Fall 2024
|
|
By Arnie Berg
Although it has been several years since the release of the film Is Genesis History?, the stunning panoramas and focus on the Young Earth Creation (YEC) interpretation of Genesis presented by Del Hackett continues to appeal to those who find this perspective compelling. Some of the experts interviewed in this movie have serious science credentials, but they seem unwilling to follow the scientific method.
These experts have a YEC bias: some of them, like Kurt Wise, explicitly state that no evidence will cause them to change their mind about a “young earth.” As might be expected, this movie’s interpretation of nature reflects their and the producer’s bias, and they unfortunately ignore or dismiss a vast amount of evidence that counters their interpretation. The willingness to practice science with an open mind and to alter or refresh our understanding is absent in this movie.
Although it has been several years since the release of the film Is Genesis History?, the stunning panoramas and focus on the Young Earth Creation (YEC) interpretation of Genesis presented by Del Hackett continues to appeal to those who find this perspective compelling. Some of the experts interviewed in this movie have serious science credentials, but they seem unwilling to follow the scientific method.
These experts have a YEC bias: some of them, like Kurt Wise, explicitly state that no evidence will cause them to change their mind about a “young earth.” As might be expected, this movie’s interpretation of nature reflects their and the producer’s bias, and they unfortunately ignore or dismiss a vast amount of evidence that counters their interpretation. The willingness to practice science with an open mind and to alter or refresh our understanding is absent in this movie.
Accepting scientific truth does not mean a loss of reverence for Scripture. |
The movie challenges the prevailing scientific conception of deep time—the consensus that the earth and the universe have been around for billions of years. This is accepted by many Christians, whether they subscribe to old-age creationism, Intelligent Design, or evolutionary creationism.
These different views among Christians usually involve a difference in our understanding of the Bible. As Christians, though, shouldn’t we be open to how the Holy Spirit reveals truth to us? Isn’t all truth God’s truth? If we look back in Church history, hasn’t the Holy Spirit caused us to change the way we think about nature, even if the change was slow and painful sometimes?
In the early 17th century, Galileo’s idea of placing the sun in the center of the solar system ran counter to what was then considered biblical teaching. Galileo, a serious scientist and believer, was imprisoned for suggesting a theory that was contrary to the Bible. Although it took many years for the evidence to persuade the Church to change, today heliocentrism is fully accepted. Through the Holy Spirit, our interpretation of Scripture that seems to place earth in the center has changed.
Might we be going through this process again regarding the question of the age of the cosmos? For most Christians who are also serious scientists, this question has already been answered.
Look at this another way. In real life, we are always dealing with uncertainty. Nothing can be proven, but the more evidence that accumulates to support some assertion, the more we accept that truth. That is how science works. Although some things remain uncertain or unknown, over the last four hundred years, much doubt about nature has been removed, and scientists have a consensus in many areas.
The same is true for theology. As Christians, if we are honest, we all at times have doubts, but we accept the truth as revealed in Scripture and through the Holy Spirit. We call that faith. But our theology (or our interpretation of Scripture), which is subject to change, can be revised as new evidence becomes available. If we are open to the evidence and the Holy Spirit, our minds can be transformed.
Much of what is presented in the movie as “evidence” for a young earth has been thoroughly explained by mainstream science, and in a way that is more consistent with other scientific disciplines. The evidence from all branches of relevant science, including astronomy, biology, archeology, anthropology, geology, and chemistry, consistently spotlights the idea of deep time.
If all truth is God’s truth, how do we as Christians respond to this compelling evidence? Is the Holy Spirit nudging us to consider whether there is another way in which we should interpret Genesis?
Most people don’t want to be forced to think too hard; straightforward answers should suffice. However, some of the evidence for deep time is complex and requires a deeper understanding of physics and chemistry. Increasingly, many Christians who are also serious scientists are telling us we need to respect the science and are suggesting ways that we can understand the truth of God’s Word.
Many people who hold YEC views were raised to think that no other position was acceptable for a Christian. This was certainly my experience and that of many of my friends. Those who did not think critically often still hold to their old views and are strongly encouraged to do so by their environment. They are part of a social setting where expressing opposing views likely results in shunning. Fear of ostracism or exclusion can discourage open dialogue. Books have been written about serious believers who endured painful experiences because their church community refused to continue to show love amid this diversity of thought.
