8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

1/53

Spring 2011 Vol. 44, No. 2IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

2/53

A PUBLICATION OF CONCORDIA UNIVERSIT Y, SEWARD, NEBRASK A

Perspectives on Human Beginnings

Spring 2011 Vol. 44, No. 2

Refections

Rev. Dr. Brian L. Friedrich, President

Editorials

Science & Theology: Two Ways o KnowingDr. Jack M. Schultz

Human Beginnings: Biblical PerspectivesDr. Joel D. Heck

Human Beginnings: LCMS PerspectiveDr. Robert Weise

Human Beginnings: Evolutionary PerspectivesDr. Roderick B. Soper

Human Beginnings: Creation Research Society PerspectivesDr. Erich A. von Fange

Human Beginnings: Intelligent Design Perspective

Dr. John C. Jurchen

Teaching about Science & Religion in Lutheran ClassroomsDr. Brent Royuk

Book Reviews

3

Editor

Editorial CommitteeEditorials

Book Reviews Associate Associate

Graphic Design

Copy Editorrinting and Circulation Coordinator

Beginning with this edition , the publication of Issues in Christian Educationwill be available online only.

We encourage all LCMS pastors, elementary and high school teachers, pre-school educators, DCE s, deaconesses,ministers of music, lay leaders, interested congregational members, university and seminary faculties, district

and Synod o ces and libraries to visit www.cune.edu/issues and simply complete the sign-up form on the page.

Questions can be directed to Holly Matzke at 800-535-5494 , ext. 7279 or at holly.matzke@cune.edu.

Marvin Bergman, Ed. D., Ph. D.

Russ Moulds, Ph.D.Paul Holtorf, M.Div.,Ph.D.Daniel Thurber, A.D.Brian L. Friedrich, M.Div., Ph.D.Seth A. Boggs, B.F.A.

Marlene Block, B.A.Holly Matzke

4

8

14

20

26

32

40

46

52

IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

3/53

CONCOR DESIGN STUDIOA Student + Faculty Design Collaborative

TYPEFACES USED IN THIS PERIODICALTitles set in 22 point Mrs. Eaves Roman (Emigre of

Sacramento). Tracking normal.Subheads set in 13/13 point Mrs. Eaves bold.By-lines and author information set in 13/13 point

Mrs. Eaves small caps.Footers and folios set in 11 point Mrs. Eaves.Feature articles set in 11/13 point Mrs. Eaves.Three column text set in 9/10 point Mrs. Eaves.

Layout, design and illustration by CONCORDesignof Concordia University, Seward, Nebraska.

Artist: Adam Birt

Welcome to the rst online edition of Issues in Christian Education.It is my continued prayer that this journal will edify you and bless your service to church and world. As you have feedback about thenew format of Issues, please contact the editor, Rev. Dr. MarvinBergman, or me.

The editorial committee of Issueshas had the current edition,Perspectives on Human Beginnings, on its agenda for some time.Some outside the committee have suggested, Its about time youtook up this issue. Others have asked, What are you thinking?Do you want to enter where angels fear to tread? So you mightask: What are we thinking as we explore a variety of perspectiveson one of the more controversial and vexing issues in Christian

education today? Fair question.Let me speak for the editorial committee. The goal of thisedition of Issuesis to foster study and discussion of the issuespresented in the articles, editorials, and book reviews. When theeditor presented a proposal for this edition to the committee,

we agreed on the following focus and rationale.Focus: Questions related to human beginnings will be explored

in the context of biblical, theological, evolutionary, Creationism,Intelligent Design and educational perspectives. The focus is theperspective of each discipline, with inter-disciplinary questionsand critiques being the responsibility of the reader. With eachdiscipline making its own case, the goal is to foster study

and dialogue.Rationale: Ever since Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man

wrote (described by a literary critic as the most explosive sentencein the English Language), We thus learn that man is descendedfrom a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointedears a debate of the origins of humankind has been ongoing.Today, when students who are Christians encounter evolutionary perspectives in the sciences, they often question the validity of biblical perspectives, with some even rejecting the faith. Thisedition will provide teachers of the church and other readers withan opportunity to become clearer about the purpose, goals, andmethods of the sciences and biblical studies and their perspectiveson the origins of humankind, the issues that are raised, andeducational approaches to the issues.

The theme for Concordia University, Nebraskas 117 th academic year is: You give life to everything (Nehemiah9:6 b). May thestudy, re ection, discussion and debate that this edition engendersgive praise to our Creator God and Father for life that only He cangive and sustain.

Brian L. Friedrich, President

reectionsreections

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

4/53

4

the moon and stars, which you have set inplace, what is man that you care for him,and the son of man that you care for him?

Yet you have made him a little lower than theheavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominionover the works of your hands; you have putall things under his feet (Psalm 8).

As for questions of human origins, or theorigin of life, it remains our duty and joyfulprivilege to confess what Scripture reveals,that in the beginning God created theheavens and the earth, and created a manand a woman, human beings. God delightsin community and fellowship, and it is littlesurprise that His whole creation re ects thatawesome mystery we call the Holy Trinity,

which is a unity of persons, an eternalfellowship of divine communion within the

very Godhead itself. He created man and woman to enjoy fellowship and community with one another, and most importantly, with Him. This is what the God who is Loveintends for us and His creation.

It is tempting for Lutherans today to think they can wed the theories of evolution with the biblical account, but

nally, and ultimately, there are substantialphilosophical tenets of evolution that areincompatible with Holy Scripture, try as

we might either to pretend this is not so,or work to make it seem as if it is not so. Anyone advancing any view of origins thatinvolves a creating intelligence is going to beridiculed and scorned by secular academiaas hopelessly irrelevant.

Thoughtful, intelligent engagement with the sciences has been a hallmark of classic Lutheranism since the time of theReformation itself. Lutheranism has never

e d itor i als

Do You Know Where You Are From?

Have you noticed how interest in tracing ones roots is increasing? You can now evenpay to have yourDNA analyzed and learn what

secrets there may be in your family history. A recent TV show featured celebrities nding out what their genetic history actually is, with some interesting surprises. It is said you can never really know where you aregoing, unless you understand where youcame from. As Gods dearly loved chi ldren, we know precisely where we are from and where we are going.

The question of origins is of intenseinterest and ever more so among people who feel cut adrift f rom their roots, from

a life that has meaning. Science can o erhelp to only a degree with such issues. When Charles Darwin developed his theoriesabout the origins of the species, he had noidea just how complex life really is. Life isirreducibly complex, to use a key phrasefrom the Intelligent Design movement.The advent of quantum physics has throwneverything we thought we knew about how things work into chaos, so to speak. We now face a reality that is more fantastical thanthe best science ction ever written. It seemsthat the Creator has a way of staying one stepahead of curious onlookers.

It seems that the more we learn about the

nature of this planet, and the universe itself,the more mysterious it becomes. The closer we are able to look into the atom itself, we

nd yet more to see, more to nd, more todiscover. The farther out into the universe we can see with orbiting telescopes andsatellites, the more amazing and beautifulis the cosmos that God created. How can we not say in wonder: O LORD, when Ilook at the heavens, the work of your ngers,

viewed science as some sort of bad guythat must be opposed; rather, Lutheranshave recognized the vocation of scientistto be a noble one. After all, it was theLutheran mathematician, George Lauchen,a student at the University of Wittenberg,

who was instrumental in the publication of Copernicus On the Revolutions of the HeaveSpheres, published just before Copernicusdied in 1543. But when science begins to work against the revealed truth of God as we have it in the Scriptures, this is where we will have con ict.

Do you know your roots? Do you know where you are from? If you do happen to

have aDNA test, you may discover that yourlong lost relatives from generations ago arepeople from places in the world you neverimagined they could be from. Should thatcome as a surprise? Since we are all childrenof Adam and Eve, it should not. And mostimportantly, in Christ, we are all childrenof Abraham, sons and daughters of thepromise of eternal life, given to our rstparents, and throughout all generations.The God who created us male and female,is the God who loves His whole creat ion, tothe point of becoming Incarnate among us,to redeem us and make it possible to enjoy the everlasting fellowship with Him that was

His intention in the beginning.

The Rev. Paul T. McCainPublisher

Concordia Publishing House, St. LouisPaul.Mccain@cph.org

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

5/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

Human Beginnings:Seven Issues

Can we teach the church about humanorigins issues? Maybe, but not easily.Origins is a problematic subject for usbecause sustaining the discussion demandsthat we manage no fewer than seven relatedissues, any of which can move the originstopics in di erent directionsdirectionsin which the Gospel may or may not berightly exercised.

