This reading on creation really reminded me about the Astronomy class I took last semester. On the topic of the origin of the universe, we had a discussion about the interpretation of Scripture and its relationship with scientific discoveries. According to Calvin professors Loren and Deborah Haarsma's Origins, Creationism is divided into two main categories: the Concordist view, and the Non-concordist view. The concordist view is that Creation happened in the order that the first chapters of Genesis described it. The non-concordist view describes Creation happening in a different order from Genesis 1 and 2.
Under the concordist view includes the Young Earth interpretation and Day-Age interpretation. The Young Earth interpretation describes Creation occurring in six 24-hour days, about 6000 years ago, just as Genesis 1 puts in order. This, of course, is contradictory to the scientific discovery of rocks that date back to billions of years ago. The Day-Age interpretation says that each "day" described in Genesis 1 actually happened over an extended period of time. This would explain the age of the universe. However, its the order of events that is contradictory to scientific discoveries. The order does not fit with studies of nature.
I would describe my view of Creation as non-concordist, and particularly with the Creation Poem interpretation. The Creation Poem interpretation views Genesis as a poetic description of Creation, rather than a record of chronological events. It presents as a narrative poem that describes God's solutions to "problems," such as (#1) darkness, (#2) watery abyss, and (#3) an empty Earth.God solved the problem of darkness by separating the light and darkness (Day 1), and filling it with (Day 4) Sun, moon, and stars. Against the watery abyss, God separated the waters and formed the sky (Day 2), to fill them with birds and fish (Day 5). With an empty Earth, God separated the ocean from the dry lands (Day 3); He then filled it with animals and mankind (Day 6). While it's not necessarily a reason to accept this view, it certainly eliminates scientific objections. I tend to agree with philosopher Tim Crane's perspective, that science and religion are different tools to understand the world we live in.
I do not want to cause controversy but I disagree with the non-concordist view of creation which you describe. I understand the scientific objections, but if God is able to send His Son, which is Himself, to Earth in order to bear His own wrath on the sin committed by a people which despises Him by nature, is it not plausible that that same God could call into existence the very creation which He visited? And one more thing to maybe think about, is not God powerful enough to make a creation in which there are rocks that seem to be old, light that seems to have traveled through space for billions of years, and trees that are full grown, etc.? Just something to think about. I appreciate that you brought this up but I plead with you to take a second look at a literal translation of Genesis.
ReplyDelete