Evangelical Scientists Debate Creation Story

Hugh Pickens writes "Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe humanity descend from Adam and Eve, but NPR reports that evangelical scientists are now saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account and that it is unlikely that we all descended from a single pair of humans. 'That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years so not likely at all,' says biologist Dennis Venema, a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. 'You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence.' Venema is part of a growing cadre of Christian scholars who say they want their faith to come into the 21st century and say it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence."

Comments

People still believe that?

[Haedrian]

When I had religion in primary school they had basically told us that the Genesis was to be taken metaphorically and not literally, in secondary school we had a light analysis of certain Jewish cultural things in that story (like 7 days, and a garden being paradise for a tribe which lived in the desert...)

I didn't think people still believed it LITERALLY, this is news to me.

Re:People still believe that?

[rufty_tufty]

I'm intrigued, how did they suggest you choose which should be taken as metaphors and as fact/instructions? Or did they indicate that all of the bible should be taken as a metaphor?

Re:People still believe that?

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, the Jewish bible can be divided into four types of text. The first are the stories, essentially the legends and myths of a group of ancient near-east tribes that were originally passed down orally and eventually written, along with a few more recent stories found in the Writings section of the bible (the Jewish bible has three sections, Torah, Prophets, and Writings). Then there are the laws, which are the civil and criminal laws of an ancient near-east country. Related to the laws are the chronicle-type texts, which are a combination of court records, military records, and historical documents (with a bit of mythology mixed in, which was apparently the style of that time). Finally there are the prayers / poems, which are things like Psalms, Lamentations, Song of Songs, and so forth.

As for what should be taken as a metaphor, in general the legal sections are not taken to be metaphors, although some of the legal sections are not applicable anymore (e.g. pretty much everything concerning the temple in Jerusalem), and some have been expanded or superseded by later legal texts (e.g. the Talmud). The mythology and historical sections are almost always used as metaphors or in the context of teaching lessons about morality, or to put parts of the legal code into context. The prayers are still used in Jewish religious ceremonies, and people frequently read their prayers metaphorically.

Of course, the view I just described is very much not-orthodox, and if there are any orthodox Jews reading /. this morning who would like to weigh in, I invite them to do so.

Re:People still believe that?

[Toze]

It helps to understand that "the Bible is literally true in every word in its literal meaning and there are no metaphors" is a relatively recent aberration that is mostly restricted to America, as a result of the (I speak technically, not denigratingly) fundamentalist reaction to the legal victories of evolution over creationism. It generated a tremendous anti-intellectual feeling among a certain crowd of Christians, and that rift has been getting wider and wider. Part of that rift is the insistence that the Bible is to be taken "literally," which is a misappropriation of a method of interpretation most recently popularized by Martin Luther. Luther, however, emphasized the _plain_ meaning, not the _literal_, and was perfectly content with metaphorical interpretations- as, in fact, has most of the church since the period of the pre-Imperial church fathers.

In other words, modern American anti-intellectual fundamentalism, while more noticeable to Americans, is neither the American nor the worldwide Christian norm, and those outside that strict/reactive interpretive tradition view it negatively for its very restricted view of scripture. Plenty of people do identify themselves as fundamentalist, or descended from fundamentalist traditions (which were, originally, about holding to the fundamentals of the faith and letting everything else slide, in a sort of ecumenism), without being rabid Bible-thumpers.

To answer your question more directly, two mutually exclusive things can be true, as long as you're using "truth" carefully. In this case, Genesis as a mythic creation account is an explanation of why the world doesn't seem to be fair, why bad things happen to good people, and why there is still hope. It is "true" whether or not we're descended from a single pair or the rise of a species. The 6-day creation account is "true" as an explanation of the moral order of the universe, no matter how long it took to make the universe. And, of course, it's "true" as a reminder of the ultimate spiritual authority. None of these ideas are in conflict with scientific knowledge. Which isn't to say that this is my particular interpretation on things, but it's generally how people are reconciling new scientific knowledge with old religious views.

So what faith are they reconciling, exactly?

[xyourfacekillerx]

Why even bother with a theology you must admit contains errors? Which part of the Bible contains the facts, and which doesn't? And if you don't know, then what's the point of your faith? Only when it apparently contradicts science you can reject a doctrine, or what is the verification principle at play here for these "Christian" "scientists".

Notice I'm not coming out in favor or against either science or religion here. I'm pointing out, I think these people are nothing more than deep-cover atheists. Their entire movement hinges on reconciling contradictions, by discarding the one assertion (religious dogma) in favor of the other (science), and then claiming the religion saved - which is at worst, a willful deceit, at best (I'm being charitable here) a collosal failure in the history of all rationality, and casts their ability to do logical inquiry into doubt. Neither alternative makes me willing to trust them.

