Let the Earth Bring Forth Animals

 

There are few things I enjoy more than when the Holy Spirit causes Scripture to come to life in a new way and the past 6 months have certainly been a time where God has birthed a certain freshness into my reading of His Word.  As I have mentioned before much of that is owed to Eric Metaxas and his groundbreaking new book “Is Atheism Dead?” which upon reading set me on a course to pursue an integration between modern science and Holy Scripture.  This path has led me to grapple with and contemplate things that I considered settled and no longer needed to put thought into.  Growing up as a Christian who went to a secular school had caused me to see science as the religion of atheists¹ and because of this I didn’t care what scientists said really about anything that pertained to things of philosophical or theological importance.  To me it was the doctrine of a false religion and to some degree I still see this to be true.  And in writing these posts I hope I don’t cause the reader to think that I’m privy to just believe something because scientists say it like a serf in the Middle Ages would have believed the word of his priest.  Both experience and a sober minded understanding of human nature tells us that people in general are often dishonest and misleading when it comes to their discoveries pointing to something that they disagree with and in the same note are quick to pronounce their findings if it bolsters their worldview.  Just because someone puts on a lab coat, has a pencil in his front pocket and uses a confluence of Latin and Greek words does not make him impartial².

But nonetheless I was stirred by Metaxas to look deeper into these things because he has convinced me that the findings of modern science are pointing to God in an incredible way.  I mentioned the age of the earth in a previous post, which upon considering the incredible philosophical ramifications of the Big Bang  – which are namely that if the universe had a beginning, then atheism and pantheism are untenable – caused me to look at Scripture again to see if the issue of time was in fact settled.  This resulted in me seeing that the measure that God gave us for time, which is the earth’s rotation around the sun³ wasn’t given to mankind until Day 4 and that we have no reason to believe that the measure that God was using for a day during the first 4 days of creation (when the sun and the earth weren’t in their final relational positions with one another) didn’t continue during days 5 and 6.  So what was that measure for a Day that God used in the 6 Days of creation?  I don’t think we are really able to know and as such we don’t have to be committed to the earth being 6 thousand years old.  This of course doesn’t mean that the earth isn’t 6 thousand years old – it very well could be – but rather just that being loyal to Scripture doesn’t require us to believe that to be the case.

Let the Earth Bring Forth Living Creatures

Upon reflection of this I found myself reading Genesis 1 in a whole new light that subsequently opened it up to a whole new range of possibilities.  With an uncertain measure for time in my mind I was able to see that one could very well read some of the verses that I had read in a certain way my whole life very differently than I would have previously thought tenable.  A primary example of this is found in Genesis 1:24 which reads “Let the earth bring forth living creatures.”  I was shocked when I read this because I honestly did not recall that this is what the Bible actually said.  For some reason I just thought that it said that “God made the animals”.  It does say this in verse 25 but the fact that God actually spoke and called the earth to bring forth living creatures is significant on many levels.  First off its significant that God spoke it this way because He creates by speaking (Hebrews 11:3, Romans 4:17).  In other words, if God says something a certain way, then that both causes that thing to happen but also makes it happen in the way that He said it.  So, when God said “Let the earth bring forth living creatures” if one takes that literally⁴ it would mean that He essentially used the earth as an intermediary agent for the creation of animals.

Further examination of this chapter will find that similar phrases were spoken by God to have the earth bring forth plants on the third day (Genesis 1:12) and where He called the waters to bring forth⁵ living creatures on the 5^th day (Genesis 1:20).  So, we see that in Days 3 and 5 – just like in Day 6 for land animals – that God is speaking in such a way that could be understood as Him using an intermediary agent as His means of creation⁶.

Upon considering this I was struck with a thought that both freed and troubled me at the same time.  The thought was this – that I shouldn’t be bothered by the scientific community seeking to discover a naturalistic/material cause for the origin of life as we know it.  I think that one could look at what goes on in the 6 days in Genesis and explain them in terms of purely being supernaturally caused or I think that one could look at some of the things that occur on these days and say that they could be explained in a naturalistic way while acknowledging that obviously God would be the ultimate cause for why that happened.  For example, on Day 2 where God separates between the waters – I think it we would all acknowledge that this would be possible to attempt to explain that in a Naturalistic way (perhaps some kind of universal wind) but at the same time acknowledging that it was God who caused/guided that force of nature.

