The historicity and the necessity of Genesis

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1

In their book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science, academic physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont warn against the dangers of irrationalism. The authors focus primarily on the irrationality of postmodernism, but they mention the New Age movement and pseudo-scientific Marxism in passing.

Also mentioned is religious fundamentalism, which is singled out as a particularly dangerous form of irrationality. This is not elaborated on in depth. Possibly they had Islamic fundamentalism in mind – I am not aware of any violent acts committed by Christian fundamentalists who are trying to live their lives in accordance with the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ.

Setting aside other religions, which I feel no obligation to defend or explain, is Christian fundamentalism any kind of a threat at all? It is obviously different from the Islamic variety, just as Jesus Christ is significantly different from Mohammed. This is why there have never been any Christian suicide bombers; why there is no death penalty for abandoning the Christian religion; and why attacks on Christ or on Christianity do not meet with violent reprisals.

Perhaps, though, Sokal and Bricmont meant a different kind of threat – not the threat of physical violence, but the threat of the religious mindset. Being inherently irrational in and of itself, they think, religious belief might lead to yet more and more forms of irrationality in many otherf areas. This could be harmful to the stability of society in the long run – not that the danger of religious irrationality was elaborated on in the book, which was devoted to the problems of postmodernism.

But is not our society today very much based on secularism? Are any of our most recent laws and social policies based on regard for biblical teachings? Isn’t a belief in Darwinism and a strictly material universe now the dominant one among America’s educators and governing elites? And what have decades of secularism brought us? Where are we now, and what sort of a country do we live in?

Compared to what we see around us every day, are the basic tenets of Christianity really so irrational? What if said tenets are not irrational at all? The difficulty in answering this question lies in the fact that “rational,”  or “irrational” are such vague and elusive terms, and can be applied to many different things according to our own personal preference.

Also, rationality is not automatically good in and of itself, and hence can be applied to bad ends. For example, if a thief does not want to get caught, it is rational to destroy incriminating evidence. If a swindler wants to con an elderly couple out of their life savings, it is rational for him to appear as charming and as trustworthy as possible.

Moreover, if someone denies the existence of any supernatural reality, and insists that everything can ultimately be reduced to matter and energy, and hence boasts that he is a rationalist – it does not follow that all of his likes or dislikes, ideas, plans, and thoughts are automatically and infallibly “rational.” One’s self-proclaimed devotion to rationality is no guarantee of infallible all-knowingness.

On a deeper, more theoretical level, the terms “rational” or “rationality” are still highly subjective, and how we understand and apply them depends on our worldview, our conception of reality. Thus, if there is no God, it follows that to study nature or to try and devise some code of ethics without regard to God is indeed rational. If, however, God does exist, then to deny him or even just to ignore him, is deeply and profoundly irrational, while to acknowledge his existence and seek to find him is rational.

So, the first question is, “Does God exist or not?” I believe that he does, others believe he does not – so how are we to decide? Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify that this is a question with which science qua science has nothing to do. Science deals with the material, observable world, with the physical creation. Beyond that, it has nothing authoritative to say about the existence or the non-existence of non-material spiritualities of any sort. God’s existence or non-existence is a question that lies outside the boundaries of science – though scientists are, of course, just as free as anyone else to express their opinions on that subject.

Apart from God’s existence, the origins of the universe, and the ultimate meaning of life, science is also inapplicable to many lesser questions. A doctor, for example, can tell me how my liver operates. He can’t tell me if I should accept this or that job offer, marry this or that woman, or keep the wallet full of money I found instead of returning it to its rightful owner.

In fact, all of the things that make life worthwhile or even just enjoyable have nothing to do with science. Music, laughter, love, art, friends, family, helping others, enduring inconvenience or even hardship for the sake of a moral principle – these are not scientific topics that can be confirmed by controlled experiments, weighed on the most sensitive scales, or observed under the most powerful microscopes.  

When it comes to the creation of the world, scientists may say it happened by accident, the result of nothing exploding by blind chance into something intricately organized and surpassingly beautiful. They can and do claim this, but their statements are mere assertions, based on nothing more than their own personal preference that there should not be a God. They do not want there to be a God, and so they reason that reality on its highest and deepest levels must conform to their personal preferences.

The creation of our world, and of the cosmos in which it has been so precisely placed, are what might be called “unimaginable singularities.” They are singularities because they have happened only once that we know of. This means that they cannot be observed under controlled conditions or repeated in laboratory experiments. They are also unimaginable, because the processes by which they came about are completely unknown to natural reason.

This is far above science. It is infinitely above and beyond science. We cannot know the origin of all that is by human reason unaided. But we can know it by divine revelation. The veils of mystery that cover the origins of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them have been lifted in the first chapters of Genesis, and what the mind could have never discovered on our own has been granted to us.

This is not a threat to rationality. On the contrary, it is the totally unproven and unscientific belief that everything came into being by the random and unplanned interactions of matter and energy that is a threat to true rationality.

We read in the New Testament book of Hebrews that the material universe was brought into being by the spoken word of God alone, out of nothing. This says that the atheists are wrong. The universe did not come into being by chance. The human race did not come into being by accident, for no reason. All of the marvels of nature and of the cosmos reflect not random material processes but rather they show forth the splendor and glory of their Creator.

