After glancing over the blog recommended above along with some of the comments, I would like to make one more point. I personally don't see evolution as playing a part in the initial creation of the earth. I do take the Genesis account literally. Where I see evolutionary processes taking place is after the actual creation of the various kinds of living organisms. In other words, going back to an example I used once already, God may have created a prototypical song bird and from that one created kind, all other song birds evolved. I also hold a very high view of the sovereignty of God. These are not processes from which God is absent. I strongly believe that God is the creator, that His word is truth, and that he is sovereign over all.

... her comment "young earth creationism doesn't exclude evolution" is an understatement on the magnitude of "some people in America are interested in March Madness."

A 6,000-year-old earth is historically ludicrous, but even a 12,000- or 20,000-year-old earth requires a degree of biological evolution that makes even the most ardent evolutionist more than a little nervous. You're talking about microevolution and speciation at an unimaginable rate.

Unless, of course, you're willing to believe there wasn't a world-wide flood. Which actually works pretty well while still staying true to the original Hebrew text.

Rachel said,

"Keeping in mind that Genesis is a pre-modern text of the ancient Near Eastern tradition, I personally don’t have a problem interpreting the creation account metaphorically"

Why should premodern ancient Near Eastern literature be interpreted as metaphore? Are there other texts from this time & genre that you also would interpret this way?

Though I think that the terms "premodern", "modern", and "postmodern" are useful categorically to generally speak of cultural trends and emphasis, I think they can be seriously overplayed.

I live and work among "premodern" people that have had almost no contact with the outside world. Many of the people whose villages I walked through yesterday believe that I am the spirit of their ancestors, a ghost, returned to show them how to get wealth. They believe the world began when a tear from a crocodile fell and formed the world. They don't ask "where did the crocodile come from?" Their worldview just accepts it. My personal experience with the "premodern" mindset is not that they don't care about science, numbers, or logic. They just use different scientific methods (as Leah points out, science is not about proving the outcome but about the method used to gather the data). They count different things. They reason based on different assumptions.

One example. Here in Papua New Guinea, people are routinely killed as witches. Not occasionally, but frequently. The process usually goes like this: someone gets sick and dies in a village. The scientific assumption that they begin with is that these things don't just happen, they are caused by magic or spirits. The people ask (based on their assumption) who caused this death? They look at motive (who wanted this person dead?), circumstances (has anything else strange happened lately), and ask their spirits for answers (the local witchdoctor provides the communication with the spirit realm). Someone suggests who it must have been and why. If enough people join them (there's incentive to join the mob because your name might be next on the list of suspects) then they torture the "witch" (man, woman, or child). Because they are a "witch" (they may not even know they are a witch) they must be killed and the more intensely they suffer the better for everyone. They are often lit on fire, stoned, slashed with bush knives, etc. It's horrible! It's also entirely logical, calculated, and "modern" from their perspective. Using their assumptions and methods it is as conclusive as a scientist in a lab. If you were to try to "reason" with them, they would think YOU were the one being unreasonable, illogical, primitive and "premodern".

They readily laugh out loud at the idea of man evolving from monkeys. They think that's absurdly stupid but they also believe that the world was formed by the tear of a crocodile.

All this to say, that discounting as metaphor literature because it's "premodern" is actually a very "modern" thing to do. We as people are much more alike across time and culture than we care to admit. There are varying degrees of scientific knowledge, philisophical knowledge, and varying exposure to knowledge of God and His word. However using these terms is very much a matter of perspective. I think there's a little "premodern", "modern", and "postmodern" thinking in all of us. The issue really is doesn scripture tell a story with the authority of God that is over all people, cultures, and time or is it subject to us choosing which interpretation we like.

Personally, I'm "pre-modern" on the theological issue of the trinity. I don't really get it all but I believe the Bible is true so I'm willing to just accept this concept (as much as I can grasp) and live with it. I'm pretty modern about studying the Bible because I believe that is is truth conveyed in a way that people across all time, places, and cultures could understand. My goal is to know what God says. I can know the truth God reveals, but I won't know ALL TRUTH. I am postmodern typically about sin in my life. I excuse my behavior based on circumstances. I try to create ambiguity about whether my actions were really "wrong". I am also very postmodern in a positive way when my relationship with Christ, as I walk by His Spirit, convinces me internally that I must do something that His Spirit prompts me to do. It doesn not mean that all people everywhere must do it, only that I have experienced the prompting of the Spirit and I must obey.

I think it is dangerous to dismiss a book (or large portions) of the Bible as metaphore simply because it is "premodern" while I am "modern" or "postmodern". If the context indicates figurative language, hyperbole, and metaphore there is room. If it is only that it is "premodern", than I fear it is likely that I am placing my own culture, thinking, and desires as the top priority and therefore it wouldn't matter what I was reading I could come to the same conclusion. That is a danger that we would do well to guard against.



I think it would be a much better thing to say, "I read Genesis and I think it's wrong in its historical claims" than to dismiss parts that I don't like as metaphore. I could read a science book

Mitch, reading your last post you use phrases like "discount as metaphor" and "dangerous to dismiss as metaphor." Would you say then that you think metaphor and hyperbole is less valuable than hard facts?

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that metaphor is not a valuable way to communicate. In this situation, there is a large tension between what is literally stated and what is believed by a large portion of the scientific community. That tension goes away if what is literally stated is reinterpreted as metaphor. This is convenient, but I don't think that that means it is the best way to understand the text. In that sense, using metaphor on Genesis "discounts" large parts of the text. I do not mean that metaphor or hyperbole is a less powerful way to communicate, only that I don't believe that this is the way that God communicated to us in Genesis. God did use metaphor and hyperbole throughout the scripture very clearly, I just don't see it in Genesis. If Genesis is not metaphor and hyperbole but is interpreted in this way, it would diminish what is written or change it significantly. That is my fear, because it is not our message to change, it's God's message.

I just went back and reviewed what Dr. Wood's book has to say about post flood diversification. He expresses much better than I do how "speciation" (probably not the best term here, but you get the idea) occured by God's design through various mechanisms in extremely short spurts immediately after the flood much like a fireworks display. If anyone is really seriously interested in the scientific study of creation biology, his book is just top notch! I will say though, if you don't have at least some biology background, it's quite an undertaking to try to pick up and read. But it presents a very comprehensive view of things based strongly in the Bible and in science. I'm currently trying to convince Dr Wood to get involved in this discussion! Hopefully he'll chime in!