Before we inventory those seven issues,note that complex teaching challengesare not unique to origins. For example,teaching Johns Revelation presents severalhermeneutic and historical hurdles andis not suitable for a brief, light treatment

given the many distortions this book hassu ered in both the church and the media.Or consider Pauls intricate argument forgrace in Romans 1 - 11. Another exampleis the two kingdoms doctrine. Niebuhrs variations of Christ and Culturealert us thatthe church has attempted at least ve ways tounderstand how the church and the worldare related (and Niebuhrs concepts are not

nal and de nitive.) So the church alwayshas teaching challenges.

But origins issues present a specialchallenge because for many participantsthe matter engages personal convictions(not simply academic positions) about

their sense of self in relation to theirunderstanding of God. Does my existencehave any design and purpose? Am I madein the image of God? Or is my sense thatI am a meaningful self merely an illusion within a network of mirror neurons, anillusion that exists for no particular reasonand ends when those cells die? Does any spiritual reality exist that relates to thematerial reality around me? What are othersteaching my children about these sourcesof the self? And what sources, such asScripture and science, should we considerand weigh? Teaching the origins issues isnot only complex but can quickly stall when

the stakes understandably become personalfor the part icipant. Yet we must resist the temptation to

truncate the discussion or merely indoctrinate. Brie y and without detail,heres the inventory on teaching originsissues. (The point for now is not to examinethe content of each but to appreciate ourteaching challenge.) First, *we have at leastfour or ve di erent models for relating science and religion (see the Royuk article inthis Issueson S-and-R models). Each modelsets up the origins issues in a di erent way.

Whats more, the science part of the model

can use any of four di erent *de nitionsof science (Google de nitions of science). And science works with theory. Does sciencegenerate theory or assume theory, or both?That depends on the model of science, butthe sciences have operated with *at least

ve di erent de nitions of what a theory is (Google de nitions of scienti c theory),so now we have another layer of complication.If the teacher, preacher, or presenter isunaware of the variations of these factors ordoes not disclose them and instead presentsonly some preselected version of theory,science, and an S-and-R model, we get anoversimpli ed caricature of the issues rather

than teaching for the church.On the religion side of the models wehave perhaps three or four *theologicaltraditions that approach the sciences andhumanities in somewhat di erent ways.For example, readers here readily recognizedistinctions in the Lutheran, Reformed, andclassic Roman Catholic views about *Biblicalanthropology. Thoughtful Christians do notentirely agree on the condition of humannature after the Fall and the extent to whichhumanity has retained Gods image andlikeness. These di erent traditions regardhuman rationality with di erent degrees of reliability. Lutherans are sensitive to the

limits of human rationality and our sinfulinclination to di stort Gods world and Word. Despite its doctrine of total depravity,Reformed theology (which in uences muchof the origins discussions) tends to placemore confidence in human reason andits ability to read what some like to callGods two books, Scripture and nature.

And Roman Catholic traditions arecomparatively optimistic about humanreason. Thus, these traditions approachorigins issues with di erent expectationsabout what sinful humans can reasonand know.

Continuing our inventory, and related

to rationality, is *the problem of truth. Your intro to philosophy book includesmultiple views on truth and the degree to which our sensations, perceptions, andconcepts correspond or cohere to whatsout there. Those who present the science orreligion or both of the origins issues oftenpresume but dont explain or compare andcontrast the ways they mean that science ortheory or the Bible are true. (And notice how close this factor takes us to varying views onthe inerrancy of Scripture.)

So is it all a matter of interpretation?Now we come to the *hermeneutics factor

and the degree to which a set of datain science connects us to nature and aset of texts in Scripture connects us tothe riches and w isdom and knowledgeof God (Romans 11:33-35). Again, thetheological traditions address biblicalinterpretation with di erent nuances andemphases just as the sciences continueto struggle with methods of interpreting data. (See for example, The Truth WearsO : is there something wrong with thescienti c method? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer.) Teaching the origins issues meansalso helping participants understand why our use of hermeneutic principles in boththe sciences and biblical interpretationin uences our views on origins.

There, then, is a laundry list of challenges when teaching the origins issues.Each factor in its variations combines with others to generate assorted S-and-Rmodels. These seven or so factors are alwayslurking in the background. As you readabout Intelligent Design, Creation Science,

views on evolution, human beginnings,and treatments of Genesis, examine theposition for these factors and whether thepresenter assumes them or explains them.No wonder we often feel were talking

past each otherorigins is a tough topic. And now consider how e ectively we canteach origins issues in the fellowship hallor the classroom. Ill opine that it cant bedone in three sessions after co ee or nearthe end of a semester.

Ill close by suggesting that the Lutherantradition with its two kingdom doctrineprovides a context for addressing originsissues that is not offered by the usualS-and-R models. This rich Reformationinsight sustains a creative tension betweenour study of the world and Gods re-entering this world through his Word. This creativerather than con icting tension enables us

to study without vilifying science and toproclaim the Gospel without subordinating it to human hubris or limitation, exploring the intersections between the two.But this two kingdoms discussion of humanorigins wil l have to wait for another timeand another article.

Dr. Russ MouldsOp/Ed Editor

Issues in Christian EducationRuss.Moulds@cune.edu

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

6/53

1

2

3

4

Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (New York:Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 130.

Bradley Monton, Is Intelligent DesignScience? Dissect ing the Dover Decision,draft available at: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2592/.

Thomas Nagel, Public Education andIntelligent Design, Philosophy and Publ A airs, 36, No. 2 (2008).

Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNand the Evidence for Intelligent Desig (New York: HarperOne, 2009).

6

Christ,

the Centre That HoldsPaul tells the church in Colossae thateverything was created by Christ andthat in him all things hold together(Colossians 1: 16-17,ESV ). An implication isthat neither human beings nor the universecan be rightly understood independently of Christ. While Gods Law saves no-one, itdoes reveal that lives without Christ do not

hold together. In his great poem, The Second Coming , W. B. Yeats laments modernitysloss of rooted meaning:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

If people cannot hear their maker, they wil llisten to other voices, to those of the world,the esh and the devil. But these othersources encourage human beings to be theirown gods, leading to rivalry, envy and pride.The result is a fractured, cacophonous world

where might masquerades as right.The natural man is an enemy of God, who seeks to suppress His voice whereverit is found. This includes the messagesinscribed by God in His other book, thenatural world (Romans 1: 18-20). Althoughknowing about God is not saving faith, eventhat knowledge is perceived as a threat.

As the renowned atheist philosopher ThomasNagel admits, It isnt just that I dont believein God, and naturally, hope that I am right

by design principles in their scienti c work.For example, Keplers search for laws of planetary motion was motivated by his belief that God sustained the solar system througha providential plan written in the language of mathematics. What design contributes is thatthere will be a coherent order to discover,and that even fallen creatures made in theimage of God can detect some of that order.

Among phi losophers of science,the consensus view is that all attempts to draw strict lines of demarcation between scienceand non-science are failures. AtheistsBradley Monton 2 and Thomas Nagel 3 agree that excluding design in principleundermines sciences aim of providing objective knowledge about the natural world. And Stephen Meyer 4 points outthat in the contest between design and non-design, what counts as the best explanationdepends on the current data and the currentpool of competitor theories. Darwin didnot know that the cell is an automatedsystem for assembling protein machinesrun by the digital code of DNA , and hadnot seen the rigorous reformulation of the design hypothesis in terms of moderninformation theory.

And yet, the best scienti c case for designpoints only to a vague intelligence, and thenatural man will try to paint in a god of hisown devising. To know God we must turn toHis self-revelation in Christ and be remadein His image. Whatever someone thinksabout the right way to do science, they willsee Christs work in this world when they know Him.

Dr. Angus MenugeDepartment of Philosophy

Concordia University, Wisconsin Angus.Menuge@cuw.edu

Notes

in my belief. Its that I hope there is no God!I dont want there to be a God; I dont wantthe universe to be l ike that.1 It should notsurprise as then that unbelievers would like

science to be de ned so that it cannot pointto the divine. But even many Christiansthink that science cannot tell us aboutGod. This may be because the old Adamstill struggles for independence inside theChristian (Romans 7). But it is also becausemany Christians have accepted as nal ahistoric change in the de nition of science.

For Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes andGalileo Galilei, nal causesthose citing the goal or purpose for which something happenedplay no role in physicalscience, which should focus instead on thegeometrical qualities of physical bodies, likeextension, shape, location and motion. It wasno longer thought explanatory to say, with

Aristotle, that stones fall because they wishedto return to their natural resting place.The successes enjoyed when nal causes werebanished from physics led others to seek theirelimination from all science. When CharlesDarwin arg ued that the apparent design of living things can be explained away by blind,natural causes, he was not merely proposing a new scienti c theory but attempting torede ne what counts as science. From now on, there could be no such thing as scienti cevidence for intelligent design. This is thereceived view of science today.

The trouble is that the received doesnot hold together, either historically orphilosophically. As a matter of historicalfact, giants of the scientific revolution,including Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler,

John Ray and Isaac Newton were all guided

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed,and everywhere

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

7/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

8/53

I s s u e s

8

My focus here is on theology and science, both of which are academdisciplines in the pursuit of knowledge.