Re:So what faith are they reconciling, exactly?

[Asic Eng]

Why even bother with history, when you must admit it contains errors? Which part of History Books contain facts, and which doesn't?

If we manage to gain new information about history, we will change the history books to reflect this. I don't believe the same is true for the bible.

Re:Science vs Religion: Contradictions?

[Nursie]

Yes, yes they are.

I think perhaps the title is misleading. Evangelical Scientists would be scientists who were evangelical about science.

These people are Evangelical Christian "Scientists", who are part of the evangelical christian movement. While it's good they realise that the genetic evidence gives a good case against their religion, what they have failed to realise is that they are now no longer fundamentalist evangelical christians because they have just put reality over and above the idea of inerrant scripture.

Science and Christianity can't mix...

[Anita Coney]

If there was no fall, there was no need for redemption. If there was no need for redemption, there was no need for a savior. And without a savior, there is no Christianity.

Dear Evangelicals,

[Wubby]

Welcome to the 19th Century.

Sincerely,
Science

Re:Science vs Religion: Contradictions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evangelical Christians believe they have been reborn and saved by Jesus and it's there duty to spread the word. Fundamentalists Christians believe in the literal interpretation of the bible as being absolute (despite over a thousand years of modifications, but I digress). You can be an Evangelical Christian and believe in Evolution. You just can't be an Evangelical-Fundamentalist Christian and believe in evolution.

Re:Why do they even discuss it?

[wierd_w]

"The land of Nod." (Genesis 4:16)

And I agree. Most people fail to realize several important contextual clues in the biblical genesis stories.

1) genesis 1:26 implies multiple humans, simultaneously. Not just adam.

2) genesis 2:5 says specifically that god had not yet created FARMING humans. (No man to "till the earth"). Hunter gatherers could well exist, but are not mentioned, since they are not the focus of the story. This is reiterated in genesis 3:22.

I would say that the genesis story does what many ancient histories/verbal accounts/stories of myth do, which is to focus on the people that are deemed important to the story and omit any extra content. For instance, the odd lack of female characters in the geneology section, except where there are extraordinay circumstances. The omissions do not mean that males greatly outnumbered females, it means the recorders of the tradition valued males more highly, and considered the women's names superfluous. By the same vein, mentioning nomadic hunters outside "eden" would be superfluous except where they come into the narrative though interacting with a major character, such as Cain. (In the land of Nod.) Keeping the story simple is essential for these early traditions because written language has not been invented yet. (Agriculture predated written language by several thousand years. As such any such traditions or origin stories would HAVE to be oral ones. That is why there are omissions for the sake of simplicity.)

Taking such a literal approach as to imply adam was the only human at the time is absurd both from the perspective of the narrative itself and from any biological perspective as well. As such this article only should upset dyed in the wool literalists and super fundies.

Re:Science vs Religion: Contradictions?

[Dr. Manhattan]

Basically no evangelicals are really young-Earth types. How do I know? Because they don't put their money where their mouths are.

Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could in those conditions? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

Re:Science vs Religion: Contradictions?

[bmo]

>Only a very small fraction of Christians - even evangelical Christians - insist on taking every word of the Bible literally.

Between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they believe in YEC, depending on the poll.[7] According to a Gallup poll in December 2010, around 40% of Americans believe in YEC, with 52% among Republicans and 34% among Democrats. The percentage falls quickly as the level of education increasesâ"only 22% of respondents with postgraduate degrees believed compared with 47% of those with a high school education or less.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally. About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

1/3 of the US are literalists. That's not a small number. And they are motivated.

And they are telling you and me that we are going to Hell.

--
BMO

Improbable Things Happen

[Sasayaki]

I'll admit, it does seem remote, especially if you're dealing with time periods of 50,000 years or so. What do you think the likelihood of this event occurring is? A million in one chance, per year? One in a billion per century?

Let's go even further, way, way out there. What if it was one in 10^24 per 13 billion years?

Just so we're clear on the numbers we're using, that's 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance per 13,000,000,000 years.

This is really, really, really, really, really unlikely. However, statistically speaking, this means that there are... dum dum dum...! 9 planets in the entire universe where this has occurred so far. Earth is one of them. :)

This, of course, assumes the lifespan of the universe to be 13 billion years and the number of stars in the observable universe to be 10^24. Which, based on our current scientific estimates, is about right give or take (see sources). It could be off by, say, five or six planets either way -- although we're only dealing with the *observable* universe, so there could be many many many many many more.

