of the ancient past is still evolving and although it does not match science now, it will soon 3) Science is wrong and any theories promulgated by the scientific community that does not match up with the bible is inspired by the devil.
What happens when each of these paradigms are confronted with the overwhelming evidence of actual science, however, is there often arises a crisis of faith. And this is a good thing. Terry and Fiona Givens in their book ‘The Crucible of Doubt’ explain the following:
“…clarity and enlightenment often require that we first relinquish our paradigms no matter how dearly held… . That can be a wrenching process, requiring much time – and much humility. …In the modern church too, stalwarts have sometimes found their operating frameworks an impediment rather than an aid to faith.’
They go on to quote Daniel Dennett who wrote ‘Philosophy…is what you have to do until you figure out what questions you should have been asking in the first place’.
If you have read some of my other blogs, you would see that I am one to break down long held assumptions and false paradigms about the bible so that we can start asking the questions we should have been asking in the first place.
So what about the three perspectives mentioned earlier? Options one and two are relatively easy to test because we can compare these arguments to what the science tells us. The proponents of these options have a fundamental respect for science. The third option is couched in dogma and rejects science. It interprets the images in Genesis 1 as concrete rather than abstract and makes assumptions that perhaps are not justified by the text. It also begs the question – why would God provide all this evidence of an ancient earth and give us a short and vague outline that has no basis in reality? Doesn’t all knowledge come from God? In my opinion, Genesis is not at all about the creation of the earth and we are missing the mark if this is how we are to interpret it. The bible is a book of Man’s dealings with God and Gods instructions to us on how to return to live with him once more. The bible teaches us why we are here, science teaches how we are here.
Science and religion are not related disciplines. We do not consider the law of gravity or the theory of electromagnetism when reading 2 Thessalonians, so why should we consider evolution or astrophysics when reading the creation story. The following is my own perception of how the views of creationism conflicts with what is known through science and why we need to stop trying to reconcile the first chapters of the Bible with our planets ancient history.
| Science | Ex-nehilo & Creationism |
| The universe formed from a singularity which is all matter compressed into an infinitely small space. | The universe formed out of nothing and there was no expansion. |
| Time and space started 13.7 billion years ago | Time and space started around 6,000 years ago |
| Matter was organised but eventually coalesced into stars. | The earth came into being right from the very start before the stars and other planets |
| The earth is 4.5 billion years old, 9.2 billion years younger than the universe | The earth is around 6,000 years old, same age as the universe |
| The earth started as a molten hot rock with water existing as a gas. As it cooled, water turned into a liquid eventually forming oceans. Land, however, was always present . It is not scientifically possible for a planet completely covered in water to ever develop life | The earth was a watery mass from the beginning with land eventually being gathered |
| Stars and other planets formed before the earth. The sun is 4.6 billion years old, 100 million years older than the earth | Stars and planets formed on the 4th day, more than half way through the creative process. |
| The sun provides light for the earth | Some other source of light gave light to the earth before the sun was created |
| Virtually all the water on the earth was on the planet surface or in the lower atmosphere with no physical barrier between them. The earth is round like a ball and circles the sun | There was a firmament which means the earth was covered by a solid dome with the sun, moon and stars embedded in it. The earth is flat, and the visible universe is floating in a great ocean of water. |
| Single celled organisms formed between 3.8 and 2.5 billion years ago, the only form of life that could survive in the toxic environment. First multi cellular organisms did not appear until 800 million years ago. Oxygen appeared 600 million years ago. | The first living organisms to appear were land plants including grass, herbs and fruit trees which came on the 3rd day. |
| The first stars started to form when the universe was 200 million years old, or 13.5 billion years ago. | Lights in the firmament (stars, the moon) were created after plants came into existence. On the 4th day. |
| Oceanic animals appeared 535 million years ago, first primitive land plants came 434 million years ago, land animals came last. | Oceanic animals and birds appeared on the 5th day |
| Before any life began, and before water started to accumulate upon the earth, the planet was rotating so that all sides of the planet received sunlight . It is estimated that the moon is 4.47 billion years old, 300 million years younger than the earth but it formed well before any forms of life began | Day and night, and climatic shifts in seasons did not begin until the fourth day, after the creation of land plants. It also suggests that this was when the sun and moon were created implying that some other source of light was provided until this stage. It also requires the moon to be a source of light when in fact if simply reflects light and is not always visible in the sky. Also, day and night did not begin until the 4th day, yet the other creative periods say that day and night existed which creates a contradiction. |
If Genesis 1 is not about the creation of the earth, then what is it about? I addressed this in my blogs What is Genesis 1 Talking About Part 1 and What is Genesis 1 Talking About Part 2 . Although the bible was written for us, it was not written to us. The bible was written to the audience of the author in their language and according to their cultural nuances. It is time and culture bound which makes it difficult for us to understand. Suffice to say, it is not possible to match Genesis 1 to the science, not even remotely so let’s put creationism away. There is no battle between religion and science, just a battle between false paradigms and truth.
Science cannot reveal anything that is not of God.
Hi Jason, thanks for your thoughts. Can you expand a bit on this?
Jason said “Science cannot reveal anything that is not of God.” I think this is right. I mean the two are first of all completely separate and worried about the repercussions of this world. said INI
I would agree. Religion and science are not related subjects.