PREFACE: Can one be a scientist and still respect the creation story given in the book of Genesis? To me, the answer is yes. This is not to imply that Genesis gives an acceptable scientific account of the origins of life. It does not. However, the book gives a remarkable poetic account that strongly correlates with the scientific sequence of evolutionary history. Because of this close correspondence, ancient Hebrew peoples may have actually learned a little natural history through their religion. Even in these modern times, both theologians and scientists often dismiss or fail to recognize this correspondence for reasons of which I am unclear. But, in this essay I wish to develop the uncanny correspondence between the creation story and the evolutionary story.
This essay will NOT be an exercise in literalistic Bible interpretation. For example, one cannot read the Bible literally and then determine that the earth is round, or that it is not the center of the universe, or that it is four and a half billion years old. Yet, ancient readers of Genesis would have correctly learned that life is made up of dust. Genesis 2:7 reads: "the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground." Life is not only made up of earth's dust but also stardust. There is correspondence, but it is not perfect.
Below is a sympathetic summary of scientific evolution versus the Biblical creation story of Genesis.
My hope is that both theologians and scientists will recognize the potential for a harmonious communication with each other. Both could benefit from each other's insights.
Note: In the follow account, dates are given in round numbers for simplification and clarity.
What kind of "evolution" story do I teach my older children? My children do NOT enjoy listening to long lectures, but I have taught the following information in bits and pieces. The basic content is as follows:
About 14 billion years ago (in round numbers) there was an immense explosion of light and heat (called the "big bang") from a singularity that scattered matter and gases into an expanding universe. Over time the universe began to cool, but large stars continued to burn from atomic fusion. Gravity (assisted by black holes) caused galactic bodies to form. Around many stars orbited planets. Depending upon the gravity of the planets, gases formed to create planetary atmospheres.
Our earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago in a fiery and molten state taking millions upon millions of years to cool down. Temperatures eventually stabilized, maintained by external radiation from the Sun and by internal radiation (e.g., nuclear fission) from the earth itself. The stable temperatures of the earth had the advantage of allowing for liquid water, a critical ingredient for life.
Life on earth probably formed in tiny steps. At some point the earth found itself with self-replicating organic molecules. At some early point DNA/RNA evolved providing a genetic code for making proteins from amino acids. Such proteins could form cell membranes that functioned to protect the replicating molecules inside. Eventually, cells developed complex internal organelles. Cells eventually began to reproduce as a whole (something like mitotic division). Over time, colonies of cells became organisms (a society of cells), having specialized organs. The earliest micro-fossils of complex cell life date back to about 3.5 billion years ago, and there is geochemical evidence of life about 300 million years earlier than that.
As this new life spread across the earth, it took the form of simple cells and small multi-cellular organisms. Roughly, we can say plants preceded simple animals. Plants generally would absorb nutrients from the non-living environment, and animals would consume other living things. However, this distinction would have some exceptions, especially in the early stages of evolution.
Animal life developed in the sea before reaching dry land. The first fishes were evident about 500 million years ago. Land tetrapods (four-footed land animals) evolved from sarcopt fishes (lobe-finned) about 400 million years ago.
By 300 million years ago the first reptiles were found.
The first mammal-like reptiles (synapsids) were evident by 200 million years ago. True mammals probably arose about 100 million years ago (see also: Bininda-Emonds).
The first birds (like Archaeopteryx) were evident about 150 million years ago, and they derived from dinosaurs.
Primates came on the scene as early as about 65 million years ago. Humans (Homo Sapiens) came late on the scene about 200 thousand years ago.
The Genesis account (when given some latitude) parallels the scientific account, although one must translate ancient terminologies into modern ones, a process which is always dangerous. God's creation in Genesis is divided into a sequence of six "days" or periods.
If the modern reader is allowed to interpret "days" poetically, then one can appreciate the sequence of events in the context of modern evolutionary science, which gives an account involving billions of days. Time in science is concrete. Time is best viewed as an abstraction in the book of Genesis.
Below is the Biblical sequence of events, along with some scientific correspondence.