Of course, just saying “It is true because the Bible says it” is not a logical argument, since it presupposes the truth of the book. However, just saying “It is false because the Bible is not true” is equally an unproven assertion. The Bible is not true just because I say it is true, but neither is it false just because you say it is false – and science is of no help to us here. Too many people are unaware of the limitations of science, and of the limitations of the human mind. Our reasoning and our logical powers can only go so far, and they do not extend things beyond our comprehension.

Also beyond the reach of science based on secular reasoning alone are the origins of the human race. The now outdated Victorian theory of Darwinism is hopelessly inadequate. It cannot explain the origins of the universe or of the first living creature, and neither can it explain the mystery of human consciousness. That the human personality, with its potentials for good or for evil; with its powers of perception and communication; with its emotional needs and creative powers of art, literature and music – that all of these emerged out of some sort of struggle for survival is inconceivable and even ridiculous to the truly rational mind.

We did not come into being as the result of a blind and impersonal process that did not have us in mind. We did not come from the monkeys (or from the primates, which is the same thing but sounds more scientific). Those who try to understand human nature and human origins by studying primates or any other lower life forms – rats, dogs, bees – are wasting their time. They are not only wasting their time, but they are wasting their lives, accomplishing nothing and missing those higher ends which alone make life worthwhile.

Darwinism in and of itself is a sad and ugly theory that greatly diminishes and impoverishes the human spirit – and it is by no means “settled science,” as some of its proponents like to claim. In fact, it is riddled with problems.

Apart from its complete inadequacy before the mystery of human consciousness, the fact of micro-mutations introduced into existing species by human intelligence does nothing to demonstrate the macromutation of new species by blind chance alone.

To mention one other problem, there is the difficulty of the genetic mechanism. Nothing was known of genetics in Darwin’s time, and he could imagine that all sorts of changes just sort of happened somehow. Now that the mysteries of genetics have been revealed to a much greater extent, it is known that the transformation of a fish’s fin into an amphibian’s leg would require detailed and highly specific alterations of the genetic coding for the muscles, nerves, legs, and bones – and all of the necessary genetic changes would have to take place accidentally, and all at the same time (since the lack of any one of them would render the modified limb inoperative and hence of no evolutionary value in the struggle for survival).

Moreover, this improbably coincidental occurrence of complex but perfectly timed accidents would have to happen repeatedly, over and over, to work such a transformation by gradual stages, all by blind chance. This is an absurdity that people believe in for no other reason than that they want and/or need to believe that there is no God.

It is much more reasonable, rational and logical to believe that God created all that is. This cannot be proven or disproven – not because of any deficiency inherent in the subject itself, but because of the limitations of human logic.

Thus, the creation of the world and the first human beings in it is unknown to science – but it has been revealed to us in the book of Genesis. But what about science? You can’t ignore science? What about the age of the earth? Don’t we know by science that it is billions of years old?

No, we do not know that by science. To reason back into the unknown using extrapolations from what is now known does not work. There are too many unknowns, too many imponderables, too many possibilities for error. No one has the slightest idea what sort of meta-scientific or supra-scientific principles might have been operative in the first emergence of planet earth from non-being into being – and to assume that the same scientific principles we now know must also have been operative in the first moments or eons of creation is illogical.

We do not know how old the earth is – and what if God created it with the appearance of age? What if he wrapped its origins in mystery so that people would have the option of rejecting him if they chose to do so? After all, if it were clear to all scientists, without question and without debate, that the earth had, in fact, suddenly appeared a very short time ago in its present state, people would be practically forced to admit a divine creation – but God has specifically willed that he not be revealed in that away.

We read in I Corinthians 1:21 “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” This plainly states that God himself has willed that he cannot be discovered by human wisdom. If for this reason he has willed to deliberately wrap the origins of the earth in obscurity, so that he might be known only by faith, and missed by those who trust only in their own reason, he has the right to do so.

This does not make him a deceiver, since “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth (shows) his handywork” (Psalm 19). Moreover, Paul teaches in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, that

. . . that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

This plainly says that the creation itself is proof of God’s existence – and those who find their various reasons to deny the existence of God “are without excuse.”

But what about the age of the earth? Jesus said, “Do not judge by outward appearances, but judge righteous judgment.” What if God so created the world that all of the millions of years of development behind the separation of continents and the erosion of canyons, the rise of mountain ranges, and the establishment of sedimentary layers, did in fact take place, in their natural sequence, but compressed into a few hours, or even into the blink of an eye? That is not beyond the power of the God who created the galaxies out of nothing and currently sustains them by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3).

It is also possible that the six days of creation were six eons, or periods of various and indeterminate length. The Old Testament does in fact use the word “day” elsewhere to refer to something other than a 24-hour period. But the Bible does mention evening and morning on the various days of creation, and I personally feel that 24 hour days are more consistent with God’s infinite power and glory.

