Does evolution leave no room for a

Creator?

The conflict between evolution1 and creation2 has been a

thorn in the side of the church ever since Charles Darwin

published his famous theory concerning the origin of species.

The polarising nature of this debate has generated a populist

narrative of crudely painted stereotypes, in which atheists

use evolution as a weapon against Christianity while

Christians uphold creation as a benchmark of orthodoxy.

We are commonly told both sides agree that evolution leaves

no room for a creator on the basis that the biblical record is

incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. But is this

assessment accurate; and if not, what is the alternative? Can

Christians accommodate evolution without compromising

essential beliefs? An answer might be more easily found if we 1 In this paper, ‘evolution’ is understood as the theory that life forms have changed over time through processes of mutation and random selection, with sophisticated organisms descended from simpler ones and all life ultimately sharing common descent from one basic form. Yet it is universally recognised that evolution alone is not sufficient to explain the existence of planets, stars, natural laws, etc. Thus we must take care not to conflate origin of species with origin of life, or any other aspect of the material universe.

2 In this paper, ‘creation’ is understood as the formation of Earth and everything on it by the direct, miraculous power of God.

1

challenge the assertion and ask ‘Why does evolution leave no

room for a creator?’

The first half of this paper will address philosophical,

exegetical and doctrinal challenges posed by evolution. The

second half will propose an exegetical framework for

reconciling the Genesis creation account with evolution,

showing that the theological implications it presents for

Christianity have been grossly overstated.

At the outset we must acknowledge that most Christians do

believe evolution leaves no room for a creator, and that their

position is predicated on an interpretation of the biblical

evidence. Indeed, creationism may seem the most natural

interpretive model for Genesis 1-2 when the text is taken at

face value and strict literalism is assumed.

The Genesis creation account records time in a manner

consistent with the modern worldview (‘And there was evening

and there was morning, the third day’, Genesis 1:13) giving

the impression that the narrative describes concrete realities

rather than mere themes or symbols. Cosmological features are

described in the language of the period (‘Let there be a dome

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

2

in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters

from the waters... God called the dome Sky’, Genesis 1:6, 8).

Notwithstanding the implications of this phenomenalistic

terminology—typically overlooked by those who say we must

simply ‘accept what Scripture says’—the language does appear

favourable to a literalist interpretation.

But even if we agree that Genesis 1 & 2 describes the world

as the author perceived it, we must also agree he was divinely

inspired. This being the case, does it necessarily follow that

his description must be understood hyperliterally?

Young Earth creati0nists insist that it does. They believe

the original audience understood these chapters as a strictly

literal record of historical events and that we must follow

suit; even to the point of ignoring contrary data. Apologist

Dan Story exemplifies this view when he claims ‘Christians are

logically justified and philosophically consistent to accept

biblical creation without investigating scientific evidence.’3

Old Earth creationists adopt a more nuanced reading. While

still accepting special creation, they seek to reconcile the

3 Dan Story, Defending Your Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1997),139.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

3

account of a 7-day creation week with the scientific consensus

regarding the age of Earth. Some interpret the seven days of

the Genesis creation as vast time periods (e.g. millions of

years);4 others propose a chronological ‘gap’ at a critical

point in the narrative to account for the plethora of ‘pre-

Adamic’ life within the fossil record.5 These approaches

successfully address geological evidence for an ancient earth

but remain vulnerable to scientific critique on other grounds,

such as the biological evidence for universal common descent.6

Hard atheists likewise perceive an irreconcilable conflict

between evolution and the biblical creation account, although

from their perspective the problem lies with Scripture, rather

4 ‘The day-age (or old earth) view argues that the “days” in Genesis 1 are best understood as indefinite periods of time. According to this view, creation is as old as contemporary science claims it is: billions of years.’ Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 71.

5 ‘The third view, the restoration view (or gap theory) claims that a largegap of time occurred between the first and second verses of Genesis 1. Thus, while the original creation is very old, it is possible to correlate the re-creation phase with an understanding of the “days” of Genesis 1 as six literal twenty-four-hour days.’ Boyd & Eddy, 71.

