The work of creation - dispution with evangelical movement
I personally think that the evangelical movement generally underestimates a contradiction between the Scriptural message about the Creation of the World and the scientific explanation of evolution of the World. He has right that the Supernatural God works through natural powers, but this fact does not mean that we can study the natural powers independetly of Scriptural message. We should know from the Bible that the sin impacted the nature too and if we study the nature without the God's message we cannot recognize the Sin's corruption from God's creation.
We have two options: At first we can see the Biblical message from point of view the scientific theories or we can consider the scientific theories by the God's reveal described in the Scripture. I personally believe that the second option is correct one, the first one is dangerous because the Scripture warns us before the "powerful delusion" (2Thess 2:11), before relying of man's wisdom what is foundamental princip of science's work. There is a big difference between a role of scientists and a role of believers. The scientists must doubt, this is their work and it is legitimate. But the believers can trust God because he knows who is he trusts. I do not want to tell that a believer cannot be a scientist but I would like only to say that a scientist cannot count with God in his work – this means that a output of his work can or have to be in contradiction with Scriptural message.
Yes, we should ask what is a genre of the "Genesis" book. Yes, this is not a "schoolbook of biology," but we cannot say that it describes only any myths of Jude's nation. Somebody tells that "The Scripture says why the world was originated but the science describes a way how the world was originated.
" But this is not trueon the whole because the Bible describes too how the world was created. Yes, there is not any scientist's details, but it is saying the general framework what we cannot ignore. And if this general framework is in contradict with science then we must believe in Sriptural message and not in scientific theories.
What does this framework content? I think that the following statements:
I) The information that God called nature after completion of his work of creation as "very good." The world was simply as God liked well, there was nothing broken, the nature fully meets the design of God and of His Plan. This is in surprising contrast with the second statement of God, in which only a few hundred years later - just before the big flood of world, the God called all creation as being corrupted and broken.
Everything what has a very good mark given by ourselves reflects our character. Everyone likes something different. But what do we think about the man who would find his pleasure in such pain and suffering of animals? If we confuse the message of creation with evolutionary theory what says that the nature'sform such as we know it today was from beginning, then we confuse too that this form came out from God's hands – Form of nature, where the strong survives at the expense of weaker, world in which there is no second chance, a world full of disease, suffering, dying. All this would called by God as "very good" in this case.
II) Genesis refers to the initial nature as a herbivorous only, suggesting the absence of death. Sure, the ancient Hebrews were not apprentinces of science, but they did not completely stupid. They clearly saw that nature which is described in Scripture is in direct conflict with observable reality. And they knew that such a straw is not enough for wolf survival. But they had the courage to believe and preach that to all living creatures God gave food of plants, not ofmeat.
III) The Book of Genesis speaks about a very short time. The creation does not extend millions and billions of years, but six days. Sure, we can say that the day of the Hebrew'slanguage usually has a looser meaning, but the time frame of creation week is not identified by the word "day" but by the alternation of day and night.
IV) The Bible is not only one book - Genesis. For example: Paul's theology that through Adam both the sin and death came into the world and that through Christ again the both Vindication and Life, this teology is based on the the first Genesis chapters literal meaning. What happens with Paul's testimony, when we mark the first chapters of the Bible as a myth? Paul also does not consider the current state of nature as the original, but he says that "creation was put under futility" but not by its fault, but by fault of who yields it under futility. That the whole creation watch for a glory of God's Revelation Sons (please see the 8th chapter of letter of Roman). This explains the sudden change of God's opinion about the nature, this change is in line with the fundamental understanding of Genesis, but in the context of evolutionary theory this Paul's biological statement has to lack the meaning, truth and logic.
V) Statment of Genesis is also confirmed by Jesus Christ. In his teaching about marriage, for example, refers to it directly, Abel is considered as historical person. We think, therefore, that we know the origin of the world better than the One through whom the world was created? Yes, Christ came into an environment in which science was not at today's level. But still - the theory of evolution had been speculated by the Greek philosophers before the advent of Christ. Sure, over the scientific accuracy of their statements we can smile today, but their theories were fully understandable for contemporary listeners. So why should not Christ preach the evolution, at least in this primitive and understandably form, if this theory is true?
VI) The Bible also adds the further details to the Genesis report. For example, from the book of Revelation we learn that that the tomato's snake who fooled Eve was a spiritual being - the dragon, known as "Satan", its inclusion among the beasts of the field is not scientific terminology according to Linnaeus, but theological statements, which tells us about the origin of this spiritual beings, so about its initial subordination to man. The fact that the today's snake can not speak and have no vocal cords, it is not a reason to reject the whole story. If God wills, a female donkey may speak to man, the donkey may of course too.
VII) The book of Genesis considered itself as a historical report. Author puts clear emphasis on the Hebrew's word "tolethód" often translating as "generations", which of course also means a written report and it may refers as marking the original source. According to amater archaeologist P.J. Wiseman acting in the thirties of the previous century, the Semitic forefathers marked original owner of a written report (letter, communication, contracts) via this type of formulation. This word indicates that the book of Genesis was probably compiled by Moses from even older written sources, taking sometimes even Moses could compile two or more surviving written sources for one event together.
Sure, Genesis does not aim to inform fully and scientifically about the origin of the world, on the other hand we should not ignore its message or stick our head into the sand in front contradiction with scientific knowledge. Because the Genesis's report was inconsistent with observable facts already at the time of its creation and writing. We can not say that the first broadcasters and listeners with the creation account was not about whether this so-called "myth" is true or not, because they believed it - as demonstrated, for example creed Israelis preserved at the time of Moses in the Ten Commandments. We can, indeed must say that this conflict or controversy with the religious faith on the one hand, and with the observable "scientific" facts on the other hand, this fact was everytime an integral part of their testimony from the outset, and vice versa - attempts to reconcile Genesis with evolution theories go directly against this preached intent. Because the evolution theory say not again God's creation work only but again Jesus Christ's redemptive work and again the God's Holy Character too – we cannot undervalue it.