The Lost World of Genesis One-Session 19

Those who accept the Bible by faith accept also by faith a teleological view of origins.[2] As the result of an empirical discipline, biological evolution can acknowledge no purpose, but likewise it cannot contend that there is no purpose—it must remain teleologically neutral.[3] I have proposed here that Genesis is not metaphysically neutral—it mandates an affirmation of purpose, but it leaves the descriptive mechanism for material origins undetermined.[4]

Creationism

particularly young earth creationism, differs from the view proposed in this book by insisting that the Bible does offer a descriptive mechanism for material origins in Genesis 1, and therefore is both teleological and intrinsically opposed to the descriptive mechanism offered by biological evolution. We have suggested that this perspective does not represent an accurate contextual reading of Genesis.

Biological evolution

is an empirically derived model that suggests several descriptive mechanisms for material origins. As an empirically derived model, it can only be agnostic concerning teleological affirmation or denial because purpose cannot be identified by any empirical methods. The descriptive mechanisms associated with biological evolution can operate within empirical science without dabbling in the metaphysics of teleology. Of course that does not mean that this is how it is consistently handled in textbooks and classrooms. For example, in 1995 the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) issued a “Statement on the Teaching of Evolution.” An initial description of evolution used adjectives such as “unsupervised” and “impersonal.”4 These words faced strong opposition from a variety of outside parties and were later struck from the statement (1997 revision). More care is needed to articulate a view that, while unapologetic in its foundation in methodological naturalism, avoids embracing metaphysical naturalism. A good example is in the revised statement that subsequently appeared on the NABT website, which indicates that “natural selection has no discernable [sic] direction or goal, including survival of a species.” The critical word here is discernible, which makes this a more carefully nuanced and more acceptable statement of metaphysical neutrality.[5]

Metaphysical naturalism

is not metaphysically neutral regarding teleology. Not content with an empirically based methodology, it mandates the restriction of reality to that which is material. By definition, empirical science is characterized by methodological naturalism, but once it begins propounding metaphysical naturalism, it has overstepped its disciplinary boundaries. We noted that Genesis assumes teleology (origins are the result of God acting with a purpose and a goal) and teaches tel-eology. That is part of its theology and is admittedly not something subject to observation or scientific demonstration—it is a matter of belief. Many modern scientists, in contrast, assume dysteleology (no purpose or goal), but such a conclusion is likewise part of a metaphysical system and is not subject to observation or scientific demonstration. Even when a divine hand cannot be observed through scientific methods, that is insufficient reason to conclude that a divine hand does not exist or is not active. Science is designed only to operate within the closed system of the material universe—it ought not therefore pass judgment on whether or not there is anything outside the material universe. It therefore should not draw dysteleological conclusions if it is seeking to restrict itself to valid science. This is an important observation in the discussion of public education.[6]

Intelligent Design

“Design” implies an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process, and as such proposes a solution to some perceived problems in biological evolution. The problem is that design refers to a rational deduction and as such is only one possible inference from what appears to some to be irreducible complexity.[7]

If public education is committed to the idea that science courses should reflect only empirical science, neither design nor metaphysical naturalism is acceptable because they both import conclusions about purpose into the discussion. This is not an issue of God, religion, faith, or church and state. It is a question about whether the metaphysical questions about purpose (teleology) should come into play in the science classroom, presumably adulterating that which is empirical with that which is nonempirical; and we contend that it should not.[8]

In conclusion, when origins are discussed in the classroom, empirical science should be taught. We have discussed three important criteria regarding what constitutes empirical science:

1. It is based on a material ontology and premised on methodological naturalism (this eliminates Genesis from the classroom).

2. It is focused on scientifically valid descriptive mechanisms with their strengths and weaknesses acknowledged. So it should include critiques of Neo-Darwinism as well as other origins theories that are trying to offer better explanations of current observations.

3. It must be teleologically neutral (this rules out Genesis, metaphysical naturalism and design).

Summary of Conclusions

1. Genesis operates primarily within a functional ontology as a faith system.

2. Genesis is insistent in affirming teleology with no possible neutrality.

3. Consequently Genesis should not be taught in empirical science classrooms, for it is not empirical science.

4. Empirical science operates within a material ontology and can be taught as a byproduct of that ontology.

5. Empirical science need not favor teleology or dysteleology and should remain neutral on the issue as much as possible.

6. What science has to offer concerning descriptive mechanisms of material origins can be explored in metaphysically neutral ways without offense to biblical affirmations in Genesis 1.

7. If metaphysical naturalism were to be allowed in the science classroom, then there would no longer be any logical reason to ban discussion of design. Since metaphysical naturalism opposes teleological conclusions, it functions on the same metaphysical plane as design, which opposes dysteleological conclusions.

8. Irreducible complexity has a potential role in the empirical science classroom but should not be a matter for legislation one way or the other.