6 ‘The fact that the oldest hominine, primate, mammal, amniote, tetrapod, jawed fish, and vertebrate (to name a few) all follow each other sequentially in the record is strong support for common descent, one of thepredictions of evolution by natural selection.’ Robert Asher. Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 65.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

4

than science. Creation narratives, they say, are a discredited

relic of the past, with no place in modern society.7 Evolution

provides the best explanation for the variety of life on this

planet8 and there is no evidence for supernatural agency.9

Thus far we have seen that both sides of the debate take an

evidence-based approach to the issue: creationists appealing

to the evidence of Scripture and atheistic evolutionists to

the evidence of science. But the defence of these positions is

motivated by distinctive worldviews which rely on the evidence

pointing in specific directions. In short, their

7 ‘All the creation myths of all peoples have long been known to be false, and have fairly recently been replaced by infinitely superior and more magnificent explanations. To its list of apologies, religion should simply add an apology for foisting man-made parchments and folk myths upon the unsuspecting, and for taking so long to concede that this had been done.’ Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Twelve Books, Kindle Edition, 2007), 153.

8 ‘By contrast, creationism, or “intelligent design” (its only cleverness being found in this underhanded rebranding of itself) is not even a theory.In all its well-financed propaganda, it has never even attempted to show how one single piece of the natural world is explained better by “design” than by evolutionary competition. Instead, it dissolves into puerile tautology.’ Hitchens, God Is Not Great, 146.

9 ‘The stamp of the lowly origin is to be found in our appendix, in the nowneedless coat of hair that we still grow (and then shed) after five months in the womb, in our easily worn-out knees, our vestigial tails, and the many caprices of our urinogenital arrangements. Why do people keep saying, “God is in the details”? He isn’t in ours, unless his yokel creationist fans wish to take credit for his clumsiness, failure, and incompetence.’ Hitchens, God Is Not Great, 144-145.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

5

interpretation of the evidence is shaped by their ideology.

This is true for creationist and hard atheist alike.

Creationists need a literal Genesis narrative—or at the very

least a literal Adam and Eve—to support traditional doctrines

such as Original Sin. In the wake of growing support for

Darwinism, prominent churchmen of the early 20th Century

highlighted the dangers posed by evolutionary theory.10 If

there is no historical Adam and Eve, there is no Fall. If

there is a historical Adam and Eve but they are not the sole

progenitors of the entire human species, there is no inherited

guilt for Adam’s disobedience. Either way there is no Original

Sin, and consequently no need for redemption from a corrupted

human nature.

10 ‘At a time when some American states were passing laws forbidding the teaching of evolution altogether, the Anglican clergyman and future bishop of Birmingham, Ernest William Barnes, hit the headlines by preaching what the London press called his "gorilla sermons" in Westminster Abbey. Barnes was trying to complete the synthesis of evolutionism and liberal theology begun half a century earlier. In so doing, however, he exposed cracks that had only been papered over in the earlier negotiations.’ Peter J. Bowler, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009, Kindle Edition), Kindle Locations 81-84.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

6

Whether Christians realise it or not,11 these conclusions

necessarily follow if evolution is true12—and the ramifications

for Christ’s atoning sacrifice are as obvious as they are

profound.13 Any attempt to reconcile evolution with

Christianity must provide a new interpretive model for the

Genesis creation and address the resulting doctrinal domino

effect.14 It is significant that some Christian supporters of

11 ‘A few liberals may have realized that accepting evolutionism meant abandoning the idea of Original Sin in order to accommodate the ideology ofprogress. But Barnes felt that many Christians had not thought through the implications of this step—indeed many had failed to recognize that it undermined most of the traditional foundations of their religion. Deep issues had been skated over in order to avoid seeming to be out of step with modern thought.’ Bowler, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons, Kindle Locations 1531-1533.

12 ‘If Christians accepted that humanity was the product of evolution—even assuming the process could be seen as the expression of the Creator's will—then the whole idea of Original Sin would have to be reinterpreted. Far from falling from an original state of grace in the Garden of Eden, we had risen gradually from our animal origins. And if there was no Sin from whichwe needed salvation, what was the purpose of Christ's agony on the cross?’ Bowler, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons, Kindle Locations 84-86.

13 ‘Given the earlier conclusion to which I argue—that as a result of accepting evolution the theme of sacrifice, and especially the idea of Christ’s offering his death in propitiatory sacrifice to his offended father for the original sin and fall of humanity, is no longer a requirement of Christian belief—I submit that acceptance of evolution also renders the sacrificial dimension of the Eucharist no longer appropriate, but that its sacramental dimension… provides a continuing and indispensiblesource of inspiration, life, and power to the eschatological community.’ Jack Mahoney, Christianity in Evolution: An Exploration (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011), xii.

