Book Review - Science, Creation and the Bible by Carlson and Longman

I remember going to hear Ken Ham (leader of a young earth creationist group) in Belfast sometime in 1991 or 1992. At that point in time, as an 18 year old who had been a Christian for a few years, I had a vague notion that there might be a conflict between science and the Bible but it was not something keeping me awake at night. However, when I went with my church youth fellowship to hear Ken Ham, the conflict became real and it did keep me awake at night. Finally, I had a way to show my non-Christian friends how groundless their belief in the 'religion of science' was. Finally, the Bible was really trustworthy. Finally, I could see how much Evangelical Christianity was actually made up 'compromisers' and therefore could not be trusted. Everything became black and white, all very neat. For me and a few friends, young earth creationism became the test of orthodoxy for how much we trusted other Christians.

Ken Ham not only made the conflict between the Bible and science real, he offered a solution:

• Science is wrong
• The Bible is right

This was in contrast to the liberal compromising Christians, atheistic scientists and other reprobates who claimed:

• Science is right
• The Bible is wrong

Carlson and Longman, both Evangelical Christians and believers in an error free Bible (see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy), see no substantial conflict between the Bible and science, claiming that:

• Science is right
• The Bible is right

Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins by Richard Carlson and Tremper Longman III is a short book on a big topic. Carlson and Longman find the conflict 'satisfactorily resolvable' and 'fully satisfactory to Christians' (p. 12). They do not detail 'the conflict' so the reader will have to look elsewhere to determine if 'the conflict' actually exists and to what extent. I would recommend History of Christian Theology: Creation and the History of Science by Christopher B Kaiser and The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design by Ronald L Numbers. Carlson and Longman do hint at where the conflict can be primarily found,

Christians who read Genesis literally reject this science, regarding it as a faulty, godless and anti-Christian enterprise. Some have made significant efforts to establish the earth as thousands and not billions of years old and to characterize evolutionary schemes as incompatible and erroneous (p. 27).

They also highlight the other direction when scientists step outside their areas of expertise and begin making metaphysical statements about God based on what they have discovered in their laboratories.

In what really sums up their position, the authors go on to say:

If the first two chapters of Genesis present the fundamental character of an ancient Hebrew people rather than a factual scientific account of beginnings that meets contemporary standards, then it is not appropriate to try to reconcile contemporary science with the Genesis accounts (p. 14).

All very neat and simple. Maybe to neat and simple?

The book has seven chapters that aim to show how the reader can also find 'the conflict' to be satisfactorily resolvable. Chapter 1 provides the full text of Genesis 1 and 2 and a description of the prevailing scientific account of origins. It also presents four Christian viewpoints on origins - (1) Creationism, (2) Intelligent Design, (3) Partnership and (4) Independence. This is merely to whet the appetite of the reader as the authors do not have space to fully describe these positions with all of the nuances. For example, the authors state that "The choice in the minds of many Christians is faithful (literal) Bible reading versus atheistic science. Two mistaken ideas underlie this choice. Faithful Bible reading does not always imply literal reading, and science as a whole should not be classified as atheistic but rather as methodologically naturalistic, not metaphysically naturalistic." (p. 27) This is somewhat simplistic and does not deal with the fact that many young earth creationists would agree with them regarding literal Bible reading.

Chapter 2 very briefly addresses the characteristics of theology and science, the role of common sense, sound interpretive processes and how science and theology might inform each other in interpretation. The authors say:

Biblical interpretation (but not the original words of the Bible) may even undergo change or correction in the light of continuing experience and further reflection ... Christian theology needs to pay attention to any source of knowledge that can add relevant information to an issue under consideration. Part of this, derived from experience, may come from sources other than Scripture (e.g. from scientific investigations). (pp. 37-38)

Furthermore,

The use of the Bible requires careful reading and skillful interpretation. Any systematic interpretive method must include the reader's attempt to understand the intent of the biblical writer in delivering a given message to its first hearers or readers. A biblical passage cannot mean something to twenty-first-century readers in contradiction to what it meant to those for whom it was first intended. (p. 46)

Again, Carlson and Longman do not address the fact that many young earth creationists would agree i.e. the original readers/hearers would have understood six real days therefore so should twenty-first-century readers. I am not saying that 'six real days' is what the original readers/hearers understood. But many Christians assume it was.

