The-Creation-of-Adam-c1510-detail-Poster-C10027868.jpeg (JPEG Image, 400×321 pixels)

I am going to post a few articles around the issue of creation in the next couple of days. This one is by way of an introduction…

You can see the others in the series here and here and here.

I start with a disclaimer. I am no scientist. If you want to engage in a debate about quarks or details of the fossil record- go elsewhere! If you are like me, a Christian who has heard many hard opposing statements, and sometimes felt a little lost in the middle of it all, then you are welcome to join me for what I hope will be a gentle journey around the soft theological edges of the debate.

As far as I can understand things, Christians have taken (very roughly) one of the following positions within this debate.

1. Young-earth Creationists. People who believe that the Earth was created by God, in 6 days, and that the age of the earth can be calculated using the chronology of the Bible, to be about 7 thousand years old. They would cast doubt on any science that contradicts this, for example the fossil record, and claim that the only true interpretation is the biblical one. This position has found ascendancy in American fundamentalist circles.

2. Old earth Creationists. People who would accept the scientific evidence for an old earth, but not for biological evolution. Some would argue for a massive gap between the beginning of the earth, and the creation process, which they would still say took 6 days. Others point to Psalm 90:4, which seems to indicate that Gods reading of time is different to ours. They would suggest that each day might be seen to represent an ‘age’, and that this is consistent with a broad interpretation of the fossil record.

3. Process creationists. Many Christians feel quite satisfied that days=ages is quite consistent with an unfolding creation along evolutionary lines. They point to the way the first three days describe three stages of separation (light from dark, water above from water below, land from sea), leading to various environments, whereas the next three days describe a “filling”-the creation of things to inhabit the environments (lights, birds and fish, land animals and humans). Interestingly enough, this is not necessarily a new position. In AD 391 Augustine wrote a commentary on Genesis in which he said that the days of creation were not literal days but were a way for the writer to talk about the whole of creation. He was insistent that ‘No Christian would dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense.’

Christians have struggled throughout church history with the problem of reconciling theology with unfolding scientific discovery. It seems that at times, the church encouraged and embraced science as revealing the awesome and glorious work of a Creator God, and at other times, suppressed information that was seen as heretical or contradictory to the current interpretation of Scripture. Western evangelical Christians have rolled up their sleeves and begun a similar battle in the name of defending the faith against the heretic Darwin, and all his disciples. Sympathetic scientists have been engaged, and the battle is fought in the hearts and minds of Christians and in the media, before a bemused general public.

In Christian circles, discussion about these apparent polar opposites is always going to be controversial. I am not trying to be provocative, but this discussion brought me into conflict with a close friend, in a way that surprised me, and it seemed that, in many ways, our discussion mirrored much of the debate present within evangelical Christian Churches.

But back to my ideological clash with my friend. It began with a group discussion about faith, which included several Christians, but also a couple of highly intelligent teenage lads. One of these lads thought of himself as an atheist. We sat on the shoreline of a small Hebredian island, and watched the stars come out in brilliant splendour. Conversation turned to the origin of all of this. However, the discussion soon became something of a theological battleground, although fortunately, our young atheist had left by then.

I later wrote an article about this, which I am going to reproduce here in parts. It became the basis for some hot e-mails between my friend and I. I reproduce it here for the following reasons;

1. I believe that we do our faith, and our Creator, a disservice by propagating versions of the Creation story in a way that seeks to suppress and close down alternative understandings.
2. I think that the Genesis story is wonderful and intended to bring light and life to those of us who read it. I do not think it is a scientific blue-print. I think it was inspired by a living God in his engagement with ancient primitive desert dwelling people.
3. I think the way we apply the concept of truth in this matter is often flawed. We apply modernist propositional ideas of truth to ancient scriptures which have been understood in totally different ways by people of the Book in the intervening period.