Those that know me from Facebook will be aware of my frequent frustration and irritation with young Earth creationists (YECs), i.e. usually evangelical Christians that insist the Earth is around 6,000 years old and that evolution is a satanic lie. I am not going to use this blog to discuss the science of geology and evolution in any detail. Rather, I want to set out a number of propositions I believe are relevant to the discussion. My impetus is the impression given by some atheists that Christianity is dominated by YECs. The atheists consider that as long as they can demonstrate the untenability of YEC, they will have succeeded in demolishing Christianity wholescale. They take their cue from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, which was published in 2006. I have written about this before. The difficulty here lies in the impression that the YECs are setting the agenda. Hence my question: Have the creationists stolen Genesis? It is as if they claim the text as uniquely theirs.
Proposition 1. The statement ‘God is creator’ is a statement of faith, not science.
In recent years, conservative Christians in the USA and (increasingly) in the UK have challenged the view that the existence of God, and therefore the statement ‘God is creator’, is not a matter for science. This is the position of the so-called intelligent design (ID) movement. Building on the classical argument from design, ID claims that there is sufficient evidence of design in the natural world – that is, in the apparent fine-tuning of the physical world and the ‘fitedness’ of the organic world – to posit a designer. That designer, they say, is the God of Judaeo-Christian theism. ID stands in opposition to ideas based on evolution. Advocates of ID frequently claim that were it not for the darkening influence of sin, people would easily come to the view that God exists and is their creator.
The Bible does not argue for the existence of God. Its very first verse statement is simply that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. The Bible assumes God’s existence from the start, and it assumes that those reading it will already have come to a realisation that God is creator. More tellingly, the writer to the Hebrews writes: “Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see. This is why the ancients were commended. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” It appears that belief in the existence of God and the doctrine that he made everything that exists is a matter of faith. This faith in God as creator undergirds our hope, for which it provides the assurance. That is how believers have always approached creation. The idea is that if God is creator, how will he not deliver on the promises he makes in his word, which we appropriate by faith. In the writer’s mind, the doctrine of creation does not stand by itself – it is not simply a matter to argue about – but rather serves a practical purpose. It begins with the creator as experienced through faith – a top down approach if you will – rather than with a bottom up approach that begins with created things that lead us to the conclusion that God made them. For Christians, the agency of creation is ultimately Jesus: “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him” (Col 1:16). Thus to know Jesus is to know the creator. We begin with an existential encounter with the living Lord Jesus, not with an argument about how old the earth might be, or even over whether the universe is designed or created.
Proposition 2. Deep time geology and evolution provide a reliable and coherent narrative for the history of the Earth.
As I stated above, I am not going to use this blog to defend contemporary geology and thinking about evolution. I merely affirm their reliability. I do so as much for the sake of atheists, some of whom find it inconceivable that a conservative Christian might reject YEC, as much as the YECs themselves. Specifically I affirm that the earth has had a long and complex geological history over 4.6 billion years. I further affirm that all living organisms have evolved by a process of natural selection from the first organic life to appear on Earth. This includes humans meaning that there is an evolutionary nexus between humans and single celled organisms that lived more than three billion years ago.
Proposition 3. Genesis is a human book written to serve a human purpose.
A major difficulty is the belief that the Bible is literally the word of God. Paul tells us that all scripture is “God-breathed”, theopneustos in Greek This is sometimes taken to mean that God simply dictated the Bible to its human authors who then slavishly wrote down what they were told. While this is more or less the view of Islam, it is not the orthodox Christian position. The Christian position is that the human writers of scripture were intimately engaged in the production of the books of the Bible. Each had his personal contribution to make. Peter tells us that rather than dictation, the writers of scripture were carried along by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. The Spirit led and guided them in such a way that their words are also God’s words (2 Peter 1:21). Thus the style and contents of John’s gospel is the evangelist’s own, reflecting his interests, insights and purpose. The style of John is profoundly different from that of Mark. Not only so, the gospel narratives of Luke and John are themselves markedly different from that in the often poetic prophetic writings in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. I suggest Genesis is a different type of writing again. It does not convey the work of a careful historian like Luke (cf. Luke 1:1 – 5) being more akin to ancient mythology. I expand this below. What was the purpose of Genesis?
