Thursday, March 20, 2008

Creation and Evolution: Can they be the same thing?

I heard an intriguing statistic on the radio. One third of Americans believe in the fundamentalist inerrant interpretation of Scripture while two thirds of Americans do not believe in evolution as a scientific theory. My first reaction is to wonder at the polling process that resulted in these numbers. They seem to be widely disparate.



I do not doubt that there is a gap. To hear the media play, creationism, the religio-scientific theory drawn from Genesis 1 and 2, should stand in contention with the theory of Evolution. This religio-scientific theory of Creationism is achieved when a fundamendalist inerrant approach to the interpretation of Scripture is rigorously applied.



But to interpret these statistics, the conclusion I draw is that the Creationist theorists have convinced more people then fundamentalists. You don't have to interpret Scripture in a certain way yourself in order to identify with others who interpret Scripture in a certain way.



I thank the Lord that my salvation is not on the line with how I interpret Genesis 1. I accept the theory of evolution as the best interpretation of the data available in the world around us and in the words of Scripture. Because those are the two modes of God's revelation to us, in general and in a special way, we must take what each of them reveal to us, prayerfully asking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Over and against a fundamentalist inerrant approach to biblical interpretation, I would have to characterize the methods I use for Scriptural interpretation as a "literary inerrant approach". I accept the inerrancy of Scripture in the literary form that has been handed down to us. Genesis 1 is in the genre of other Creation accounts found in the ancient world. The difference is that this is the proper account.


I have found myself correcting my vocabulary a couple of times here. The initial expression that came to my mind for Genesis 1 is that it is called a 'creation myth', but that has negative connotations. I also tossed around calling Genesis 1 the 'creation story', but that also rouses negative connotations for me. I recognize the real possibility that I am overly sensitive to language, but this debate is so emotionally charged that I feel I have to be.

Genesis 1 teaches that God created the universe. That is what I believe. "How" is a more complex question. And it is a story for another day. So is interpreting the contradistinction of the Creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2.

No comments: