Genesis - Evolution Part 1

You will have gathered that I am prepared to accept that the earth is old, and that much of the geology is reasonable, though I do not think it is possible to prove beyond all doubt that the earth is old, and if it turns out the earth is only 10 000 years old I am not going to worry about it. Similarly, I do not automatically reject evolution as possibly being part of the process that God used. However, I do find evolution far less convincing, and am extremely concerned about the way evolution is used as a supposed argument against God.

One of the key bones of contention is the evolution or creation of the eye. It has long been argued that the eye is so complex that it cannot have evolved. Now we do have to be wary of the "it is so complex it could not have happened" argument because it really means that "we cannot imagine or understand how it happened". This might mean it cannot have happened, or it might mean are understanding or imagination is limited. However, I have looked at some of the evolutionists arguments for the evolution of the eye and found them very unconvincing. There is a short video on YouTube by David Attenborough. He shows that there are all sorts of variations of the eye in nature, from primitive to sophisticated, therefore (so he says) the eye evolved. I do not know enough about the science to know if what he says is true, but even accepting it in no way proves evolution. If we look at computers or mobile phones we will find all sorts of levels of sophistication. We could even find a timeline showing how computers have evolved from the basic machines they once were to the sophisticated one they are now. Yet while they did "evolve" we know full well that each one was designed. So Attenborough's argument proves nothing.

The above argument applies more generally to evolution. One of the arguments is that the diversity of species and the commonality between species is an argument for evolution. This is nonsense. It is consistent with evolution, but is equally consistent with someone creating each lifeform separately from the same basic materials.

Genesis - Young or Old? - Part 2

What are the arguments for an old earth? They are essentially based on three things:

• Evidence from the rocks, such as sedimentary rocks
• The fossil record, and it is important to note that this does not rely on assuming evolution
• Radiometric dating

Perhaps the key underlying assumption is that the physical laws that we observe today have pertained over time. Based on this assumption geologists are able to provide a reasonably consistent explanation of what we see today. (I use the term "reasonably consistent" only because I am not a geologist, so do not want to make claims beyond my qualifications). For instance there are various radiometric dating techniques, and different methods give consistent findings.

How does this fit in with the Bible? On the one hand some will say that Genesis necessitates a young earth. However, old earthers can also claim Biblical support for their findings. For we believe that God has created an ordered universe, therefore it is reasonable to apply ordered methods to interpreting what we see around us. Some of the young earth arguments rely on specific intervention by God. Now the Bible does say that on occasion God does intervene directly in nature. Eg parting the Red Sea, the day when the sun went backwards, Jesus calming the storm. However, it is equally true that He does not do this very often. Perhaps most importantly, just because something is not miraculous does not mean that God is not directly involved.

So where do I actually stand? I am afraid the answer is "don't know, but suspect the earth is rather old". However, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to adopt an old earth point of view as a means for explaining what we find, and this does not go against the Bible.

If it wasn't such a loaded term, I would definitely describe myself as a creationist, it is just that I do not see that this demands a young earth. I see the creative work of God in all things, including the beauty of mathematics and the wonder of scientific processes.

If you look on the web, or read books on the topic, you will find all sort of arguments about the validity of geological arguments, and arguments why this or that is true or not. For me, the fundamental point is how we understand Genesis 1. If God did intend it to mean he actually took 6 physical days to create the earth, then all the geology in the world has no weight. If He did not intend this, then I am really not interested in all the debates we have about the age of the earth.

What I would say is that we should not be afraid of science, but I will say this when I talk a little about evolution next time. One thing I will say now is that at the start I said I get annoyed by people who seem to tie themselves in knots over the age of the earth. Something that annoys me even more is evolutionists making ridiculous and unscientific claims.

Genesis - Young or Old? - Part 1

Let me start by saying that one of the things that annoys me is people who believe in a young earth who seem to be tying themselves in knots trying to prove that the earth is only a few thousand years old (if you are a young earth, please read on, you might find something that is more pleasing to you later).

As we know Genesis 1 talks about 6 days, and on the basis of this young earthers believe that the earth is a few thousand years old. Now the fundamental point is what God intends us to understand form Genesis 1, and I find it hard to believe that God was thinking "what you guys really need to know is that I created the earth in 6 days flat". It seems far more likely that God wants us to know that we were created, why we were created, and why things aren't working.

Now there is a lot of scientific evidence that points in the direction of the earth and the universe being several billion years old. However, as a mathematician there is something that worries me about this. No one was there. Science is based on observation and repeatability, Now by the very nature of things none of us were there to observe creation, and we cannot repeat the process in order to test our ideas. Moreover, we have scientific observations of about one to two hundred years, with less scientific observations from a few hundred to a few thousand years. In mathematics one of the most dangerous things you can do is extrapolation. If you have some data points you can make predictions within the data range, and they are likely to be reasonably accurate. However, to go beyond the data range is extremely dangerous. In the case of the age of the earth we are extrapolating from a few hundred years to billions of years. That at least calls for a degree of humility and caution on the part of those who argue for an old earth.