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

9/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

9

As an anthropologist, I identify myself as a scientist, admittedly of one of theso-called soft sciences. A primary task for anthropologists is to stand between twocultural worlds and interpret them for eachother. It is not unwarranted to view thedisciplines of theology and science as twocultures. As scientists and theologians, weapproach our tasks with our disciplinestraditions, assumptions, ways of knowing, views of the nature of reality, common sense,language, and values. As fully enculturatedparticipants, we are mostly oblivious to thelimiting nature of our own cultures. As aChristian and anthropologist, in this context,

I might be thought of as bi-cultural. Thispositions me to stand between two disciplinesand translate.

Cross-cultural dialogue is di cult.Beyond pleasantries exchanged in touristsituations or with a nod toward sensitivity,few of us attempt it. It can be frustrating andexhausting, but for those willing to engage,it is remarkably broadening. Both theology and science have something to contributetoward our understanding of humanbeginnings. Are we willing to listen toeach other?

My focus here is on theology and science,both of which are academic disciplines in thepursuit of knowledge. Be mindful of how Iapportion the use of theology and Scripture.In the following discussion, the focus is theacademic discipline of theology, that is, thestudy or reasoning and discussion concerning God that is being contrasted to science. Theauthority of Scripture is fully acknowledged,and no parts of the canonical texts are being questioned or challenged.

The following discussion examinesthe roles of theology and science in themaintenance and use, production anddistribution of knowledge regarding humanbeginnings. Both disciplines speak about the

nature of the world, the place of mankind,and identify problems and solutions. Yet bothof these use vastly di erent means and reach vastly di erent conclusions. It has becomeapparent that both science and theology have their roles and their limitations, andthat it is imperative to recognize, and ingood Lutheran fashion, to distinguish theseproperly. Some observations follow.

Science and theology both speak about the world around us(they both present a cosmogony). Both theology and science are concerned with and provide ordered and usefulaccounts of human origins and destinies, with each de ning concomitant meanings. At times, the cosmogonies of science andtheology overlap, and at other times they are diametrically opposed. The primary distinction between a scienti c cosmogony and a theological cosmogony is that theformer presupposes a strictly materialistaccount, while the latter presupposesa Creator.

The fundamental data from which ascienti c cosmogony is developed aredrawn from the observable empirical world.

When viewed in strictly materialist terms,one investigates the world around us andconcludes that what is here is the productof natural forces, some random and somepredictable, which are presently observableand assumed to have been at work in thepast. This cosmogony generated from suchan approach explains origins in light of theseimpersonal forces, with human beginnings

resulting from random forces.The fundamental data of the theologian

used to develop a cosmogony is the revealed Word of God as contained in Scriptures.This Word of God describes humanbeginnings as the direct result of Godscreative activity. The revealed Word explainsthe whoand whyof creation, but doesnot explain the howand whenof creation(questions of particular interest to many of the sciences).

Dr. Jack M. Schultz isProfessor of Anthropology Concordia University, Irvine.

Jack.Schultz@cui.edu

Private theories about what the Bible ought to mean, and premature theories about what the world ought to mean, have met in loud and widely advertised controversy ... and this clumsy collision of two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel of Science andReligion. (G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas, New York: Sheed & Ward, Inc., 1933:98 ).

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

10/53

I s s u e s

10

While both science and theology arehuman enterprises, it is recognized thattheology involves an extra-human component.The text that is being studied is the revealed Word of God and by way of that Word, theHoly Spirit continues to reveal the truth of God and work faith. But that the Holy Spiritis active in the Scripture does not precludethat human beings are reading, interpreting and applying the texts. Human beings readthe Scriptures, and as fallen creatures,they may misunderstand or willfully misreador misrepresent that faithful Word andfrustrate the work of the Spirit (one needsonly consider the great variety of theologiesarising out of or giving birth to the profusion

of Christian denominations). Theology is a human enterprise, yet not onlyahuman enterprise.

Science, in its essence, is a datagathering methodology.

The scienti c method is a means to generateor collect data. Those who utilize thescienti c method assume that the phenomenaof reality are knowable and that materials andforces which make up and organize reality are consistent. Science and the instrumentsof science are limited to empirical data,that is, data which are available to sensory observation (sight, sound, and touch).

Non-empirical concepts such as beauty, faith,or love are not subject to scienti c inquiry because science as an empirical methodology does not have the instruments to reliably and validly view and quantify such phenomena.The scienti c method generates data whichare empirical, and requires that only empirical data be cited as proof. This is whatconfers sciences authoritative status. Eachstep away from this empirical base is a stepaway from its authority.

From empirical observations comeexplanatory theories.

Scienti c theory must be understood as whatit istentative statements about how dataare related. Scienti c theory is not opposed to facts, as in thats just theory, not facts.Rather, scienti c theory is composed of facts which can lead to a tentative model whichsuggests how speci c data are related togenerate an outcome, or resultant. Theories,

which are built upon empirical data, arerecognized as being abstracted out of the data.Theories therefore must be viewed as lessauthoritative than the data itself. Theoriesare actually ideas about data, not the dataitself. It is this step of abstraction that many fail to see and therefore grant to scienti ctheory the weight of empirical validity whenin actuality theories are ideas about data.

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

11/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

11

Empirical data are not theory. The datagathered via a scienti c method must stillbe organized into a theory. Empirical dataare not explanatory; they are what need to beexplained. Many dont recognize this salientdistinction and assume that scienti c theory is as authoritative as empirical facts.

Theories are by de nition tentative,subject to testing and change as more datacomes available. These gaps should notbe viewed as a reason to reject the theory wholesale, rather, we must concede that ourknowledge is incomplete and understanding is still being built. Such is the nature of scienti c theory.

Even empirical data must beinterpreted.

It is a truism that facts dont lie. Butneither do they tell the truth. Facts do not say anything. Facts must be read or interpreted.

And it necessarily follows that facts can bemisread, or that there can be alternate orcompeting reads. Fact-readers (scientistsand theologians) bring something (theirpast experiences, biases, a perspective, andunexamined assumptions) to their read. Thissomething in uences how the data are read.For example, one who brings to the read of the fossil record an assumption of naturalselection will see fossils in that light and,perhaps, be blinded to alternative reads.

Additionally, conclusions drawn fromscienti cally gathered data which accountfor the data and logically connect into acompelling theory may still be wrong.Ideas about data are not equivalent to thedata. Ideas about the data, or theories which

organize the interpretations of the data,may be wrong even when the data itself are empirical. Even while the data may not change, our read of the data willlikely change.

As new data become available, alternatetheories (that is, alternate interpretations of data) may be necessary. This self-correctionis viewed as a positive attribute of thescienti c method. That being said, it mustbe acknowledged that there is a resistance to

challenge current scienti c orthodoxy. Any human institution su ers entrenchment,and the trajectory of status quois resistant tochange. Scienti c institutions as humaninstitutions are given to hegemonic abuses.

Yet, in principle, scienti c knowledge issubject to correction.

Just as empirical data need to be read,mutatis mutandis, so do scriptural texts. Thereader brings something to the text. One whocomes to the Bible with the belief that Jesusis God will read the text di erently than theone who reasons that Jesus is a legend. Bothreaders will reach predictable and alternateconclusions even while reading the same text.

Theology, while based on the Word of God,

is not equivalent to the Word of God. Perhapsa better way of saying this is that a theologicalposition is not the same thing as the gift of faith. Theology is a human exposition of Scriptures, often resulting in or a rming doctrine and dogma. Even while maintaining that doctrine is standard and unchangeable,

we must concede that as a human enterprise,theology is subject to error or misuse andcorrection (the Reformation can be viewed asone such correction).

While ful ly supporting and a rming theauthority of Scripture and the Symbols(The Three Creeds and the Book of Concord), it is acknowledged that reads of these unchanging texts may in principle beincomplete or subject to misunderstanding.Readings of texts may be improved . Whilethe texts do not change, the somethingreaders bring to the text does change.

Texts should be read with thepurposes or which they

were generated. The Genesis chapter one account of creation answers one question aboutcreation unequivocally and unambiguously,namely, who created the world. That is thefundamental question the text answers, and we might conclude that was the primary intent of the text. The Genesis two and threeaccounts of creation answer questions aboutmankinds relationship with that Creator.

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

12/53

I s s u e s

12

In our human curiosity we would like toknow howGod created the world and when God created the world. However, that is notthe intent of the text. There are tantalizing clues about those signi cant, albeit secondary,questions in the Genesis accounts. But theintent of the texts was not to answer thosesecondary questions. Whatever doctrinalconclusions we reach concerning thesesecondary questions must be viewed asincomplete and tentative. We might look toother evidence to support the conclusionsreached from those revealed but partialaccounts of the creation.