The YECs, of course, insist that the opening chapters of Genesis are literal history. They say that Genesis 1 is a literal account of the creation of the Earth. It was made, they claim, in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Similarly, the first man, Adam, was formed or moulded from the dust of the ground, while the first woman was formed from a rib taken from the man’s side. It goes without saying that most people nowadays find this not only untenable but ridiculous. We know the earth was not created in six days. So is the Bible simply wrong? I do not think that is the right question. A more useful question is to ask what these chapters might be for. If we are to hear what God is saying in these chapters, we must recognise the words of Genesis as human writings and set them in their human context.
The traditional view is that the Book of Genesis, as well as the other books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), was written by the prophet Moses some 3,500 years ago. Very few Bible scholars now defend that claim. Rather, it is widely thought that the Pentateuch as we know it was compiled during the 6th Century BCE, just before or during the period when the Kingdom of Judah was in exile in Babylon. That’s not to say that the Pentateuch might not contain earlier material, perhaps from the 9th or 10th Century BCE. Indeed, it is likely that the Pentateuch contains multiple original sources even if it is also likely that it owes much of its present form to priestly redactors in 5th and 6th centuries BCE. This observation denies the frequent snide claim by some atheists that the Old Testament was written by “illiterate Bronze Age goat herders”. But what is its purpose?
Proposition 4. The Book of Genesis is origin myth
Broadly speaking, the Book of Genesis can be thought of as origin myth. Here I’m using the word ‘myth’ in its technical sense of a genre of folklore or theology that consists of narratives that play a fundamental role in society. Origin myth is a type of myth that explains the beginnings of some aspect of the world; here, I suggest, the beginnings of Israel as a nation (not the universe). This section develops material I touched on in a previous blog https://alexstaton.wordpress.com/2021/05/25/hugh-miller-and-me-geology-and-scripture-reconciled/
In 597 BCE the kingdom of Judah went into exile into Babylon, part of ancient Mesopotamia. Essentially, Jehoiakim, king of Judah, had been paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar II, the Babylonian king seized control at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE. Jehoiakim rebelled in circa 598 BCE. Following a siege during which Jehoiakim died, Nebuchadnezzar took the new king and his court, together with various prominent citizens (including the prophet Ezekiel) captive to Babylon. He destroyed Jerusalem and pillaged the temple.
The Babylonian Exile had a profound impact on the people of Judah. We gain some insight in Psalm 137 where the psalmist says the people hung up their harps and could no longer sing of Jerusalem. How could they sing in a foreign land when Jerusalem and its temple lay in ruins? Jeremiah laments the devastation: “How deserted lies the city, once full of people. How like a widow is she, who was once great among the nations” (Lamentations 1:1). The big question was how did they get into this state and was there any hope of a return to the Promised Land? The Pentateuch sets out to answer this question.
If one theme is more prominent in the Pentateuch than any other, it is the theme of covenant. A covenant is an agreement or contract between two parties. It is a legal bond that contains both promises and obligations. Marriage is a covenant. Covenants are known from the ancient world. Sometimes they are between equals, sometimes not. In scripture, we find that King Solomon made a covenant or treaty (Hebrew berit) with Hiram, King of Tyre that they should live at peace together (1 Kings 5:12). Hiram actually sent building materials to help Solomon with the construction of the Temple. Elsewhere, God himself is said to make a berit. For example, in Genesis God makes a covenant with Abraham, promising to bless him and make his descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky thereby leading to the formation of Israel as a people. The obligation on Abraham and his descendants was one of faith and obedience (Genesis 15:6). More specific to our context is the covenant God makes with Moses on behalf of his people. Again, God promises blessing on condition of faith and obedience. But what does faith and obedience look like? Essentially it is to follow the laws of Moses set out in Exodus and reiterated in Deuteronomy. We are to love God with all our being and our neighbour as ourselves. As Jesus says, this is the sum of the law.
In the Mosaic covenant, God, now known by his name Yahweh, can be thought of as overlord or suzerain. As ruler, he sets out the terms of the covenant, its stipulations and promises. This takes us to the heart of Judah’s problem because time and time again, they break the terms of the covenant. Instead of loving Yahweh as their Lord, they turn to foreign nations and their gods instead. This is the substance of the complaint the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah level against Judah. For the later redactors of the Pentateuch it is why Judah ended up in Babylon. Effectively they got their wish. Instead of blessing in a relationship with Yahweh, they turned their backs on him and were now under the lordship of the kings of Babylon and their gods (Zech. 7:8 – 14). Nebuchadnezzar was now their suzerain. None of this is to say that Yahweh was not desperate for Judah to return to him. “Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11).
