The December 2013 edition of The Christadelphian included not only a
number of letters critical of Don Pearce and Nigel Bernard’s appalling YEC
article, but defences from both authors. Predictably, these responses were less
than convincing, and indicated the depth of scientific illiteracy of the authors.
Over the next few posts, I will show why these defences are scientifically and
theologically flawed.
Don Pearce opened with a variant
on the presuppositional argument that YEC groups such as AiG are increasingly
using; it’s not about the evidence but how one examines the evidence:
One’s viewpoint
colours one’s interpretation of the evidence presented. Obviously those who
believe in evolution look for long ages, as evolution necessitates this. Those
whose viewpoint is to accept the literality of the Genesis account, interpret
the evidence within that framework. Both viewpoints demand faith.[1]
Pearce simply assumes without justification that the
correct view is a literal view. Such a view however causes far more problems
than it solves:
- It forces Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 into conflict as the sequence of creation events differs between both
- It forces the believer into a needless, pointless conflict with hard evidence from the physical and natural sciences
The literal reading that Pearce advocates simply assumes
that the creation narratives were intended to be read as written, but this
makes the unwarranted assumption that the ancient Israelites were interested in
material accounts of creation. As C.C. Walker
observed:
Moses’ testimony is not so “plain”
that it cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood…Moses’ testimony was given to
Israel
in what might be called the infancy of the world, when men did not know the
extent of the earth, let alone that of the sun, moon, and stars. And, as we
believe, it was given (by God through Moses), not so much to instruct Israel in
cosmogony in detail, as to impress upon them the idea that The Most High God is
the Possessor of Heaven and Earth (Gen. 14:22). And this against the claims of
the gods of the nations, as was abundantly proved in Israel’s history. [2]
Disappointing as his appeal to the ‘differing viewpoint’
argument is, Pearce’s main blunder was to try to link an ancient earth with
evolution. What Pearce neglects is that educated Christians accepted the
reality of an old earth well before Darwin
published “The Origin of Species” in
1859. Old Earth Creationists such as the early generation of Christadelphians
rejected evolution, but accepted that the case for an old earth was
overwhelming. Christadelphian physicist and old earth creationist Alan Hayward
pointed out that:
For many
centuries it had been believed that the world was only a few thousand years
old, and the Reformers considered that they could date it from Scripture as
being less than six thousand years. It therefore shook the world when eighteenth-century
geologists discovered evidence that the earth’s crust is very much older than
that.
It is
important to note that it was in the eighteenth
century that this first happened - well before Darwin was born. The pioneer geologist James
Hutton, for instance, wrote that he could see ‘no vestige of a beginning’ to
the earth’s history - and he died in 1797.
Recent-creationists
usually ignore this historical fact. Their literature abounds with incorrect
statements like this:
Why, then, do
geologists say the rocks are hundreds of millions of years old, when they may
only be thousands of years old? The answer is that they are trying to agree with
the theory of evolution that
needs enormous lengths of time to explain all the forms of life we know today. (Emphasis in original)
Such unfounded
accusations are grossly unfair to all the early geologists. Not only did they
reach their conclusions many years before Darwin
launched his theory of evolution, but many of them were Bible-believing
Christians and creationists.[3]
Pearce’s assertion
that ‘both viewpoints demand faith’ is false, and betrays a profound ignorance
of the reasons why we know the Earth is ancient. I alluded in my previous post
to the recognition by geologists as early as the first half of the 19th
century that the sedimentary strata could not have been deposited by a single
flood, but rather took ages to lay down. One does not need ‘faith’ to observe
the geological strata and deduce that a single flood event could not have
deposited them. One needs merely to observe with an open mind, rather than view
them through the lens of Biblical fundamentalism.
The distribution of radionuclides
the Earth’s crust is arguably the best demonstration of the great age of the
Earth. Radionuclides are atoms with unstable nuclei that undergo radioactive
decay. Their half lives can range from fractions of a second to thousands of
millions of years to ages well over the current estimate for the age of the
Earth. If the Earth was young, then we’d expect to see both short and
long-lived radionuclides present in the Earth’s crust. Conversely, if the Earth
was thousands of millions of years old, the short-lived radionuclides (apart
from those generated by natural decay processes) would have decayed away. This
is exactly what we see:
Source: Dalrymple GB “The
Age of the Earth” (1991: Stanford
University Press) p 377
Apart from radionuclides generated naturally, we see none with a half life under 80 million years. The odds of this occurring by chance are so remote as to be non-existent. A rational mind would conclude that the reason no short-lived radionuclides exist in the crust is because the earth is so old they have all decayed away, leaving only the long-lived ones. One does not need ‘faith’
to conclude that this evidence alone shouts an ancient Earth. Rather, one needs
an open mind and a willingness to be led not by dogma, but by evidence.