14 ‘Which core doctrines of Christianity does evolution challenge? Well, basically all of them. The doctrine of original sin is a prime example. …

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

7

Darwinism created theological roadblocks to reduce its

impact,15 while others simply accommodated evolution within the

framework of a more liberal faith.16 For many Christians the

latter step is a bridge too far; they argue that compromise on

Really, without a doctrine of original sin there is not much left for the Christian program. If there is no original ancestor who transmitted hereditary sin to the whole species, then there is no Fall, no need for redemption, and Jesus’ death as a sacrifice efficacious for the salvation of humanity is pointless. The whole raison d’etre for the Christian plan of salvation disappears. …Religionists will often say that the possession of asoul is what distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. Never mind, for a moment, the fact that nobody has ever actually identifiedthe location of the soul; just looking at the concept through Darwinian lenses raises numerous problematic questions for the doctrine.’ Mike Aus, “Conversion on Mount Improbable: How Evolution Challenges Christian Dogma” [cited 28 October 2013]. Online: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/645853-conversion-on-mount-improbable-how-evolution-challenges-christian-dogma

15 ‘Gradually, well into the twentieth century, evolution by natural selection came to be accepted by a majority of Christian writers. Pope PiusXII in his encyclical Humani generis (1950, Of the Human Race) acknowledgedthat biological evolution was compatible with the Christian faith, althoughhe argued that God’s intervention was necessary for the creation of the human soul.’ Francisco Ayala, Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2007), 4.

16 ‘If Huxley persuaded people that they were related to the apes, it was Spencer and Darwin who provided the arguments that would encourage them to believe that human nature itself is a product of the natural world. They showed how evolution could develop the characters we recognize as essentialfor morality. This challenged the traditional Christian view that human nature has mental and moral components derived from an immortal soul. …For every agnostic such as Huxley, there was a liberal Christian who welcomed evolutionism because it built the highest characters of the human mind intonature and made them the driving force of progressive evolution.’ Bowler, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons, Kindle Locations 1454-1459.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

8

one point leads inevitably to a total collapse of the

Christian religion.17

Many atheists are no less ideologically motivated than

creationists, but for them the issue is complicated by the

fact that God’s existence can be neither conclusively proven

nor conclusively falsified. Thus, from an atheist perspective

it is not as simple as pointing to evolution and saying ‘God’s

existence is hereby refuted.’18

17 ‘But as the topic moves from geology to paleontology to biology, the compromising theologian has no rational reason to dismiss the claim that “all real scientists have unanimously proven all life evolved from a commonancestor.” The theologian is now in full agreement with the atheist on the origin of the universe, the earth, and all life (including humans), with “God” merely a superfluous deity with little work left to do. …[W]hy do compromising theologians, pastors, and other Christians who accept theisticevolution stop at Genesis? Science has also “proven” that humans cannot rise from the dead, that water cannot turn into wine, and so forth. Why, then, read the Gospels plainly when many have reinterpreted Jesus as just a“good man” and a “wise teacher” whose followers inserted into pagan myths?’Answers In Genesis, “News to Note, April 17, 2010” [cited 28 October 2013].Online: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/04/17/news-to-note-04172010

18 ‘Gould rightly insists that science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny the existence of God. The empirical evidence is of critical importance here. As Gould stresses, this shows that some Darwinians are theists and others are not. There is simply no valid means of settling this issue on scientific grounds. The suggestionthat the Darwinian theory of evolution is necessarily atheistic goes way behind the competency of the natural sciences and strays into territory where the scientific method cannot be applied. If it is applied, it is misapplied.’ Alister McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: the Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004), 109.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

9

Instead hard atheists typically claim that evolution reduces

God to a redundant hypothesis.19 While agreeing evolution

doesn’t necessarily preclude the reality of God, they

nevertheless argue He has been marginalised to the point of

virtual non-existence.20 With evolution a sufficient

explanation for the origin of species, and God no longer a

necessary one, the traditional theistic case for God is

clearly undermined.21 19 ‘We now know things about our nature that the founders of religion couldnot even begin to guess at, and that would have stilled their overconfidenttongues if they had known of them. Yet again, once one has disposed of superfluous assumptions, speculation about who designed us to be designers becomes as fruitless and irrelevant as the question of who designed that designer.’ Hitchens, God Is Not Great, 148-149.