When Judah found itself under the heel of Babylon it longed for a return to the Promised Land. Yet the Babylonian king seemed all powerful. Daniel addressed him as “King of Kings”. (although note he says that it is the God of heaven that had given him dominion and power and might and glory) (Daniel 2:37). Who is really King? Who is suzerain? The God of heaven is: Yahweh is. This is what Genesis 1 is about. It sets out in mythological language that Israel owes its origin to God.
Proposition 5. Genesis 1 is a message for Israel about Israel’s God.
Genesis 1 begins with a simple affirmation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The creator here is named elohim. This is the plural of the usual Hebrew word for god, ‘el. It conveys the idea of ultimate power. The plural is usually taken as a plural of majesty or of intensity rather than of number. The idea seems to be that the God of Israel is the very essence of “el-ness”. Nebuchadnezzar may be king of kings, but the God of the people of Judah is God of Gods – the living God, God above all others. We are told that this God created the heavens and the earth. By itself, that is enough to establish the God of Judah as the true God. But something else is going on here. In verse 2, we read that the earth was formless and empty (Heb. tohu wabohu), a formless void. Darkness was over the surface of the deep. Watery chaos reigned. In the following verses, God tames the chaos, firstly by creating ordered space (vv. 3 – 10) and then filling it (vv. 10 – 27). Yahweh is a God of order. The ordering occupies the first three days of a week while the filling occupies the second three days. Moreover, there is marked parallelism between the ordering and the filling. It can be summarised in a table.
| Days 1 – 3 | Days 4 – 6 |
| God creates space | God fills space |
| God creates light | Sun, moon and stars created |
| Separates waters above/below | Fills the space with sea creatures and birds |
| Moves the oceans to create space on dry land | Fills the land with animals and humans. |
Young earth creationists insist that the days of Genesis 1 should be understood literally. Hence, they insist that light was created before the sun, moon and stars were created. While this might just reflect the way the human writers thought about the cosmos (a moot point), does it follow we should think that way? What if there are hints in the text that suggest the way the chapter is constructed is a literary device rather than a scientific account of the creation of the earth? This view is known as the literary framework interpretation. It has been around for 100 years and is the position of a great many Biblical scholars today, having been popularised by Gordon Wenham in his scholarly two volume commentary on Genesis (1987) and Henri Blocher in his excellent In the Beginning (1984). Both argue that the ‘week’ of creation is a literary device and that the text is full of references to the Babylonian myth that undergirded Babylonian society and thinking.
Why choose a week as the framework? It is possible, of course, that the general chronology reflected contemporary thinking. Two facts militate against this. First, the chronology is ‘wrong’. The earth was not created in the way described in Genesis (Proposition 2). If we believe that while being a human book, Genesis also the word of God (Proposition 3), it should not claim something that is demonstrably untrue. Secondly, the pattern of ordering and filling is highly suggestive. Genesis 1 has immense literary power and it is perfectly conceivable that its author(s) were highly skilled in language and intended to create something that would resonate down the centuries in the way that Genesis 1 undoubtedly does. I would challenge even the most ardent sceptic not to recognise the power of the prose (although the YECs may have robbed many of us in this regard). In any event, it is likely that the framework serves a theological purpose related to the institution of the sabbath, a key defining characteristic of Jewish faith and one that came to be ignored prior to going into exile. Interestingly, Hebrew scholar EJ Young who adopts a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 notes that the 6 + 1 construction, often six days plus one, is presented quite common in Near Eastern mythology as a literary device (EJ Young 1964 Studies in Genesis. Cf. Blocher In the Beginning).
One of the most fascinating aspects of Genesis 1 becomes apparent when we compare it with Babylonian origin mythology in Enuma Elish. Enuma Elish is the Babylonian creation myth and is dated to circa 1200 BCE making it much older than the Book of Genesis. It has been suggested that Genesis has a Babylonian feel. It is not saying that the Genesis story is a rehash of Babylonian myth, as atheists like Richard Dawkins imply. Rather it is that the Genesis story contains Hebrew reflection on and response to Babylonian ideas even if it ultimately stands by itself. This ought to be no surprise given the depth of Israel’s trauma in Babylon. Some have suggested that if Enuma Elish is myth, Genesis 1 is anti-myth – a kind of corrective expressed in mythological language. I actually think the text is more than this. Henri Blocher suggests that such a view “overlooks the perfection of the composition in its finest details” and “gives undue weight to a number of resemblances which are incomplete, while neglecting the contrast which is very striking”. Nevertheless, we should, I think, understand that the text of Genesis 1 pays more than lip service to its historical context.