Pierce never justifies his belief
that a literal reading of the creation narratives is the only permissible
option:
My viewpoint
accepts the literality of the days of creation, including the seventh day and
is supported by God’s reference to His work of creation in Exodus 20:11 which
depends on a straightforward understanding of the word “day” as a normal day.[4]
There are a number of
problems with this viewpoint. The first is that forcing a literal reading onto
the creation narratives forces them to contradict each other. Genesis 1 refers to creation in six
days, while Genesis 2
refers to creation in a single day. Furthermore, the order of creation events
in Genesis 2 contradicts
that of Genesis 1:
 |
| Source: Enns "The Evolution of Adam" |
OT scholar Peter Enns notes:
As
can be seen in the chart…the differences between the two creation stories are
significant, not superficial, and should therefore be respected rather than
harmonized. Particularly telling is the sequence of creation in the third row.
These
two stories are clearly significantly different, and they cannot be harmonized
by saying that the first gives the overview and the second fills in some of the
details. The presence of two different creation accounts is troublesome for
readers who assume that Genesis 1
and 2 are historical in nature and that the Bible’s first priority is to
recount history accurately. Yet the divergence of these stories cannot be
reasonably questioned. To stitch them into a seamless whole would dismiss the
particular and distinct points of view that the authors were so deliberate in
placing there. The differences between the two creation accounts are further
complemented by differences seen in other Old Testament passages such as Psalms 77:16–20; 89:5–37; Job 9:4–15; 26:5–14; 38:4–38; and Isaiah 40:12–31; 44:24–28. It does not seem
to be a concern of the biblical writers to provide God’s people with a
“unified” story of creation.[5]
Given this undeniable tension that arises when one tries
to read the two creation accounts as a literal, harmonious account of creation,
it makes Pearce’s appeal to Exodus
20:11 less than convincing, as a literal reading of it is also in
conflict with a literal reading of Genesis
2. Tensions such as this indicate that Pierce’s literalism is not
the correct way to read the creation narratives.
This leads naturally to the second problem in his
assertion, and that is the failure to read Genesis in its ancient Near Eastern
context. This is hardly a radical assertion, as C.C.Walker observed, when he
stated the purpose of the creation narratives was not to relate how creation
occurred, but who the creator was, and why he created.[6] Pearce
makes the same mistake all special creationists do in not understanding the
ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis.
One cannot assume anything. Even the concept of ‘create’
does not necessarily mean what we think it does. As ANE scholar John Walton
observes, one of the fundamental errors we can make is in assuming that the
ancient world was concerned about material origins. In fact, the origin of
function in the cosmos was of more interest to the ancient Near Eastern world:
[O]ntology in the ancient world was
more connected to function than to substance. In other words, something exists
when it has a function, not when it takes up space or is a substance
characterized by material properties. This applies to everything in the cosmos,
where various elements come into being when they are given a role and function
within the cosmos. The neglect of curiosity about the physical structure of the
cosmos is therefore not simply a consequence of their inability to investigate
their physical world. The physical aspects of the cosmos did not define its
existence or its importance; they were merely the tools the gods used for
carrying out their purposes. The purposes of the gods were of prime interest to
them.[7]
A function-oriented
ontology/cosmology bypasses the questions that modern scholars often ask of the
ancient world: Did they have a concept of “creation out of nothing?” Did they
believe in the eternal existence of matter? These questions have significance
only in a material ontology. Those who posit creation out of nothing want to
know whether “things” were created without using preexistent materials. If
creation is not viewed as concerned with the physical making of things, these
questions cannot be approached through the texts.
