c0694
THE CREATIOI.{ STORY OF
Genesis
Does
lt Heally
Contradict Evolution?
a
o
A struggle is raging over the Book of Genesis:
"Creationists Atrack Evolution l"; "scopes II:
Monkey Trial Revisited!"; "Are Humans Made
in tbe Image of God or Ape?" Those are some
of the headlines that have shown up with some
regularity during the past 15 years or so. Yet
many of us scratch our heads and ash Who are
creationists? Wbat does Scopes tr,mean? Is the
evolution debate still important?
\n th\s Update, we'll take a iook at both
sides of the evoiution debate and explore a
Catholic understanding of creation.
Evolution's evolution
"
f
f
I
-I-
n the beginning, when God created the
heavens and the carrh..." (Genesis l:l).
enfone prcking up a Biblc in English a
cenrury and a half ago and reading this
verse would most likeiy have been told in a
footnote, "This happened in the year40(H e.c."
(Some Bibles even went on to specify that
humans were created on October 23, and at
9:00 a.m. !) Scholars had arrived ar these
dates by calculations based on the
various chronological refercnces
given in the Old Testament. ODe
could safely call this the "common
belief" of the time.
Yet questions were being raised.
During the 1800's, the growing science of
geology was showing more and more
convincingiy rhar the age of the earth had to
be considerably older than that, oider in fact by
perhaps miilions of yean! Some traditionalist
Christians, trying to salvage whar was for them
the truth of the Bible, resorred to adjusting the
days of Genesis to agree with geoiogical
eras-+eaching, for example, tbat'one day" in
Genesis really corresponds to thousands of
years. At best this was an uneasy accommoda-
tion.
by Michael D. Guinan, O.F.M.
!1994. sT' AtlThoNY MESSENGEn PReSs, r615
A bigger shock lay ahead, In 1859, Charles
Darwin published brs Ongin of Species ia
FtEPUBLJC sT., crNclNNATt, oH 45a10. pHoTocopytNG pRoHtB|TED
EDITOR: JACK WINTZ. O-F.M. MANAGING EDITOFI: JOHN EOOKSEF FE,STEF AaT DInEcToF: JULTE LoNNEMAN
u'h'ich he argueC from scientific datr foi
ilr. e'"liuiilir i,1 .pcl:c.-ine:uLling
h r rmr n s-rhror roh a nrncess of natural
seiection. According to his theory, we
were in some way descended from the
apesl Conservative Christians saw this as a
frontal attack on the Bible and responded
accordingly. Darwin became in their eyes
(and continues to be) an enemy of God's
word.
'Old-time religion' versus
'newfangled science'
he stage was thus set for a
conflict between evolutionists
(who looked to evolution for a
scientific account of the worid)
and creationists (who insisted on a hteral
reading of the Genesis creation account).
In the United States, evolutionism versus
creationism came to a head in the summer
of 1925. ln March of that year, the Slate of
Tennessee had passed a law forbidding
anvone to teach anything in the public
schoois that was opposed to the Bibie.
This had been aimed especiaily at attempts
to teach the "evil doctrine" of evolutron.
Some citizens thought that this law
was illegal; it represented a violation of
the separation of Church and state. Lookino
fnr *t ipat .qcc
..,b,"^
therr ennrnached
e
young bioiogy teacher, John Thomas
Scopes, who had recendy finished his
studies at the University of Kentucky and
was now teaching in the small town of
Dayton, Tennessee. He agreed to take part
and was brought to trial.
The Scopes Trial was held in Dayton
July 10-25. i915. lt became an incernational three-ring circus. Journahsts came
from all over; the recentlv invented radio
played its part. Scopes was defended by
one of the beslknown liberal iawyers of
thc dqrr Clr.e.."
nctr^u/
f-n-
f-hireon
Not to be outdone, the prosecution brought
in an equal)v prominent poiitical figure.