A high view of Scripture requires that all believers are committed to searching the Scriptures and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide and direct them to the truth. Accepting scientific truth does not mean a loss of reverence for Scripture. Ultimately, the pursuit of truth—both through Scripture and scientific inquiry—will lead to a deeper understanding of God’s creation. To change YEC thinking, Christians first need to be willing to think independently, then be exposed to alternative views, and then be open to having their minds transformed. Facts are always interpreted according to the framework that a person already has. If you only read books that confirm your own prejudices, your world will never change.
For those still rooted in their original bias of YEC, watching Is Genesis History? is an example of confirmation bias. My concern is that these people are being presented with a false dichotomy—either the Bible is true, or science is true. They therefore believe that to choose science is to let down the Christian side—an intellectual backsliding and betrayal of the faith.
In some cases, the deeply rooted are also told that science is without purpose and is entirely materialistic. In a methodological sense, this is true, but science and Scripture are two different domains that speak to the same truths at different levels. When people with this fearful perception enter college or make the effort to find the truth, they face an existential dilemma—they have to either give up their faith or compartmentalize their mind by discounting science.
Both the Bible-- which shows how God brought order out of chaos in creation—and the laws and forces of nature as discovered by science give evidence to the fact that God is a God of order. When I hear speculation about natural laws perhaps being different in different epochs, intended to explain some of the anomalies in YEC theories, it strikes me that not only is that idea inconsistent with science, it is also out of step with the character of God. Our interpretation of science should not be based on theories about nature that are not consistent with the evidence, but rather should point in the direction of a new and improved understanding of the truth of God revealed. We need to remember that the Bible is not a science textbook. We need to let science interpret nature (God’s World) the way we allow our theology to interpret the Scriptures (God’s Word). Just as our understanding of science can change, so can our understanding of theology.
Note that Paul Nelson has distanced himself from his role in the documentary by stating that he was misrepresented and has a different understanding of the time scales involved in creation (1). His interpretation of Creation follows more along the lines of the Intelligent Design Movement, a branch of the creationist movement that emphasizes the source of causation, including deep time, rather than a young earth.
I have not delved into the technical issues that the documentary mischaracterizes, but a good starting point for reviewing these is the article A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?” by BioLogos (2). The Biologos website provides many resources that help Christians better understand the science and how to integrate that understanding better into their worldview.
Arnie Berg is a retired computer scientist with a Master’s degree in Computer Science, MBA, and Master’s degree in Bioinformatics. As an avid reader, he has found the thoughts of others to be helpful in solving problems, answering questions, and building knowledge. He is a member of CSCA and resides in Saskatoon, Canada, where he and Brenda enjoy boating and biking.
These different views among Christians usually involve a difference in our understanding of the Bible. As Christians, though, shouldn’t we be open to how the Holy Spirit reveals truth to us? Isn’t all truth God’s truth? If we look back in Church history, hasn’t the Holy Spirit caused us to change the way we think about nature, even if the change was slow and painful sometimes?
In the early 17th century, Galileo’s idea of placing the sun in the center of the solar system ran counter to what was then considered biblical teaching. Galileo, a serious scientist and believer, was imprisoned for suggesting a theory that was contrary to the Bible. Although it took many years for the evidence to persuade the Church to change, today heliocentrism is fully accepted. Through the Holy Spirit, our interpretation of Scripture that seems to place earth in the center has changed.
Might we be going through this process again regarding the question of the age of the cosmos? For most Christians who are also serious scientists, this question has already been answered.
Look at this another way. In real life, we are always dealing with uncertainty. Nothing can be proven, but the more evidence that accumulates to support some assertion, the more we accept that truth. That is how science works. Although some things remain uncertain or unknown, over the last four hundred years, much doubt about nature has been removed, and scientists have a consensus in many areas.
The same is true for theology. As Christians, if we are honest, we all at times have doubts, but we accept the truth as revealed in Scripture and through the Holy Spirit. We call that faith. But our theology (or our interpretation of Scripture), which is subject to change, can be revised as new evidence becomes available. If we are open to the evidence and the Holy Spirit, our minds can be transformed.
