People who insist that the first two chapters of Genesis must be interpreted absolutely literally are motivated at least in part by concerns that are legitimate and deserve to be addressed. One concern is that interpreting these foundational passages of the Bible figuratively sets a precedent for interpreting the entire Bible figuratively, which is often used to “explain away” difficult passages and to place human wisdom above the revealed Word of God. If the primary motive for interpreting Genesis figuratively is to make it consistent with scientific accounts of creation, there is concern that we are giving science (which is by its very nature provisional and changeable) priority over the Bible. The anti-evolution organization Answers in Genesis expresses opposition to figurative interpretation of Genesis, because in their view this compromises foundational truths such as the concept of original sin, the nature of man, the Fall, and other critical concepts. They are also concerned that accepting any form of evolution places one in the camp of the materialist atheists and agnostics who are among the most reviled enemies in the culture wars.
These concerns are legitimate, but the reasoning behind them is not compelling. More importantly, these concerns are hypothetical. Many passages throughout the Bible are interpreted figuratively even by the most conservative theologians, because the text itself or the text plus common sense indicates it is not intended to be taken literally. Thus, the concern that interpreting parts of Genesis figuratively puts us on a slippery slope that will lead to devaluation of the Bible is not supported. The idea that we should refuse to interpret any of Genesis figuratively or to support any version of evolution because it would put us into the camp of the enemy is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. This would be like saying, I will not take a life-saving medicine because the person who developed it is an atheist. I was taught that the best exegesis of the Bible requires us to approach the scriptures with as few pre-conceived notions as possible and certainly not to let our culture influence our interpretation. Many conservative Christians are quite good at not letting our culture influence our interpretations, in the sense that we do not interpret the Bible as allowing some behaviors that a majority of people in our culture support. This is as it should be, if our interpretation is objective and based only on the Bible. However, few seem to realize that interpreting the Bible purposely to oppose positions of some in our culture that we find distasteful also represents an inappropriate outside influence on our exegesis. We should not go to the Bible looking to support or refute positions held by many in our culture; we should approach the Bible objectively and let it and the Holy Spirit alone guide us. These issues are clearly illustrated by recent events in the largest conservative Christian organization, the Southern Baptist Convention. I was told by Paige Patterson (a former SBC President and architect of the “conservative resurgence”) in a letter that the inclusion of the prohibition of women pastors in the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message was at least in part to counteract radical feminism. I oppose several aspects of radical feminism, but I would hope that I do not let this opposition influence my interpretation of scripture. Sadly, the history of the Southern Baptist Convention includes a lesson on this point that we should have already learned well. The SBC supported slavery and segregation, and when those bad ol’ liberals began to oppose it, this prompted the SBC to be even more vigorous in its insistence that the Bible supported these despicable practices.
It is possible to accept the Bible as literal, except where the text itself gives us cues that a literal interpretation is not intended and still regard parts of Genesis as figurative. There are cues in some parts of Genesis strongly suggesting that a literal, sequential, historical, scientific description of events is not intended. These will be discussed in detail in a moment. It is also possible to interpret Genesis in a manner that does not conflict with most scientific accounts and at the same time does not compromise the interpretation of scripture or give science priority over scripture. If one begins only with scripture and attempts to reconcile Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, one is left with enough uncertainty as to sequences and duration of events that a limited version of evolution can be accommodated. I should make it clear that I believe the Bible is entirely true and without error. The “errors” highlighted by atheist groups to “prove” the unreliability of the Bible are ironically dependent on absolutely (and often ridiculously) literal interpretations, on ignoring context, and on making big issues of inconsequential differences in genealogies or census numbers. The truth is that one must either accept by faith that the Bible is entirely true, or not. It cannot be proved to be entirely true. However, it cannot be proved to be untrue or to have errors, either. For example, genealogies of Jesus that differ in different passages could indicate that different writers selected different ancestors as important in giving their abbreviated ancestry of Jesus. The major problem, if we do not accept the Bible as true and free of error, is that we cannot know which parts are reliable or not. This eliminates the power of the Book. Who is going to make a life-changing commitment based on a Book full of errors and even untruths. What if the central claims of Christ are part of the unreliable part, as suggested by the Jesus Seminar (a group of scholars who have been spectacularly debunked in Luke Timothy Johnson’s book, “The Real Jesus”).
Having established that I believe in the truth and reliability of the Bible and that it should be interpreted literally unless the text itself indicates otherwise, how do I conclude that the Bible does not conflict with a limited version of evolution? This conclusion does not begin with or rely on science. I did not arrive at this point by first believing science and then adapting scripture to fit it. I started with scripture. There are two separate accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. They are remarkably different in some ways, and they cannot be reconciled without stretching common meanings and the easily understood narrative of the stories beyond the breaking point. This is as clear a sign as we could hope to find indicating that Genesis 1 and 2 should not be interpreted entirely literally. Beginning with Genesis 2, we find a very clear narrative account of creation. God created a man (Adam). Afterwards, God created “every tree” and other plants. God saw that the man was alone and vowed to make a suitable helper for him, and He created animals and brought them to the man, who named them. However, none of them was a suitable companion for the man. Therefore God made woman. This narrative is exceedingly clear with regard to the sequence of events and God’s purpose in them. For example, it would not make sense to propose that God had already created animals and then later brought them to the man. The passage clearly states that the man was alone and that God “formed” the animals for the purpose of providing him a helper. There is just one problem. Similar reasoning applies to the sequence of creation of plants and man. The narrative in Chapter 2 indicates that there were no plants because God had not yet caused rain to fall and because there was no man to till the ground. Thus, God made man, then plants. Some have argued that God made most plants before man (as in Chapter 1), but made cultivated plants after man. However, the narrative in Chapter 2 also states clearly that God created “every tree” at the same time as the other plants, whereas Chapter 1 clearly states that trees were made before man. Obviously, the sequence of events in the narrative in Chapter 2 does not match the very clearly specified sequence in Chapter 1. Specifically, in Chapter 1 the sequence of events indicates that plants were created first, then animals, then man and woman. The sequence in chapter one is clear because each day of creation and everything created on that day is specified. Thus, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 differ fundamentally with regard to the sequence of events. The events are not minor trivial ones, they involve the creation of human beings. I have tried, and I have read the writings of a number of other people who have tried to reconcile these accounts without fundamentally altering the narrative in Chapter 2 or ignoring the specified creation days in Chapter 1. I have encountered no satisfactory method to do so.
Either the Bible contains an error, or this apparent conflict is intended as a cue that one or both of these passages is not intended to be taken literally. As already mentioned, I do not accept the idea that the Bible contains errors or real contradictions. Because it is not clear that one account is literal and the other is not, it would seem most appropriate not to regard either passage as a scientific or historical account of creation. It is very clearly a theological account. This does not change certain aspects of the stories that can and should be taken literally. An essential truth is that God created everything and made human beings in His own image. There is no obvious indication that the man and woman were figurative. In fact, both accounts indicate specific people with specific descendents, suggesting that a literal interpretation of two people is intended. Interpreting Genesis in light of the rest of the Bible, it is clear that Satan is a literal being, who is introduced later in Chapter 2. My own opinion is that the account in Chapter 1 may actually describe an outline of literal events during creation, but as already noted, the text itself discourages us from emphasizing this by not clearly indicating which of the two conflicting accounts is to be taken figuratively.
Later in Chapter 2, there is a description of the Fall. As a result of their decision to defy God, the man and woman were told that they would surely die. This is interpreted by ultraliteralists to indicate that physical death was not part of the original creation, but only began after the Fall (a position that clearly conflicts with acceptance of any version of evolutionary theory). Interestingly, this is merely an assumption, it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, in spite of the fact that a considerable section of Chapter 3 is devoted to a list of consequences of the Fall. Also, the interpretation that physical death did not exist before the Fall ignores another perfectly valid interpretation. In the New Testament, several passages clearly use death to refer to spiritual death, not physical death. For example, “But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (II Timothy 1:10). Obviously, physical death has not been abolished and we are not physically immortal in this life. This passage refers to spiritual death, and the passage referring to the death of man in Genesis can reasonably be interpreted in this way also. Thus, the introduction of death for the first time affected man only after man had a soul. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that previous primates were, born, lived, and died, just as overwhelmingly demonstrated by fossil evidence. This does not contradict the Bible. In fact, the only consistent interpretation possible without distorting the obvious sequence of the narrative in Chapter 2 is to interpret both chapters as dealing with literal beings and with spiritual truths, with little concern or emphasis on the mechanism or timing of creation.
Biblical ultraliteralists insist that the days of creation must be interpreted as 24 hour days. However, Genesis itself defies this interpretation. It is obvious in Genesis 2: 4 (“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens”) that the word day, which is the same Hebrew word used to designate the days of creation in chapter 1, indicates an age or period of time, not a 24 hour day. The anti-evolution group Answers in Genesis states that the word day used along with a number (e.g., 1st day) always means a 24 hour day. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that they have evaluated all Hebrew writings to verify this claim. There is no reason a priori to make such an assumption. Even if this is the most common usage, it does not preclude a different meaning in Genesis. Interpreting the “days” of creation as ages of time does no harm to the theological or even the literal truths of Genesis. Could God have created the earth and all living things in 6 24-hour days? Of course He could. Is it necessary to propose this is how He created? Not at all. I interpret these days as ages of time because of the obvious cue in Genesis 2:4 and because the first 3 days in Chapter 1 occurred before the creation of the sun. Therefore, these days at least cannot be 24-hour days as defined by the movement of the sun.