William Jennings Bryan. to defend religion and the Bible. Scopes was convicted
(the sentence was Iater overturned on a
technicality), bur. on rhe national scene.
conseivative Christians had been made to
looli iixrlish. Frorl then ()n. tirev tendecl to
u, jthcilaw f i'unt thc puLriic c1,e lntl dcrciopr
their own institutions.
.\nior!. lhese ri',sLiluLiuns neie a nunt-
ber de.,,oteC to arsuins ihat indeec f ire
(lcIc-
s J.r'i]Llni trl tiiltlt,,{l
hii: !,)tfaar
renrislrfill i ntriiculri Lrndetsflrding rf
i
r'.-
and the screntific evclutionisrs were
wronq.
The
earlv 1960's saw a revival of
_
'''""c
such creationist literature and the founding
of new groups such as the Creation
Research Society (1964). The 1970's saw
an even greater spread (connected in some
Trial il.. ' ln
the originel Tennessee trial. ir was a clear
case of a conservative. Iiteraiisric reading
of the Bible against ihe new discoveries of
ways with the rise of the so-called Moral
Majority movement in politics) and an
important shift in tactics. Insread of
arguing to suppress the teaching of evolution, creationists besan to appeai ro the
religious position. bur now ir tries to pass
as a scientific position.
In opposing creationism, the various
court cases have shown this by drawing on
wrtnesses representlng marnstream religious bodies, Protestant. Catholic and
Jewish. The majority of Christians and
Jews see no contradiction between the
findrngs of science and a proper understanding of the Bible.
American sense of fair play. They went to
court to argue for equal time in publicschool science classrooms.
POPE JOHN PAU'L
II
recen'- ca.ses rea)11 a "Scooes
science, In the present debates, creationism is in fact the same conservative
What does creafion mean,
anyway?
a.
on Evolutlon
.:.
The Bible itself
speaks to us of the
origin'of the universe and its maket,upi not in order to provide us with a;
scientific treatise but in order,to; ,;,ii
stale the correct relationships qf
:humanitv-with God and with the: :,
.universet. Sacied SCr.iptr-rre wishes .
:simplV io declar:e that'the:wbr:ld was
created by God, and in or:der, to
teach this truth it expresses itself in
':the terms of the cosrnology in use al
iithe
,
tirne of ,thewrjter.,..
r;.:' . .
.
'Any other teach'ing about the origin
and makeup of the universe is aiien
to the intentions of the Bible, which
toleach us,how
heaven gogs but how onergoes to
.'does..not wish
heavbn.:'
:
and Vaof Spi 'rual ::. :.': l.
,Heritage,lladdrcsr of Pope John Pail'llro:the : r.
'-:lScicrrin" Raeucl
Ponilfial Aedcmy of Scieocu. October 3, J981.
Their arqumenrs here show a curious
shifi in point of view: (1) Evolution is a
scientific hypothesisl so is creation science. (2) Evolution is not real1y a scientific position at all but an expression of
atheistic humanism and thus a religious
doctrine; creationism likewise is a religious doctrine resting on falrh in God's
word in the Bible. Eirher wav. crear:onism
deserves eqr-ral tinte. thgf insislgd.
ln all erl jts ei,lLr-t cLrscs. up lo Lutd
:nclrrd:no rhe T' S Srrnr-11g Court ,Julv
i98l t. creaiiuni.s;it jt:'s losL. Ii iras bc:n
recognized and affirmed that ciearionism
is through-and-throush a rehsious posirion
n
fLall the
Lllc lQth
rTLu usilLury,
^cnft,r\/ Llrtrll, SOme
discoveries of geology and biology
were raising questions about the
common understanding of Genesis.
Yet otber scientific discoveries were help-
ing us better to understand rhe biblical rcxt
en..l tho
r.,-e
ni lito'"t',.-
1'L
r3Drescn:i.
Archaeology u as unccvering )ong-losr
documents from the ancient Near East
(Egypt, Syria-Palestine, Nlesoporamia);
ancient languaees were being srudied anc
deciphered. Now we had documents from
the same era and same region as rhe Brble.
Among these was a famous Babylonian
creation account which showed both similarities to and differences fiom rhe bibiical
accounl.