Divinely Guided Natural Processes or Supernatural Acts

And interestingly enough the mixture of purely supernatural acts (what I would call creative miracles) combined with Divinely-guided forces of nature are the two ways of how God works in the rest of the Bible.  To not be assumptive that the reader understands my pet terminology, by “creative miracle” I mean the type of miracle where God creates something that literally wasn’t there previously.  This is a Genesis 1:1 type of miracle where something comes from nothing.  An example of this is where Jesus restored a man’s withered hand (Mark 3:1-5).  His hand had wasted away but Jesus caused a creative miracle where the hand that no longer existed was restored.  Another example of this is the Virgin Birth – where the Sperm that fertilized Mary’s egg was of complete Divine origin and came into being completely outside of the natural world.

A Divinely guided force of nature would be most evidently seen in miracles of healing.  The difference between a creative miracle and a healing is that a creative miracle will cause something that didn’t exist previously to come into being – for example where someone who has had an internal organ surgically removed receives prayer and then finds one day that it has somehow grown back⁷.  A healing is different because in a healing God doesn’t necessarily create something but rather causes something that wasn’t operating correctly to start to work right again.  An example of this is when Jesus healed Peter’s Mother in Law’s fever (Mark 1:31).  Something was wrong in her body that caused her to be in the feverish state.  Jesus laid hands on her and she was healed.

It’s an interesting thought to consider though that if someone had the technological ability to zoom into the cellular level of her body and to slow down what happened in that moment to see if there was a chain reaction of some kind they may well have been able to see that Jesus’ prayer caused a change in one of her cells that upon His touch started to act differently and then other cells got on board causing a chain reaction that restored her health.  In other words, should someone have the technology to watch the process of how a healing happens from a material cause and effect perspective it wouldn’t diminish the fact that God had just wrought a healing, but rather just document how He went about doing it⁸. 

Theistic Evolution

This type of process – where God works through gently guiding forces of nature and people – is the primary way that He works in the earth.   The Lord will at times work in creative miracles, where He creates something out of nothing, but the testimony of Scripture usually involves Him gently nudging the created order – influencing it at invisible levels - to get the result that He is looking for.

I say all of this to state that I believe it’s possible – at least from a theological perspective – for someone to believe in an origin of life and animals that can be explained by naturalistic causes and for that individual to not be in conflict with an honest and plain interpretation of Scripture.  To put it succinctly I think that someone can believe in abiogenesis and the theory of evolution – at least as it pertains to non-humans – and still believe that Scripture is Inerrant and for there to be no conflict between those two statements.

I have to admit that I am somewhat conflicted in saying this though because I personally do not believe that scientists have discovered a convincing material cause for the origin of animal life.  I am not persuaded that natural selection working on random mutations adequately explains the complex life forms that arose abruptly in the fossil record.  I have much to say about how Scripture lines up with the fossil record in honestly a markedly profound way that isn’t talked about enough.  But natural selection working on random mutations (the modern theory of evolution) requires slow gradual change for it to work.  If that were true, then we would see the slow gradual change of animal forms in the fossil record and we just simply don’t.  This fact alone (which there are many other reasons to doubt the modern theory of evolution as being adequate to explaining the origin of animals that I plan to write about later) would be enough to acquit a defendant from being guilty of a crime in our courts.  If you can’t prove that the accused was at the scene of the crime then you have a real problem on your hands and in my mind the lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record is just that – a theory accused of something that it cannot be shown to having caused.

But nonetheless my feelings regarding this are based on me personally applying logic to what I understand to be the impartial evidence.  If someone else who looks at the same data is convinced that natural selection working on random mutations is an adequate explanation for biological life as we know it, then they could embrace that within some limits and not be in conflict with a fair interpretation of Scripture.  Someone who does this would read the first chapters of Genesis like below. 

Theistic Evolution and Scripture

Just before the beginning we would understand that God had pre-loaded the universe⁹ with the necessary prime materials that were needed to allow a planet to foster carbon-based life.  At the Big Bang these materials are programed to go to just the right place in the universe to not only form Earth into a planet but arrange the materials in such a way that the Earth would be able to cultivate life.  This would then result in the eventuality of the First Living Cell coming into being on Earth on either Day 2 or Day 3.  From that point the Lord would guide changes in the earth’s climate and terrain using them as the agents of natural selection that would shape the evolutionary process to make it so that seemingly random mutations would be beneficial at just the right time to push the animal population forward until it got to the place that He wanted it to be.  This would require an understanding of the Days of Creation to be God-days that were the equivalent of large periods of time rather than equivalent to earth days.  For an explanation of the Days of Creation click here.  

An important distinction between theistic evolution and atheistic evolution revolves around the understanding of man.  Atheistic evolution says that man is just the smartest animal whereas the Bible declares man to be made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).  As to what it means that man is made in the image of God is a question that is certainly up for discussion.  In my mind I don’t think it has to do with our physical bodies because God is spirit (John 4:24).  This of course doesn’t mean that our physical bodies are ungodly because Jesus Himself was incarnated in a physical body (John 1:14) but rather that the Image of God likely has something to do with our spiritual nature.  This would include our ability to sense the Presence of God, our inclination towards morality and our longing for something or someone greater than ourselves¹⁰.  We have been stamped with the image of God which causes us to reach for the Divine even in our sinful, rebellious states. 