In addition to the disagreement between Chapters 1 and 2, when interpreted literally, there are problems with regard to common sense physical observations that would have been obvious to average people in the pre-scientific era. For example, plants were created on day 3, but the sun was created on day 4. Plants do not function well without the sun. In addition, the references to days before the creation of the sun, which has already been mentioned, would defy common sense or would indicate that literal days defined by the movement of the sun were not intended.
It is of primary importance to note that I have not mentioned science at all as a reason for interpreting the Bible as described here. I have only pointed out a few cases in which interpretations derived strictly from the text would be consistent with a limited version of evolution (limited in the sense that it cannot explain everything and is provisional like all other scientific theories). The reasons for doing so are derived entirely from the Bible itself. However, now that we have this interpretation, it would be interesting to determine if scientific accounts of creation can be harmonized with it. Interpreting the “days” of Genesis 1 to be eras of time allows sufficient time for the process of evolution to occur, and the sequential development of animals in different eras, culminating with human beings is consistent with evolutionary theory. It is often argued that the biblical indication that living things produce other living things of their own kind precludes evolution. Actually, this is an integral part of evolution. Speciation is never proposed to occur in one generation in evolutionary theory. The offspring are of the same “kind” as the parents, but when two groups of animals become isolated from each other they can respond to different environmental situations by having different mutant traits selected for survival. This eventually leads to two different “kinds” where there was originally one. However, it is not necessary to propose that there was ever a case in which animals or plants produced offspring of a different “kind”. What about the statement in Genesis that animals were herbivores first then some became carnivorous? This is the same sequence proposed in evolutionary theory. Obviously, there is no way for carnivores to survive unless there are first herbivores, which constitute their food supply.
A common objection to this harmonized scenario is that the creation of human beings by evolution would be completely natural, without the intervention of God. This is simply not the case. God could have used evolutionary mechanisms to develop human-like creatures up to the point where two of them were ready to be fully human. If we take the Bible seriously, we understand that the key difference between man and animals is not biological, it is spiritual. We have a soul. Because the soul is a spiritual entity, it cannot have been created by natural processes. At the point when the physical bodies of two human beings were ready, God endowed them with a soul. This idea does not change any of the key beliefs that persons who oppose evolution hold dear. God created by intervening in a supernatural way. One might question whether there is any scientific indication that modern humans are all descendants of two original individuals. Actually, there is such evidence. By sequencing mitochondrial DNA and back calculating from the present day situation it is possible to determine if a series of changes could lead back to a single set of mitochondrial DNA (unlike nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA is derived only from the mother, so it provides a way to trace the maternal lineage). In fact, a group of scientists found this to be the case, and they even refer to the original woman as Eve. This result is still the subject of controversy among scientists, but it is interesting that there is at least some scientific indication supporting the biblical concept that all human beings alive today are descendants of a single woman. Year by year new fossil evidence continues to accumulate indicating a progression from ape-like ancestors to more and more human-like offspring. These fossils have been consistently dated by a variety of techniques, which act to verify each other. One of these methods is dendrochronology, or dating by counting tree rings of live and dead trees. In a particular region, a chronology can be developed by comparing living tree ring patterns with those of older and older dead trees whose life spans all overlap. This method has been used to date human habitations approximately 10,000 years old. The method most often criticized by “creation scientists” radiocarbon yielded a very similar date. Thus, the validity of radiocarbon has been established by a completely independent method that is not liable to technical concerns that sometimes apply to other methods. Radiocarbon dating can be used to date items as old as 60,000 years; many times the duration of earth proposed by “young earth” creationists. Ignoring these findings or claiming that all scientists are incompetent or that there is a grand conspiracy among them to support evolution in spite of evidence to the contrary is simply not a credible position. Scientists do not make their reputations by following the partly line, they do so by initiating a paradigm shift. The biggest and most sought after shift would be to provide convincing evidence or reasoning that would preclude or cast serious doubt on evolution. However, the evidence only gets stronger over time, and no serious, objective scientists have been able to discredit it. As a biomedical scientist, I can assert that biomedical findings are consistent with and some have even been predicted by evolutionary theory.