The scientific world is an amazing, wonderful, powerful, inspirational thing that is just so incredible in its majesty and beauty that it seems so very belittling to claim that there's a divine hand behind this truly unique and awesome thing called existence.

Bonus question: If the universe created God, what created God? If X, why can't X apply to "the universe at whole"? If NOT X, then why can't the universe be held to the same standard? "It always was, and always will be..."

Further reading:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Improbable_things_happen
http://www.symphonyofscience.com/

Sources:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Re:The first step is admitting that you need help.

[Hatta]

Do you believe in everything for which there is no evidence? If not, how do you decide?

Extremely old news

[Tar-Alcarin]

It's been 15 years, and still most people (including most Christians) have not picked up on the fact that the Catholic church concluded this long ago.
In a papal statement on the subject of evolution, dated Oct. 22nd 1996, pope John Paul II stated that "truth cannot contradict truth", and therefore the Genesis story of the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.

For those who are interested, the message is available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

How is it that Christian people (Catholics in particular; the pope is supposed to be your earthly representative for God) just seem to "forget" this ever happened?

Re:Cain married his sister

[pnewhook]

It doesn't rule out extraterrestrial life either, or say that Earth was the only place He created life in the universe.

Re:Science vs Religion: Contradictions?

[serviscope_minor]

As an agnostic, I have to point out the logical error of asserting that god does not exist. The only logically sound argument that does not fall victim to the fallacy is to assert ignorance of that which is provably unknowable.

Do you assert that the tooth-fairy doesn't exist?

I'm quite happy to assert the non-existence of very many silly and unlikely things that there has ever been a shred of evidence either for or against. I don't see why god gets special treatment.

Re:Except that's exactly what WON'T explain anythi

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Perhaps, but the whole flood story becomes vastly suspect in any case since it is clearly impossible that there was a worldwide flood within recent prehistory, nor can anything even close to a literal interpretation of the Noah story make any sense. Clearly it is at best an allegorical tale and/or cultural myth. Once we accept that any given Bible story is clearly not literally an accurate attestation of fact then there's no particular reason to expect any other part to be particularly either.

I'd say that tales like Genesis are actually pretty good summaries of the common sense reasoning of the day. People are seen to be related and families and people's increase in number over time, so logically you would expect to be able to go backwards to a time when there were "only 2 people", and likewise to some sort of time when the world began in some fashion or other.

In other words I just don't think there's much point in debating the actual scientific relevance of Bible stories. They're pre-scientific legends, informed by some common sense reasoning but no actual facts. They may happen to match with scientific findings in some random cases, but at best that shows that some science is also common sense, and at worst indicates that no matter what fantastical tall tale you tell sometimes you get lucky and the truth bears some (albeit faint) resemblance to your story.

In any case, most Christians throughout history have not held that there was any great specific literal accuracy to the Bible. Even ancient late classical Christian theologians pretty much took it all metaphorically, and so have Jews and Moslems going all the way back to ancient times. Other posters are right about the super literalism prevalent in some places in the US today being a recent phenomenon. I dunno what it is about the US, but we sure do breed a unique form of fanatics.

Re:Science vs Religion: Contradictions?

[Tyler Durden]

So, once again I will assert that it is provably impossible to empirically disprove the total (universal) existence of god, given that we cannot search the whole universe, and will again assert that the asking of the question is irrelevent, since it is unlikely that god gives a toss.

An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods. It does not necessarily follow that he or she believes they can prove that no gods exist. The question remains as to why you make such a big deal out of god. Do you always make such a long-winded defense if someone tells you they do not believe in any other one of the infinite possible metaphysical claims out there?

Although an empirical disproof of the existence of god is impossible, that doesn't rule out discounting specific definitions of god a priori.

Re:The people in power

[Opportunist]

Interesting, we're in the same field of study. How did you solve the problem of pancake tectonics in the event of a sudden movement of the plate?

Re:Garden of Eve

[euroq]

Cool story, bro.

However, almost all civilizations which developed religion separately were polytheistic and generally believed in ancestral spirits as well. They by no means believed in a single omnipotent god. The Credo religions (requiring "I believe...") first started with Zoroastrianism, and then much later and possibly separate with Judaism. Even Israelites were polytheistic until after the Babylonian Captivity.

If you want your story to work, then you'll have to replace "God" with "the gods". There rarely was a single "alpha" omnipotent God. The idea of only a single God is actually very new historically.

And exactly why do you emphasize rape so much? Do you think that atheists and Buddhists rape others constantly?