Introduction
I’m aware of some confusion among
both special creationists and non-theists about exactly what evolutionary
creationism means. In my experience, both theist and non-theist make the
mistake of thinking ECs believe that the creation narratives either explicitly
refer to evolution as the mechanism of creation, or can be harmonised with an
evolutionary natural history. This is wrong. You will find no reference to
evolution anywhere in the creation narratives. However, you will find no unambiguous
reference to heliocentrism, a spherical Earth or any other aspect of the modern
world for the simple reason that Genesis
1 is ancient cosmology, not modern science, and serves both as a
polemic against ancient Near Eastern creation mythology, a well as an account
of functional origins (order from chaos) as opposed to material origins.
Literalism and Strong Concordism are both flawed exegetical options
Critics of EC make the mistake of
thinking that the only exegetical options open for the creation narratives are
literalism or strong concordism. Literalists take the creation narratives
literally (though not as literally as they think) and insist that a recent
creation in six days is what the text teaches. Strong concordists are willing
to recognise that the Earth is ancient, but still think that the days of
creation refer to sequential creation events which can be harmonised with
geology. The classic strong concordist views are the Gap Theory, which posits a
global catastrophe between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, followed by six days of
re-creation, and the day-age theory which claims that the days are not 24 hour
days but unspecified time periods.
Both literalism and strong
concordism are untenable. Literalism is readily falsified by the fact that the
Earth is ancient, and life has been on this planet for at least 3800 million
years. The Gap Theory is falsified because there is no geological evidence of a
global ruin such as the theory demands. The Day-Age theory likewise is
falsified because the order of creation events in Gen 1 does not correspond
with natural history. For example, Genesis 1 teaches that birds were created
before mammals, but the fossil record tells us that mammals appeared around 200
million years ago[1], well
before feathered dinosaurs (which preceded birds) appearing around 160 million
years ago[2]. Furthermore,
it stretches credulity to imagine that plants dependent on pollination survived
untold ages before the animals that pollinated them were created. From a
scientific point of view, both literalism and strong concordism have been
falsified. Evangelical geologist Davis Young, in his survey of the history of
Christian approaches to geology declares:
The inability of literalism to provide a
satisfactory agreement between the biblical text and geological knowledge can
be seen on two counts. In the first place, modern literalistic interpretations
of the creation and flood texts yield results that are wildly at variance with
geological knowledge. In the second place the wide variation of interpretation
demonstrates that we have not yet discovered the proper understanding of
“scientifically relevant” biblical texts. Literalism, after 300 years, has
failed and no longer provides a fruitful approach for achieving the appropriate
biblical view of geology.
Concordism has been unable to provide a satisfactory agreement between
the biblical text and geological knowledge. Concordistic efforts have never
been able to do justice to the fourth day of creation and to the relative
positioning of the third and fifth days of creation in relationship to
geological knowledge. On the other hand the variation of suggestions further
demonstrates that concordism has not helped us to understand “scientifically
relevant” biblical texts any more than has literalism. Concordism, after 250
years, has also failed and no longer may be assumed to provide a fruitful
approach for achieving an appropriate biblical view of geology.[3]
The scientific problems alone
decisively refute literalism and strong concordism, but ultimately, both views
cannot be reconciled with what the narratives actually state. Genesis 1 cannot
be reconciled with Genesis 2 if both are read as literal, consecutive accounts
of creation. Genesis 1 teaches creation in six days and refers to the creation
of male and female humans together, while Genesis 2 refers to creation in one
day and places the creation of man before woman. As OT scholar Peter Enns
notes:
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.[4]
[1] K.
A. Kermack, Frances Mussett, and H. W. Rigney, "The skull of
Morganucodon", Zoological Journal of
the Linnean Society, (1981) 71:1-158.
[2] Xu,
X.; Zhao, Q.; Norell, M.; Sullivan, C.; Hone, D.; Erickson, G.; Wang, X.; Han,
F. & Guo, Y. "A new feathered maniraptoran dinosaur fossil that fills
a morphological gap in avian origin". Chinese
Science Bulletin (2009) 54:
430–435
[3] Young DA “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists (Part
2)” Westminster Theological Journal 49:291–292.
[4] Peter
Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the
Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand
Rapids, MI: Brazos
Press, 2012), 52.