Another common objection voiced by opponents of evolution is that the Bible refers to the product of each day of creation as “good”. They do not believe the characteristics of evolution, which involve competition and death, could be described as good. However, the term good may simply mean that creation proceeded as God planned and that this was good. It may have been His plan to use evolution as a creative force. What is often now referred to as the anthropic principle is really just an agnostic or atheist way to say that the precise combination of conditions on earth that were necessary for life were exceedingly unlikely but that they were in a sense inevitable or we would not be here to observe them. A much more philosophically satisfying explanation is that God created the universe from the very beginning to create and sustain life. Some people object to the idea that God created in a derivative way, using a natural process rather than ex nihilo, supernatural creation. I cannot understand how one method is any more God-like than the other. God can do things however He chooses. Choosing to invent and create nature in a way designed to specifically give rise to human beings is just as awe inspiring and amazing as creation of human beings ex nihilo.
Finally, I would like to point out that although I did not use evolution as a basis to guide my interpretation of the Bible, it is not necessarily inappropriate to do so to some extent. For example, almost all people, even adamant anti-evolutionists believe that the earth revolves around the sun. However, the Bible states more than once, in what seems to be very clear language, that the earth shall not be moved (ref). Why do those who oppose evolution not also oppose the use of scientific findings to support a non-literal interpretation of these passages? I think it might be because the evidence for the rotation of the earth around the sun is so convincing that to believe otherwise actually suggests that one is out of touch with reality. The case for evolution is not quite this strong, but it is close. I should make it clear that I am not advocating a general principle of using science to interpret the Bible. I think in most cases this would be a large mistake. Science is provisional; its conclusions are always subject to change or even elimination. Biblical principles are eternal. However, in just a few select cases, it may be appropriate to use the general conclusions of science to assist in interpreting scripture, as long as we recognize that scripture itself is eternal and true but that any of our interpretations of it that are guided by science should be regarded as provisional.
The bottom line is that the scientific case for evolution is overwhelming. If you doubt that read any of many excellent books that refute creation science. I have read both creation science and books that refute it, and I can tell you with great certainty as an experienced working scientist that that much of creation science is wrong, sloppy, and even deceptive. The books that refute it represent real science. I once taught at a large state university, and four colleagues who worked with me in the Department of Biological Sciences and I were members of the same Baptist church. All of us regarded ourselves to be conservative, traditional Christians. However, all of us agreed that the evidence for a limited version of evolution is excellent and that the objections raised and proposals offered by creation science are simply not credible. I have not done a scientific survey on the matter, but I expect the vast majority of scientists who are conservative, evangelical Christians also recognize evolution to be a reasonably good scientific theory. The only scientists I know who support creation science are those who work for creation science organizations. Very few are working scientists who submit their work to their peers for critical review, as most scientists do. I mention this not to be demeaning to scientists who support creation science, but to point out that if the only writings you have read on this subject have been written by these persons, it would be wise to consider other sources before accepting one view. Even Dr. Michael Behe who coined the term “intelligent design” accepts descent from common ancestors and most other aspects of evolution, because the evidence supports it. Clearly, he is not part of any mainstream conspiracy of scientists, but he still supports evolution.
Genesis itself demands an interpretation that does not treat Chapters 1 and 2 as rigid, historical, scientific accounts of creation. Accepting this view of Genesis reconciles Genesis and God’s necessary and sufficient role in creation with a limited version of the scientific theory of evolution. None of the theological truths of Genesis are harmed or changed in any way by this reconciliation. As I have mentioned in previous posts, insisting that evolution did not occur and stating that Christians who believe otherwise are “useful idiots (useful to those supporting evolution)” as stated on the Answers in Genesis web site, harms the cause of Christ. It sets students up for an absolutely unnecessary spiritual crisis when they learn that what they have been taught about “creation science” is demonstrably nonsensical. It alienates almost everyone who is well educated in the sciences, because it implies that they must forsake intellectual integrity to accept the Bible and, therefore, Christ. There is no need for this and it should stop. Even a writer of one pamphlet in the original Fundamentals series in the early 1900s (“Science and Christian Faith”, by James Orr) believed that evolution and the Bible could easily be reconciled. He certainly was not a person who accepted “higher criticism” as a method of biblical scholarship. However, he understood that the first two chapters of Genesis raise many questions about time sequences and the precise nature of events, indicating that God did not intend Genesis to be complete clear explanation of these issues. All of these considerations have caused me to conclude that creation science is harmful and that God and evolution can be accommodated in a limited model of evolution, which cannot explain the development of life from non-life, the origin of the soul, or several other key events, and an omnipotent view of God who could use both supernatural and natural processes to create. This view is completely compatible with the Bible.