The result of this study is the
suggestion that in the ancient Near East “to create” meant to assign roles and
functions, rather than to give substance to the material objects that make up
the universe. [8]
If the ancient Near Eastern world was more concerned about
the origin of functions rather than material origins, then a literal reading of
Genesis 1 takes on a
completely different meaning, as it would be about the assigning of function to
objects, rather than detailing their creation. In fact, Walton notes that the
Hebrew verb bara’ (translated as ‘create’ in Genesis 1) is more concerned with assigning roles rather
than physically creating:
This direction is picked up nicely
in Genesis 5:2, where
God creates people male and female, that is, with gender roles. In all of these
cases something is brought into existence functionally, not necessarily
materially; rarely would the statement concern the issue of matter. Indeed, the
text never uses bara’ in a context in which materials are mentioned. Thus instead
of suggesting manufacture of matter out of nothing (as many have inferred in
the past), that materials are not mentioned suggests that manufacture is not
the issue. Rather, the lexical analysis suggests that the essence of the word
that the text has chosen, bara’, concerns bringing heaven and earth into
existence by focusing on operation through organization and assignment of roles
and functions[9]
Even if one sets aside the idea that Genesis 1 is about functional
origins rather than material origins, there are strong hints in the chapter
that reading it as a literal, sequential account of the origin of the universe
seriously misses the point:
- Day 1 refers to the creation of light, but the sun, moon and stars are created on day 4
- Furthermore, for the first three days there was no day and night as only on day 4 were the sun and moon created to separate day from night
- The six days of creation naturally fall into two groups, with the first three days detailing the creation of ‘domains’ (light, waters above/below, dry land / vegetation) and ‘domain rulers’ (sun / moon, birds / fish, land creatures / man[10])
If one looks at the first three days from a
functional ontology, then as Walton points, what they are describing the
creation of the three great functions critical to an agricultural society:
time, weather and agriculture.[11] Days 4-6
then detail the installation of the ‘functionaries’ whose role it is to carry
out the functions assigned in days 1-3:
Though
the shape of the cosmos is seen in terms quite similar to the literature of the
ancient Near East, the elements of the cosmos have no corresponding deities,
and the structure of the cosmos is radically different. By the way in which Genesis 1 uses the shared ancient
Near Eastern cognitive environment, it asks the same questions that lie behind
all of the other ancient cosmologies and operates from the same metaphysical
platform but gives quite different answers that reflect the uniqueness of the
Israelite world view and theology.[12]
Walton’s observation that the Genesis creation
narrative shares the world-view of the ANE, but subverts it by denying divinity
to the created shows that apart from detailing the creation of function and
order, the narrative also functions as a polemic against the extant creation
myths. Pearce’s woodenly literal reading not only forces the Genesis 1 into conflict with
observed reality by positing a 6000 year old earth, but completely misses this
polemical edge which would have been of far more use to the target audience,
whose orthodoxy was constantly under threat by the religions of their
neighbours.
Appealing to Ex 20:11 does not prove creation in six literal days as
Pearce has simply assumed that creation refers to material origins, and as
Walton notes, the ANE world was more concerned with creation of function. Ex 20:11 arguably refers to the
creation of time, weather and agriculture and assigning of functions to the entities
involved in these critical activities, a view which comports remarkably with
Gen 2v5-7 where agriculture and humans are linked:
Now no shrub of
the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for
the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to
cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the
whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living being.
Finally, Pearce attempts to use Jesus’ references to Genesis
as proof of YEC:
Jesus’ references to what took place “in the
beginning” indicate his understanding of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as a
straightforward account.
A Christian who believed in the reality of demons
would use exactly the same approach to prove his point by claiming that Jesus’
references to demon possession prove their reality, and would have every reason
of accusing Pearce and other Christadelphians of special pleading if they
asserted that only Jesus’ references to Genesis 1-2 were to be taken literally.
Of course, evolutionary creationists who regard Adam
and Eve as specially created people who were the first people with whom God
entered into a covenant relationship, but not the first human beings who
existed[13] would
have no problem with reading these words as being roughly historical. Pearce
again is guilty of projecting a fundamentalist reading of the Bible onto the
narrative.
His frankly sententious admonition that “this
should warn us to be very cautious about accepting the truth of this human
viewpoint” is ironic given that he has so thoroughly conflated his flawed, human
interpretation of the Bible with the inspired word itself.
[1] Letters: Don Pierce The Christadelphian (2013) 150:533-534
[2] Walker C.C. “Is it ‘Wrong’ to Believe that the Earrh is a Sphere?” The Christadelphian (1913) 50: 348.
[3] Hayward
A Creation and Evolution: The Facts and
Fallacies (1985: Triangle Books) p 70
[4]
Letters: Don Pierce The Christadelphian (2013) 150:533
[5] Peter
Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the
Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand
Rapids, MI: Brazos
Press, 2012), 52.
[6] See ref. 2
[7] John H.
Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and
the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2006), 167.
[8] John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern
Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew
Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 184.
[9] John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern
Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew
Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 183.
[10] The link between vegetation and man becomes apparent
when we look at Gen 2
where humans are created to cultivate the land. There is also the fact that
Adam was placed in a garden.
[11] John H. Walton Genesis 1 as Ancient
Cosmology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2011), 170–171.
[12] John H. Walton Genesis 1 as Ancient
Cosmology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2011), 178.
[13] Gen 4
when read without the presupposition of monogenism alludes to Cain’s wife and
the presence of people waiting to slay him for his crime without bothering to
explain their origin. Given that there is no reference to any other children
born to Adam and Eve at this time, such a plain reading suggests strongly that
Adam, Eve and Cain were not the only people on Earth at this time, a view which
needless to say has considerable support from palaeoanthropology.
