Executive Summary: The Genesis account of creation states that fruit trees came before animal life. The Bible is therefore not scientifically accurate - and Dr. Ross's "testable Biblical creation model" fails in its attempt to make testable scientific predictions.
Since I wrote this page some time ago, the Christian American Scientific Affiliation website has put up the following article which also rejects Hugh's Biblical creation model, but in a lot more depth:
As late as 1835, respected commentators, speaking of Gen. 1:11,12, said, "here we find the earth bearing a great abundance of fruit, probably ripe fruit, before the sun and moon were made." Only with the coming of modern geology was the Church led to believe that Gen. 1:11,12 was saying that fruit trees did not come into existence until after the creation of fish and animals on Day 5. It seems evident that the concordists are reading modern science into the biblical text...
It is time for evangelicals to lay aside extra-biblical definitions of biblical inspiration, and agree with Jesus that inspired Scripture can contain concessions. Genesis 1 is a concession. Or, as a modern missionary, aware of the imperative need for divine revelation to be clothed in the terms of the culture to which it comes, has explained: Genesis 1 is a case of divine contextualization.
Paul H. Seely, The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context, From PSCF 49 (June 1997): 85-95.
I will leave my old article here for now, for hysterical porpoises and links to further reading.
Introduction |
Examination |
Summary |
Conclusion
Introduction
This is a work in progress examination of the Summary of Reasons To Believe's Testable Creation Model, by Dr Hugh Ross of Reasons To Beleive [r1]. His organisation claims that the Bible and current scientific understanding are "in harmony"; and that the Bible can be used to predict both current scientific understanding and future advances. Dr. Ross claims that his model can be used to:
"predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery..." [r1]
For the sake of simplicity, I've used the Kings James Version of the Bible. (Where necessary, I will of course seek out more accurate translations of the original text). All Biblical links are to the The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
Also for the sake of simplicity, this article largely focuses on only areas which Dr Ross has not attempted to explain away with questionable interpretations of the original Hebrew, or psuedo-scientific arguments [mp].
I'm not out to show that "there is no God", or that science understands (or even can understand) everything. My simple mission is to show that the literal words of the Bible are not scientifically accurate, as claimed by the Fundamentalist Mr Ross and his cohorts. (Who, I have absolutely no doubt, are very very nice people).
This article is based upon original postings to the weblog provided by godandscience.org.
The "Model" follows a given order of creation. I'll examine each point in turn...
Examination
1. Creation, by fiat miracle, of the entire physical universe (space-time dimensions, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets, etc.)
The Bible begins:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."(Gen 1:1-2)
Dr Ross argues that:
"Genesis 1:2 explicitly shifts the frame of reference, the narrator's vantage point, to the surface of Earth above the water but below the cloud layer. That verse describes the initial conditions of primordial Earth: its surface was dark, covered with water, empty of life, and unfit for life. With the frame of reference and the initial conditions for the six creation days thus established, [this]... straightforward chronology for the creation days' events unfolds." [r1]
He explains away the problem of the Sun, the moon and the stars not appearing until after the Earth later in the in the narrative (Gen 1:16-17)... And so I will discuss that in due course....
In his book The Genesis Question, Ross attempts to hint that this verse may also refer to the first creation of life on earth:
"Genesis 1:2 gives a hint, at least, that God's
work of creating life on Earth may have begun
before the first events recorded in the following
six days of creation. The last clause of that
verse tells us that "the Spirit of God was
hovering over the waters." The Hebrew word
for"hovering" is rahap. It appears only one other
time in the Bible, in Deuteronomy 32:11. In that
passage it refers to a femaile eagle that is
stirring up her nest and "hovering over her
young." The image of the eagle's activity has led
some lunguists to infer that the Spirit's
"hovering" over the waters refer to life's
origination in Earth's ocean--even before light
for photosynthesis shone through. This
interpretation may be valid, but the basis for for
drawing a firm conclusion seems insufficient." [r2]
It's amusing to note that even Dr Ross will not associate himself directly with such a ludicrous assertion.