Pages 58 and 59 contain, what I think are, the key points of the book in relation to Genesis 1 and 2:

The sacred author formed his creation accounts in terms of the scientific and historical understandings of the ancient people of Israel ... We wish to explore the possibility that certain passages in literary works in general and in the Bible in particular are significantly more true when understood in a nonliteral way. In certain cases, a writer will intentionally use the nonliteral genre of story or fantasy ... to convey truth in a more effective way than if the writing were merely factually accurate. The case will be made later that rather than factual accounts, Genesis 1 and 2 function for twenty-first-century Christians as two different stories of creation, stories that describe creation in the form of scientific and historical accounts as understood by the ancient people of Israel, but that are not historically and scientifically factually true by twenty-first-century standards ... A passage of Scripture correctly identified as written in a nonliteral genre is no less inspired than a passage using a literal genre.

I think this is where most young earth creationist Christians will bottle it. "More true" and "not historically and scientifically factually true"? Surely God could inspire something that is comprehensible to the ancient people of Israel and historically and scientifically factually true to the twenty-first-century Christian? Does it have to be either/or? Carlson and Longman do not dig below the surface (although they do quote a bit from Peter Enns 'Inspiration and Incarnation, which I really must get and read).

In chapters 4 and 5, the authors discuss how the Old Testament and New Testament use creation. This is important as they want to uphold the principle of 'Scripture interprets Scripture'. The theory is, if we know how creation texts function in other parts of Scripture then we will be better placed to understand how they function in Genesis. Carlson and Longman say that the creation Psalms are "joyous songs praising God for his creative power, care and wisdom." (p.95) These themes are echoed in Genesis 1, Isaiah 40 and Job 38-41. The New Testament clearly places the creative and sustaining power of all that there is with Jesus. I am not sure that the authors achieve what they want to through Chapters 4 and 5. It seems a little disjointed from the rest of the book.

So what does all of this means for Genesis? According to Carlson and Longman:

Our conclusion is that most likely the Genesis creation narratives are not to be read literally but rather are to be read as stories that have two levels of truth. First, the Genesis 1 account represents the ancient Hebrews' understanding of cosmic history and development, including the earth and its inhabitants. But the sacred author was not as concerned about the factual details as he was about clearly presenting theological concepts understandable by his intended audience, the ancient Hebrews. Genesis 2 has a different theological purpose, and the author did not hesitate to tell a story that contained this truth. The theological messages in these chapters represent the second level, the level under the story of both creation accounts. The first level is irrelevant today because of scientific and cosmological historical understanding. But the second level, the theological level, inspired by the Holy Spirit, contains the message that is relevant for all people yesterday, today and into the future. And it is at this level that the importance of Genesis creation comes to the forefront. In short, we propose that Genesis 1 and 2 are nonliteral accounts, housed in an ancient cosmology and a story of humankind's beginnings, whose purposes are to teach important theological truths. (p. 126)

Again, some of this will be hard to swallow for many young earth creationist Christians. Statements such as "not as concerned about factual details", "The first level is irrelevant today", "because of scientific", and "the second level ... inspired by the Holy Spirit" all require unpacking. Do multiple levels apply to all of Scripture and which levels were inspired by the Holy Spirit? How do I determine what Scripture is 'irrelevant'? Is it right to say any of it is irrelevant? How much trust should I put in the findings of science?

This has been a thought provoking book. I think the authors are on to something by claiming that "Genesis 1 and 2 constitute a worldview statement of the ancient Hebrew people" (p. 134). However, they do not address some key issues that will be important for many Christians. For example, what is the nature of historical science? How much can scientifically untrained people really grasp the significance or lack of significance in historical science and whose word should we take on it? Should it be expected that God would inspire his word to be 'factually accurate' for all times? The reader will have to go elsewhere to begin digging into these issues (I suggest Origins by Loren and Deborah Haarsma as a reasonable source to stimulate thinking on such issues). Carlson and Longman's writing style is reasonably simple (although it could have a few less technical terms). One thing for the IVP editors, at times it seemed as if parts of the book were made from paragraphs cut and pasted from other works by the authors.

In summary, I recommend it for Christians who are scientists (and who could therefore do a better review than me), Christians who are working through these issues because of the questions non-Christian friends have asked them, or for those who are not Christians and think that young earth creationism is the only school in town.