The Biblical Doctrine of Creation

The Biblical Doctrine of Creation

McGrath, Alister E., Science and religion: A New introduction, 2^nd Ed. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Brown, P.William. The Seven Pillar of Creation: The Bible, Science and the Ecology of Wonder. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

James Porter Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. Three views on creation and evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Walton, John H. Lost world of genesis one: ancient cosmology and the origins debate. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Walton, John H. Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology. Winnona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2012.

1. Christian Doctrine of Creation and Creation Ex Nihilo.

Creation ex nihilo is the Christian doctrine that God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing. He spoke all that exists, besides himself, into existence. For more than two millennia Christians have confessed in all their creeds that God is the “Maker of heaven and earth.” The Nicene Creed specifies that this includes “all things visible and invisible.”

At the heart of the Christian worldview is the idea that God is the creator of all other reality; there is a fundamental distinction between Creator and creation. . . .  The creedal affirmations of Christians are but reaffirmations of the first verse of the Bible, which majestically proclaims: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Thomas V. Morris points out that the biblical doctrine of creation is the key to a distinctively theistic perspective on reality. He writes, “This one statement captures the heart of a theistic world-view. We live in a created universe. For centuries, theists have held that the single most important truth about our world is that it is a created world. And it is no exaggeration to add that it is one of the most important truths about God that he is the creator of this world.”

Creation ex nihilo distinguishes theism from other worldviews that dominated the ancient world.

It was, in fact, the doctrine of creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) that most fundamentally distinguished the Judeo-Christian view of God and the world from the various religions of the ancient Near East and philosophical systems of Classical Greece—all of which assumed that the world had been formed out of eternally preexisting chaotic matter.

This doctrine has profound implications for the world we live in.

According to Christian teaching, it is God’s absolute creation and continuing conservation of the universe that accounts for its existence, order, rationality, goodness, and beauty. It is because God created the universe ex nihilo and proclaimed it good that we can be assured that evil is not somehow part of the fabric of the universe but a parasite that will one day be overcome.

And finally, the scientific method, which has given us the technology that has improved our lives so much, owes its genesis to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

Furthermore, according to many historians of science, the Christian doctrine of creation played a significant role in the rise and development of modern science by providing many of its basic presuppositions. It has been shown that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was one of the reasons the scientific revolution occurred in Christian Western Europe rather than in the ancient world or some other culture. It could even be argued that, apart from the presuppositions supplied by the Christian doctrine of creation, modern science (realistically understood) would be impossible and that divorcing science from the ground of these presuppositions makes it irrational.

2. The doctrine of Creation in the light of scientific accounts, like Big Bang Cosmology and Theory of Evolution.

Big Bang Cosmology:

Most cosmologists today believe that the universe came into being with the explosion of infinitely dense and infinitely small particles some 10 to 20 billion years ago. This explosion is popularly known as Big Bang. At that time all the matter in the universe was packed into a dense mass, at temperature of many trillions of degrees. The dazzling brilliance of the radiation in this dense, hot universe led to an explosion of cosmic hydrogen bombs which marked the birth of the universe.

George Lemaitre (1894-1966) a Belgian Priest, astronomer and Professor of Physics was the one who proposed the famous Big Bang Theory. According to him the explosion of universe could be traced back to a very dense state  in the distant past in which the primeval atom disintegrate in an explosion giving rise to space and time and the expansion continues.

Theory of Evolution:

Theory of Evolution postulate that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory. This theory was proposed by Charles Darwin. According to him the origin of species and all living organism is only through mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection: A Random genetic changes evolved within and organism genetic code. Beneficial changes are preserved because they need to be survey. This closes known as natural changes. Everything was simply evolved. The complex creatures evolved from more simple creatures.All lives is related because all organism are related to single