Concerning the talking snake, which is such a source of amusement to those who delight in their imaginary superiority while scoffing at things which are far above them, this is not a matter of a snake only. It involved the devil himself, whom the Bible calls the old dragon, the old serpent, with powers of “signs and lying wonders” (2 Thessalonians 2:9). “The prince of the power of the air; the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2) currently holds many people bound in spiritual captivity, not excluding those who so lightly deny his existence.

We read in II Corinthians that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. This being so, it would be a light thing for him to assume the form of a serpent, or to enter into an existing one. A talking snake might not have seemed strange or foreign to Eve either, she who had only recently been introduced into a new and unexplored world full of wonders which the human eye had never seen before.

But does any of this really matter? Can’t we just believe in Jesus while conceding that the Creation account only reflects pre-scientific mythology?

There are several problems with this approach. For one thing, those who take it do so on the assumption that human scientific knowledge takes precedence over divine revelation. Thus they have capitulated at the outset, and will no doubt do the same thing when it comes to Noah’s ark, and many other miracles of the Old and New Testaments. As Christ said, “A little leaven leavens a whole loaf.”

For the God of Scripture, any and all scientific or rather pseudo-scientific objections to any possibility of the miraculous are completely irrelevant. The God who made the heavens and the earth by his spoken word alone could put all of the creatures of the earth inside of a walnut and keep them there for a thousand years in a state of suspended animation if he chose to do so.

The God of Israel could also make the sun to appear motionless in the sky for an indefinite period of time, or even so turn the earth that the sun would appear to be moving in figure eights, and still maintain the earth in its proper order. The God who invented and designed and implemented the power of gravity can suspend it at any time, and is not bound by any of the physical realities he himself has made.

And what if God specifically displayed these and other miracles, and preserved the record of them in biblical histories, so that those who believe might be edified and uplifted, while those who do not want to believe will stumble and fall in their unbelief?

It is sad to see those videos of comedians mocking the Bible to the laughter of the enlightened audience. Imagine entire auditoriums of lost people sitting in literal and spiritual blindness, “a thick darkness,” almost “a darkness which may be felt” (Exodus 10:22), laughing on the very edge of that eternal destruction which is even now prepared for them. Peter says of them that “these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption” (2 Peter 2:12).  

Thus, those who prefer to dismiss Genesis have taken the first steps down a path that if taken far enough will end in unbelief.

A second reason we need to maintain the integrity and the truthfulness of God’s own account of the world’s creation is that Paul’s explanation of how sin came into the world depends upon it. We read in Romans chapter 5:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Here alone we have an explanation for the goods and evils of human life, the goodness and the evil of human nature. We are capable of so much that is good (humanly speaking), but with the fall of Adam and Eve from perfection, the entire human race as continued under a state of sin and alienation from God.

A third reason why the abandonment of the historicity of Genesis is detrimental to the cause of Scriptural Christianity is that Christ was referring to Genesis when he said:

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Jesus Christ also made other references to the book of Genesis – to Abel, to Noah, to mankind created in the image of God. Was he speaking about mythology?

Paul wrote in 2 Timothy that

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

If we start picking and choosing which parts of Scripture we want to accept, we are severely compromised on the deepest level. We have surrendered a vitally strategic position, and what is left for us but continued retreat, and confusion before the faces of our opponents?

People are insufficiently aware of the limits of human understanding and of human science. There are spiritual realities about which science has nothing to say, and higher truths which cannot be discovered by reason alone, but which can be comprehended and reasoned about once made plain by revelation.

And the rejection of revelation, and the reliance on fallen and corrupt reason alone – what has that brought us?

Assume, just for the sake of the conversation, that we do set the Bible aside. To which scientific values shall we turn? To those of Marx? He claimed his theory was scientific. He was mistaken there, but what have real scientists like Einstein, Max Planck, or Niehls Bohr contributed significantly to the knowledge of how we should live?

Shall we turn to Darwin, Freud, or perhaps philosophers like John Stuart Mill, Kant or Hegel? Untrammeled by divine revelation, they arrived at widely differing conclusions while following the faintly flickering light of reason through the darkness of life. Should we study Robespierre, Lenin or Stalin? They also followed human reason without any regard for God’s laws, and yet few would look on them as reliable guides in ethical questions today.

The turning away from revealed religion to a reliance on human reason alone has not produced a solid foundation for ethics.  It has instead led to the chaos of postmodernism, which is a direct, though delayed, result of the abandonment of God. It has led not to moral clarity and ethical certainty, but to epistemological, moral and social confusion, which shows every sign of intensifying rather than abating as time goes on. The claim that we need a modern system of ethics based on scientific facts to deal with 21st-century problems is an arbitrary and personal opinion, which will never lead to binding and definitive answers.

In the Scriptural framework, life has meaning and purpose. We are placed in this world for a short time, and given the opportunity to enjoy its blessings and grapple with its problems, knowing that at the end we will have to stand before our maker, and receive according as we have lived. In the words of Jesus Christ:

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Finally, Christ said, “If you were of God you would hear Gods words. But you do not hear them because you are not of God.” We cannot believe in the God of Scripture if we subordinate it to corrupt and fallible human reason – and all human wisdom that is in opposition to God is foolishness.