This does not mean that we cannot make any suggestions about the age of the earth, just that we ought to be careful. On the other hand some of the arguments against an old earth are equally dodgy. Again as a mathematician, I know that it is possible for a system with a few basic rules can lead to an extremely complex system. Some of the arguments or concerns about an old earth are based on a small view of God. We may find it hard to imagine billions of years, but that need not be a problem to God.

Genesis - Introduction

Earlier I looked at Genesis 12-25, covering Abraham's life. Now I am going to study the first 11 chapters of Genesis. This inevitably raises questions about the age of the earth, creation, and evolution. So before embarking on the text itself I will say a few words about these matters, and my current position. You might find some of this helpful, you will almost certainly disagree with some of it and agree with other parts. However, the main reason for giving this discussion is to let you know "where I am coming from".

In fact this preamble will go on for a few days, because Genesis is the focus of the science versus religion debate. In fact I do not believe there is any contradiction between science and religion. The conflict only arises when scientists stop being scientists, and religious people go beyond what the Bible says.

Let me start with what I consider to be the most important point, and that is that God is the creator. Everything and everyone was created by God on purpose and for a purpose. In my view this is what really counts, and to grasp the significance of this is way more important than deciding whether the earth is 10 000 or several billion years old, or whether God created us in a day, or via a process of evolution.

The fact that God created me is one of the foundations of my life. When things are going well we have a creator to rejoice in and with. We can celebrate the beauty of the world, and the wonder of science.However, it is probably fair to say that it is even more important when things are difficult. There are times when I just feel like giving up, but in these times I know I cannot give up. God did not create me and save me so that I could give up. I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and made with a purpose. God created me so that His glory could be displayed in and through my life, and so that His blessing could be given to other people. When facing situations which I just do not know how to handle, or can see no way through, I know that the Creator of the Universe loves me.

And this applies to each one of us. So you can apply it to yourself. Sometimes we are tempted to write other people off, but we cannot, because God created them too. In the next posting or two I will talk a little about the age of the universe and evolution, but what I have said today is way more important.

Galatians 6:11-18

Paul brings his letter to a close. It was common in those days to use a scribe to write letters, so it is probable that Paul did so, but here uses his own hand to demonstrate the authenticity of the letter. There were people who faked letters in those days, the ancient equivalent I suppose of putting fakes posts up on the web. Nothing changes!

Paul then attacks the motives of the circumcision group. They were pretending that in promoting circumcision they were aiming to please God. In reality they were seeking to impress men, and to avoid being persecuted. For one of the reasons Paul was persecuted so much were for what he said about observance of the Law.

The only thing that Paul wants to boast in is the cross. The cross is the only grounds we have for hope. We all go through times when we become terrifyingly aware of our own weakness and failings. In such times we need to look to the cross. Most of us also have some times when we feel rather pleased with ourselves (we do actually get things right sometimes!). In those times we need to look to the cross and remind us where our hope and salvation come from.

What counts is a new creation. This is what God has done for us in Christ. He has done it for us as individuals, and for people as a whole. When we believe in Christ we are born again, we do not get a second chance, we get a new life. The church are the people of God and the foundation for the church, as Jesus said to Peter, is faith in Christ.

Galatians 6:7-10

We naturally read these verse as saying that if you do bad things you will reap a bad harvest. Now this is undoubtedly true, but I think Paul is saying more than that here. We read like this because most of our translations use the term "sinful nature". it actually says flesh, and Paul has spent most of the letter contrasting the spirit and the flesh.

So I think Paul is actually saying that if we rely on human resources (ie sowing to the flesh) then we will inevitably reap a bad harvest. Our very nature is corrupted by sin. It is like a polluted water supply. We could build a very nice well, but no matter how good the well we would still be drawing polluted water. There is no point whatsoever expecting our flesh to yield salvation.

Instead we should sow to the Spirit, following Him. Then we will indeed reap a good harvest, one of eternal life. This involves practical hardwork as well, for we must endeavour to do good. We are not doing this in order to earn salvation, but because we are called to do good.

Galatians 6:1-6

The legalists use sin as an excuse to judge someone. The case of the people condemning the woman caught in adultery is a prime example of this. Such people may appear to be righteous and concerned about upholding God's standards, but in reality they are reacting out if insecurity and are seeking to prove themselves better than others. Or, to be more accurate, less bad than others. Here Paul tells us how we should react.

Or first priority should be to seek to restore the person, and to do so gently. At the same time we are not to be naive. We need to watch that we too do not fall to the same temptation. None of us is immune from temptation, and we need to recognise this.

In a legalistic environment people become concerned about their rank in the pecking order, but in the kingdom we are to carry one another's burdens. We are not competing against each other. The cross has set us free from all need to prove ourselves, whether that be to prove ourselves righteous, or to prove ourselves better than someone else. Instead we are free to love each other, free to look after the needs of each other.

If ever we catch ourselves having a competitive spirit in this sense, then we need to correct ourselves, for such thoughts and attitudes come from the flesh, not the Spirit. But this manifestly does not mean we have no standards, or do not seek to do the best we can, but we do not waste our time comparing ourselves against each other.

In the kingdom when one wins all win.