3. Genesis as Ancient Cosmology.

Some Christians approach the text of Genesis as if it has modern science embedded in it or it dictates what modern science should look like. This approach is called “concordism,” as it seeks to give a modern scientific explanation for the details in the text. This represents one attempt to “translate” the culture and text for the modern reader. If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. John Walton has written this to convince the expert or the informed theologian. His contention is that, as with the rest of the ancient world, the focus of the Genesis creation accounts concerns only the functions of the cosmos and has, therefore, nothing to do with its material origins. Indeed, the creation story is to be interpreted, according to Walton, strictly in temple terms as a liturgical document, rather than as a document reporting the actual origins of the cosmos. Analysis of Genesis 1 in order to determine to what extent the notions observed in ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies are related to the biblical accounts. Thus “the entire cosmos is viewed as a temple designed to function on behalf of humanity.” The intersection between Genesis 1 and other ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, particularly what is shared with or distinct from the Egyptian and Mesopotamian perspectives. Walton proposes that although Israelite cosmology fits its geographical and historical environment, it contains no new ideas, especially in regard to its functional emphasis. The greatest differences between the Israelite and the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmologies, is that the divine and cosmic functions are not related in the Genesis 1 account the way they are in other parts of the ancient world. The realization that the Genesis account pertains to functional origins rather than material origins and that temple ideology underlies the Genesis cosmology. The creation account in the Sumerian text, The Exploits of Ninurta, focuses on the functions of production (e.g., the creation of herbs, honey and wine, cedar and cypress trees), which are designed “for you.” The Egyptian Memphite text of creation states: “He created sleep to end weariness, waking for looking after food . . . remedies to end illness, wine to end affliction . . . wealth for truthfulness, poverty for falsehood.” Also in Mesopotamian cosmology “created things are listed by their function, with the text implying that this functionality is for the benefit of humans”. Biblical is one of the ancient cosmogony stories. But we cannot claim that creation is the first. Martin Noth argued that biblical history was written during the time of Babylonian exile. Biblical creation story was very much influenced by Babylonian, Egyptian creation stories. One example is Enuma Elish is the Babylonian creation story. Conrod Hyers argues that, Biblical stories not a natural history but it is cosmogony. John Walton: six days of creation were no about the material creation but they were about function. For example sun and moon are, to provide the function of calendar.

4. Evolution and the Problem of Adam.

Peter Enns, in his book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins he argues that “evolution is “a game changer,” the “general science-and-faith reconciliation is not adequate because evolution uniquely strikes at issues of the Christian faith.”  Specifically, Enns asserts, “Evolution tells us that human beings are not the product of a special creative act by God as the Bible says but are the end product of a process of trial-and-error adaptation and natural selection”.  And “if evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word ‘historical,’ the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis”. Enns’ project is very similar to John Walton’s proposal in The Lost World of Genesis One, situating Genesis as a book that reflects an ancient Near Eastern cosmology.  Thus we shouldn’t expect the Bible to be trying to “teach” any “scientific” claims about human origins.  As Enns constantly emphasizes, “the biblical authors…were only expressing their assumptions about the nature of the cosmos”.  So we should adjust our expectations accordingly.  If we do that, Enns concludes, then we’ll find that what Genesis and Paul teach about human origins Adam doesn’t tread on the territory of what we know from evolutionary science.  The result, he believes, will be peaceful coexistence.

And yet Enns seems to revive a version of it in order to “solve” the (“perceived”) tension between evolutionary accounts of human origins and the biblical understanding of human origins. If there was no first Adam, there was no fall. If there was no fall, there is no truly inescapably sinful condition and so no need for a savior. Jesus as the Savior of sinful humanity is at the heart of Christianity. Therefore, if evolution is true [i.e., if there was no first Adam], Christianity is false.

5. God of the Gaps and the Problem of Reductionism.

The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.”

Science can be explanation about physical nature in different dimension. At the same time science also so gives explanation about the physical world. There are areas science cannot explain. There are certain gap in the scientific explanation about the universe. The theologian and scholars filled the gaps with God.

Henry Drummond argues that “God of Gap to criticize the Christian who fill the gap created by scientific explanation. Biblical god is not the God of the gaps but the whole universe is creation is the work of eminent God.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said “We are to find God if what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realise his presence not in unsolved problems but those are solved.”

Francis Collins: Intelligent design is guilty of God of the gaps when naturalist evolution face to explain something it is best explained by intelligent design.

It provides less room for God in this universe.  It denies the Omnipresence of God.

6. How to relate Science and Religion: Ian Barbour four Models, Ted Peter, Michael Stenmark.

Ian Barbour: Religion in an age of science

1. Conflict: Science and religion are mutually exclusive, their world views, conclusion are antithetical. For Example: Creationist argued that scientific theory are false. Evolutionist argued that biblical creation is not scientific. Scientific materialism argued that matter and energy are only fundamental physical reality. Scientific knowledge is the reliable knowledge. Biblical literalism says that bible does not any mistake.

