O Timothy, guard the
deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of
what is falsely called “knowledge,” 21 for
by professing it some have swerved from the faith. (1 Tim. 6:20-21)
The third problem that the traditional interpretation of
Genesis has is that it believes that Moses was correct when he recorded that the
creation of vegetation preceded the creation of the sun.
3) Vegetation is created
before the sun, making photosynthesis impossible. Had a college atheist biology
major bring that one up. If you are going to insist on a 6 literal days and
that the light of Day 1 kept the vegetation alive until Day 4 then you run into
other problems...
Now, this is probably one of the less interesting of the
supposed problems for the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-2. This way
of reading Scripture is inculcated with enlightenment rationalism. The historical-critical
method of interpreting Scripture, which came to prominence on the heels of the
enlightenment, places human reason in the judgment seat and Scripture in the
dock. In the name of scientific objectivity, some are reconsidering the
straightforward claims of the Bible. And in this case, something as
straightforward as the supernatural creative activity of God and his subsequent
supernatural revelation of Scripture become the objects of human judgment. Keep
in mind, the issue here is not a matter of grammar. Behind any grammatical
questions, there is the question of a reliable account of the creation order as
outlined here in Genesis 1.
The Problem of the Impossibility
of Photosynthesis without the Sun
It is not surprising that a
non-Christian would find it problematic that photosynthesis could occur prior
to the Sun being created because, well, that would violate the laws of physics.
Photosynthesis, 6CO2 + 6H2O ------> C6H12O6 +
6O2, is required in order for vegetation to survive. Therefore,
without the Sun, there is no photosynthesis. And without photosynthesis, there
can be no vegetation. The only way such a scenario could present a valid
objection to the creation account is if one presupposed that God would have to
create or order the universe in accordance with pre-existing laws of nature. As
we know, the Christian worldview has historically affirmed the doctrine of creation
ex nihilo. That is to say that God created the entire physical universe and
everything that is within it by the word of his power, from nothing, in six
days and rested on the seventh. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Heb. 4:4; Col. 1:16; Heb.
11:3)
My claim is that the sun nor
photosynthesis as we know it were necessary to sustain vegetation as created on
the third day. If God exists, then miracles are possible. Vegetation surviving
apart from the laws of physics would be defined after the fact as a miracle.
Therefore, vegetation surviving apart from photosynthesis is possible according
to the Christian worldview. This leads me to conclude that the claim that the
traditional interpretation of Genesis encounters a problem due to this
particular order of creation is mistaken.
The issue this raises concerns
the appropriateness of applying the laws of nature to the act of supernatural
creation. There are two basic commitments set against one another in this
objection to the traditional interpretation of creation. Christian belief takes
the grammar of the text and its record at face value. There is no ambiguity in
the text. It claims that God created vegetation on day three and the sun on day
four. The reader has a choice at this point. Believe what the text claims or
reject the text. In order for the decision to attain a degree of credibility,
it should have some warrant, backing, in other words, there should be some
rational grounding whatever the final decision turns out to be.
The decision to reject the
Genesis account as either out of order or even to relegate it to myth or saga
is not the product of grammatical analysis. The grammar offers no support here.
Instead, the decision must be based on something other than grammar.
Specifically, the decision seems most likely to be the outworking of
philosophical commitments. The real issue is that science, or better, the
philosophy of science has displaced the Christian philosophy of revelation and
the epistemic authority of Scripture has been subordinated to autonomous human
reason. Is it a good practice for Christians to accept secular theories or
philosophies of science? Vern Poythress writes, “The particular form that
sciences have taken in our time is greatly influenced by a historical
development that has contained both good and bad influences. The existing form
of sciences therefore cannot serve as a norm for us.” [Poythress, Philosophy,
Science, and the Sovereignty of God, 7] In short, the answer is not no.
Without a philosophy of science and of the world, scientific method is
impossible. J.P Moreland points out one of the most serious problems attaching
itself to science: First, there is no definition of science, no set of
necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as science, no such
thing as the scientific method, that can be used to draw a line of
demarcation between science and nonscience. [Moreland, Christianity and the
Nature of Science, 13] If there is no agreed upon definition, then it seems
that this criticism of the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-2 has no
grounding, either in exegesis, in philosophy, or in science. Science is the
modern tool by which rebellious men seek to control everything, including the
divine revelation. Rushdoony observes, “In terms of this evolutionary
perspective, science is not so much the understanding of things as the controlling
of things. [Rushdoony, The Mythology of Science, 30]
Christians must improve their
critical thinking skills if they are going to accurately discern the hidden
agenda of the blackened and depraved heart of secular man. A popular expression
by the National Science Foundation is displayed in every high school textbook: “Science
extends and enriches our lives, expands our imaginations and liberates us from
the bonds of ignorance and superstition.” [Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion,
15] Indeed, it is not just unwise to uncritically bow the knee of Christian
theology at the throne of science, it can be reckless and is quite often catastrophic.
For instance, the last few months and years have witnessed a number of popular
pastors attempting to help Christians determine which parts of the bible they
don’t have to accept as true on the ground that they are just too
outrageous for modern sensibilities. Andy Stanley’s position on the virgin
birth stands out as one example. Mike Licona’s reductionist view that all we
have to defend is the resurrection miracle where Christian belief is concerned.
Everything else is fair game. The slippery slope argument may be a logical fallacy,
but that does not mean it is not a tragic reality of many supposed leaders
inside the Christian church.
In addition to its lack of
coherence with Christian belief, this objection regarding vegetation being
created before the sun has another problem. If detractors are going to employ
the laws of nature to determine when a teaching of Scripture is rationally acceptable
or not, then we will have to toss out all of the miracles of the Bible. For
example, Numbers 22:28 records that Balaam’s donkey literally spoke to him. I
have to say that enlightened man simply cannot accept such an outrageous story.
Surely donkeys cannot speak and this story cannot be taken literally! Another
example is found in 2 Kings 6:6 where Elisha makes an axe head float. This
miracle is so trivial there is no reason for us to expect that it is little
more than legend, myth, or exaggeration. The laws of physics would not permit
an axe head to float any more than they would permit living vegetation without
the sun. The number of miracles that would have to be illuminated if Nathan’s
objection from photosynthesis were valid, is overwhelming. Once the dominos
begin to fall, there is no end to what amounts to the ultimate collapse of
anything remotely resembling consistency in Christian belief. The virgin birth,
the resurrection, Christ’s walking on the water, etc. If plants cannot survive
without naturally occurring photosynthesis, then a donkey didn’t talk, an axe
head didn’t float, the Messiah didn’t walk on water, a virgin didn’t become
pregnant, and a dead man did not rise from the dead. This small objection
logically leads to the end of Christian belief.
In summary then, it seems that
the claim that the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1, an interpretation
of the text that literally places the creation of vegetation before the
creation of the sun, is itself wrought with problems is based on prior
commitment to a philosophy of science. Since there is no agreed upon definition
for what is and is not science, and since there are numerous philosophies of
science to choose from, and since science is often proven to be wrong, it seems
that to base one’s criticism of the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-2
on science is tenuous at best. The ground upon which such an objection rests
feel more like quicksand that solid ground. The warrant for this argument is
incredibly weak. Surely if God can create something from nothing, and since God
is the author of what appears to be natural law to begin, and since God orders
the physical properties of the universe in whatever way he pleases, according
to His own purpose, any objection to the order of creation based solely on the
belief that it somehow violates some existing law of nature reduces to
absurdity.
No comments:
Post a Comment