To sum it up an individual who believes in theistic evolution could believe that God used natural selection working with random mutations to bring animal life to the point where it created a humanoid type of creature that upon its advent caused God to take it aside and put His Image on it in a way that He did not do for any of the other animals.  This embossing of a humanoid creature with the image of God would be a special act of direct creation and not one that is attainable through a material process.  This makes man distinct from animals and making this distinction is necessary to be faithful to Scripture.  One I would also argue one that is necessary to have any real foundation for human rights.  One cannot believe that human beings have certain rights that should be afforded them if he doesn’t see a person as being a uniquely valuable in comparison with the rest of the natural world.

I believe that to truly revere what God has given mankind in the pages of Holy Scripture is to both have the courage to stand on the truths that are clearly stated, even in the midst of a world that would be opposed to them; and at the same time to have the humility to be open to various interpretations for verses that could be taken in multiple ways.  But while I feel it’s important to extend a proverbial olive branch towards those who would integrate these verses with a different scientific approach than I would, I also don’t want to shy away from my criticisms of the theory of evolution itself.  A critique that I will give more attention to in my next post.

 

 

There is great mystery regarding the ‘How’ of creation but even in the midst of our speculation of Your mechanics we find comfort knowing that we are the products of Your will and plan.  Thank You for creating us Lord.  Amen.

 

 

---------------------------------------

¹This is still very much true but my exploration of it in a deeper way has caused me to see how many of the new discoveries point to God and integrate very well with an honest interpretation of Genesis 1 through 3.

²For an example of this check out this article Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous? | Evolution News

³Hours, minutes and seconds are just subunits of time that comprise a day.  Clocks first started as sundials and were measures of where the sun was in the sky.  Time as we know it on earth is completely dependent upon what happened on Day 4.  Since that’s the case then what measure for time was God using before that on Days 1, 2, 3 and 4?  And along with that do we have reason to believe that the measure He was using on the first 4 days changed for days 5 and 6?  My thought on this is no, we have no reason to believe that the measure He used for the first 4 days didn’t remain.  I explain this more deeply in this post

⁴One does not have to take this phrase literally – a figurative interpretation of this is also possible where the earth bringing forth animals would be indicative of animals mysteriously appearing on the earth.  But even if it doesn’t have to be taken literally it also shouldn’t be outside the bounds of interpretation to take it literally, this is after all God saying how He did something, so it is certainly within the realm of honest exegesis to take this literally.

⁵Most translations will say something like “let the waters swarm with living creatures” but the actual Hebrew word is saras – which means “bring forth abundantly”.

⁶Birds are also said to have been formed out of the ground like the animals were – see Genesis 2:19.

⁷I’ve heard of testimonies like this from Bethel Church in Redding, California

⁸To take a complete bunny trail, this is perhaps lost in translation when Church historians re-tell the history of the Church from a cynical perspective.  When we study the history of the Church it’s important to understand it as a study of the mixture of a sovereign God and free human personalities all combining together to accomplish His Work in a generation.  This is obviously makes history difficult to completely discern and makes it tricky to use as a tool to predict the future but it makes it simple to trace the general action of God.  For example, in the English Reformation the country turned protestant because Henry the 8^th was unhappy that the pope wouldn’t annul his marriage.  So, for the English the political was first and then it was followed by the spiritual.  It’s hard to say if the act of Henry causing England to leave the church was motivated by God or by the heart of a sinful king but we can say that in a broader sense that God was able to bring England in the reformation in through a strange set of circumstances.  It would be unwise and perhaps erroneous to say that God usually works through sinful political leaders, but it would be narrow and unrealistic to say that He can’t sometimes use sinful leaders to accomplish His purposes.

⁹Or creating an infinite number of universes with random materials, one of which where the universe unfolded in such a way as to allow a particular planet to foster carbon-based life.  This idea would be encapsulated in Genesis 1:1 which says that “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.”  While I think we commonly think of the “Heavens” as just our universe I think its possible to think of it as an infinite number of universes.  This idea is called the multiverse theory – which I don’t particularly buy into because I don’t see any evidence for another universe other than ours but nonetheless this is a relatively popular way of viewing the origin of the universe from a material perspective and I don’t necessarily see a conflict with that view and Genesis 1:1.

¹⁰ The image of God is a much bigger subject than this and deserves a much more comprehensive investigation than I give it here.