20 ‘You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence. This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. If you attempt to reconcile religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the deity because for any question about nature… The end result of this inquiry can only be natural explanations for all natural phenomena. What place, then, for God?’ Michael Shermer, “God & Evolution” [cited 28 October 2013]. Online: http://answersinscience.org/ShermerGodnEvolution.htm

21 ‘And even though the existence of evolution does not immediately preclude the existence of a God, the existence of evolution removes a major reason that people historically had in inferring the existence of a God. Ofcourse, there may be other ways to infer the existence of a God besides with teleological arguments. But believing in evolution by natural selection means, for example, no longer being able to argue that there had to be an intelligence supernatural creator behind the universe to account for the apparent designs that structure plants and animals.’ Daniel Fincke,‘How Belief In “Theistic Evolution’ Is Nearly As Much A Denial Of Science

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

10

At the core of this argument resides the latent assertion

that evolution leaves no room for a creator because there is

nothing left for Him to do.22 Prominent atheist Peter Atkins

follows the logic to what Richard Dawkins calls a ‘godless

conclusion’: that insofar as evolution refutes creationism, it

effectively negates the concept of a creator.23 Attempts by

Christians to reaffirm God as a legitimate philosophical and

As Creationism” [cited 28 October 2013]. Online: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/12/how-theistic-evolution-is-nearly-as-much-a-denial-of-science-as-creationism

22 ‘An intelligent designer was once as good an explanation as any offered for this variety and complexity of life.  But given the discovery of evolution by natural selection, the intelligent designer hypothesis is an inferior and unnecessary one. Might God nonetheless exist? Yes, God might exist, but it is no longer necessary or helpful to posit His existence for purposes of explaining how life emerges and becomes complicated. Maybe one can posit a divine explanation for something else but God no longer explains either how life arises or how it takes its present forms.’ Fincke, ‘How Belief In “Theistic Evolution’ Is Nearly As Much A Denial Of Science As Creationism” [cited 28 October 2013]. Online: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/12/how-theistic-evolution-is-nearly-as-much-a-denial-of-science-as-creationism

23 ‘Peter Atkins, in the book just mentioned, takes this line of thought to a sensibly godless conclusion when he postulates a hypothetically lazy God who tries to get away with as little as possible in order to make a universe containing life. Atkins’s lazy God is even lazier than the deist God of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment: deus otiosus—literally God at leisure, unoccupied, unemployed, superfluous, useless. Step by step, Atkinssucceeds in reducing the amount of work the lazy God has to do until he finally ends up doing nothing at all: he might as well not bother to exist.’ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Kindle Edition, 2008), 144.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

11

scientific inference via ‘Intelligent Design’24 (derived from

William Paley’s ‘watchmaker’ analogy25) are rejected as

intellectually dishonest26 and scientifically flawed.27

Like their Christian fundamentalist counterparts, hard

atheists—particularly the so-called ‘New Atheists’—deny that

24 ‘Unlike creation scientists, the advocates of ID largely ignored geological arguments associated with the age of the earth and the extent ofNoah's Flood and focused instead on finding biological evidence of a god-like designer. Most controversial of all, they tried “to reclaim science inthe name of God” by rewriting the rules of science to allow the inclusion of supernatural explanations of phenomena, insisting that “The ground rulesof science have to be changed.”’ Denis Alexander, and Ronald Numbers, Ronald, ed., Biology and Ideology: From Descartes to Dawkins (London, UK: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 325.

25 ‘Paley’s version includes an extended analogy in which a person who has never before seen a watch finds one and concludes that the mechanism must have been designed by an intelligent being.’ C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 87–88.

26 Even some Christian academics have noted that the logic behind Intelligent Design is self-defeating. ‘If functional design manifests an Intelligent Designer, why should not deficiencies indicate that the Designer is less than omniscient, or less than omnipotent? Paley cannot have it both ways. Moreover, we know that some deficiencies are not just imperfections, but are outright dysfunctional, jeopardizing the very function the organ or part is supposed to serve.’ Ayala, Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion, 22.

27 ‘“Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity,” Dawkins asserts, “and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.” The analogy between watch and living organism is specious, he claims. In the wake of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), we know that the appearance of design is the outcome of natural selection, which, “[i]f it can be said to play the role of the watchmaker in nature.... is the blind watchmaker.”' Alexander & Numbers, Biology and Ideology, 47.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

12

evolution can be reconciled with the Genesis creation account.

But on close inspection this seems motivated more by personal

ideology than objective reasoning. Dawkins is typical of those

who claim that anyone who interprets Genesis 1-2 in anything

less than a woodenly literal fashion is simply ‘picking and

choosing’ what they want to believe.28 What evidence does he

offer for this? None at all; he merely asserts it. Since

Dawkins’ worldview cannot accommodate theism, he must dismiss

the possibility that it may be consistent with evolution.

There is no carefully reasoned argument behind this objection;

it is purely ideological.