There are several examples of parallels between Babylonian mythology and Hebrew anti-myth, if we want to stick with that rather negative term. One of the most commonly cited concerns the creation of the sun, moon and stars on Day 4. (Note that the three examples I give expand upon material more briefly in Genesis for Normal People by Peter Enns and Jared Byas. The three examples are widely cited elsewhere.) Of course it is inconceivable that the ancient Israelites knew that the moon is a different kind of ‘light’ to the sun and stars in that its light is reflected light. The moon does not literally ‘give light on the earth’ (Gen. 1:14), a further reminder that we are not dealing with science. What is most striking, however, is that the Babylonians worshipped sun and moon gods. The Hebrew word for sun (shemesh) is very similar to the Babylonian name for their sun god (shamash). Here, rather than even mentioning the names, a circumlocution is used: “the greater light to govern the day” is created by Elohim just as the moon is. These ‘gods’ have no power of their own. In similar vein, we find the almost throwaway comment “he made the stars also”. The Babylonians were big on astrology yet here rather than finding human events under the control of the stars, we find the stars under the control of God. Who is afraid of Mystic Meg!
Another example concerns the language of chaos (tohu wabohu). It is not entirely clear that Genesis 1:1 necessarily refers to creation from nothing. The Hebrew word for ‘created’ (bara) is used in other ways in the chapter than to signal creatio ex nihilo. Actually it is used only three times: here and verses 21 (great sea creatures) and verse 27 (humankind). Why not elsewhere? Is the passage saying there was something special about the three acts of creation that set them apart from the other acts of creation, which are expressed either in the passive (“let the land produce…the land produced”, vv. 11 – 12) or using the Hebrew verb ‘asah (made) (v16). Could it be that the starting point here is not so much nothing as chaos? I already noted that it is God who tames the watery chaos. If this is the reference, there may be quite deliberate reflection on Babylonian myth since Enuma Elish styles chaos as one of the Mesopotamian goddess Tiamat. It has been suggested with some cogency that the Babylonian name Tiamat is linguistically related to the Hebrew word for deep, tehom: “Darkness was over the face of the tehom” (v. 2). So God brings order and tames tiamat. The Babylonian god of chaos has no power over the Israelites. When all looks chaotic, when events appear not to make sense, the God of order, the God who rules over the chaos, remains in control. Before moving on, note that Tiamat was supposed either to have the form of a dragon or giant sea creature, or to produce dragons or great sea creatures. In Genesis 1:21, God is said to have created (bara) the great sea creature.
My final example concerns Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon. In Enuma Elish, the Marduk attains his ascendency by slaying Tiamat, his grandmother, with whom he had a longstanding grievance. He then cuts her carcass in half from top to bottom. He uses half of her body to separate the waters. “With his merciless mace he split her in two, like fish for drying. Half of her he set up and made as a cover, heaven”. Marduk refers to Tiamat’s heavenly half-corpse as the “firmament, whose grounding I made firm.” He then fashions the other half of her carcass into the earth, upon which he will institute kingship, worship, and ultimately Babylon itself. Who slays Tiamat? Who is above Marduk? Who set up Babylon? Israel’s God did. God “changes times and seasons; he deposes kings and raises up others” (Daniel 2:21). Judah may be in exile but their God remains in control. Eventually, the Babylonian empire was brought down. “‘Though you soar like the eagle and make your nest among the stars, from there I will bring you down,’ declares the LORD” (Obadiah 4). Surely a message for our own chaotic times when the arrogant steal what is not theirs.
Before I leave this, I want to notice a rather obscure verse in 2 Peter where we read that the earth was “formed out of water and by [or through] water” (2 Peter 3:5). This verse has occasioned a great deal of debate. Some commentators effectively ignore it. But the most obvious view is that it refers back to Genesis 1:2, where God creates the earth by dispelling the watery chaos as we saw above. It suggest that Peter thought about cosmogony in the same way as the compilers of Genesis. Creationists see this as lending authority to their literalist understanding of Genesis. But could it also be that Peter is simply reporting the words of Genesis, which will have been understood by his Jewish Christian audience, to make the same theological point Genesis makes, namely that God will rescue his people from those that oppress them. He accommodates his message to the degree of understanding his audience possessed, using the Biblical language with which they were familiar. Peter no more sets out to tackle scientific cosmogony than Genesis does. Thus just as the Babylonian gods had no power over Judah, so the Romans and their gods had no power over the fledgling church of Christ. In this way, the doctrine of creation possess pastoral power. This general idea of ‘accommodation’ appears in the writings of John Calvin.
