The Genesis Historic Narrative:
Scientific AccuracyThe Genesis Historic Narrative:
Scientific AccuracyI will praise You, O LORD, with my whole heart; I will tell of all your marvelous works. Psalm 9:1 NKJV
An excerpt from the Assemblies of God Enrichment Journal is an example of a major denomination questioning whether Young Earth Creation (YEC) adheres to science. The tenor of the article might be suggesting that the interpretation of Genesis 1-11 can optionally be determined as literal or symbolic.
Historically, because of Pentecostal theology's fundamentalist roots,
Pentecostals have interpreted Genesis as historical narrative that is
scientifically accurate, and they reject those scientific findings
that contradict this interpretation. But today many people who are
technologically savvy and immersed in the popular media's representation of
science are members of our congregations. Many of them are uncomfortable
rejecting out-of-hand the findings of science that seem to conflict with
traditional interpretations of the Genesis account. They are increasingly interested
in fostering an integrated view of Christian faith and natural science.
Mike Tenneson, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, Evangel University
Steve Badger, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry at Evangel University (Ret.)
A Brief Overview of Pentecostal Views on Origins,
Tenneson and Badger, AG Enrichment Journal, Spring 2015
Comment: YEC's are often accused of insisting that Genesis adheres to
"scientific accuracy" and that they
"reject those scientific findings that contradict this
interpretation." The accusation is true, but the story must be understood in
full context. The Creation chapters present a historic
overview of a series of supernatural events that are not subject to the guidelines
of the scientific method, simply because they are supernatural.
Creationists believe that the historic (literal)
acceptance of a six day creation will be supported by the observational evidence
currently available relative to Days 3, 5, and 6 of Genesis 1: the days
on which all life forms were created.
Genesis 1-11 is a historic account that should be viewed
as an overview in which God has identified specific essential events. Statements
in Genesis that do define scientific principles present no
problem for a young Earth and for science. Genesis 1 states
that all living things were created "after their kind." The Bible speaks to the
diversity of life as being defined within created species, justifying a plain reading of
the text and cited by observational evidence (that which is seen today.)
What are rejected by YEC's are the
evolutionary beliefs that clearly have not been tested by the
scientific method, the most obvious being the missing evidence for the
evolutionary origin and complexity of life. Neo-Darwinists (EC's and EV's) hold to the
belief that macro-evolution provides the mechanism for the diversity of
life. This idea for the development of new species is based on a process that
has no transitional support from the fossil record. If new species have been created by
an evolutionary process, at least
an occasional and observable interim example would be clearly identifiable,
whether in the fossil record or in its continuation in
more recent history.
OEC theology does not fully agree with the naturalistic macro-evolutionary creation of
new species proposed by EV's, but rather believe
that God has intervened over long periods to dramatically alter existing organisms. The
OEC theory would also leave traces of transitional evidence, unless God spontaneously created
new life forms in the same manner as on days 3, 5, and 6 of Creation week. A
series of re-creation events for species formation, however, would also require a human
addendum to the Biblical text. Either
way, a historic account that meets Old Earth requirements is
contrived and would require a re-write of scripture.
The Bible does not use "scientific terminology" when describing the
Genesis Creation account, but the language alone does not suggest error. Although the
EC/EV language seems to be scientific, the evolutionary science supporting the
language is in error due to the subjective interpretation of the evidence.
Rather than rejecting a YEC belief, it might be well to review articles that support
the "scientific (and historic) accuracy" of Genesis 1-11, available at the
Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AiG).
Before moving on, we must confess that a literal acceptance of Genesis has the "problem" of the other beliefs mentioned, that being a lack of empirical evidence regarding "beginnings." The referenced chapters must be accepted by faith. It should be noted that the missing evidence must be applied equally to those who believe in evolution and "deep time," The result is that all beliefs regarding origins are based on faith. Science has no answers regarding the beginning of the material world and all of life.