The volume of atheist rhetoric on this aspect of the debate

is inversely proportional to its substance. After all the

screaming is over we may note that although a case has been

made for evolution as a sufficient alternative to creationism,

atheists have failed to establish that evolution leaves no

room for a creator. This negative conclusion provides the 28 ‘Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don’t take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick andchoose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist’s decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is ‘morality flying by the seat of its pants’, so is the other.’ Dawkins, The God Delusion, 269.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

13

ideal opportunity for a positive Christian response. Can we

show that evolution is compatible with a creator?

We might be tempted to argue the point from a purely

philosophical perspective, without reference to theology or

Scripture. But what kind of creator would we be arguing for?

At most, a deistic entity. This still leaves the task of

arguing from the deistic to the theistic, and invites the

criticism that we are deliberately sidestepping Genesis

because we don’t know what to do with it.

For Christians, the only credible answer to this challenge

is one explicitly framed within a Christian context. To

construct it we must turn to the biblical text and reconsider

our interpretive options. They may be broader than the

fundamentalists and hard atheists would have us believe.29

29 ‘Has the middle way been effectively eliminated, leaving us with only thealternatives of atheistical Darwinism and religious fundamentalism? This isthe view promoted by extremists on both sides, including Dawkins and Dennett for the atheists and a host of evangelical preachers for the creationists. But clearly there is a middle ground, at least at the level of intellectual debate. There are still many who actively promote a synthesis between science and religion, and are determined to include evolutionism in the package.’ Bowler, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons, Kindle Locations 2448-2451.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

14

Dawkins’ reference to ‘picking and choosing’ is a sweeping

generalisation but he raises a valid point. Whatever method we

use to reconcile evolution with Genesis 1-2, we must be able

to show it is not arbitrary. We have already seen that a

strictly literal interpretation results in scientific

contradictions and anachronistic contrivances. Clearly this

approach is untenable.

The first step towards a more accurate interpretation of

Genesis 1-2 narrative is to recognise that its author knew

nothing of our modern theological disputes and cannot be

assumed to address them.30 If we lay aside modern

preconceptions we will find it easier to reappraise our

understanding of the text’s purpose and the message it was

intended to convey.31

30 ‘Genesis is not in the business of teaching a “young earth” theory of sudden creation in six twenty-four-hour days; nor is it teaching some variant of progressive creation, intermittent or overlapping; nor, for thatmatter, is it teaching theistic evolution or pantheistic evolution or panentheistic evolution. It does not teach any of these views of science and natural history because it is not using language in that way, for that purpose, or out of secular concerns.’ Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1984), 35.

31 ‘In the post-Enlightenment Western world, the framework of cosmic ontology has become strictly material—that is, the cosmos is perceived to exist because it has material properties that can be detected by the senses. The functioning of the cosmos is consequently understood as resulting from its material properties, and its origins are described in

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

15

The first two chapters of Genesis present an intriguing

dilemma: two individual creation accounts with strikingly

different features, which flatly contradict each other.32 Yet

despite millennia of textual transmission there has been no

attempt by scribes and copyists to omit one in favour of the

other, or merge the two into a unified record. This is our

first hint that Genesis 1-2 should not be read as a strictly

literal narrative, and that its earliest audience understood

this.

Two complementary interpretive models have emerged for the

Genesis creation account: the polemical and the theological.

Taken together, they reveal a narrative far more sophisticated

than we might have assumed.

material terms. …However, we have no reason to think that cosmic ontology in the ancient world was conceived as having a material basis. Though an ancient material cosmic ontology cannot be ruled out, it certainly should not be assumed as the starting point for our consideration.’ John H. Walton, Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology (Warsaw, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 23-24.

32 ‘Many Bible scholars and theologians have long rejected a literal interpretation as untenable, however, because the Bible contains mutually incompatible statements. The very beginning of the book of Genesis presentstwo different creation narratives. … Which one of the two narratives is correct and which one is in error? Neither one contradicts the other, I would say, if we understand the two narratives as conveying the same message, that the world was created by God and that humans are His creatures. But both narratives cannot be “historically and scientifically true” as postulated in the Statement of Belief of the Creation Research Society.’ Ayala, Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion, 166.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

16

Under the polemical model Genesis 1-2 reads as a refutation

of competing creation accounts. Since this purpose takes

precedence over others, the narrative is not required to be

historically, scientifically, or even chronologically accurate

by modern standards.33 Instead it is a story, corresponding to

the literary form of the period. Alexander & Baker (2003, 156-

166) list common features of Ancient Near East creation

accounts (e.g. chaotic beginning, separation of waters, breath

of life, imago dei, rest, cosmos as temple) and show how Genesis

infuses them with greater significance.