When both the text and science are takenseriously one cannot help but feel tensionsbetween them. Consider for examplethe meaning of day in the Genesis one

account. When we read the Genesis accountof creation, we read it thinking of ourexperience of a day. We have not experiencedany moment of life without a day being asingle revolution of the earth relative tothe sun. So it is logical and consistent toconclude that the six days of Creation werethe same kind of twenty-four hour days that we have all experienced. And it may be fairly observed that throughout history readers of Genesis assumed a day to be a day. It isonly recently, as geological data are being read to consistently support a very old earth,that the Genesis account is being reread toallow for a greater length of time, leaving some to reason that perhaps a day is nota day. This conclusion can be reachedeven while maintaining a strict adherenceto the text because the Genesis one accountdescribes a reality which di ers from ourown experiencethat is, an earth, three daysand light without a sun. Keep in mind that itis not twenty-four hours which makes a day;

rather a single revolution of the earth relativeto the sun (which happens to take twenty-four hours). Therefore a day as we reckon it(a single revolution of the earth relative to thesun) may or may not be the same duration asthe rst three days of creation because thesun, by whose light we determine the lengthof a day, had yet to be created.

The current scienti c understanding of the geological data posits that the earthhas been around a very long time, causing many to conclude that the rst three days

of creation must have been something otherthan the twenty-four hour days we experience.But it is also equally plausible to concludethat God created an old-appearing world,that is, one with fully grown trees and fully formed mountains and canyons rather thanone which started with seeds and level plains.Science rejects such propositions because itsapproach requires a consistent system(the principle of uniformitarianism)in which the forces at work today have beenat work in the same way in the past. So thereis tension between current theological andscienti c understandings: the Genesistext describes a supernatural Creator anda reality which is di erent than the one weinhabit today, and science cannot addressthe supernatural and an alternate reality,

but demands a past which is consistent withtoday. The current understanding of oursolar system and earths orientation withinit is incompatible with a system that has nosun. These tensions are ameliorated when

we recognize that our understanding isstill in processwe do not have a completeunderstanding yet. We must embrace the textsand the empirical data fully while not reading into them more, nor less, than is there. Wemust be con dent enough in our Creator(who is certainly capable of creation eitherby at, instantly and fully, or progressively and mechanically), to rejoice in his creation without us knowing how or when he createdit. A complete understanding of the how and when of creation is not a condition of our salvation.

Good theology requires that we not pushthe text into answers it was not intended toaddress. It would be very helpful to know how old the earth is, but we do not have therevealed means of knowing with certainty.

We can piece together various bits of datainto a theory, into a tentative statement abouthow the pertinent data can be interpreted,but data are missing. Our conclusions may or may not be accurate. We are providing answers which are equivocal, and so must notbe binding on consciences.

Good science requires that we recognizethat data continue to be gathered, and thatour understandings of origins and realitiescontinue to develop. We can be sure that with the accumulation of more data what is

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

13/53

A version of this paper was presented at theTwo Books, One Truth? Science and Theolog yConferenceheld at Concordia UniversityIrvine,May 23-25, 2009 .

Recent studies asserting empirical investigations of such phenomena are hypostasizing and necessarily

reductionist. They are measuring aspects,manifestations, or symptoms of beauty, love, andfaith. Beauty cannot be reduced to symmetry oradherence to the Fibonacci sequence; time spent inprayer, church attendance, religious ideations, andreligiosity are not the same thing as the g ift of faith;love cannot be reduced to a drive to procreate,a cocktail of brain chemicals, olfactory cues,or altruistic acts. Certainly these studies have theirplace, but to equate the phenomena of beauty, faithand love with these empirical manifestations istantamount to reducing the genius of Shakespeareto assorted letters on a page.

Paul L. Maier, Synodical Vice-President, writing at the end of an article regarding the contributionsthat new historical or archeological data can bring to a text, concluded that Doctrine in the holy Christian church is standard and unchangeable,as is the basis for doctrine in the Holy Scripture.Understanding Scriptural passages accurately,however, may be subject to improvement as moreand more evidence is discovered from theancient world. ( Reporter,February 2007 , page 6).

1

2

3

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

13

accepted today as scienti cally valid wil l bechallenged in the future.

Assumption and con dence can bemistaken or truth.

Ones feeling of certainty does not precludeerror. One may feel with 100 percentcertainty the truthfulness of a proposition, yet that proposition may be wrong. For thescientist, we need only recall the con dence

with which the concept of spontaneousgeneration was taught. It was predictive andreliable, but was demonstrated to be invalid.Or consider how generations of Christiansin the United States did not question thatthe mark of Cain was the black skin of the

African slave.Being a Christian isnt simply about

being right. The power of the Word is notfor argument but for life. Being a Christianis more than being convinced of the truthof various doctrines, propositions or evencreeds. Being Christian means to be ina faith relationship with the living Godthrough the redeeming work of his son,

Jesus the Christ. Theology, even greattheology, does not save us. Only Jesus does.Faith is based not on knowing; it is rather

based on being known by our Makerand Redeemer.Being a scientist isnt about an apologetic

for a materialist philosophy of life. It isabout the pursuit of an understanding of theempirical world. Both disciplines are to be inservice of humanity, not the forti cation of ones own domain.

Scientists and theologians are learnedpeople. And both groups have arrived atconclusions by way of remarkably similarprocesses. Yet, these conclusions di erradically. Truth is awfully big. As Christians, we recognize that while what we have in the Word of God is completely true, God is stillmaking himself and his Truth knownto us. When one considers an understanding of human beginnings, we can acknowledgeour limitations even while we pursue onetruth. And we remember that real Truth,the whole Truth, is the One who createdand pursues us, the One who called himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In the

approaches to understanding humanbeginnings, it is necessary to recognize onesassumptions, since these will often lead tocertain conclusions. It is also necessary torecognize the limitations of ones approach.Understanding is an ongoing process thatrequires coordination of multiple approaches.Please consider that as you read the following essays about human beginnings.

Notes

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

14/53

I s s u e s

14

This article takes the message of Scripture in its natural sense, seeing thearly chapters of Genesis and related scriptural passages as histori

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

15/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

15

How many dozens of times have you heardthat the Church mistakenly held to ageocentric view of the solar system in theface of the ndings of Copernicus, and thateven Franz Pieper thought this way? Another view is that the literature of the Babyloniansand Egyptians contains creation myths andthat the Genesis account is an adaptation of those stories originating in an ancient NearEastern cultural milieu. 1 That opinion isnot nearly so common, however, since thepublication of the research of AlexanderHeidel. 2 Another perspectives that is citedoften is that science has proven that theearth is more than four billion years old

and that the universe is more than fourteenbillion years old. This leads some to assertthat Genesis 1 is merely poetical and is oneof two major creation accounts in Genesis(Genesis 2 having a di erent order of creation), with other creation accountsappearing in the Scriptures.

Those are a few of the canards familiarto anyone who has read much in the eldof origins. What most people dont know orrealize or accept, however, is that many in the

eld of science in the sixteenth century alsoresisted the Copernican Theory, while othersin the Church adopted this view. Seeing theGenesis account as the original version andall other accounts as corrupted versions of the biblical account is both theologically coherent and eminently reasonable, withthe vast majority of dating methodssupporting thousands rather than billionsof years of earths history.3 Solid, objectiveresearch shows with a99.99 percent degreeof probability that Genesis 1 is a historicalnarrative rather than gurative poetry. 4

At times the Church has been mistaken,largely for hermeneutical reasons. Some partsof the Church are currently mistaken, andmost disagree about who is mistaken. I do not

presume to o er thebiblical perspective. What I o er on these pages isa biblicalperspective, based on what Gods Word saysrather than what people think, being aware,for the most part, of my own presuppositions.This leads to the question of biblicalhermeneutics for the Genesis account, which, oddly has been dominated not by ahistorical-grammatical hermeneutic, but by anaturalistic scienti c worldview originating in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,the age of science. Before I continue, however,I want to a rm that an intelligent Christiancan con dently believe the biblical accountof Genesis 1 in its natural sense, holding to a

young earth and 24 -hour creation days in thisage of science.

A Hermeneutical Question

This article takes the message of Scripture inits natural sense, seeing the early chapters of Genesis and related scriptural passagesas historical. This results from reading thetext with as much objectivity as possible.

While complete objectivity is impossible,this writer is guided primarily by what thetext says and not by the prior commitmentsI bring to the text or the embarrassment Imight feel by opposing the majority view inthe sciences. This means that the properapproach is one of exegesisrather than of eisegesisand one that is biblical rather thanscienti c. One needs to read meanings outof the text rather than read meanings intothe text which I wish to nd. This is a very di cult task.