2. planet Earth singled out for a sequence of creation miracles. At its beginning, Earth is empty of life and unfit for life; interplanetary debris and Earth's primordial atmosphere prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the planet's surface
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Gen 1:3) at a guess.
3. clearing of the interplanetary debris and partial transformation of the earth's atmosphere so that light from the heavenly bodies now penetrates to the surface of Earth's ocean
"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness; And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Gen 1:4-5) presumably.
4. formation of water vapor in the troposphere under conditions that establish a stable water cycle
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters; And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so; And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." (Gen 1:6-8) it would seem.
5. formation of continental land masses and ocean basins
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so; And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." (Gen 1:9-10)
(I do like the way it refers to the land mass all being in "one place", which miraculously appears to fit our understanding of continental drift... Although in reality the authors of Genesis simply had no concept of separate continents).
6. production of plants on the continental land masses
Here things seem to go badly wrong. Genesis 1:11 introduces the creation of plant life:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so; And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good; And the evening and the morning were the third day." (Gen 1:11-13)
It wasn't until the next "creation day" (see point 7) that the Sun, the moon and the stars - and seasons - are mentioned.
A straight reading of this would suggest that plant life apparently arose before the Earth had seasons... But no doubt Dr Ross would argue that the Earth could have been seasonal even with an opaque, cloud-filled sky. (Can anyone elaborate?)
Further, the argument that the Earth's sky was "opaque" would require plant life to arise and evolve to the level of fruit trees and grasses without sight of the Sun - which doesn't seem right. (Can anyone provide evidence either way?)
Even worse, the narrative would require fruit trees and grasses to arise before animal life arose in the seas, in the next "creation day" (see point 8).
According to the TalkOrigins page Evolutionary and Geological Timelines, the first plants with roots (ferns) didn't appear until around 350 million years ago - 120 million years after millipedes appeared as the first land animals. (And you think it's been a long time since lunch ;>).
7. transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to occasionally transparent. Sun, Moon, planets, and stars now can be seen from the vantage point of Earth's surface
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years; And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so; And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also; And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good; And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." (Gen 1:14-19)
The host of godandscience.org, Richard Deem, wrote the following in response to one of my posts on his discussion board:
'There are ample reasons to support the view of creation that we present (see Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation). Genesis gives a very brief summary of the creation account. For more details, you are going to need to look at the other creation accounts (Psalms 104, Job 38, etc.) These accounts tell us why the earth was dark. God says (in his conversation with Job) that at the creation of the earth, it was covered with a thick band of clouds. Is that clear enough? Contrary to your assertions, Genesis does not say that God created light in Genesis 1:3. It says, "Let there be light." Nowhere does it use the Hebrew word for "create," "make," or any other word that would even suggest that light did not ever exist before.... Likewise the description of the appearance of the Sun, stars, and moon uses the words, "let there be."'
There's no denying that these are interesting renderings... But all very clearly after the fact... The language involved is so vague as to allow many different interpretations. In fact, the Fundamentalist "Young Earth Creationist" website Answers In Genesis has a specific page on this point. This is from its article How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn't created until the fourth day?:
"The creation of the sun after the earth undermines progressive creationists’ attempts to harmonise the Bible with billions of years. So they must explain this teaching away. Some assert that what really happened on this fourth ‘day’ was that the sun and other heavenly bodies ‘appeared’ when a dense cloud layer dissipated after millions of years. This is not only fanciful science, but bad exegesis of Hebrew. The word ‘asah means ‘make’ throughout Genesis 1, and is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘create’ (bara’), e.g. in Genesis 1:26-27. It is pure desperation to apply a different meaning to the same word in the same grammatical construction in the same passage, just to fit in with atheistic evolutionary ideas like the ‘big bang’. If God had meant 'appeared', then He presumably would have used the Hebrew word for appear (ra’ah), as when the dry land ‘appeared’ as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis 1:9). We have checked over 20 major translations, and all clearly teach that the sun, moon and stars were made on the fourth day."
Of course, the real reason for the Bible's arbitrary order of creation is that its authors were just making it up as they went along! In any event, it would seem that the Biblical is just plain wrong.
8. production of swarms of small sea animals.