Pagan mythology was largely aimless, with creation a mere

side-effect of other activities. Pagan gods were capricious

and arbitrary, with little regard for anyone but themselves.

By contrast, the Hebrew God brings nobility to His role as

divine monarch.

The Genesis narrative emphasises His unique characteristics

in superlative terms: He moves through the cosmos

unchallenged;34 He speaks and creation occurs ex nihilo;35 He 33 The question of 'literal or non-literal?' becomes irrelevant because the essential message is not predicated upon a strictly literal interpretation.

34 ‘Genesis 1:2.

35 Genesis 1:3.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

17

communes peaceably with His heavenly court;36 He provides for

the needs of all living things without demanding a price in

return;37 He places humanity at the pinnacle of creation.38 In

stark opposition to pagan deities, Yahweh creates all things

through an effortless yet meaningful process, and remains

intimately involved with His creation.39

The theological interpretative model complements the

polemical and functions in a similar way, for ‘Even in the

history books, the main emphasis is on theological explanation

rather than historical analysis.’40 Through this lens almost

every verse of the Genesis narrative is pregnant with meaning.

36 Genesis 1:26. The invitation 'Let us create man...' is addressed to God'sangels (Waltke & Yu 2007, 213); see footnotes in the NET Bible at Genesis 1:26 cf. 3:22.

37 Genesis 1:30 cf. 2:8-9, 15-18.

38 Genesis 1:26, 28 cf. 2:19-20.

39 'Genesis is implicitly rejecting other views of the gods and their relationship with the world. Here we have no story of how gods fought, married and bore children; there is but one God, beyond time and sex, who was there in the beginning. He created all things, even the sun, moon and stars, which other peoples often held to be gods in their own right. He required no magic to do this; his word was sufficient by itself.' Donald Arthur Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition ((4th ed.) (Ge 1:1–2:3), Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994).

40 John William Drane, Introducing the Old Testament (Oxford: Lion Publishing plc,2000), 257.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

18

God is alone41 (monotheism42); He is sole creator43 (unique

omnipotence44); He creates with purpose45 (teleo-eschatological

framework46); He sustains all life (literal & spiritual food47);

He forms legal contracts, passes judgement and covers sin

(covenant relationship, sin, atonement48).

41 ‘The greatest differences in both degree and number pertain to the divineworld. Israelite thinking has no element of theogony, for the Creator-God of Israel has no beginning, and there are no other gods whose existence needs to be explained. Furthermore, divine functions are not related to cosmic functions in Israel as they are in the rest of the ancient world, sothe origins of cosmic functions (i.e., their existence) is not related to the existence of deity.’ Walton, Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology, 198.

42 Genesis 1:2 cf. Exodus 20:3. Notice that even the heavenly bodies are referred to as objects rather than spiritual beings.

43 Genesis 1:3 cf. II Kings 19:15.

44 ‘The entire idea of a divine bureaucracy does not exist in Israel, so there is neither struggle for rule (theomachy) nor a restructuring of the divine world or a decreeing of destinies for deities, as there is elsewherein the ancient Near East.’ Walton, Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology, 198.

45 'According to the Genesis account, there is one God, the sovereign Creator, to whom all the universe owes its being and whom it is expected toobey. Within that created universe, men and women have a place of honour, having been made in the divine image. We reflect God’s nature and representhim on earth.' Carson, New Bible Commentary (Ge 1:1–2:3).

46 Genesis 1:26 cf. Numbers 14:21 & Matthew 5:14-16.

47 Genesis 1:29 cf. Exodus 16:4 & John 6:27.

48 Genesis 2:15-17 & 3:14-19, 21 cf. Genesis 17:1-8, Revelation 13:8. The Genesis creation account likely began as an oral tradition, with formal recitation involving some explication of the theological themes. The written version does not do this, possibly reflecting a certain amount of assumed knowledge.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

19

Theology is therefore an inherent feature of the Genesis

creation account,49 as illustrated in specific statements about

the nature and identity of God, His mode of creation, His

interaction with creation, and His dealings with humanity.

Both here and elsewhere in Genesis, statements of this type

have a creedal function, defining key aspects of the Hebrew

faith.