Much of what is presented in the movie as “evidence” for a young earth has been thoroughly explained by mainstream science, and in a way that is more consistent with other scientific disciplines. The evidence from all branches of relevant science, including astronomy, biology, archeology, anthropology, geology, and chemistry, consistently spotlights the idea of deep time.
If all truth is God’s truth, how do we as Christians respond to this compelling evidence? Is the Holy Spirit nudging us to consider whether there is another way in which we should interpret Genesis?
Most people don’t want to be forced to think too hard; straightforward answers should suffice. However, some of the evidence for deep time is complex and requires a deeper understanding of physics and chemistry. Increasingly, many Christians who are also serious scientists are telling us we need to respect the science and are suggesting ways that we can understand the truth of God’s Word.
Many people who hold YEC views were raised to think that no other position was acceptable for a Christian. This was certainly my experience and that of many of my friends. Those who did not think critically often still hold to their old views and are strongly encouraged to do so by their environment. They are part of a social setting where expressing opposing views likely results in shunning. Fear of ostracism or exclusion can discourage open dialogue. Books have been written about serious believers who endured painful experiences because their church community refused to continue to show love amid this diversity of thought.
A high view of Scripture requires that all believers are committed to searching the Scriptures and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide and direct them to the truth. Accepting scientific truth does not mean a loss of reverence for Scripture. Ultimately, the pursuit of truth—both through Scripture and scientific inquiry—will lead to a deeper understanding of God’s creation. To change YEC thinking, Christians first need to be willing to think independently, then be exposed to alternative views, and then be open to having their minds transformed. Facts are always interpreted according to the framework that a person already has. If you only read books that confirm your own prejudices, your world will never change.
For those still rooted in their original bias of YEC, watching Is Genesis History? is an example of confirmation bias. My concern is that these people are being presented with a false dichotomy—either the Bible is true, or science is true. They therefore believe that to choose science is to let down the Christian side—an intellectual backsliding and betrayal of the faith.
In some cases, the deeply rooted are also told that science is without purpose and is entirely materialistic. In a methodological sense, this is true, but science and Scripture are two different domains that speak to the same truths at different levels. When people with this fearful perception enter college or make the effort to find the truth, they face an existential dilemma—they have to either give up their faith or compartmentalize their mind by discounting science.
Both the Bible-- which shows how God brought order out of chaos in creation—and the laws and forces of nature as discovered by science give evidence to the fact that God is a God of order. When I hear speculation about natural laws perhaps being different in different epochs, intended to explain some of the anomalies in YEC theories, it strikes me that not only is that idea inconsistent with science, it is also out of step with the character of God. Our interpretation of science should not be based on theories about nature that are not consistent with the evidence, but rather should point in the direction of a new and improved understanding of the truth of God revealed. We need to remember that the Bible is not a science textbook. We need to let science interpret nature (God’s World) the way we allow our theology to interpret the Scriptures (God’s Word). Just as our understanding of science can change, so can our understanding of theology.
Note that Paul Nelson has distanced himself from his role in the documentary by stating that he was misrepresented and has a different understanding of the time scales involved in creation (1). His interpretation of Creation follows more along the lines of the Intelligent Design Movement, a branch of the creationist movement that emphasizes the source of causation, including deep time, rather than a young earth.
I have not delved into the technical issues that the documentary mischaracterizes, but a good starting point for reviewing these is the article A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?” by BioLogos (2). The Biologos website provides many resources that help Christians better understand the science and how to integrate that understanding better into their worldview.
- https://evolutionnews.org/2017/02/new_film_is_gen/
- https://biologos.org/series/discussing-origins-biologos-reasons-to-believe-and-southern-baptists/articles/a-geological-response-to-the-movie-is-genesis-history
Arnie Berg is a retired computer scientist with a Master’s degree in Computer Science, MBA, and Master’s degree in Bioinformatics. As an avid reader, he has found the thoughts of others to be helpful in solving problems, answering questions, and building knowledge. He is a member of CSCA and resides in Saskatoon, Canada, where he and Brenda enjoy boating and biking.