Many think that they approach a biblicaltext without presuppositions, but no onedoes, nor does this author. The unspokenpresuppositions of nearly everyone haveto do with Scripture and its reliability andrelative authority, the nature and reliability of scienti c data (or other data that a ectour understanding of the text, such asarchaeology, psychology, symbolics, andanthropology), the di erence between data(facts) and inference (interpreting factsin relation to theory), and whom you trustand why. In many ways, people have often

Dr. Joel D. Heck isProfessor of Theology Concordia University, Texas.

Joel.Heck@concordia.edu

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

16/53

I s s u e s

16

made up their minds before they look atthe data or without considering alternativeinterpretations. Or they choose to ignoresome of the data, regarding it as spurious

without a legitimate reason because theirminds are already made up. Recently,Stephen C. Meyer noted that some reviews of

his book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, were clearly written by people who hadnt even read it.5

Many of the issues regarding Genesis 1 revolve around the type of literature we ndin that chapter. Confusion has arisen overancient Near Eastern creation stories thatare almost inevitably poetic, a fact that leadssome to assume that Genesis 1 is poetic also.But it is not. If the original account isinspired by God and, therefore, an accuratedepiction of the creative week, while thesecondary accounts are neither inspirednor fully accurate, we would expect somesimilarities but also a great numberof di erences. And that is what we nd when comparing Genesis 1 to theBabylonian creation account, Enuma Elish,the Atrahasis Epic from ancient Sumer,or Hesiods Theogony.

One also reads from time to time thatGenesis 1 is not a textbook on science.Other similar statements also are common,such as, Genesis 1 ... [is] not ... a textbook on astronomy. Then, pages later, the authorstated that the opening chapters of Genesis

were not meant primarily as essays onanthropology. 6 Of course not! There wasno such thing as a textbook or an essay at thetime that Genesis 1 was written. Genesis 1 isnot a textbook, treatise, essay, or any otheracademic type of writing on anthropology,history, science, astronomy, biology, Hebrew linguistics, or any other academic discipline.Not even on theology! Using these types

of statements to limit the meaning orapplication of Scripture is reading a modernacademic discipline back into the text of Scripture. There was no such distinction when Genesis 1 was written. The Hebrews didnot divide writings into historical narrative,

scienti c treatise, anthropologicalexcursus, astronomical observations,or any other category. They knew when they were writing poetry or prose, history or

ction, liturgical or courtroom language,

that is, in a particular genre, but they did not sit down to write in any narrow academic arena. They simply wrote underthe inspiration of the Holy Spirit whilesimultaneously writing from theirown experiences.

Often the reason for insisting that Genesis

1 is not a textbook or essay on science,astronomy, or anthropology is to suggestthat the chapter can only carry a theologicalmessage and not a scienti c one. This is anarti cial distinction. Passages of Scriptureoften carry multiple functions. Thereis no good reason to create an either-or when a both-and applies. Genesis 1 iscapable of expressing both scienti c andtheological concepts, both anthropologicaland astronomical ideas, both ontology andteleology. This chapter also is interested bothin the how of creation and the who of creation. The Bible is reliable in all areasabout which it speaks.

Thus, while Genesis 1 is not a textbook onastronomy, it still speaks on the subject of astronomy. Its just not an academic textbook on that subject. While Genesis 1 is not anessay on anthropology, it still speaks aboutmankind. While Genesis 1 is not a textbook on science, it still speaks about the natural world in which we live.

Agreeing that the Bible is not a sciencetextbook does not mean that modernscienti c conclusions must rule over biblicalones. Nor does it mean that everything biblical is unscienti c. In fact, God Himself is the ultimate Creator of all theology and al lscience. Therefore, we are pushed back to theoriginal question, What type of literature isGenesis 1?7

Genesis 1 is clearly historical narrative.To turn that chapter and subsequent chaptersinto saga, legend, poetry, or symbolism is to

rob it of its natural meaning. Then we alsocreate other problems. If we say that Adam isa metaphor, then all of the genealogies thattrace back to Adam become nonsense.

When Jude 14 says that Enoch was seventhfrom Adam, does that mean that he wasseventh from a metaphor? Are we sinners(Rom. 5:12-14 ) because we are descended froma metaphor?

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

17/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

17

Goals o Biblical Studies

The goals of biblical studies will depend uponthe convictions of the student of Scripture.For a Christian teacher, in my opinion,the most important goal is the salvation of souls (see John 20:31 and Matthew 28:18-20 ),

but it doesnt end there. Another importantgoal is the new obedience of the whole life(Ephesians 2:10 ). Essential to both of thesegoals is an attitude of submission to God,His Word, and His will. Those arefundamentals of a Lutheran perspective.

Stated more broadly and tting withinthis new obedience, a major goal of biblicalstudies is elucidation for understanding anddirection. The familiar words of Psalm 119:105 teach us, Your word is a lampto my feet and a light for my path.

According to the psalmist, Gods Wordilluminates or elucidates (its lamp function),and it also provides a way to live(its path function).

Romans 5:12 and related passages groundthe Fall and our redemption in the sin of

Adam through whom death and sin arrived.Paul states that Christ is the second Adam(Romans 5:12-17 ), which assumes that there was a rst Adam. George Sayer notes thatC.S. Lewis, After he had become a Christian,

he usually thought of animal su ering as aconsequence of the Fall.8 In other words,there was no pain or su ering prior tothe Fall, though an old earth perspectiveargues that there was su ering and death formillions of years before the creation of Adamand Eve. Interestingly, to counter the oldearth creation model is one reason RichardDawkins writes:

The total amount of su ering per yearin the natural world is beyond all decent

contemplation. During the minute thatit takes me to compose this sentence,thousands of animals are being eatenalive, many others are running for theirlives whimpering with fear, others areslowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds aredying of starvation, thirst, and disease.It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically

lead to an increase in population untilthe natural state of starvation andmisery is restored.9

While it is true that a theology of redemptiondoes not depend entirely on a historicalreading of Genesis 1-3 , but on the eventsof the cruci xion and resurrection, thattheology is much stronger when it is basedon actual events. In fact, this is the view of

Jesus and every New Testament writer whoaddresses the subject.

Key Messages o Genesis 1-3

Genesis 13 conveys many importantmessages. Among them are: (1) the fact thatGod created; ( 2) who this God is and what Heis like; (3) the creation of man in the imageof God; and ( 4) the six-day scope of creation(e.g., lots of time indicators as inExodus. 20:11 , 31:17 ).

According to Genesis 1, the Creator is oneGod, powerful, creative, majestic, giving,and loving. This, of course, does not exhaustthe meaning of that chapter, but the e ortlessspeaking into existence that we nd in thatchapter, for example, suggests that the God who created was very powerful. This is themost important message of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 conveys the origin of man in thecreation of Adam and Eve, and inGen. 1:2627 we learn about the image of God. The image of God has received muchattention, but it generally refers to that which separates mankind from the animals,especially characteristics such as rationality,a sense of morality, conscience, and theability to communicate on a high andabstract level.

While subsidiary to both the great powerof the Creator, as revealed by the acts of creation, and the creation of mankind inthe image of God, other key messages of Genesis 1 include the orderliness of creation,the power and majesty of creation, and thefoundational nature of a creation that takesplace in just six days. Signi cantly, Genesis 1 grounds our work week in a similar seven-day span of time.

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

18/53

I s s u e s

18

Even the purpose of mankind was stated inthe Garden of Eden. God created Adam tocare for the garden and Eve to care for Adam.To this day, men are primarily,but not exclusively, work-centered, while women are primarily, but notexclusively, family-centered. There aremany exceptions to these generalities (afterall, Genesis 1:26 says, letthemrule ),but these original purposes remain valid.The historical events of creation, fall, andredemption itself are close and strong. Its no wonder that evolutionist and atheist RichardLewontin does not want to allow a DivineFoot in the door. 17

The New Testament on Genesis

This connectivity is apparent from the morethan two hundred references to Genesisin the New Testament, and more than onehundred quotations or references to the

rst eleven chapters of Genesis. Every New Testament author referred to Genesis 1-11 ,and Jesus Himself referred to those samechapters at least six separate times, including His references to the creation account.In none of those passages are the events of Genesis taken in a mythological or gurativesense; always the writer assumes the historical

nature of the events he mentions. In fact,the words of Jesus, if taken at face value,preclude the possibility that Adam and Eve were late arrivals on the earthly scene at theend of a long evolutionary period.

