Creation and Origins

Wright, Chapter 5; Reece et al., Chapter 22

Principles of Biology I (Biology 113) Notes, 2014

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Genesis 1:1
With this majestic proclamation the Bible opens. And so does
the biblical world view Walsh and Middleton in The
Transforming Vision
My Gods a Big God
He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns
them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes
its pillars tremble Job 9:5-6
He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of
the sea Job 9:8
My Gods a Creative God
So God created man in his own image,
In the image of God he created him Genesis 1:27
"God Did It, but How?" (book by chemist Robert B. Fischer)

Important to look at what questions are being asked

Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand the universe was formed at

God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was
visible."
Scripture vs. science
Concordism: trying to bring data from scripture together with data
from the study of nature; the belief that these two sources will
harmonize if properly understood
Substitutionism: biblical data is substituted for scientific data, i.e.
given a choice, the answer that is seen to be biblical data is thought to
be correct
Complementarism: assumes both biblical truth and scientific
knowledge contribute to a holistic view (they complement one another)
3 interpretations of Genesis 1 (A.J. Milne 1982: Know the Truth)
a. 7 literal days; relatively young earth
b. 7 days represent long periods; old earth
c. no particular order to the events on creation days; old earth
Various rational views of creation can we be dogmatic?

Genesis 1: Day 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was
formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit
of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light
was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light
"day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there
was morningthe first day.

Genesis 1: Day 2
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water
from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the
expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky."
And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry
ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the
gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1: Day 3
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees
on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And
it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to
their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And
God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning
the third day.

Genesis 1: the twenty-four-hour view (Biology Through the

Eyes of Faith p. 86ff)
Genesis 1 = historical and chronological
Creation by God was entirely supernatural plants, animals,
humans recently created fully formed and mature
Before the Fall no corruption and death
Support
Most straightforward reading of the text
Avoids influence of current scientific theories
Interpretations that view text as figurative could be a slippery
slope leading to compromise of scriptural veracity
Possible problems
Proponents of the view sometimes use it as a test of faith
The book of nature is devalued as a source of evidence (e.g.,
evidence of old earth, evolutionary change)
=substitutionist approach
Relies on flood geology to explain appearance of age
2

Genesis 1: the day-age view

Days of Genesis 1 = long periods of time
Trusts both natural revelation and scriptural revelation
= a concordist approach
Sequence in Genesis lined up with scientific findings of
cosmology and earth history
Support
Avoids problems of recent creation (e.g., light from a galaxy 13
billion yrs away began traveling 13 billion yrs ago)
Avoids problems of packing too much into 24 hr days
Makes sense of fossil record that appears to feature sudden
appearances of different organisms (= progressive creation)
Possible problems
Lack of direct correspondence in the sequence e.g., trees
before marine organisms etc., creation of sun after plants
Exegetical weakness of interpreting days as not being 24 hrs
View strongly driven by science is the text trying to answer
scientific questions?
Genesis 1: the framework view
Days of creation arranged topically, not chronologically
Writer was using a literary framework to reflect on relationship of
God to creation and to us
Biology Through the Eyes of Faith Table 5.2
God Forms Creation Kingdoms
God Fills with Creature Kings
Day 1: Light and darkness
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars
separated
created
Day 2: Atmosphere and ocean
Day 5: Birds and aquatic life
separated
created
Day 3: Land and oceans
Day 6: Land-animal life and
separated; land plants created
humans created
Day 7: Creator King enthroned in his Sabbath rest
Support
View maintains historical view of creation, just not as a
chronological history
Views creation from a non-scientific perspective in common
with the authors and early readers of Genesis
Does not conflict with scientific evidence
= a complementarist approach
Possible problems

suffocates the miraculous God worked through ordinary

means
View ignores church history historically theologians in 24 hr
camp
Proponents may hold an old earth view, evolutionary view of
creation

5 major views: Interpretation of scripture and science

Genesis
Science
1. Young Earth Creation
24 hr days relies on flood geology
2. Progressive creation
day-age
history of life governed by
God in stages
3. Evolutionary creation
framework sustained processes directed
by God
4. Deistic evolution
figurative God only needed at the
beginning
5. Atheistic evolution
fiction
matter has
always existed, selfsustaining
If Christians hold varying views (i.e. 1-3), important to approach the
question from a theological perspective. This is echoed by Keith Miller
(1993):
In the debate over the proper understanding of the Genesis account, most attention
has seemed to focus on the scientific merits of various creation scenarios. What has
largely been lacking in these debates is a consideration of the theological
implications of these various interpretations for our understanding of the character of
God, the relationship of God to His creation, and the relationship of us to the rest of
creation.

