Paradigms, Thought Boxes, and Alternative Views
To see the world as far older than the young earth creationist will allow is not to accept creation by purely natural mechanisms or biological evolution by scientifically unsupported spontaneous generation followed by random, undesigned mechanisms. But to see the world as mere thousands of years in age flies in the face of observation and reasonable scientific analysis that indicate a truly ancient cosmos. This is the consummate conundrum of the modern confrontation between science and the Bible. Adherents to each view are vocal and religious in their argumentation, and the debate rages interminably without any satisfactory resolution, because, in opinion, both sides have serious blind spots in their fundamental views.
It appears to everyone that creation and evolution are the only two positions from which to choose. It also appears that no one is completely comfortable with their choice, since everyone feels it necessary to justify their position by attacking the other. There appears to be no way out of this confounding conundrum on the basis of current assumptions about the two positions in the debate. This is the paradigm, the thought-enclosing box, in which the argument takes place.
But what if there were a third position, another alternative, that would allow for both an ancient cosmos (billions of years) and special creation of all things, inanimate and living, without violating either straightforward Bible interpretation or sound scientific practice? What if both perspectives are correct and could actually complement one other, rather than conflict? Is such an alternative even possible? It may be possible, if we are willing to think outside the current thought-enclosing box and question our assumptions. My purpose in this essay is to suggest and examine just such a third alternative.
Even as I raise this possibility, I can almost sense the resistance and animosity of devotees to the traditional two positions on cosmic origins sharpening the word weapons they will use against any suggestion from outside the box they have fashioned for their debate. This type of box was described by Thomas Kuhn in 1962 in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he noted that any strongly established paradigm (a thought and experiment constraining box), like the creation vs. evolution argument, is not readily discarded for a different paradigm. A paradigm is nothing more than a framework (a confining box) containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community or shared by members of any discipline or social group. Simply put, it is unlikely that adversaries in the creation vs. evolution debate will question the assumptions that frame the conceptual box in which their debate rages.
Despite the challenges of approaching the debate from outside the paradigm (the thought-box) that frames it, I would like to explore a possible third alternative to see if it might not loosen the confounding cords of our conundrum. In order to explore this alternative, we must question the assumptions of our paradigm. So, what are the assumptions?
There is one fundamental assumption that I can identify, and I know that to propose it will elicit howls of protest from both sides of the traditional debate, but especially from creationists of various descriptions because they have invested their Biblical faith in this position. But, I shall attempt to show that changing the fundamental assumption need not diminish Biblical faith, but increase and amplify the virtue and truth of God’s holy word.
The fundamental assumption, or presupposition, shared by all participants in the persistent debate over evolution/ancient age vs. creation/young age is this:
The Shared Fundamental Assumption and a New Assumption
The basic assumption, shared by evolutionists and creationists alike, is that human science and Genesis 1 and 2 describe the origin of one and the same world (Earth and cosmos) in which we all presently live. But what if the world examined by human scientific endeavor is not the world that the Bible describes in the Genesis 1 and 2 creation account? If the two worlds are different, then the debate that has occupied us for more than 150 years is as pointless as the proverbial comparison of apples and oranges. “Preposterous! Ridiculous!” you say? Yes of course, but suggestions from “outside the box” of any widely accepted paradigm are always so regarded initially. They are truly revolutionary. The revolution I am proposing for our conundrum is primarily philosophical. The proposed change in assumption does not violate either true science or the Bible; it just steps outside the paradigmatic box for a different view of the debate.
Acceptance of a new idea, or paradigm, must await research before it is admitted to our common pool of knowledge and achieves acceptance. Where shall we look to research an alternative view, that questions the fundamental assumption outlined above? In other words, how shall we support the alternative fundamental assumption that the creation described in Genesis 1 and 2 of the Bible is not the same world that we observe and live in and that scientists study today?
The physical sciences cannot provide evidence in regard to proposed alternative, since the world we inhabit today is the only world that science acknowledges, and scientific endeavor is limited to examination of this present world by definition. Sometimes some scientists take this definition and extrapolate to the unsubstantiated and unprovable opinion that there is no God (atheism) and the material cosmos is the eternal sum total of reality.
Obviously then, any evidence that our world today is not the same world created by God in Genesis 1 and 2 must come from the Bible. Young earth creationists read Genesis 1 most literally and consistently without inserting the extra-biblical gaps or ages used by old earth creationists, who seek to make the Bible account compatible with a scientifically acceptable ancient earth and cosmos. Young earth creationists read the Bible with greater integrity than their old earth siblings who must add to the divinely inspired account.
But the young earth creationists’ straightforward reading leads them quite logically to their interpretation that this world we inhabit today is mere thousands of years in age, based on the shared fundamental assumption that governs the debate at present. I cannot fault the young earth advocates either for the integrity of their reading or the logic of their interpretation. The problem with it is that extensive observations and legitimate physical earth science indicate that the world is vastly more ancient than the young earth interpretation of Genesis will permit. Did God create the world with the “appearance” of age, so that we are deceived when we observe it, as some young earth interpreters assert? Or is there a flaw in their seemingly logical interpretation of the divine account in Genesis?
Nine hundred years ago the Jewish sage and physician Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon (known as Maimonides) wrote,
“Conflicts between science and religion result from misinterpretations of the Bible.”
Considering Maimonides’ observation, I have examined Genesis 1-3 in the context of the entire biblical text in order to see if there is another legitimate path of interpretation that avoids the difficult-to-defend position of a world mere thousands of years in age. Is there any evidence from the Bible that Genesis 1-3 describes God’s creation of a world other than the one that we currently inhabit? I think that there is, and the presentation of that evidence occupies the remainder of this essay.
My approach is to treat Genesis 1-3 as descriptive of God’s creation of the good world in His eternal realm of Paradise. In the environment of Paradise orderly cause and effect, action and reaction, exist, but not time as the progressively degrading and corrupting entropic progression toward death and disintegration as we know it in our present world.
The Big Objection
In brief, the alternative assumption that I propose is that Genesis 1-3 is describing a world created in God’s eternal presence over six days, followed by God’s rest on the seventh day, just as Genesis reads. Further, the days of creation are all days in God’s eternal realm. Therefore they cannot be days that we can define according to our experience on a 24-hour revolution of Planet Earth in the present fallen world of time.
If this approach is legitimate, and I see nothing in the Biblical text that specifically contradicts it, then there can be no conflict between Genesis and science, because they are describing two different, albeit related, worlds in which human beings are center stage in the divine plan and purpose. The biggest objection to my alternative assumption is the strong, nearly unbreakable, attachment of men in this limited world of time to the shared presumption that science and the Bible are dealing with one and the same world.
Therefore, let me turn to the Biblical text and get on with evidence for my alternative assumption. I shall begin the first words of Genesis—“In the beginning.”
Leave a Reply