D.M. Lloyd-Jones wrote:

if you do not accept this history [Genesis], and prefer to believe thatmans body developed as the result of an evolutionary process, you arestill left with the question of how toexplain Eve, for the Bible [especially the New Testament] is very particularas to the origin of Eve. All who acceptin any form the theory of evolution inthe development of man completely failto account for the being, origin, andexistence of Eve.18

In Mark 10:6 , Jesus stated that at thebeginning of creation God made them maleand female. If evolution were true, thenmale and female human beings would have

An ironic truth is that some critical Oldand New Testament scholars, no longerneeding to work out a compromise betweencreation and evolution (since they dont think that much of Genesis is historical),admit that the word daymeans a24 -hour day. 10 James Barr, former OldTestament professor at Oriel College,Oxford University, while not believing the straightforward message of Genesis,once wrote, so far as I know, there isno professor of Hebrew or Old Testamentat any world-class university who does notbelieve that creation took place in aseries of six days which were the same asthe days of 24 hours we now experience.11 Gerhard von Rad wrote, The seven days areunquestionably to be understood as actualdays and as a unique, unrepeatable lapse of

time in the world.12

Marcus Dods stated,If, for example, the word day in thesechapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless. 13 Likewise, evangelicalscholar John Walton, though not holding toa young earth or a six-day creation, wrote,

These are seven twenty-four-hour days.This has always been the best reading of theHebrew text.14 (See my forthcoming booklet,In the Beginning God: Creation from Gods Perspective,for seventeen reasons why the worddayshouldbe understood in its normal sensein Genesis 1.)15

Goals and Connectionsin the Scriptures

There is a strong connection between thecreation, the fall, and our redemption.Paul himself connects them in numerousplaces, especially in Romans5 and 8 .D.M. Lloyd-Jones stated:

The Bible does not merely makestatements about salvation. It is acomplete whole: it tells you about theorigin of the world and of man; it tells you what has happened to him, how hefell and the need of salvation arose; andthen it tells you how God provided thissalvation. Therefore these early chaptersof Genesis with their history play a vitalrole in the whole doctrine of salvation. 16

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

19/53

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

19

come long after the beginning of creation.If a young earth is true and evolution isfalse, then the words of Jesus are true andaccurate with Adam and Eve being made atthe beginning of creation. This is clearly areference, not to the beginning of mankind,as some think, but, as the text says, thebeginning of creation. A straightforwardreading of this passage also shows that Jesusheld the creation account to be historicaland trustworthy, re ective of the entire rst week of creative activity at the beginning of time. In Luke 11, Jesus connected the murderof Abel to the foundation of the world, i.e.,its creation, not to an event that happenedmillions of years later. In fact, every reference of Jesus to the Old Testament showsthat He not only held the Old Testament,including Genesis, in high regard, but

He took it as straightforward history.19

If Scripture truly interprets Scripture, then the words of Jesus are important testimony. Nor will it do to assume that Jesus accommodatedHimself to frail human understanding, sincethat would make Him guilty of a falsehood.

In conclusion, we can trust Scripture to be what it says it is, to teach what it says it teaches,and to accomplish the purpose for which Godsends His Word. Lets let our consciences becaptive to the Word of God. Notes

This is precisely the question that Ernest Lucasand many others get wrong. Citing Origens book,First Principles, Lucas seems unaware of the fact thatOrigen belonged to the Alexandrian School,a school that favored the allegorical interpretationof Scripture. This explains Origens statement thatthe days of Genesis1 are gurative expressions.The al legorical interpretation is precisely one of those rejected by the Reformers as too subjective.

Lucas also fails to note that Origen believed in a young earth and wrote against Celsus by stating that the Mosaic account of creation teaches thatthe world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that. ( De Principiis 1.19 ) Interpreting Genesis in the 21 st Century.http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20 Papers/Faraday%20 Paper%2011%20 Lucas_EN.pdf.

George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis. New York:Harper & Row, 2005, p. 179. Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009, 391.

For example, John Skinner and August Dil lman,in Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise.Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 2004, p. 134.See also Jack Lewis, The Days of Creation:

An Historical Survey of Interpretation, JETS32/4, 454. Cited in Sarfati, 137. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 65. See also references

to Gordon Wenham, Victor Hamilton, HermannGunkel, and John Stek in Trevor Craigens chapter,Can Deep Time Be Embedded in Genesis?in Terry Mortenson. Coming to Grips with Genesis.Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 2008, 203. Marcus Dods, Expositors Bible(T. & T. Clark:Edinburgh, 1888), 4, cited in Douglas Kelly,Creation and Change. Fearn, Scotland: ChristianFocus Publications, 1997, 45. John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One. DownersGrove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009, 91.

St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2011

What is an Evangelical?(Addresses g iven at I.F.E.S.Conference, 1971) The Banner of Truth. Banner of Truth Trust, 1992, p. 75.

Billions and Bi llions of Demons, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, 31

What is an Evangelical?(Addresses g iven at I.F.E.S.Conference, 1971) The Banner of Truth.Banner of Truth Trust, 1992, p. 76. John Wenham, Christ and the Bible. Downers Grove,Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973, 11-37.

John Waltons book, The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press,2009 is a recent example of thiscultural viewpoint.

Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis:The Story of Creation. Second Edition. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press, 1951.

John Morris, The Young Earth, Revised and ExpandedEdition, Green Forest, Ark.:Master Books, 1994, 2007.

Stephen Boyd, A Proper Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3. In Thousands Not Billions. Don DeYoung, ed.Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 2005,pages 158170. Biola Magazine, Summer 2010 (online version). Hillmer, Mark. Was Evolution Involved in theProcess of Creation? Yes. The Genesis Debate: PersistentQuestions about Creation and the Flood .Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990, 87, 91, 92.

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

20/53

I s s u e s

20

I was raised by Christian parents, con rmed my faith in the Triu

as a teenager while attending Missouri Synod Lutheran churches inSouth St. Louis, Missouri, and Woodriver, Illinois.

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

21/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

21

During my undergraduate and graduatestudies in zoology, and later, as aProfessor of Clinical Hematology,my professors and student colleagues wouldask me: As a student of zoology, how can yoube a Bible-believing Christian and ignore theBig Bang Cosmic Theory on the Origin of the Universe and Darwins Theory of Natural Selection?

I was never troubled by this question. I wasraised by Christian parents, con rmed my faith in the Triune God as a teenager whileattending Missouri Synod Lutheran churchesin South St. Louis, Missouri, and Woodriver,Illinois. Every person I saw, every animalI had as a pet, and every tree and plant I watched grow, I saw the ngers of God,the Creator. I never saw natural selection asthe cause, only the God who creates by Hisspoken word.

As the Bible states: By faith we understandthat the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible (Hebrews 11:3 , ESV).Herein lies a theological and confessionalsummary of what The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod professes regarding thecreation of the universe and ourhuman beginnings.

Gods word is truth, and Jesus Christ

was in the world, and the world was madethrough him (John 1:10a ) as the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters(Genesis 1:2b , ESV). The Triune Godis creator, not cause.

Yet, I have found that many of my scienti ccolleagues and friends wanted to point tothe Big Bang Cosmic theory and NaturalisticDarwinism as the combined cause of theorigin of the universe and humans.

What truly surprised me was the fact that

some of my Lutheran friends in college andeven up to this time combined the Big Bang,Naturalistic Darwinism and Biblical Creationinto the oxymoronic origins-phrase: TheisticEvolution. They wanted to have their cakeand eat it, too. This troubles me the most.

With the gatekeepers of society, thetelevision, the Internet, the printed mediasuch as Discover, Scienti c American, andNational Geographic magazines constantly lifting up the Big Bang and NaturalisticDarwinism theories as the truth of humanorigins, Lutheran Christians need torea rm what they believe, teach and confessregarding our human beginnings in Christ.Our thinking and reasoning are always inservice to the Word of God. Therefore, thisarticle and others assist us in structuring our

theological and confessional thinking so that whatever we do, in thought, word and deed,brings glory to God and witness to the GoodNews of Salvation History in Jesus Christ whois the author and perfecter of faith(Hebrews 12:2 ).

Creation: God Creates OneHuman KindThe Bible, Con essions andSynodical Resolutions.

The Triune God created one human kind, Adam and Eve, from dirt. Moses records Hiscreated word narrative as follows:

Then God said: Let us make man in ourimage, after our likeness. Let them havedominion over the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over allthe earth and over every creeping thing thatcreeps on the earth. So God created manin his own image, in the image of God hecreated him; male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them,Be fruitful and multiply and ll the earth andsubdue it and have dominion over the shof the sea and over the birds of the heavensand over every living thing that moves on theearth (Genesis 1:2628 ).Moses expanded the details of Gods created word regarding Eve: Then the LORD Godsaid, It is not good that the man should bealone for Adam there was not found a

Dr. Robert Weise isProfessor of Practical Theology and The Lutheran Foundation ofSt.Louis Chair of Pastoral Ministry and the Life SciencesConcordia Seminary, St.Louis.

Weiser@csl.edu

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

22/53

helper t for him. So the LORD God causeda deep sleep to fall upon the man, and whilehe slept took one of his ribs and closed up itsplace with esh. In the ribs that the LORDGod had taken from the man he made intoa woman and brought her to the man. Thenthe man said, This at last is bone of my bones and esh of my esh; she shall becalled Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore a man shall leave his fatherand his mother and hold fast to his wife, andthey shall become one esh (Genesis 2:18a,20b24 ).