Proposition 6. Literalistic interpretations of Genesis 1 risk obscuring its message
I am a geologist. I set out my position regarding geology in Proposition 2. I cannot be any clearer. Geologists do not turn to Genesis instead of doing fieldwork. The fieldwork shows without the least equivocation that YEC is wrong. And yet, even as a geologist with a robust scientific understanding of the history of Earth, the text thrills me both as literature and as theology. I hate the fact that endless debates about the age of the Earth, a non-issue to most people, rob the text of its richness. I hope I have articulated some of my reasons for my love of the text. Supremely Genesis 1 is a rich theological document. It inspires praise of God as creator and redeemer in the same way Carl Boberg’s famous hymn (trans. Stuart K Hine) does. Here the focus is on salvation from sin rather than the from bondage in Babylonian or under the heel of Rome.
Oh Lord, my God
When I, in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder
Thy power throughout the universe displayed
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God to Thee
How great Thou art, how great Thou art
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God to Thee
How great Thou art, how great Thou art
And when I think that God, His Son not sparing
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing
He bled and died to take away my sin
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God to Thee
How great Thou art, how great Thou art
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God to Thee
How great Thou art, how great Thou art
When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart
Then I shall bow, in humble adoration
And then proclaim, my God, how great Thou art
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God to Thee
How great Thou art, how great Thou art
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God to Thee
How great Thou art, how great Thou art
How great Thou art, how great Thou art
Proposition 7. Creation may be worth arguing for if you pick your audience.
I want to wind this up by thinking briefly about the prevalence of YEC in UK and US churches. Is it worth arguing?
As is well known, large numbers of people in the US are sceptical of evolution. Current estimates suggest that as many as 40% of Americans think the earth is only a few thousand years old and do not accept the truth of evolution. Most of the scepticism is driven by evangelical religion. Things are different in the UK where a much higher proportion of people accept evolution. For example, the results of a poll conducted by the University of Birmingham in 2023 shows 82% of people think “evolutionary processes can explain how all organisms, including humans, have developed and continue to develop”. This includes 76% of those that consider themselves religious or spiritual. What is interesting in that three in five (62%) of the UK public think that a religious member of the public would find evolutionary science difficult to accept. This represents a clear mismatch between what religious people believe themselves, and what people think religious people believe regarding evolutionary science. This is not helped by 20 years of misinformation and propaganda from Richard Dawkins and his ‘New Atheist’ followers. In The God Delusion, a British publication by a British author, Dawkins makes virtually no attempt to recognise that in the UK, most religious people accept the findings of geology and evolutionary science, preferring instead to give the impression that the situation here is the same as that in the US. Much of US Christian religion is in a mess and is here and it is unreasonable to compound it with UK Christianity as if the two are the same. Popular US evangelicalism is intimately tied in to Republican politics and has a long history of anti-intellectualism. How should we tackle tackle this?
Firstly, Christians should learn to read and love the Book of Genesis as a whole and Genesis 1 in particular. God gave the Bible first to the Jews and then to the church. He gave it to do us good. “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16). Genesis is intended to edify not argue about. It is difficult to see how interminable arguments with YECs edify. “Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Tim 6:20). Perhaps we could share the insights into the text of Genesis of Wenham and Blocher. I can recommend Genesis for Normal People by Peter Enns and Jared Byas (2022) as a useful introduction.
Secondly, we might want to reach out to the 60% of people that imagine Christians will necessarily have difficulties with evolution. The statistics show that the overwhelming majority do not. We could therefore mention the largely positive engagement many churches, including the Anglican and Presbyterian churches, had with Darwinism at the end of the nineteenth century. We might also want to describe how modern scholarship based on new insights from archaeology and philology has opened up the meaning of Genesis in unexpected ways. Why? Because we want to ‘rescue’ Genesis from the YECs and their crass literalism since not only do they rob it of spiritual power, they set the agenda for engagement on creation with non-Christians. This is compounded by the misinformation from atheists who are at least as committed to literalism as the YECs. This suits them as they dismiss Genesis as the ravings of “illiterate Bronze Age goatherders” thereby revealing not only their ignorance of Bible literature but also revealing appalling cultural and intellectual snobbery.
It is unlikely that we will convince many literalists, young earth creationist or atheist. They tend to be unshakeable in their conviction that they alone hold the truth. But it might be worth discussing the meaning and purpose of Genesis 1 with the nearly two-thirds of people that think that Christians ought to have difficulties with evolutionary science where this may prove a hindrance to investigating Christianity more fully.
Unconformable Views 