By the end of the century, mainstream
religious bodies had begun to sort out rhe
alnrren' eonrlict \erweeq scignce and
religion. Thev realizeci that the whoie
controversy was a false debatel science
and religion are two areas which ask
different questions and approach thrnes in
different wavs. Thus Fope Leo XIII coujc
ad'irm air:adv in Provdentissimus Deus.
the first major enc,vclical on biblical
studies (1893;. tha'- there is no necessarv
opposition between the Ciscoveries of
science anci the biblical :eachins becruse
the bibiicll ,r,rilers *,ere not trr,ing to teitci'i
us ulruul. sricncg. Tirelr ivele sintply ciese : ibins things in the more-or-less fisurative
.:nlLrL: -,n.ll1\.n;\ u,u.i r. li,rl .-li,c.
If
we ;eao Genesis carefullr. we can
Ancient
indeed arrive at some unde:stanCing of
hr,r'.r. :i,c rirciiNi i:i.lcii';f 5 r lc''r:.1 iie
'.rirIitl \\'rthirLri ihc hancfii ()i liite:' \clenri1ie
---\
>-\
djssoicries. tilcil r'ic*p'liut "r'iis laiily
*lvlN
)-r
simple, based on commonsense observa-
>f
1Y'
'll
\ni
trons.
Briefly. at the beginning there is only
dark, windy, watery, formless chaos (Genesis 1:2). A dome (cajled the firmamentsomething firm, solid) separates the waters
/ \\)
\\'\.
,
,\ \
ll
above and the water beiow the earth. There
must be waler above because water comes
down when it rains; waler is below
because it comes up in rivers, springs and
welis. The firmament contains wtndows
L:^L ^^aF
-/ l1\
LL/ "wrlrLlrvuvrr
t"'flnndoatec"-Geneqis
ijohrorrr
ll--n qmnln^rr
Coiumns ot the Earth
to let the rain come down. They usually
cannoi be seen because, when it rains, dark
z
-
co
z
o
clouds block our view of the firmament.
The earth. certtinly tlat, sits on the wi]lery
abyss below, while the heaveniy bodiesthe sun; moon and stars-move around it.
The earth, according ro rhis viewpoint. is
fixed f,irm and immovable (see Psalm
93:1; 104:5).
This is a prescientific view shared, not
surprisingiy, with other peoples of the
ancient Near East. The biblical writers
were people of rheir own piace and timel
lf we were to interpret every bit of Genesis
Iiterally, we would accept all of this as
scientific fact. Obviousiy, we do not
what the word creation means. There is no
creation without a Creator: The two
belong together. Creation is a thoroughly
religious concept; it is not a scientific
concept at all.
(neither do the creationistsl); nor should
we. Genesis is not a scientific text. It has
more important, religious things to teach
also addresses the place and
role of human beings. Men
and women are made in the
image of God (Genesis I:26-27).'V'/har
does this mean? Two things are essential:
First, to be an image is to be a reflection of
someone or something else. It is to be not
number one but number two. God is
Number One. As with ail of creation,
humans too can be understood most
deeply oniy in light of our fundamental
relarionship to Cod. To be an image, then.
begins with the humble recognition and
acceptance of that fact: We are images,
us.
"ln
the beginning, when God cret'Genesis I'l ) From the first
sentence it is clear that the subject and
ared ''
central focus of the chapter is God. On the
f,rrst three days, God exercises dominion
over the forces of chaos and calls into
existence a harmonious universe. Then
God fills this world with beings that move
and live within it. God speaks, creates,
makes, calls, names, blesses, aPproves.
The oniy trme something eise is the focus
of this text is when it responds to God's
call. The world and all that is in it extst
oniy in and because of this call of God.
The world simpiy cannot be understood ar rts deepest level apart from the
God who caiis, creates and cares for it.
Nor is this a statement simpiy about an
+rrenr rhrr hcnnened
n
n.p 1t r eerrntn notnt
ls lrue rl iht.: mtnute
as it was in rhe beginnrng. This is in lact
r,f tinrc ion!
lro. Ii
is
Humans: lmage of God or ape?
ithin this context,
Genesis
creatures of God.