A short history of the creation and evolution controversy

(Mark Noll 1994: The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind
in 1880 Asa Gray, a conservative Christian described Darwin's
theory of natural selection as supporting God's providential
design
towards the end of the 19th century, science became
increasingly powerful modern-day "creationism"--the effort to
construct an alternative science based directly on the Bible
in the early 20th century, geologist George Price wrote works
arguing for a "simple" or "literal" reading of Genesis
a small following developed, but not endorsed by the ASA
(American Scientific Affiliation), a Christian organization formed

in 1941 (their journal "Perspectives on Science and Christian

Faith" is in the TWU library)
major breakthrough for scientific creationism in 1961 when John
Whitcomb (theologian) and Henry Morris (hydraulic engineer)
published The Genesis Flood
since then, the creation science movement has had a great
impact on Christian response to scientific theories of evolution
recently intelligent design has also gained popularity as an
alternative to blind evolution

Job 38-41: God declares the mystery of Creation

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you
understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who
stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or
who laid its cornerstone--while the morning stars sang together and all
the angels shouted for joy?" (38:4-7)
"Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many
years!" (38:21)
Bibliography
Faulk, Darrel R. 2004. Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between
Faith and Biology. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Fischer, Robert B. 1981. God Did It, but How? Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Mich.
Miller, K.B. 1993. Theological implications of an evolving creation Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith 45: 150-160.
Milne, A.J. 1982. Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, Illinois.
Noll, M.A. 1994. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. William B. Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, Mich.
Walsh, B.J. and Middleton, J.R. 1984. The Transforming Vision. InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, Illinois.
Whitcomb, J.C., Jr., and Morris, H.M. 1961. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and
its Scientific Implications. Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia, PA.
Wright, R. T. 2003. Biology Through the Eyes of Faith. HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Origins (Chapter 22) Descent with modification: A

Darwinian View of Life
Darwins quest to explain the adaptations, unity, and diversity
of what he called lifes endless forms most beautiful Reece
et al. p. 485
The Mechanism: Natural Selection
Observation #1: Members of a population often vary in their
inherited traits

Observation #2: All species can produce more offspring than

their environment can support ,and many of these offspring
fail to survive and reproduce
Inference #1: Individuals whose inherited traits give them a
higher probability of surviving and reproducing in a given
environment tend to leave more offspring than other
individuals
Inference #2: This unequal ability of individuals to survive and
reproduce will lead to the accumulation of favorable traits in
the population
over generations
Natural Selection: Big Questions
1. How much change is possible?
2. Does natural selection account for microevolution and
macroevolution?
3. How much evolutionary history can be inferred from
circumstantial evidence?
4. How can random changes in DNA lead to a seemingly well
designed creation?
Evolution: 4 lines of evidence
1. Direct observation

If an organisms environment changes, do we see natural

selection occur?

Soapberry bugs most efficient if their beak length matches the

distances to seed in fruit

Scott Carroll et al. studied two bug populations

Carroll et al. found beak lengths shorter in populations feeding

on introduced species

Introduced goldenrain tree has a flatter fruit

Tree was introduced 35 ago, so beak size has changed in a

relatively short time

Caroll, S.P. and C. Boyd. 1992. Host race radiation in the

soapberry bug: natural history with the history. Evolution 46:
1052-1069

Evolution of drug-resistance in bacteria (e.g., MRSA =

methicillin-resistant S. aureus) is a serious issue

2. Biogeography
this is what first suggested descent with modification to
Darwin

e.g., why are finches on the Galapagos Islands from the same
family of finches, yet varied more ( (e.g., in beak structure)
than mainland finches?

Why are there more endemic animals and plants on islands?

3. The Fossil Record

has often been criticized for failure to find the missing link

whales thought to have descended from land mammals

fossils show reductions in pelvic bones in presumed whale

ancestors

4. Homology
Provides circumstantial evidence for evolutionary history
Different types of homology tend to corroborate e.g.,
anatomical molecular
Homology: anatomical
comparative anatomy looks at structures assumed to be
homologous
e.g., bats wing and whale flipper homologous --basic bone
structure thought to be shared with their common ancestor
Homology: embryological
closely related organisms go through similar stages in their
embryonic development
7

e.g., pharyngeal pouches common to all vertebrate embryos

Homology: molecular
DNA and proteins are complex

DNA may be seen as the word God uses in creation (Biology

Through the Eyes of Faith)

Did God use very similar words in different organisms in

separate creations (including quirks like gene duplications) or
is the wording a product of his continuous creative activity?

Molecular biology tools that probe the history of life on earth

can also be employed to probe human historye.g., via the
Genographic project https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=WM-3x3tK9n4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfJib3Xh8A

Biblically, humans are distinct from all other creatures

(made in Gods image Genesis 1:27)
Where are you, Adam? Can scientific and religious
perspectives converge?