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Gen 1:20)
I think Dr Ross may have missed a trick here... This verse seems to allow for life to have emerged from the sea, and then evolved into land life and birds.(Of course, this is hopeless as a scientific model, because it is impossible to make any predictions from the vagueness of the text).
9. creation of sea mammals and birds
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." (Gen 1:21)
On a straight reading, the Bible seems to have whales and birds arriving on the Earth before land animals. This is clearly not what science's understanding of evolution says.
(As a point of interest, the HNV Bible substitutes "large sea creatures" for whales; while the VA Aramaic Bible gives the literal translation as "titans").
"And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth; And the evening and the morning were the fifth day." (Gen 1:22-23)
10. creation of three specialized kinds of land mammals: a) short-legged land mammals, b) long-legged land mammals that are easy to tame, and c) long-legged land mammals that are difficult to tame - all three specifically designed to cohabit with humans
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so; And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. "(Gen 1:24-25)
This, as ever, is a vast oversimplification of the evolution of life as we understand it... And moreover, states that domesticated animals were created before mankind was even around to do the job...
11. creation of the human species
"And God said, Let us make man in our image..." (Gen 1:26)
Well, almost right - if you swap the words "God" and "man" ;>
Remember - Dr Ross isn't claiming that the Bible is just vaguely right - he's saying it can form the basis of a scientific model describing how life arose on Earth.
On a more philosophical note, the Bible is clear that Mankind is distinct from other life:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen 1:26)
Science, on the other hand, tells us that we are just another animal.
Summary
The view that the Bible is not scientifically correct is hardly new. The early Church father Saint Augustine (353-430 CE) wrote 1,600 years ago:
"There is no way of preserving the first chapter of Genesis without impiety, and attributing things to God unworthy of Him."
Even so, he recognised the extreme danger to Christianity in admiting any error in the Bible:
"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." (Epistula, p. 28)
The fact is that Biblical account of Genesis traces its roots back to the myths of Ancient Sumer, from well before the proto-Jewish people rejected all Gods but one in around 800 BCE.
It's hard to overstate the failure of Dr Ross's model to live up to his claims:
"The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery...".
As the above very cursory examination of his Summary shows, the "model" doesn't even get the basics of science right - although it does seem more credible than the The Great Green Arkleseizure Theory ;>
And why is this important? Because it is only Fundamentalist Christians who claim that the Bible is literally true... And their mission, by arguments such as this and by "Intelligent Design" theory, is to hi-jack the scientific agenda for their own ends.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I can see three major problems so far for Dr Ross and his model:
- The whole model depends on the narrative of Genesis "shifting perspective" - and a very liberal interpretation of the text "after the fact".
- Genesis is hopelessly Earth-Centric and just plain wrong about the order of the evolution of life.
- The vagueness of Biblical language makes a mockery of Dr Ross's claim that his Model can be used to "predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery..."
This is a work in progress... Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
From an original posted on the GodAndScience Messageboard on 03 April 2002.
Further Reading:
What does the Bible say about creation - ReligiousTolerance.
A Crusade of Arrogance - a critique of Ross' Hebrew and interpretation of the Bible, by Mark Perakh, 1999.
Review of The Genesis Question, By Hugh Ross, G. R. Morton, 1999.
Criticisms from Young Earth Creationists
Exposé of NavPress’s new Hugh Ross book:The Genesis Question
Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(2):22-30, 1999 [answersingenesis].
Important Comments on the Ministry of Hugh Ross Ph. D.
Robert A. Herrmann Ph. D., 2 April 1999, Revised 23 FEB 2002.
A statement concerning the ministry of Dr. Hugh Ross
Borton Davidheiser: Ph.D., Zoology, September 1993.
References
- Summary of Reasons To Believe's Testable Creation Model, Dr Hugh Ross, Reasons To Beleive, 2000. [r1]
- The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis, Dr Hugh Ross, Navpress; ISBN: 1576832309; 2nd expand edition (August 2001). [r2]
- A Crusade of Arrogance - a critique of Ross' Hebrew and interpretation of the Bible, Mark Perakh, 1999. [mp]
|