Genesis 1-2 is not a historical narrative in the modern

sense,50 and cannot be compelled to surrender a message it does

not contain. Instead it is written in the style of a typical

49 'The book of Genesis introduces primary theological themes that form the core of both the Old and New Testaments. The opening words of the book establish creation, of which mankind is the highest accomplishment, as the unique prerogative of God, a purposeful process that by its very nature is affirmed as good (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). Sin is introduced as willful disobedience (ch. 3), permeating the human condition (4:1–16; 11:1–9) and leading to divine judgment (3:14–24; 6:5–8:22).' Allan C. Myers, TheEerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 409.

50 'Recognizing the literary technique and form and noting the literary background of chs. 1–11 does not constitute a challenge to the reality, the“eventness,” of the facts portrayed. One need not regard this account as myth; however, it is not “history” in the modern sense of eyewitness, objective reporting. Rather, it conveys theological truths about events, portrayed in a largely symbolic, pictorial literary genre. This is not to say that Gen. 1–11 conveys historical falsehood. That conclusion would follow only if it purported to contain objective descriptions. The clear evidence already reviewed shows that such was not the intent.' William Sanford LaSor, David Allen Hubbard, and Frederick William Bush, Old TestamentSurvey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 74.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

20

ANE primeval protohistory, telling a story about creation and

God's purpose with it. When understood through a combination

of the polemical and theological interpretive frameworks, it

remains true to its ancient historical-cultural context and

presents no conflict with contemporary scientific knowledge.

The author of Genesis 1-2 was concerned not with material

ontological origins per se but with the spiritual rationale behind

creation.51 He employed a degree of literary license52 expected

and accommodated by his original audience, who found it

compatible with their unscientific worldview.53 What they saw 51 ‘The most important result of this study for the interpretation of Genesis is the realization that the Genesis account pertains to functional origins rather than material origins and that temple ideology underlies theGenesis cosmology. These conclusions have significant ramifications for thepublic discussions and controversies of our time, including those concerning the age of the earth, the relationship between Genesis and science, the interpretation of the biblical text in relation to evolution and Intelligent Design, and the shape of public science education.’ Walton,Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology, 199.

52 'Genesis 1–3 (and for that matter, much of the book of Revelation), is not intended by its original inspired author to be taken literally. “How itall began” and “How it will all end” is veiled (and must be for fallen mankind) in literary genre.' Robert James D. Utley, How it All Began: Genesis 1-11. Study Guide Commentary Series. Vol. 1A (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2001), 19.

53 'Genesis 1–11 is not a scientific document, but in some ways modern science parallels its presentation (order of creation and geological levels). It is not anti-scientific but pre-scientific. It presents truth: 1. from an earth perspective (a human observer on this planet); 2. from a phenomenological perspective (i.e. the five senses; the way things appear to the human observer). It has functioned as a revealer of truth for many

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

21

in Genesis 1-2 was a traditional narrative reflecting certain

concrete realities with historical elements for a polemical

and theological purpose.

21st Century Christians too often forget that this story was

not originally written for us. As latecomers to the creation

account we must strive to understand how its first audience

understood it. This approach informs our understanding of the

details, offering a legitimate basis for alternative

interpretation while preserving the essential meaning. 54 The

net result is greater insight into the original purpose of

Genesis 1-2 and a coherent exegesis which is valid for all

ages.55

cultures over many years. It presents truth to a modern scientific culture but without specific explanation of events.' Utley, Old Testament Survey, 13.

54 'To take a literary passage and demand it to be literal when the text itself gives clues to its symbolic and figurative nature imposes my biases on a divine message. Genre (type of literature) is the key in a theologicalunderstanding of “how it all began” and “how it will all end.” I appreciatethe sincerity and commitment of those who, for whatever reason, usually personality type or professional training, interpret the Bible in modern, literal, western categories, when in fact it is an ancient eastern book.' Utley, Old Testament Survey, 16.

55 'Genesis 1–11 is a theological necessity for understanding the rest of the Bible but it is an ancient, literary, succinct, artistic, eastern presentation, not a literal, modern, western presentation.' Utley, Old Testament Survey, 16.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

22

Debates over historical and scientific accuracy are

irrelevant to documents which make no claim to possess these

features. When we read the ancient texts in a way that is

sympathetic to their language and period, we share the eternal

truths first revealed to the primeval believers.56 Provided the

original context is properly recognised, the core message

remains the same. New Atheists and Christian fundamentalists

alike find no support for their respective dogmas here.57

We are now in a position to reassess the proposal that

evolution leaves no room for a creator. A consideration of the

arguments from both sides results in conclusions entirely

favourable to a Christian worldview. From a philosophical

perspective, there is no obvious reason why evolution leaves

no room for a creator. From a scientific perspective it might

be argued that evolution provides sufficient grounds for

56 'Genesis reflects true knowledge but not exhaustive knowledge. It is given to us in ancient (Mesopotamian) thought forms, but it is infallible theological truth. It is related to its day, but it is totally unique. It speaks of the inexpressible, yet it speaks truly. Basically it is a world-view (who and why), not a world-picture (how and when).' Utley, Old TestamentSurvey, 14.