Second. how are we to live out our call
to imagehood? We remi:mber that the
people of the Bible were forbidden to
make images of God (Exodus 20:4); they
elso attacked the god-images of the
nations around about them. The recurring
critrcism is that these images "have eyes
but see not, ears but hear nof" (Psalm
115.15-l8t I.sairh i.-l:9-10. Jeremiah 10. l-
9t. The images are dead, they can do
nothing.
The living God of Israel can be
authentically imaged only by living beines
who do what God does. God wants human
beings to be that image. A twofold
command follows the creation of humans:
Be Iife-giving and have dominion (Geneqis l'7R) We imaoe God's life-oivino
clearly, by begettrng new iife, but there is
more involved tban this. A11 of our efforts
to nurture, foster and improve the quality
of life all around us also reflect God's
iife-giving. We image God's dominion by
our sharing in God's activity of overcoming the forces of chaos and destruction
which continuaily threaten both our physical and social worids.
The commission "to have dominion"
often is misunderstood today. Some would
say that with these words, rhe Bible has
taught its readers to be oppressive dominators of the earth. Yet the biblical text does
not simply say "have dominion," but
rather have dominion in the image of God
ft . 26\. To have dominion is not a license
to exploit and destroy the universe, but is
an invilation to share and reflect the same
iond of iife-giving dominion that God has
just shown in the act of creation. When we
bring light to the darkness. warmth to the
cold, healing to the sick: this is true
donrin ion,
As htrmrn heinqs thnrroh rlirh fre--
dour. we can re.ject the call to inrasehood,
r\o -h.rt-^d6 '^ Fofld^r e od in oup lives.
-:-.r .raa-ri-q rr hr,.i- -.rll,-V, l;t CClt jl..
\\ ]riit htlpltr'ns \\ hen \\'e do liris.
t.ir-, rrt-rt v\altl tLr be inrages,-li
wouid
they
rather be gods iGenesis
Cod:
violate
They
the corrimand of God.
3:51.
,rf)\\
Lls
ALiant and Erc
and what ensues? Instead of girine life.
rhey bring deeth lnstead oi building up a
harmonious universe. they break things
down. This becomes especially clear in the
stories that follow the disobedience of
Adam and Eve: the stories of Cain and
Abel, Noah and the flood, and the Tower
of Babel.
lllF uul
^','
.^r;^^.
4LllullJ
tnrlor'
LUu4)
^orrqe
uduru
ecnlnoierl
uewruErr4r
collapse. poliution of the air and the water,
destruction of the ozone layer, this is not
in the image of God's dominion. If our
actions tear apart the social body with fear,
ignorance. hatred, division, this is not in
the image of God's dominion. The biblical
text points to the problem: \Ae reject being
God's image and instead try to play Godl
By their fruits you will know them.
-r-^
Chrisru Jdj/,
"^" 4J
^" lrl4rrJ
rullu
-^'' €"-''lamentalist
tians do. "We are made in the image of
God, not in the image of an ape,"
.anif'ests a radical misunderstanding of
the meaning of Genesis. It assumes that
God could not have crerted through an
evolutionary process. The Genesis call to
image God is a religious call rooted in our
vision of faith. It is not in any way a
statement of science or evolution.
Sabbath or science?
disordered chaos. Where does it
end? Not with the creation of
humans, but rather wtth all of creation
sharing in the grand sabbath rest of God.
Celebrating the sabbath, the seventh
day of rest. was an important part of the
religrous life of ancient Israel. It is
mentioned often in the Old Testament,
inciuding the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8-i1 ; Deuteronomy 5: 12-15). On
the sabbath, Israel rested from its ordinary
activities, its everyday work and routine,
and devoted time to remembering God and
hat God had done on its behalf. It was a
Llav to recognize and acknowiedge God's
lordship over all of creation and over all of
llre
i
week, with six days for working and one
for sharing in the sabbath of God. They do
not conespond in any way to geological
eras. They are not attempting to describe a
timeline of science or history. To read
them in this way is seriously to misunderstand biblical teaching.
