I just want to get the best answers to two distinct questions. What do the sciences say and how should we read the Genesis narrative? Neither are very clear to me but I think what is clear to me is that there is only a conflict if (1) is correct. That would create a problem for Christian belief (although not necessarily a defeater). Certainly, the text appears to be written in a mythic genre (not to say there is not a historical backdrop). It is not clear that this would be problematic to the New Testament usage of the stories (though there would be admittedly some difficulty for example with Heb. 11).
I think this is an important rider and one reason I would like to deal with the meaning of "myth".
Clearly there are two contemporary meanings of "myth".
One, the most popular and well-known, is "a belief about reality which is not true". Check out how often in modern newspapers, magazines, (in print or on-line) you find a headline that reads "N myths about....." followed by "the facts". It is assumed in such articles that "myth" and "fact" are opposites.
It has to be emphasized that when Christians speak of any biblical story as "myth" this is NOT the intended meaning.
The second, less well known meaning comes from the study of literature and refers to a genre of literature--most often a genre which depicts the acts of God/gods--and archetypal events which are presented as the origin of historical realities. This is the meaning intended when it is a question of interpreting the texts.
And I am glad you raised the possibility of historical backdrop. This is especially applicable to the story of the flood and of the tower of Babel as well as to a number of other OT stories. The fact that the genre used by the biblical author is mythic does not, in and of itself, imply that the events are not historical. Or that actual historical events--now presented archetypically--are not the inspiration for the story.
Why recount a historical event mythically? I can think of two reasons: one is to give the meaning of the event--to show God's purposes in the event itself. The obvious physical facts of history don't tell us where and when and why God is present. A historian dealing only with material facts could only say: some Hebrew slaves once escaped from Egypt and when the chariots pursued them, the wheels got bogged down in the muddy waters of the Sea of Reeds, so the slaves made good their escape. But the Spirit-inspired historian sees not only the material facts, but the hand of God leading the people and protecting them from pursuit. The second reason is to move from the particularity of history to the universality of archetype. Very likely in the particularity of history, there was a local, though very destructive flood. But in scripture, the flood is presented as archetypal, universal, a pattern of God's judgment on unrighteousness and the salvation of the righteous. The story is now an extended parable or metaphor for something much larger than a particular, historical flood, however devastating.
What comes out of this understanding for me are certain conclusions, which I think those opposed to the word "mythic" do not understand:
- "myth" used in this context, does not mean "false".
- "myth" used in this context, does not necessarily mean "not historical"--though the historical elements may be reworked to bring out the full spiritual meaning of the event.
- "myth" used in this context, does not mean "not inspired".
- "myth" used in this context, does not mean "may be dismissed or rejected as meaningful scripture". On the contrary, if the very purpose of a mythic retelling of history is to bring out the full spiritual meaning of the events, one has to be particularly conscious of what the Spirit is saying here, and why the mythic genre is important to the message.
In short, myth in scripture demands belief just as much as history and is not contrary to history.
Something not raised in your questions is the issue of Ancient Near East worldview, which is a bit of a different matter than mythic storytelling. I do think it is essential to recognize that all scripture is written against the backdrop of a pre-scientific worldview that is inconsistent with what we deem to be a factual, scientific understanding of the cosmos. The most obvious example is the in the ancient (and medieval) view, the earth rested under the sun while the sun moved (actually, not just apparently) across the sky each day and returned at night to the eastern horizon to begin the next day. I agree with Calvin on this subject, that we should view such references not as false or mistaken, but as the Spirit making accommodation to what the people of the time could know and believe and not presenting to them truths they were not yet able to bear, but would come to know in due time.
In my view, if evolution occurred on the macro-scale and there is good evidence for it, as Christians, we have a obligation out of our call to intellectual integrity to believe in it. However, that grand story of the single-cell to humans, though non-problematic for theism in general (but perhaps to Christian Theology), seem pretty shaky and bloated by its proponents being driven philosophically rather than scientific.
You are actually conflating two separate issues here: science and philosophy. You are making an accusation that evolutionary science in general, including that supported by Christians working in the field, is driven by a philosophy incompatible with Christian faith. In essence this is a slander against Christian (and other theistic) biologists. But what basis do you have for making this accusation?