The missing transitional fossils created an evolutionary necessity for a "credible" response to explain the absence of empirical evidence. Ph.D. paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium to supplement Darwinism. Simply stated, after a period of stasis (no significant change), isolated populations were rapidly modified to create new species, leaving no trace of transitions. Although often mentioned in evolutionary discussions, the PEq theory does not adhere to scientific accuracy.
Evolutionists (EV's) and Evolutionary Creationists (EC's) have attempted to determine how the first cell (life) was created through natural processes (abiogenesis). EC's share the philosophy of the godless evolutionary view (EV) that the origin of the first single celled organism occurred by natural chemical interactions over time. EC's also give credence to a back-up solution that God may have caused the chemicals in the primordial soup to come together to form the first cell. In either instance, they believe that all of life emanated from the single celled organism over eons.
OEC's have varying theories as to how Adam and Eve were formed, whether by a specific act of creation by God, or by an evolutionary transition that culminated with God breathing humanity into the first couple (or "first couples" as some believe.) Both OEC and EC theories disregard the fact that the Bible clearly states that all of life was created "after their kind." Adam was uniquely created by a specific act and in God's image and likeness; both he and Eve were of the "human kind." An evolutionary process that creates new species from existing life forms suffers from an absence of transitional evidence as well as a proven process that adds information to the genome. The theory does not adhere to scientific accuracy.
The Bible may not read like a science textbook, but the few selected verses below indicate adherence to the principles governing the Universe and biology. The previously discussed verses in Genesis 1 that specify "after their kind" are in agreement with Cell Theory as well as with the science of species reproduction. Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of Adam as being uniquely different than any other species on the planet. "From the beginning" man has had intelligence, creativity, the power to learn, and an awareness of his Creator that is absent in all other life forms. The qualities and capabilities that are inherent in every human are astounding by any scientific standard.
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27 NKJV
Following the same principles of adhering to or referencing scientific principles, the following verses are among many:
And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam
became a life-giving spirit. 1 Cor. 15:45 NKJV
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and
thus death spread to all men, because all sinned - Romans 5:12 NKJV
Neither the supposed birth of the first cell (EC) and its transformation into all of life can be justified by a straight-forward reading of scripture. Nor can a time-frame of long ages be read into any Biblical reference to Creation. The Progressive Creationist view (per the RTB website) is that Adam was created/evolved ~50,000+ years ago. In order to create a historic OEC account, the clearly defined Biblical Genealogy in Genesis 5 would have to be substantially revised. What were Adam and his pre-Flood descendants doing for 50,000 years and how do the individuals born during that time fit the genealogy from Adam through Noah in Genesis 5? An OEC/EV account is not confirmed by scripture and requires a completely different understanding of Creation, the Fall, and the pre and post-Flood chronology, at a minimum.
Genesis also defines what is obvious: a day is based on the fact that its duration is 24 hours. There is no scientific dispute that our planet has always seen a 24-hour rotation on its axis (an evening and a morning); and the time for a a single revolution around the Sun gives us seasons over a 365 day period. An OEC/EC account assigning eons to the word "days" is not confirmed by scripture. And, although not realized as such, days and seasons are the first understandable introduction to science for every child.
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years. Genesis 1:14 NKJV
He appointed the moon for seasons; the sun knows its going down. Psalm 104:19 NKJV
Both OEC & EC beliefs include the addition of general revelation (or nature) as one of God's methods to "help" explain the meaning of His Word. Nature, however, is simply observational evidence, pointing to and confirming the existence of God as stated in Romans 1:20. When belief in God begins with an understanding of His Creation in six literal days, all else is seen with greater clarity. Understanding our Creator begins with the Word as He meant it to be understood. Any effort by OEC's/EC's to redefine His Word by inserting nature in the guise of "science" to create a timeline consisting of billions of years is in error.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20 KJV
It might be fair to say that objective science is not in opposition to God's word, but rather the subjective science of evolution is that which is "falsely so called."
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, Romans 1:20
Return to main page press (BackSpace / <--) or
The Genesis Historic Narrative Index