This is Gods word creating human kindfrom nothing. As the writer of Hebrewsstated, this is an article of faith and isa rmed in Luthers Small Catechismin theFirst Article of the Apostles Creed with itsexplanation: I believe in God the father

Almighty maker of heaven and earth. What

does this mean?I believe that God has createdme together with all that exists. God hasgiven me and still preserves my body andsoul: eyes, ears, and all limbs and senses;reason and all mental faculties. We arecreated descendants of Gods rst humankind, Adam and Eve. As Luther writes in theLarge Catechism, The First Article, All thisis comprehended in the word Creator. 1

Dr. Martin Luther in writing on Genesisstates the following:

But He Himself shapes him [Adam]according to His image as if he wereGods partner and one who would enjoy Gods rest. So Adam is a dead andinactive clod before he is formed by theLord. God takes that clod and formsfrom it a most beautiful creature, whichhas a share in immortality and,as Moses states later, makes the womanout of the rib of the man. Such was theorigin of man. 2

The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod

a rms the six-day creation narrative and thatman is the principle creature of God. 3

A resolution from the 2004 synodicalconvention states:

The Scriptures teach that God is theCreator of all that exists and is thereforethe Author and Giver of Life ....That all educational agencies and

institutions of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod including early childhood programs, elementary schools,high schools, colleges, universities, andseminaries continue to teach creationfrom the biblical perspective ....That no educational agency orinstitution of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod tolerate any teaching that contradicts the special, immediate,and miraculous creation by God, Father,Son, and Holy Spirit, as an explanationfor the origin of the universe ....That The Lutheran ChurchMissouriSynod, in convention, remind its pastorsand teachers to increase emphasis to thedoctrine of God as the Creator Authorof Life in their preaching and teaching. 4

Resolutions from the 1979 and 1981Convention Proceedings of The LutheranChurchMissouri Synod encourage publicschools To Allow Concept of SpecialCreation to Be Taught in public schools. 5,6

Science a rms the Biblical Word onHuman Beginnings.

The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod hasalways taught that we are a complete humanbeing in body and soul from conception,the union of the genetic material from themale and female gametes. God speaks of theunborn child as complete/fully human body and soul. He is the one that creates and forms

I s s u e s

22

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

23/53

the tiniest human being in the womb(Psalm 139:13 ; Job 31:15 ; Isaiah 44:2 ). Godknows his human created creatures and,therefore, establishes a relationship with theunborn child in the womb (Judges 13:57 ;

Psalm 22:10 ; Jeremiah 1:5 ). In Exodus 21:22 ,the Hebrew word for child in the wombis yeled . In addition, this word is used for anadolescent child in Genesis 21:15 and adult in37:30 and 2 Chronicles 10: 8, 10, 14 .

Several LCMS resolutions a rm our being and personhood from conception: Life is agift of God, and unborn (nascent) life is of special value before God, and life and deathbelong to the province of God (Psalm 139:13-16 ; Jeremiah 1:5 ; Isaiah 49:5 ; Galatians1:15 ).7,8,9 In addition, one resolution adds:

The Bible clearly states that the child inthe mothers womb is a living human being (Jeremiah 1:5 ; Psalm 139:16 ; Isaiah 49:1,5 ;and Luke 1: 41, 44 ).10

Science that a rms the Word of God isin service to the Word of God. The scienti cdiscipline, embryology, demonstrates thatlife begins at conception, and is a continuumthroughout the human beings development

within the womb of the mother. 11,12Biblicalpassages taken from the Old and New Testaments demonstrate this point. Isaiah7:14 states: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shallconceive and bear a son, and shall call hisname Immanuel. In addition, Saint Luke writes: And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall callhis name Jesus.13 Both Drs. David Adamsand Je Gibbs of the Exegetical Department,Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri,shared the following comments with meregarding these passages:

Both of these passages demonstratethat life is a continuum. The word andcombines conceive with bear a sonas single event and process. Therefore,the science of embryology agrees withthe biblical Word. From the conceptionof a human person, life is a continuum.This becomes more profound within thecontext of the Incarnation. God, JesusChrist, became like one of us from Hisincarnate conception.

From the Christian Lutheran perspective, we are human beings, created by the Wordof God to have fellowship with Him and theBody of Christ. We Lutherans view the createdhuman being as a gift. We are made,

not begotten. We are made in His image.This image was lost when Adam and Evedisobeyed God and sinned. Since Christ isthe very image of God, through Holy Baptism

we are in Jesus Christ by His righteousness,holiness and innocence with the image of Godrestored in us by Jesus Christ.

We are changed by Gods grace, not by aNatural Darwinistic change via mistake andchance brought about by death. Our value,our dignity, comes from God, our creator, who declared us as His adopted sons anddaughters in Christ. The completeness of our humanity comes to us not only as the giftof created life but also the grace-gift of Hisrighteousness. Luther sums this up in this way: Let this be the summary of this articlethat the little word LORD simply means thesame as Redeemer, that is, he who has broughtus back from the devil to God, from Death tolife, from sin to righteousness, and keepsus there. 14

Creation: Mixing Gods Human

Kind with Darwins Ape-Man Kind Mixing the biblical teaching of creationfrom nothing with Darwins theory of Natural Selection tramples the Gospel intodust proclaiming Jesus as one who comesto x Adam and Eves evolutionary mistakecalled original sin, so that our relationship with God depends on our state of being evolved. This approach deconstructs thebiblical teaching of creation into a potpourriof blended human origins into TheisticEvolution. Yet, there are prominent scientists

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

23

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

24/53

I s s u e s

24

created everything in the beginning,and then let nature take its ownindependent course, so that all thingsnow spring into being of their ownpower; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker or a tailor. This notonly contradicts Scripture, but it runscounter to experience. 18

Again, Luther writes: Ungodly and wickedmen, who suppose that everything happensby chance, understanding nothing in theHoly Scriptures and the creatures of God. 19

Obviously, Martin Luther recognized thatmen and women did not come into existenceby chance or mistake under the guise of either Deistic or Theistic Evolution.Combining materialistic Darwinism with the authority of Scripture and thebiblical narrative on Creation tramples theGospel and the entire biblical narrativethat Jesus Christ was in the world creating the world before the world was. Thishas serious implications for the ongoing future of mankind in the areas of abortion,reproductive technologies, assisted suicide,euthanasia, ageism, health care rationing,and Posthumanism wherein human beingsare treated as objects.

Human Beginnings:

LCMS Perspective The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synodrejects materialistic Darwinistic cosmicorigins of mankind as well as its union with Biblical Creation by God in the formof Theistic Evolution. We are dependent onGod, our Creator. We are not autonomousbeings seeking self-ful llment via self-will.By His grace through faith we receive Hislove in Christ Jesus and share this covenantlove with those around us in our Christian witness. We are the Lord Gods humancreatures to worship, serve and obey Him,as well as serve our fellow persons. To reducehuman beings to objects or commodities ormurder them by elective abortion violatesGods will set forth in His creative word

... so that we neither endanger nor harm thelives of our neighbors, but instead help andsupport them in all of lifes needs. 20

The Lord God, the Word made esh in Jesus, teaches us that we value all human

beings as persons from conception. We arenot here to build our City and Tower of

who believe that this is the way to go forChristians so that they can have the bestof both worlds. For example, Dr. FrancisCollins, Director of the National Institutes of Health and Dr. John Polkinghorne prefer tomerge the Doctrine of Creation and theBig Bang/Materialistic Darwinism intoTheistic Evolution, or as Dr. Collinsprefers, BioLogos.

Dr. Collins writes in his most recent book,The Language of God :

Science reveals that the universe, ourown planet, and life itself are engagedin an evolutionary process ....No serious biologist today doubts thetheory of evolution to explain themarvelous complexity and diversity of life .... In the context, I nd theisticevolution, or BioLogos, to be by farthe most scienti cally consistent andspiritually satisfying of the alternatives.15

Dr. Polkinghorne in Science and Theology, anIntroductionstates:

The universe started extremely simple(referring to the Big Bang), but inthe course of its fteen-billion-yearhistory there has been generated a richprofusion of complex structure.

This has happened by evolutionary process, ... God is present in theevolutionary processnot as its soledeterminant, for an evolving world isallowed by its Creator to some degreeto make itself through the shu ing explorations of contingencybut as thesource and guide of its fruitfulness. 16

To the contrary, Dr. Martin Luther predatesthese latest pro-theistic evolutionists whenhe writes:

Just as no creature was able tocontribute towards its own creation atthe beginning, so it has not been ableto work towards its preservation and theperpetuation of its kind. Thus, as wehuman beings did not create ourselves,so we can do nothing to keep ourselvesalive for a single moment by ourown power.17

He adds:

It is not true as several heretics andother vulgar persons allege, that God

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

25/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

25

Babel, That Hideous Strength. 21 Controland manipulation of His human creaturesand the environment are not living the life of Christ Jesus in this world.

