Hey Freinds, I’m excited to let you know about a new chapter in the Genesis 1 & Science booklet that’s part of the constructive conversation series. It’s 100% devoted to responding to Ken Ham and common young earth creationist (YEC) objections. There are also quite a few smaller updates throughout the resource, as well as two fresh reviews that you can read below or online. Enjoy and I appreciate your help in getting the word out!
Important Book for a Critical Conversation
Having been a Christian for 50+ years and having spent a career in science, I’ve often been faced with apparent conflicts between my faith and my experience and education. “Apparent” is the important word because God is sovereign over science AND religion. The Author provides a wealth of information to show how “New Earth” theology came to be, and how what some consider to be literal interpretations of the Bible may not be accurate, and that historic church writings actually favor an “Old Earth” point of view. Austen suggests that the church should treat both science and Scripture with respect, honor and humility, without trying to change science to match one’s interpretation of Scripture.
Good Conversation Starter
Greg Austen notes that for many raised in conservative Christian traditions, an encounter with mainstream evolutionary science has been a turning point in their spiritual journey. For some, it has meant outright rejection of Christian faith. His short book will function well in motivating a conversation about why it need not be so.
There are a myriad of questions, both theological and scientific, that may seem at first glance to pose irreconcilable conflict. No brief volume can possibly address them comprehensively or in full detail. Thus, Austen’s book centers on the Genesis creation account, and more particularly on the perspective usually called young-earth creationism (YEC). He argues that YEC is not a necessary conclusion from a faithful and reasonable interpretation of both Genesis and knowledge gleaned from modern science.
It is a great tragedy that in the 20th century and onward, strident voices have framed the science/religion debate as an “either/or” proposition that leaves no room for any nuance or discussion. Many from both sides claim a level of certainty in their views that goes beyond the domain of questions that either science or theology are equipped to address and beyond what the data warrant. Often, both run aground by failing to recognize that science is best equipped to answer “how” questions, whereas theology and philosophy are more suited to “why” questions. As Austen notes, many of the Church fathers, notably Augustine, actively valued science as the study of God’s works. Later, in the Renaissance, early modern scientists such as Galileo and Roger Bacon regarded God as speaking through two books, sometimes termed the “Book of God’s Words” (Holy Scripture) and the “Book of God’s Works” (the natural world). They reflect the Psalmist, who marvels at both these forms of communication as true revelation in the exalted words of Psalm 19. In the 19th century, even stalwart evangelical defenders of scripture, including Hodge and Warfield, recognized that the real issue is not the discoveries of evolutionary science per se, but the overreach of a mechanistic, ontological naturalism that excludes, a priori, both any purposeful agency of God as creator and sustainer of all things, visible and invisible, and any higher-level explanatory value that invoking a Creator would bring.
Although I was raised in a committed Christian home, I was fortunate that my parents valued learning and excellence. They led me to follow Christ, but also encouraged my love of science. This ultimately led me to graduate degrees in physics and the joy of a career of nearly fifty years in the world of scientific research. While I heard the traditional interpretations of creationism from Genesis and the remainder of the biblical witness in my youth, I was never trapped in the “either science or faith” quandary that Austen addresses; otherwise, my path might have been radically different.
It is important background for this book to recognize that new discoveries in the last 50-75 years have revolutionized our tools for understanding both the Bible and natural history. We have a treasure trove of new sources that were unavailable to the Reformers and their successors, like Bishop Ussher, who famously calculated the creation at 4004 BC. These sources today give us a far deeper understanding of the culture in which both the Old Testament and other older Ancient Near Eastern documents were created. Likewise, when Darwin wrote, biology was largely limited to observation, collection, and classification of specimens, and the fossil record was rudimentary, compared to what we have today. At best, Darwin could only speculate about genetics. The discovery of DNA and the mechanisms through which it organizes and governs reproduction and the functioning of all life forms has revolutionized evolutionary theory. Ongoing research has given explanations at a molecular level and allowed scientists to make connections completely inaccessible to earlier generations.
Austen rightly observes how these developments on both sides need not undermine faith, but can in fact deepen it. I think Austen would also agree that both sides would better promote productive dialog by exhibiting a greater measure of humility. Both sides should acknowledge that there remain serious gaps that aren’t well understood and explained. For example, biologists overwhelmingly believe that an evolutionary framework correctly describes how present life forms arose from earlier forms, but thoughtful scholars recognize that there is no present consensus on the problem of biogenesis — how the very first life originated. On-going work, informed by advances in DNA and related science, may well provide a better understanding, but we are not there yet. Biblical scholars likewise recognize how new archaeological discoveries and analysis may lead to a deeper understanding of what Genesis does and does not say. For example, the discovery of other Ancient Near Eastern creation and flood accounts, reliably believed to have been written hundreds of years or more before Moses, give us new insights as to how the first readers of Genesis would have heard the biblical narratives.
It is my fervent hope that Austen’s book, along with the many fine supplementary resources he cites, will redirect many thinking folks, both Christians and seekers, away from the fear that many experience. I strongly affirm Austen’s call to both communities to a dialogue that is humble, respectful, and irenic.