Is there anything other than conclusions you are uncomfortable with that would lead you to suspect a philosophical taint on the data relative to macro-evolution? Do you have any case for a thesis that biologists, including Christians, are not using scientific methods of investigation and reason properly? Or are you merely masking an unwillingness to look at the evidential case for macro-evolution behind an a priori assumption that the evidence is tainted in any case?
You refer to the science as "shaky" a term that is never used by those familiar with the evidence. It is very far from shaky and I can only assume you have not given yourself the opportunity to get to know it.
So far, you have not defined what you mean by "macro-evolution". May I ask again that you do so. I wonder, in particular, if you are confusing "macro-evolution" with common descent. Although related, they are not the same thing.
Importantly Myth does not mean ahistorical either. Rather it is a particular style of composition through which stories are told to make particular points about who we are and who God is. In the Noah story, the writer gives precise dimensions as to how the ship ought to be built and the vessel is entirely sea worthy. It sounds like an intended historical account. If Genesis is mythic in nature (as it appears to me), it seems to be concerned with a telling of some actual concrete events in the genre of myth. And so the position of a true myth (in regards to Genesis particularly) to tell a grander story,
This is pretty consistent with what I said above, and I think we are on the same page in regard to interpreting scripture.
and presently grave doubts about evolutionary theory place me, perhaps tentatively in the lonely camp of (4). In any case I am entirely perplexed.
I think if you query the sources of your perplexity, you will find they disappear. In particular, ask yourself if the problem is really scientific evidence. Or is it some assumptions about philosophy that you associate (possibly erroneously) with science and scientific method.
Definition again is important. When dealing with science, it is as important to know how to interpret scientific texts as it is to know how to interpret scriptural texts when studying scripture. Over and over I see that difficulties with science turn out not to be about what scientists are actually saying but with what people mistakenly think they are saying. It is often with what people think they know about science--especially evolutionary science--that really isn't so.
So, evidence aside, (it will mean nothing to you until other perplexities have been dealt with) what is your deepest problem with macro-evolution?
Let us, if you would be so kind, stay on task, and address the questions (Genesis and the sciences) distinctly with the integrity to which we are called, and accept the conclusions whether we like them or not. So, how should we proceed? Let us offer reasons for our positions.
A literal reading of the texts was offered but this doesn't seem right. Take Genesis 1 for example. Day 1 corresponds to day 4, 2 to 5, 3 to 6. This is apparently a framework. The first three days concerned about the functions or forming of creation. The next three days concerned about the filling of creation and correlate accordingly. And the theme is that, so it seems to me, that God ordered a non-functional world (that already existed) and made it functional and placed man and woman (both made in the image of God) to rule over (be could stewards of) his creation. Yahweh (in an anthropomorphic metaphor) walks with the humans that he created. The world was made for Yahweh to dwell in unity with his creation. In Chapter 2, man is created prior to any shrub of the field which on a literal reading would be in conflict with chapter 1. But if the emphasis is on ontological priority (perhaps the order implies importance) or emphasizing Adam's (which means man) role in tending the garden, then it could be read to teach that Yahweh made humans in God's image to reflect God and care for creation. In this case, it seems that the mythic genre brings out a richer and fuller significance of the text than does a literal one (which it is apparently not). Again, what do you guys think and why? There are no easy answers. The earliest existing Christian commentary on the text was offered up by Theopholis of Antioch in c. 170-180 in which he wrote,
"Of this six days' work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all of its parts, not though he had ten thousand tongues and ten thousand mouths; nay though he were to live ten thousand years, sojourning in this life, not even though could he utter anything worthy of these things, on the account of the exceeding greatness and the riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days' work above narrated. Many writers have indeed imitated [the narration] and essayed to give an explanation of these things; yet though they thus derived some suggestions, both concerning the creation of the world and the nature of man, they have emitted no slightest spark of truth."
(From the Apology, Theopholis to Autolycus)
Thank you for this. So many people think modern proponents of non-literal interpretations of scripture are merely reacting to modern science. But in fact, such options have been part of Christian history since they first began studying the scriptures. Modern knowledge merely re-affirms the worth of such an approach.