DAY ONE:
The first two verses of Genesis seem to be a prologue pronouncing what God did.
ESV: Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
In the FIRST DAY of God's creation, there is this declaration:
ESV: Genesis 1:3
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Ancient peoples knew nothing of a "big bang," but the suddenness of the "light" is meaningful. Genesis and science agree on the sudden beginning of the universe involving light and matter without form.
DAY TWO:
On the SECOND DAY of God's creation there was a separation of gaseous water in the sky and liquid water on earth.
ESV: Genesis 1:6
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse [sky] in the midst of the waters… .
7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse.
These verses seems to declare that liquid water on earth was a significant event, as if a watery atmosphere and ground water would promote the existence of life. If so, then science would agree.
DAY THREE:
The third Biblical period seems to be the consequence of the second.
ESV: Genesis 1:11
11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.”
It is important to note that the word "kind" (miyn – Strong's #H4327) means "category," and is NOT restricted to the idea of a clone or a species. Instead, miyn can have a much broader meaning, such as family or genus.
The Genesis statement about advanced plant life on land skips a number of evolutionary steps, but at least it emphasizes the early importance of plants, an appreciation both ancient and modern readers would share. In any case, the third creation period was declared to be a time of fertility in which plant life could be sustained.
DAY FOUR:
In the fourth creation period starlight is distinguished from sunlight.
ESV: Genesis 1:14
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”
Perhaps an ancient reader needed a distinction between bright light (sun) and dim light (stars). However, a modern reader must conclude that both forms of light had previously existed prior to "Day Four." It makes sense that early atmospheric conditions (such as volcanic out-gasses) might obscure starlight, much like modern day smog. The earth's atmosphere has changed over time, but it eventually allowed the dim lights (of stars) to pass through it.
Naturally, the presence of plant life would affect the content of the atmosphere, such as absorbing carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. Perhaps the primitive description given for Day Four is compatible with science after all.
DAY FIVE:
In the fifth creation period God created the fish and the birds. In evolutionary terms all vertebrates are just special forms of fishes, and birds do historically follow fishes. However, birds should be listed as following land-based tetrapods. They are descendants of dinosaurs after all. The verses read:
ESV: Genesis 1:20-21
20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. …"
DAY SIX:
In the last creation period God produced all land creatures including humans, who come last in the sequence. This period seems to emphasize mammals. The primary verse reads:
ESV: Genesis 1:24
24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.”
From a scientific perspective, insects (going back 400 million years ago) evolved much earlier than mammals. Insects may be "creeping," but they do not belong to this period. Instead, their earliest evolution would be tied to plants ("Day 3").
On the other hand, mammals did come later in evolution, and humans are one of the latest mammals. Putting these organisms in the last period is appropriate.
The point to this exercise was to make the argument that modern readers of the creation in Genesis can find a rational meaning to the sequence of its creation story. The Genesis sequence of events is essentially correct. However, those who always insist upon literalist interpretations will find contradiction and disharmony.
Obviously, there are some aspects of the Genesis creation that cannot be taken literally. A literal interpretation of the creation "day" as a 24-hour period does not work. Further, there is no reason (scientifically speaking) to be persuaded that the creation "days" are equal lengths of time.
In the theology of Genesis, humans (Adam & Eve) are a focal point – even the endpoint of creation. Evolutionary theory has no empirical basis for thinking any organism is an endpoint.
Does evolutionary theory take God out of the picture? Science is ultimately neutral to the question of God's existence. Genesis proclaims there is theological purpose to life. Science is not equipped to recognize that purpose.
Some may want to conclude that life on earth was transplanted from other planets, a hypothetical phenomenon called panspermia. Panspermia is to origins as the homunculus is to brain operations. We cannot explain vision by claiming a little person in the brain (a homunculus) views a neural movie screen inside the head. Explanations using either panspermia or the homunculus merely procrastinates scientific explanation to another day.
The correspondence of the Genesis creation with scientific evolution provides NO rationale for accepting so-called "Intelligent Design" theory (ID). This last gasp of effort (i.e., ID) by Biblical literalists denies evolutionary change, the common ancestral descent of all life, and the ancient age of the earth and universe.