The fact is that even though empirical science can be taught as such, scientists must function in an integrated world. A scientist could be at the top of his or her scientific discipline, but that would not mean the scientist was equipped to apply his or her scientific expertise to the various social issues that arise in our world. Bioethics requires an understanding of biology and of ethics. Decisions about applied technologies, genetic research, fossil fuel use, environmental controls and a myriad of other important issues require not only scientific training but metaphysical (philosophical and even theological) sophistication. If scientists are the ones making decisions for how their science will find its use in society, they must be as astute in thinking about the metaphysical aspects as they are in thinking about the scientific issues.

It is important that we teach empirical science and teach it well. But empirical science is not an education unto itself that can serve all the needs of society or that can serve as the sum of one’s education. The physical sciences are only one branch of education, and we dare not isolate them from the humanities or elevate them as self-contained. As a consequence of these conclusions, I would propose the following resolutions:

Be it resolved:

1. that teachers of science education in the public arena should maintain teleological neutrality to the fullest of their ability;

2. that publishers of science curricula and textbooks for public education should maintain teleological neutrality, and that administrators and science departments should make such neutrality one of the criteria in the selection of textbooks;

3. that administrators in public education should develop courses in which metaphysical options can be considered and that are taught by those who are educated in metaphysics, because it is important for students not only to be competent scientists, but also educated philosophers equipped to make the complex decisions that challenge public policymaking;

4. that people of faith should cease trying to impose their own teleological mandates on public science education; and people who are skeptical of faith should cease trying to impose their own dysteleological mandates on public science education;

5. that those who honor the Bible should allow it to find its theological affirmations as a functional cosmology rather than pressing it into service in public education as if it offered a descriptive mechanism for material origins.

Summary and Conclusions

The position that I have proposed regarding Genesis 1 may be designated the cosmic temple inauguration view. This label picks up the most important aspect of the view: that the cosmos is being given its functions as God’s temple, where he has taken up his residence and from where he runs the cosmos. This world is his headquarters.

The most distinguishing feature of this view is the suggestion that, as in the rest of the ancient world, the Israelites were much more attuned to the functions of the cosmos than to the material of the cosmos. The functions of the world were more important to them and more interesting to them. They had little concern for the material structures; significance lay in who was in charge and made it work. As a result, Genesis 1 has been presented as an account of functional origins (specifically functioning for people) rather than an account of material origins (as we have been generally inclined to read it). As an account of functional origins, it offers no clear information about material origins.

The key features of this interpretation include most prominently:

• The Hebrew word translated “create” (bārāʾ) concerns assigning functions.

• The account begins in verse 2 with no functions (rather than with no material).

• The first three days pertain to the three major functions of life: time, weather, food.

• Days four to six pertain to functionaries in the cosmos being assigned their roles and spheres.

• The recurring comment that “it is good” refers to functionality (relative to people).

• The temple aspect is evident in the climax of day seven when God rests—an activity in a temple.

We proposed that this view is not only exegetically sound, it is also theologically robust and actually strengthens our theology of creation. With confidence in reading Genesis 1 as supported by the original context, and the confidence in the theological vibrancy of our commitment, we have discovered several advantages:

1. When discussing our faith with skeptics, we need not fear the science discussion. We can relax and respond to any proposal they make with, “Yes, but there is no reason God could not have been involved in that process.” The supposed conflict between science and faith is often simply a misunderstanding. There is, in fact, evidence that the conflict was promoted from the science side before it was ever taken up from the faith side.

2. A second advantage is that by holding the cosmic temple inauguration view of Genesis and the teleological evolution view of material origins we may be able to curb the constant attrition of faith that takes place as students interested in science have been told that they have to choose between science and faith. Such a choice is not necessary.

3. A third advantage is that we may begin refocusing our concerns about public education. Rather than trying to push the agenda that young-earth creationism or Intelligent Design needs to be taught in the schools, we can focus on demanding that metaphysical naturalism, a matter of belief rather than science, not be bundled together with the teaching of evolution. We can call schools, teachers and textbook publishers to account for the ways that they insert dysteleology (which is not science, but belief) into the curriculum. Furthermore public education should be interested in teaching evolution with all of its warts and problems, and not overstating the case.

Finally, both sides need to give up their stubborn antagonism. As Gerald Runkle writes in his book Good Thinking:

It is the mark of stubborn and dogmatic persons to be oblivious to the need either to test their own beliefs or to recognize the successful tests that opposing beliefs have undergone. Copernicus caused widespread consternation when he suggested that the earth revolved around the sun. Though he had impressive evidence for his theory, it was received in ill humor by most religious groups. Martin Luther complained: “People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolved, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.… This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

We must keep in mind that we are presumptuous if we consider our interpretations of Scripture to have the same authority as Scripture itself. Nobody is an infallible interpreter, and we must always stand ready to reconsider our interpretations in light of new information. We must not let our interpretations stand in the place of Scripture’s authority and thus risk misrepresenting God’s revelation. We are willing to bind reason if our faith calls for belief where reason fails. But we are also people who in faith seek learning. What we learn may cause us to reconsider interpretations of Scripture, but need never cause us to question the intrinsic authority or nature of Scripture.

Reference:

Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (p. 151). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Related Media

Related Sermons