What is the basic problem in the
creation-versus-evoiution debate? The creationists take the biblical text and i.nsist on
extracting scientific information from itvery seiectively, at that. Their scientific
conclusions are decided in advance by
their inlerpretation of Genesis. Creationists reduce profound, faith-rooted religious
affirmations to the levei of scientific
of creation in
Genesis I.l-2:4 begins with
he bibhcal story
(h,_\oous
ancient Israel that the biblical writers
vr,anted to show rhat it is roorcJ in the u'er)
\llr.rctLlre ol crrrtiorr itseif . So Cod i.
p|escrtLcri l.r: bIirt,uing irirt-'Lrt thr: rLnircisc
by working ibr six days and then resting
on the sabbath. Thus the sabbath marks the
end and climax of God's creative work.
From our human standpoint, however, our
life and history begin with the sabbath; the
first fuil day on which the universe and all
its creatures exist is the sabbath day.
During the workdays of our lives, we
may, and often do, fall away and forget
God, neglecting to live as God's images.
But when we gather to celebrate sabbath,
we are calied to attention and set once
again on the right track. We and the
universe are most fully God's creation
when we gather to worship. At worship we
recognize our creaturehood and dependence on God; we rededicate ourselves to
living out our call to imagehood. The
creation which Genesis sets before us is
not only the physical universe and its
parts, but also a moral and theological
universe which recognizes and responds to
God's call. If we faii in this, we are not
creation but chaos.
The seven days of Genesis reflect the
explanations.
On the other side, some scientisrs use
mistaken; they make ihe same mistake.
They confuse reiigious truth (based on
faith, about ultimate value and meaning)
with scientific statements (based on experiments, scientific observation and the
like). Both extremes tend to see the debate
in eitherior rerms: either creation or
evolution.
But there is another way of understanding creation and evolution. That way
is the one where most Jews and Christians,
Protestant and Cathoiic, find themselves:
Evolution is a scientific explanation which
stands or falls on scientific grounds:
creation is a statement of fairh about the
uhimrte relatedness of evervthing and
everyone to God, which is true regardless
of any particular scientific explanation.
One can be a true Christian with faith in
the biblical teaching and maintain evolution as a scientific explanation.
This middle position is really not all
that new in the history of the Church. As
long ago as 400 x.p., St. Augustine. in
discussing Genesis, wrote, "One does not
read that the Lord said. 'I will send you the
Paraclete who will teach you about the
course of the sun and the moon.' For he
willed to make us Chrtstians, not mathematicians." This was reaffirmed by Pope
Leo XIII ( 1893), "There can never, indeed.
be any real discrepancy between the
theologian and the physicisr. as long as
each one confines himself within his own
lines...."
What Genesis affirms is as true today
as ever. I[ contrnues to chailenge us to
recognize our relationships with all creation and all peoples. These relationships
are rooted in our common reiationship to
God. ln light oi that. we are commissioned, challenged and inspired to live as
images of the God of life and crearion. I
Michael D. Guinan, O.F.M., S.T.L., Ph.D.,
from The LiturgicaL
I : I J-1 / ).
Press.
Nexl: Teen Pregnancy: What Families and
Parishes Can Do (by Linda Allison-Lewis)
( illOElDE-.
is
professor of Old Testament, Semitic languages
and biblicaL spirirualiry at the Franciscan School
ofTheologt, Berkeley, California. He also teaches
at the Franciscan theology school in the Philippines. His Latest book, To Be Human Before God:
Insights from Biblical Spiriruality. ls forthcoming
The sabbath was so important to
llvlPRllvlATUF. -CAFL
scientific findings to beiiule reiigious
irith. In the process. ther, show tireir own
rr.rislrncie r-stlncling of ri h:rt re iigion is ubout
and rtielcly put scietrue in iL: pliLce.
\ot onlv are both these posirions
V.G
a\