57 The doctrines of original sin and the immortality of the soul remain problematic for Christians seeking to embrace evolution without compromising these traditional beliefs. Liberal scholars have tended to argue that they should be abandoned, but for conservatives and moderates there is too much at stake.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

23

dispensing with a creator, but this does not mean a creator is

necessarily precluded.

Creationists believe evolution leaves no room for a creator

because it contradicts the Genesis creation account. But this

narrative can be read in a way which precludes any tension

between theism and evolution. There is no inconsistency posed

by the notion that evolution was a process employed by God as

a subset of His greater creative work.

Hard atheists claim modern science has marginalised the

concept of a creator to the point of non-existence because

evolution is sufficient to explain the origin of species. But

origin of species is not the same as origin of life; thus

evolution still leaves a question to be answered, and God

provides a sufficient answer (even if not a necessary one).

Finally, hard atheists also claim the Bible itself leaves no

room for evolution. Christians who accept evolution are

accused of ‘cherry-picking’ Scripture to suit themselves. But

it can be shown that Christian accommodation of evolution is

predicated on legitimate exegetical methodology, not arbitrary

interpretations and ad hoc rationalisations. Moreover,

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

24

theological interpretation is a field in which Christian

scholars have the greater authority; thus it is we who

determine the validity of our doctrinal conclusions, and not

atheists trained in irrelevant fields.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

25

Bibliography

Alexander, Denis and Numbers, Ronald, ed. Biology and Ideology: From

Descartes to Dawkins. London, UK: University of Chicago Press,

2010.

Alexander, T. Desmond, and Baker, David W. Dictionary of the Old

Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.

Answers In Genesis, “News to Note, April 17, 2010” [cited 28

October 2013]. Online:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/04/17/news-

to-note-04172010

Asher, Robert. Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Aus, Mike. “Conversion on Mount Improbable: How Evolution

Challenges Christian Dogma” [cited 28 October 2013].

Online: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/645853-

conversion-on-mount-improbable-how-evolution-challenges-

christian-dogma

Ayala, Francisco. Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion. Washington, DC:

Joseph Henry Press, 2007.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

26

Bowler, Peter. Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity

from Darwin to Intelligent Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 2009.

Boyd, Gregory A., and Eddy Paul R. Across the Spectrum: Understanding

Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,

2009.

Carson, Donald Arthur. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (4th

ed.) Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL, USA: Inter-

Varsity Press, 1994.

Collins, Francis S. and Giberson, Karl W. The Language of Science

and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. Westmont, IL: IVP

Books, 2011.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,

Kindle Edition, 2008.

Drane, John William. Introducing the Old Testament. Oxford, England:

Lion Publishing plc, 2000.

Evans, C. Stephen. Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Fincke, Daniel, ‘How Belief In “Theistic Evolution’ Is Nearly

As Much A Denial Of Science As Creationism” [cited 28

October 2013]. Online:

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

27

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2010/12/how-

theistic-evolution-is-nearly-as-much-a-denial-of-science-

as-creationism

Hitchens, Christopher. God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Twelve Books, Kindle Edition, 2007.

Hyers, Conrad. The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science.

Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1984.

Mahoney, Jack. Christianity in Evolution: An Exploration. Washington, DC:

Georgetown University Press, 2011.

McGrath, Alister. The Twilight of Atheism: the Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the

Modern World. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004.

Myers, Allan C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1987.

Numbers, Ronald L., ed. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science

and Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Sanford LaSor, William, Hubbard, David Allen, and Bush,

Frederic William. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and

Background of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1996.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646

28

Shermer, Michael. “God & Evolution” [cited 28 October 2013].

Online:

http://answersinscience.org/ShermerGodnEvolution.htm

Story, Dan. Defending Your Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel

Publications, 1997.

Utley, Robert James D. How it All Began: Genesis 1-11. Study Guide

Commentary Series. Vol. 1A (6). Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons

International, 2001.

Walton, John H. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Warsaw, IN:

Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Waltke, Bruce K. and Yu, Charles. An Old Testament Theology: An

Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2007.

D. Burke 2013 #TCA102646