Again, we are here to be His witnesses, toplant the seed of the Gospel, to water theseed of the Gospel, and know that He causesthe Gospel seed to grow in the body and soulof all persons that He has called by name.

As a Lutheran Christian scientist andordained clergyman who has served in twoparishes for 10 years and now, for the past18 years as Professor of Practical Theology,I have no di culty proclaiming that theLORD God is the author and creator of alllife. When I am asked the question:

Why dont you, a scientist and theologian,see how God uses the cosmic origin of theuniverse and man in our ongoing evolution?

I respond: I am a Christian Lutheran thatbelieves in the Word of God who has mademe His human creature and brought meinto His body through water, Word and faith.

Where you begin is where you will go.

Notes

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

Convention Proceedings, 52nd RegularConvention, The Lutheran ChurchMissouriSynod, Dallas, Texas, July 1522, 1977,To Support E orts to Protect the Living butUnborn, Resolution 308C, page 130. Convention Proceedings, 53rd RegularConvention, The Lutheran ChurchMissouriSynod, St. Louis, Missouri, July 612, 1979,To State Position on Abortion, Resolution 302A,page 117. Convention Proceedings, 56th, RegularConvention, The Lutheran ChurchMissouriSynod, Indianapolis, Indiana, July 1825, 1986,To Rea rm the Position of the Synod on Abortion, Resolution 321, page 148. Convention proceedings, 61st Regular Convention,The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod, St. Louis,Missouri, July 1420, 2001, To Reiterate SynodsStance on Abortion, Resolution 602A, p. 157.

R. ORahi lly and F. Mller, Human Embryology &Teratology, 3rd Ed., (Wiley-Liss, 2001), pp. 7-8. Moore Persaude, The Developing Human, ClinicallyOriented Embryology, 7th Ed.,(Saunders, 2003), p. 2. St. Luke 1:31 Martin Luther, The Large Catechism,in The Book of Concord , edited by Robert Kolb andTimothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,2000), p. 343.

Francis S. Collins, The Language of God, A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief .(Free Press, 2006), pp. 45, 99, 210.

John Polkinghorne, Science & Theology,an Introduction(Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 39, 80.

Martin Luther, Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 1-4, Luthers Works, Vol. 22(Concordia Publishing House, 1957), p. 28.

Ibid, pp. 28-29.

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis,Chapters 21-25, Luthers Works, Vol. 4(Concordia Publishing House, 1958), p. 249.

Martin Luther, The Small Catechism, in The Book of Concord , edited by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Fortress Press, 2000), p. 352.

C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, a Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups(Scribner, 1996), title page.

Martin Luther, The Small Catechism and The Large Catechism, in The Book of Concord, The Confessionsof the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited by Robert Kolband Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 2000), pp. 354, 432-433.

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis,Luthers Works, Chapters 1-5(St. Louis: ConcordiaPublishing House, 1958), vol. 1, p. 84.

Proceedings of the 47th Regular Convention of TheLutheran ChurchMissouri Synod, New York, New

York, July 714, 1967, To Rea rm Our Position onCreation, Fall, and Related Subjects,Resolution 231, p. 95. Convention Proceedings, 2004, 62nd RegularConvention, The Lutheran ChurchMissouri

Synod, St. Louis, Missouri, July 1015, 2004,To Commend Preaching and Teaching Creation,Resolution 208A, p. 125-126. Convention Proceedings of the 53rd RegularConvention, The Lutheran ChurchMissouriSynod, St. Louis, Missouri, July 612, 1979,

To Allow Concept of Special Creation to Be Taughtin Public Schools, Resolution 902A, p. 161. Convention Proceedings of the 54th RegularConvention, the Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod,St. Louis, Missouri, July 310, 1981, To EncourageTeaching of Creation, Resolution 716, p. 201.

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

26/53

I s s u e s

26

The objective is to describe how human evolution is currently un

in the sciences. Let us be clear that I am reporting information,not analyzing data.

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

27/53

S p r i n g

2 0 1 1

27

Given the limited space I have to discuss atopic as controversial as human evolution,I feel compelled to be as clear as possibleregarding the objective of this article. Theobjective is to describe how human evolutionis currently understood in the sciences. Letus be clear that I am reporting information,not analyzing data. My objective is not todisprove or prove that the informationreported is accurate and true, but rather torelay to the reader what is currently being said in the scienti c community about theevolutionary history of humans. In order toachieve this objective, it will be necessary tolay out a small number of scienti c termsand concepts so that the information is more

readily understood.This discussion will begin withrudimentary evolutionary concepts and will then progress to a summary of whatis currently being suggested as the path of human evolution. I will pick up the humanancestry from where it is currently believedthat humans diverged from chimpanzeesand introduce the key points in the fossilrecord that are used to substantiate humanevolution from that point to modern humans.The paper will conclude with a discussion of

how current paradigms within the scienti ccommunity mold the discussion of humanevolution (and evolution in general). The Basics Current evolutionary theory is based onconcepts developed by Charles Darwin inhis book, On the Origin of Species, published in1859 . Interestingly, Darwin did not addresshuman evolution in Originswith the rigor that

it was discussed inThe Descent of Manpublishedin 1871 . The Origin of Speciesestablished the

concept of natural selection that Darwindeveloped by combining his observationsof arti cial selection (e.g., cross breeding plants and animals for maximum productionin agriculture) with the concept of limitedenvironmental resources. He concludedthat organisms that can adapt best to theirenvironment will have the most o spring.Modern science draws on the informationlearned from genetics (unavailable to Darwin)to say that changes in the morphology (general internal and external anatomy) of an organism occur when the genetic code(DNA ) of that organism mutates and new morphological characteristics emerge withinthat organism.

When mutated changes in an organismoccur, the ability of that organism to producemore o spring than competing organismscan sometimes take place, and the mutatedorganism will survive at a higher rate andestablish itself as the dominant organism.The ability of a genome (all the genes of aparticular organism) to change over timeprovides a population (all the organismsfound in that species) with the ability to adaptto new environments as they arise and also tobecome the best suited for the environment

they currently occupy. If the environmentchanges over time, species will change with it.New species will emerge and other species willgo extinct. This basic concept is then used todescribe how all new species arise from oldones and even how the rst living organismscolonized the Earth.

Carolus Linnaeus established aclassi cation system in1735 that attemptedto take extant (currently existing) animalsand organize them based on morphologicalcharacteristics. His classi cation systemorganized animals into a Kingdom, Phylum,Class, Order, Family, Genus and Speciesscheme. For example, modern humans

would be in the Kingdom Animalia, PhylumChordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primates,Family Hominidae, Genus Homoand the speciessapiens. This classi cation scheme guresprominently in the discussion of humanorigins and focuses primarily at the levels of family, genus and species.

Another key concept that is used in the

discussion of human origins is cranium

Dr. Roderick B. Soper is Associate Professor of Biology Concordia University, Irvine.Rod.Soper@cui.edu

8/6/2019 ISSUES 2011-44-2 Spring

28/53

I s s u e s

28

(or skull) size. The idea here is that the sizeof the brain is correlated to the intelligenceof the organism. Human-like fossils withsmall brain sizes would be considered lessintelligent than modern humans. In general,

the smaller the brain, the less human thefossil would be considered.Homology is a key concept that must

be understood when reviewing humanevolutionary history. This concept identi esshared body form characteristics for extinctand extant animals and attempts to draw conclusions based on the similarity of thesecharacteristics and how many characteristicsare shared. For example, humans are thoughtto be more closely related to chimpanzeesthan apes because of shared skeletalcharacteristics. This concept is extended tometabolic, genetic and social similarities as well. The basic assumption in this conceptis that similarities mean evolutionary relatedness. The more similarities foundbetween animals, the closer they are related.

Evolutionary trees are established by using homology. These trees attempt to build

a visual picture that shows the evolutionary lineage of a species. Human fossils, andthose fossils appearing to be human-like, are aged and analyzed by looking forshared characteristics, and evolutionary

relationships are theorized based on this data.One signi cant characteristic that is used inhuman evolution is the ability to walk uprighton two feet (called bipedalism). In order to walk as we humans do, the hip, spine,leg bones and feet bones must be positionedcorrectly or we would fall over as we walked.Scientists will use the skeletal structure of amodern bipedal human and compare that tofossils found to determine that fossils ability,or inability, to walk upright.

Current scienti c dating techniquesestimate the age of the Earth to be in thebillions. Consequently, when one looks atevolutionary trees of humans, relationshipsare reported in the millions of years. Most of human evolutionary history is considered tobe relatively recent by geologic time scales.

Th