2. Independent: both disciplines have contrasting method and different language. Both disciplines are independent autonomous and separate. Any attempt to relate or integrate science and religion actually violate the integrate of discipline. Religion well tell us why and evolution will tell us how the creation is. Both do not work within the boundaries. The problem is they try to cross each other. Compartmentalization of science and religion is not always possible as we think.

3. Dialogue: Science and religion are Dialogue. There are areas science and religion can meet and enter into Dialogue. Scientist teach how physical body function. But the religion may not be tell us. Geneticist how genes works. Ethical theologian tell us how to genetic (Knowledge). It is not easy science and religion into the table of Dialogue 

4. Integration: both science and religion can contribute one another views, understanding, thinking and perspective. To integrate the biblical knowledge and scientific knowledge. Chardin is the one he say God in the process of evolution.

Ted Peters: Eight categories the relationship between science and religion:

1. Scientism: science has the monopoly on knowledge about nature. Religion provides a pseudo. Religion provides knowledge about non-existence beings or some fictions or some stories. Fred hoyle says that “Jews and Christian religion tradition has become outdated because of model science”. Scientism is always intolerable knowledge of religion.

2. Scientific imperialism: argue that existence of so called divine. Scientific imperialism plays that the knowledge of divine reality basically come from the knowledge of scientific research. Scientific knowledge is superior to divine revelation. Frank Tiplar says “quantum theory combined with big bank cosmology and thermodynamic can provide a better explanation than Christianity for the future resurrection of the dead”. Theology should become a brand of physics. Divine knowledge is comes from the scientific knowledge.

3. Ecclesiastical Authoritarianism: Till Vatican II, 1962. Church is the custodian of every knowledge including science. Church has authority over science. After Vatican II church come to point that religion and science are two autonomous discipline.

4. Scientific creationism: attempts to connect geological data and biblical data with biblical truth. The biblical truth and scientific truth belong to same thing. Scientific creationism says that, Creation of the world out of nothing.

5. Two language theory: basically argued that science and religion provides different direction. Science direct toward physical world religion direct towards God/spiritual world. Both disciplines are sovereign territory. Abert Emsteen says that, “science without religion is lame and the religion without science blank”. Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be. Religion on the other hand deals only with evolution of human thought and action. Langdon Gilkey says that, science has how? And religion ask why?

6. Hypothetical consonance (accord): Ernan McMullin says that, there are areas where there is a correspondence between science and religion. Correspondence can be made between what can set scientific about natural world. In other words science and religion can bring together. The God question about nature can be honestly asked within scientific reason. Theologian and scientist basically share common subject matter. There are possibilities of dialogue. Theologian and scientist should subject there finding or assumption for further explanation or conformation. Openness to learning is the value which theologian and scientist have to follow the result is peace.

1. Ethical Overlap: Scientific invention basically lots of ethical challenges. Ethical challenges are not address.

2. New age spirituality: attempt to use spirituality in science and religion. No dualism there is no split between ideas and skills. David Bohn- explicit order of things that we aspect as the natural world and that is studied in laboratories is not the fundamental reality, there is under and behind it and implicate order a realm of undivided wholeness. Reality is in flowing movement. The new age spirituality seeks to cultivate the awareness of these underline and continually changing unity.

Stenmark- How to relate science and religion: A multi-dimensional model:

1. Conservative or reconciliation model: science should change its content and the tradition Christian faith is very extent as it. Christian faith is right science should change.

2. Traditional reconciliation model: science has to change some of its content at the same time religion also change some of its content. But not fully.

Three Views

1. The independence view: there is or neither should overlap/intersect between science and religion.

2. Contact view: there is, there can be and there should be intersect between science and religion.

3. Monist View: there can be a union of the domains of science and religion.

The moral: Multi-dimensional moral: own view

Two premises

1. There is nothing in the domains of the science that is not domains of the religion. And vice-versa.

2. Science and religion are social practices: both can understand each other.

What is the multi-dimensional model?

We have to go beyond one dimensional picture of science and religion

1. Social dimension: science and religion are performed by people in co-operation within a particular historical and cultural setting.

What is the meaning of practices?

A practice is a set off complex and fairly, coherent socially established co-operative human activities through which its practitioners try to obtain certain goals by means of particular strategies.

2. Teleological dimension: we need to see the goals of scientific and religious practices.

3. Epistemological/Methodological dimension: we need to see the method and developed to achieve science and religion.

4. Theoretical dimension: We may try to understand the believes, the story and theory developed by science and religion

5. Since science and religion are social practices, they are subject to change.