God may have rested on the seventh day, but there is no reason to think evolution has ever stopped. Fishes may have appeared on the "fifth day" but their "creation" or "speciation" has never stopped. Evolution is a continuous process. It may be fast or slow during some course of time, but it never discontinues.
Perhaps theologians should consider the possibility that the "day of rest" means God has let evolution take its natural course.
Scripture quotations marked ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2008 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
14 comments:
This is wonderful. It looks like you are providing the lesson for our Family Home Evening once again! Thank you. I like the way you lay out the scientific story with such clarity and simplicity and then tie it to the beauty and power of the Genesis account. Very nicely done!
I love reading your blog.
I am not a scientist (as I've mentioned before), but I majored in English in college. The Bible is the word of God, but it is also a book written with imagery and poetry. It was recorded this way because poetic forms were easier to retell orally - which was significant in ancient times. I don't think that we can really take the Genesis account of the creation completely "literally." - especially because we have 2 more accounts given in the Pearl of Great Price - each highlighting different aspects of the creation. We must follow the Sprit when reading any scripture.
I feel quite uplifted when I read posts like these. There is a discussion going on over at the Mormon Matters website. I commented there with a link to this post - I hope you don't mind. You have made the relationship between evolution and creation so clear.
This is a post I'll have to bookmark.
My husband, a lapsed Episcopalian (as I like to refer to him), has started our older daughter, age 8, watching "Cosmos"--you can find it on hulu or netflix.
Sagan makes a point in the 2nd episode about how much people historically have wanted/needed to have an Intelligent Designer, but there really is no need for one.
Later, Sagan talks about the extinction of the dinosaurs, states science doesn't know why they ended. Then, at the end of the episode, he comes on, significantly older, and explains that now we do know why.
As a non-scientist, I find it rather cocky of him to be so assured of all he 'knows'.
That being said, I love our belief that all that we learn helps us understand God.
D&C 93: 29-30, 36 and D&C 88:40.
I simply don't understand why LDS folk get so agitated about evolution. It seems to match Genesis fine to me, as you have so nicely shown.
As an aside, we had a ward mission leader come to our home and he basically told my husband that when God made the earth, the parts of the earth that held dinosaur bones were parts from another earth. He brought a book his father had written, which proved this very fact.
S Faux,
You've done it again. I'm glad chococatania provided a link to your blog at Mormon Matters. This is just the sort of information I was looking for! Perhaps you can join us, and straighten us all out!
Funny, I just went out with the missionaries the other day, and the person was telling us that if anyone believes in Evolution, then they don't know what they're talking about. He also said there is no evidence for it, he's looked into it, so he says.
I was polite and kept my mouth closed.
Son #1
Thanks to SteveP, chococatania, Elizabeth-W, and Mormon Heretic for your kind comments.
As for Son #1 (Anonymous, but not to me):
You grew up with large plastic dinosaurs standing on the mantle of our stairway. They have been there for years and years, and I refuse to take them down.
I am glad you did not debate the issue in a (Ward) missionary setting, because evolution is NOT a critical issue in a gospel context.
But, in non-Church discussion when someone says that evolution is illogical, you can say, "Do you believe in dinosaurs?"
I love to hear the stutter & stammers and see the twists & turns that questions causes. But... be humble NOT arrogant. I am proud of the way you behaved.
Abraham 4 has some interesting terminology regarding the creation. Specifically, how the Gods watched until they were "obeyed" (v 10, 12, 18). I believe those processes the Gods started billions of years ago are still obeying and are manifest in the magnificent genesis processes we see in the universe.
Sparsile: In my opinion, when a scientific thinker takes latter-day scripture into account, then the evolutionary picture becomes even MORE clear. As such, I am confused by the strong resistance that comes from various sectors in the Church. No problem. Life goes on.
In any case, I intentionally kept the above essay generic, trying to build the case that the religion of Jews and Christians has the capacity to be compatible with evolution, if theologians are willing to be scientifically progressive in their thinking.
As religion struggles to survive in a scientific society, it would be nice if our young people could believe in both dinosaurs and God without being accused of intellectual compromise by older theologians and scientists.
Truth is nourishing. Falsehood is famishing. If believers in God were asked to deny gravity, a spherical earth, and genetics, then religion would fail to thrive, even if it did not go extinct. There is no scientific fact that is stronger than that of evolution.
Wow, your readers are very accepting of this, while whenever I attempt to write on this same topic I get hammered by the fringe.
I hope your readers would take the time to read B.H. Roberts, John Witdsoe, and James Talmadge's words on evolution. Before the Joseph Fielding Smith/Bruce R. McConkie era, evolution was embraced by the members of the Church. But alas, Smith and McConkie outlived their antagonists and, therefore, we have been indoctrinated against evolution for decades now.
Jeremy:
I do NOT pretend to be able to take a stand on whether the Church is neutral or against evolution. I have heard LDS theologians (who are in the know) argue both ways on that issue.
My essay above is about a different issue. The issue is that Genesis and evolution correspond to a considerable degree. Thus, I wonder why theologians and evolutionists argue so much about incompatibilities.
While I have considerable interests in theology, as evidenced by this blog, my real area of expertise is cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.
While I would be happy to be hammered by the "fringe," as you call them, the issues are really straight forward. Evolution as a phenomenon is as factual as gravity, a round earth, and an expanding universe of which we are NOT the center.
One could argue that God made the earth recently from old parts containing dinosaur bones from other worlds. If so, I would argue that elves strike the strings inside my piano with little hammers whenever I press the keys on the keyboard.
The point is that NOT all explanations are scientifically useful or valid. Science is NOT letting our imaginations run wild. Science requires disciplined thinking.
I am perplexed by the animosity displayed by some religiously-inclined individuals toward evolution. This is fine, as long as I can continue to do my evolutionary studies and science.
My religion has made me a better scientist and thinker than I would ever be without it. Frankly, I love to have the Book of Mormon in one hand and Darwin in the other. When I die, maybe my wife will remember to bury me that way. ;)
Scientific truth is "revealed" through the scientific method and religious truth is revealed through revelatory means. Certainly many people see only the inconsistencies and incompatibilities between the differing methods and the conclusions reached (of which there are many!). I'm much more interested in how each approach informs the other, sometimes by way of highlighting weaknesses and gaps and other times by way of illustrating similarities and alignment in the search for truth.
I remember feeling sad reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" not because of his conclusion that God was not needed to explain the origin and destiny of our world and universe, but because he did not (and, scientifically, could not) address the Atonement.
When I want to understand the mechanics and probable timing of the creation (the "How?" and "When?"), I turn to Hawking. When I want to understand grace and salvation (the "Why?"), I turn to scripture. I don't think Moses was much of a cosmologist, and I don't think Hawking is much of a prophet.
I don't look for expect total compatibility between science and religion. I accept the differences and look for what each can teach me.
Thanks for your insights on this topic.
Dee: In a lot of ways we are on the same page (I think). I will be watching LDS Conference this weekend to learn about God and theology, not to learn natural history. Conversely, scientific conferences are a terrible place to learn about God, but they are a great place to learn natural history.
I often have to keep these two sources of knowledge separate. I do not always like that separation, but usually it is for the best.
Thanks for your response, S.Faux. You have inspired me to draft something of my own on this very subject to see how the followers of my blog react. I will certainly cite your post in my article, but I have read other books that may shed even further light on the creationary periods. I hope to have something concrete by this Sunday.
S. Faux, thank you for articulating what I have always felt. I remember a few conferences back when President Hinkley was still alive and he spoke on evolution and progression (in my mind the same thing). I think too often people get caught up in the dogma of faith and forget that there is so much more to this world than what they (scientist,non-scientist, theologian, and non-theologian) could know. This is evidenced by the various "discoveries" (i.e. earth being round, etc.) that have transcended the knowledge at the time. I am reminded of D&C 50:24, which says "That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day." I believe that knowledge and light go hand in hand and we should embrace all forms of light and knowledge.
Post a Comment