You know, I have to say, I'm really kind of sick of the "evolution" vs. "creation" debate. Yet, it seems to continue to spring up in my daily news articles from time to time. Normally, I just roll my eyes and go "Really? You're using that tired old argument AGAIN?" Because, once again, a renowned atheist and paleoanthropologist, Richard Leakey, has to come out with a statement in a recent article regarding evolution that makes the observation, "It's [evolution] not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."
No, Dr. Leakey, it's not covered by Genesis. And you know what? I don't expect Genesis to cover that particular topic. Do you want to know why? Not because Genesis is trying to offer up an alternative to evolution, but simply because it wasn't concerned about the topic of evolution in any way, shape, or form.
Statements like Dr. Leakey's irritate me because I think Dr. Leakey is a very intelligent man, yet when statements like this are made, it's obvious that otherwise intelligent people are making rather unintelligent and ill-informed statements about topics they have clearly not researched. (Which is why I don't tend to offer up a "scientific opinion" regarding evolution. It's not my area of study and I'm not going to even attempt to argue the merits of evolutionary theory because others are far more well-versed in it than I am) You don't want to believe in God, that's fine - nothing I'm going to say or do will convince you otherwise. But please stop utilizing the "I can't find it in Genesis" argument that the vast majority of serious theologians would immediately go, "Duh!" to.
The battle the writers of Genesis were facing had nothing to do with evolution. It wasn't on their radar and wasn't a conversation they were attempting to engage. The argument of Genesis 1 was related to the worship of God vs. other ancient near-eastern deities. These deities claimed dominion over the sun, moon, stars, light, dark, water, animals, etc. All the "stages" of creation represent the dominion of one of these gods. It's engaging the question of who is really God? Who deserves worship? The Creator behind the creation, or the creation itself? The conversation was not intended to be about whether the earth was created in a certain time frame or whether evolution was the process through which God used to create, etc. No, you won't find the dinosaurs mentioned. Why? Because it had no bearing on God's relationship to humanity. Sharks aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible, either, and we know they're one of the oldest creatures that are still in existence, yet I don't think that the omission of mentioning sharks means that the Bible is trying to state sharks didn't exist back then, or that they don't exist today. But other than the fact that they can cause an early demise to a few surf-boarders and swimmers, sharks have no real bearing on the relationship between God's relationship with humans... thus they're not mentioned.
The Bible is interested in talking about how the human and the divine relate. Yes, there are observations made about the world in which the authors lived in, but physics, engineering, biology, chemistry, etc. were not its primary focus or concern. Yes, it claims some things that defy logical, scientific explanation sometimes (like the sun standing still in Joshua 10) - but then again, is that what is meant or is the Bible using hyperbole to get its point across? Is it a Hebrew poetic structure that was not intended literally? Is it a translational issue? Was it the power of God defying the laws of physics that he created and has dominion over? Did it merely mean that God gave the Israelites the time they needed to defeat their enemies? I suppose that's up to the individual interpreter/reader to decide for themselves. The point being - there are many ways in which to look at, read, understand, and interpret such passages. Yet, atheist scientists grab hold of one perspective and one perspective only and use that to justify their stance that it's "evolution, not God."
However, my question to the atheist "evolution only" proponents is this - when you engage the Biblical argument, why must you always cite and argue against a viewpoint that is not held by a majority of Christians? Yes, there is a very vocal and large group that will insist upon the literal 6 day creation, that the earth is only a few thousand years old, etc. And as a Christian, while I may not agree with that particular understanding because I don't think that's how it was meant to be understood, I don't really care if other Christians do choose to interpret it that way. That's where they're at with it and that's fine. But I know many Christians who do not hold that viewpoint.
So my issue is why is there rarely any engagement with the perspective many Christians take of Genesis, those who read it as a book of faith that is engaging who God is and what God's desire is for this relationship between humanity and the divine?
If I want to read about evolution - I'll go pick up one of your books, Dr. Leakey, not the Bible. But if I want to read about humanity's relationship with the divine - I'll go to the Bible, not you. Or Dr. Dawkins, or any other scientist who chooses to dabble in theology by engaging and arguing against only the most extreme conservative viewpoints that don't represent how many Christians understand it. The argument, in fact, is getting so old and repetitive, I'm tired of hearing it. Engage us with something interesting and that isn't the typical mantra from your group.
Because people like me, who love both theology AND science, are tired of the attempts to pit one against the other. It's unnecessary and quite frankly, only tells me that your bias gets in the way of you being a good scientist because you only look at the Bible from one perspective. Aren't you trained to look at evidence, documents, etc. from a variety of perspectives? Doesn't the scientific "process" mean looking at evidence from all angles? You've clearly decided that methodology doesn't apply when you broach the topic of theology and look at only one interpretation and only listen to one "camp" of Christian interpreters. As a student of literature, it's perhaps easier for me to recognize what I am and what I'm not reading. So I get that your understanding of literary types may not be quite where mine is. Yet I would think that even you would know not to read poetry the same way you read a biography, or read the sports page the same way you would read a letter to a friend. Wouldn't identifying what you're reading exactly be one of the first things you should try to do?
So when you start following your own espoused "process" of looking at the information and arguments - then I'd love to talk about this topic. Until then, please don't spout off about an area of study you are clearly not well-versed in and have only given rudimentary and, quite frankly, simplistic thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment