 |
|
|
Given the vastly different creation accounts between the fossil record and the biblical record, we are faced with a daunting task in trying to decide what to make of "The Garden of Eden," and to interpret--in the light of what creation now tells us--the events that are recorded to have happened there. Certainly, science and secular history give us no basis to question the existence of Adam and Eve as actual people, although I would argue that their existence as such is not essential to a continued belief in the truth of scripture. Clearly, their role in the Genesis story is primarily as cast members in the drama we know as "The Fall." ..... Although the different insights provided by Word and Nature in regard to the relationship between God and his creation appear to offer a particular challenge when it comes to the matter of the doctrine of sin, I will make the case that, in fact, both Word and Nature tell us exactly the same story. The only difference is in how the story is told. ..... The Genesis account of the Fall of Man is founded on a creation narrative that has human beings coming into existence already imprinted with the Image of God. That story pictures humanity (Adam and Eve) created in a state of grace and placed into a perfect world. Given that state, a fall from grace was necessary. Otherwise, the human race would not have achieved the state of imperfection with which we have all been clearly identified ever since. ..... So, as the Genesis drama unfolds, we find Adam and Eve living contentedly in the garden, all of their needs provided there and at perfect peace with God and with one another. However, their idyllic existence was not without some constraints. They were permitted to enjoy the fruits of all the trees in the garden...except the one in the middle, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. ..... Then came Satan, disguised as a serpent, determined to beguile the woman, to entice her to eat of the forbidden fruit and to persuade the man to join her. Both of them submitted to the tempter's wiles, ate from the tree, lost their innocence and became wise to the ways of the world. When God discovered their disobedience, he banished them from the garden and condemned them and their descendants to a life of imperfection, sweat and tears. This was "The Fall"--the fall from grace and the biblical origin of original sin. ..... Without question, The Fall is one of the more difficult theological concepts for us to grasp as we struggle to understand our own nature and how that nature influences our personal relationship with The Creator. We accept on faith that we have somehow inherited from our original progenitors a "sinful nature"--an onus that is ours solely because of their disobedience. As such, for most of us, this doctrine constitutes a challenge both to logic and to our sense of fair play. Why, we ask, should we be burdened with this nature simply because those two messed up? ..... Yet, as unjust as the biblical doctrine of original sin appears to be, it is totally understandable--and necessary--given the biblical proposition that humanity began its existence in a state of grace. Somehow the human race needed to be shown the reality that all of the descendants of Adam are sinful by nature and, like Adam, prone to disobedience. "The Fall" gave explanation to how that nature came to be. But, it is a valid explanation only if it is true that the first humans were without sin. So, we find ourselves once again compelled to ask how much of the creation account in Genesis is metaphor and how much is fact. ..... I have contended--and continue to contend--that the basic truths God intended to be conveyed in Genesis are not disputed in any way by scientific accounts of our beginnings. The apparent fact that the creation of the universe began over 10 billion years ago does not alter the fact that God was the creator. The apparent fact that the earth's population of living things is the result of an orderly process that has been in progress for more than three billion years does not alter the fact that this process was following God's divine plan. The apparent fact that biologically modern humans have inhabited the earth for at least 100 thousand years does not alter the fact that these individuals were designed by God to become ultimately a race set apart to fulfill his divine purposes. And, the apparent fact that the Adam and Eve of 4000 BC were neither the first humans on earth nor the first humans in the Image of God does not alter the fact that humanity perpetuates an inheritance of "original sin." The big picture remains unaltered. The difference is in the details. ..... Both the logic and the justice of a "sinful nature" inherited from our forebears become apparent and easily acceptable if, as I have proposed, the soul of man was superimposed on an already-existent, biologically-modern human. In this scenario, the reality of humanity's tendency to disobedience (sinful nature) is not altered from that of the Genesis account. The only way it differs is in the mechanism by which the sinful nature first came into being. In fact, Big Bang II makes the doctrine of sin a lot easier to understand, simply because those human imperfections that provide the impetus to sin were already identifying attributes of the creatures that became the first beneficiaries of God's image. God touched an animal and gave it his image. The animal continued to exist as such. It was simply invested with the capacity, if it chose, to overcome its biological nature and become obedient to its creator. If it didn't elect obedience-- if it continued to pursue the inclinations of its animal origins--this scenario, like the Genesis account, identifies the behavior as sin. ..... In describing this tendency, modern biblical translators have tended to avoid the term "flesh" used in older translations, preferring instead to call it "sinful nature." Perhaps the older translators had a better handle on the meaning the original writers intended. As animals that were, until Big Bang II, unregulated in the expression of our animal nature, we continue to carry that nature with us in perpetual conflict with our image of God. It is our "flesh" that burdens us with sin in a very real sense. ..... Of course, the suggestion that "The Fall" of Adam is simply a metaphor, and not an actual event in human history, has very profound consequences for those of us who have been brought up in the faith believing in the literal account of the origins of sin. The Genesis narrative of Adam and Eve and their encounter with God and the serpent in the Garden of Eden is as real to most believers as any teaching in The Bible. Paul uses the illustration of Adam's fall ("...one man's sin...") to make a point to the church in Rome concerning the gift of grace ("...through the one man, Jesus Christ."). Clearly, we are dealing here with some very fundamental beliefs that are unlikely to be shaken by logical arguments, no matter own well those arguments may be founded in scientific evidence. ..... Fortunately, my goal here is not to challenge beliefs that others hold dear. I am simply providing a witness as to how I, as a scientist and as a believer in God's revelations, find opportunity to glorify The Creator--and better understand what he has revealed--by studying what he created. I don't believe that he expects all of us to see the details in the same way. What he does expect is that we will all see the big picture the same way: that he is the creator of the universe; that we bear his image...but also carry the burden of original sin; that we cannot overcome that burden on our own but need the grace of God through the gift of his Son to be made righteous; that he is worthy of all honor and glory. ..... I am convinced that the community of believers has for far too long allowed secular science to define the issues, assuming the only role left to them--that of reactive critic. Some Christians have become so adept at reacting to secular interpretations of scientific discoveries that there seems to be little else they are capable of contributing in that arena. As a result, when professional scientists within the Christian community attempt to contribute reasoned interpretations of scientific data--motivated by the conviction that those of us who are equipped by education and experience to make those interpretations are called by God to use our gifts in that way--we seem to be routinely relegated to "the enemy camp." I look at the outcomes of modern research and say, "Ain't it wonderful. Now I have one more reason to praise God for the marvels of his creation." Regrettably, many of my fellow believers look at the same data and say. "Ain't it awful. Now we have one more thing to react to." ..... As science continues to uncover evidence that secularists can use to try to cast doubt on the authority of scripture, the Christian community can continue to play "Ain't it awful," or it can begin to realize that The Creator is directing the revelations in that evidence to everyone, and not just to secular scientists. Then the body of believers can become proactive instead of reactive, and begin to take leadership in finding the unity that exists--has to exist--between what God has revealed in his Creation and what he has revealed in his Word.
|