The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

by John H. Walton

The principle factor that differentiates a biblical view of origins from a modern scientific view of origins is that the biblical view is characterized by a pervasive teleology: God is the one responsible for creation in every respect. He has a purpose and a goal as he creates with intentionality. The mechanisms that he used to bring the cosmos into material existence are of little consequence as long as they are seen as the tools in his hands. Teleology is evident in and supported by the functional orientation.

teleological aspects (exploration of purpose) are not in the realm of science as it has been defined and therefore could not be factored into a scientific understanding. ID could be considered as contributing to the scientific enterprise when it is offering a critique of the reigning paradigm because it offers scientific observations in its support. But it does not contribute to the advance of scientific understanding because it does not offer an alternative that is scientifically testable and falsifiable. Its basic premise is a negative one: that “naturalistic mechanisms (i.e., natural selection, random mutation) cannot fully account for life as we know it.”[4]

ID does not deny the operation of naturalistic mechanisms—it simply finds them insufficient to offer a comprehensive explanation of all observable phenomena. It cannot offer at present a scientific hypothesis proposing alternatives. Consequently it can only offer inferences regarding science that can only be tracked currently by leaving the realm of science.

Though the Bible upholds the idea that God is responsible for all origins (functional, material or otherwise), if the Bible does not offer an account of material origins we are free to consider contemporary explanations of origins on their own merits, as long as God is seen as ultimately responsible.

note that when Job believed that his understanding of the world and how it worked could be reduced to a single model (retribution principle: the righteous will prosper; the wicked will suffer), his suffering took him by surprise and was without explanation. How could such a thing happen? Why would God do this? The book is full of Job’s demand for an explanation. When God finally appears he does not offer an explanation, but offers a new insight to Job. By confronting Job with the vast complexity of the world, God shows that simplistic models are an inadequate basis for understanding what he is doing in the world. We trust his wisdom rather than demanding explanations for all that we observe in the world around us and in our own lives.

God in his wisdom has done things in the way that he has. We cannot stand in judgment of that, and we cannot expect to understand it all. We can still explore the what and the how questions, but the why will always lie beyond our understanding and beyond our models. Relative to God, as humans we are by definition simplistic.

evolution is often construed in such a way as to leave God out of the picture—as if it denies the existence of God or even can establish beyond reasonable doubt that he does not exist. This is not a problem with evolutionary theory, only a problem with some who propagate evolution in dysteleological ways (absent of purpose). This problem is easily resolved by an affirmation that whatever evolutionary processes may have taken place, we believe that God was intimately involved in them. This is a metaphysical and theological decision that can only take place outside of the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory.

If God’s work of creation is considered only a historical act that took place in the past, it is easy to imagine how people might not think in terms of God being active today. We have lost the view that nature does not operate independently from God. He is still creating with each baby that is born, with each plant that grows, with each cell that divides, with each nebula that forms.

we only recognize God in some incredible occurrence in our lives and forget that he provides for us, cares for us and protects us moment by moment, day after day. God did not just create at some time in the past; he is the Creator—past, present and future.

When the cosmos is viewed in secular terms, it is hard to persuade people to respect it unless they can be convinced that it is in their own best interests to do so. If it is secular, it is easy to think of it only as a resource to be exploited. We even refer to “natural resources.” But when we adopt the biblical perspective of the cosmic temple, it is no longer possible to look at the world (or space) in secular terms. It is not ours to exploit. We do not have natural resources, we have sacred resources. Obviously this view is far removed from a view that sees nature as divine: As sacred space the cosmos is his place. It is therefore not his person. The cosmos is his place, and our privileged place in it is his gift to us. The blessing he granted was that he gave us the permission and the ability to subdue and rule. We are stewards.

As God indicated to Job, even though the world is God’s place and functions under his control, that does not mean that the cosmos is a reflection of God’s attributes (Job 38). The cosmos declares God’s glory, and his existence can be deduced in the observation of the world, but those truths do not indicate that his attributes are consistently worked out in what we call the “natural world.” Gravity is not just; rain falls on the righteous and unrighteous alike , even where no one lives (Job 38:25-27); the created world is not “fair.” If it were going to be consistently fair and just, there would be no room for sin at all. Given that it is a sinful world, God’s condescending grace reigns.

Biological evolution is an empirically derived model that suggests several descriptive mechanisms for material origins. As an empirically derived model, it can only be agnostic concerning teleological affirmation or denial because purpose cannot be identified by any empirical methods. The descriptive mechanisms associated with biological evolution can operate within empirical science without dabbling in the metaphysics of teleology. Of course that does not mean that this is how it is consistently handled in textbooks and classrooms.

Metaphysical naturalism is not metaphysically neutral regarding teleology. Not content with an empirically based methodology, it mandates the restriction of reality to that which is material. By definition, empirical science is characterized by methodological naturalism, but once it begins propounding metaphysical naturalism, it has overstepped its disciplinary boundaries.

Even when a divine hand cannot be observed through scientific methods, that is insufficient reason to conclude that a divine hand does not exist or is not active. Science is designed only to operate within the closed system of the material universe—it ought not therefore pass judgment on whether or not there is anything outside the material universe. It therefore should not draw dysteleological conclusions if it is seeking to restrict itself to valid science.

In conclusion, when origins are discussed in the classroom, empirical science should be taught. We have discussed three important criteria regarding what constitutes empirical science: It is based on a material ontology and premised on methodological naturalism (this eliminates Genesis from the classroom). It is focused on scientifically valid descriptive mechanisms with their strengths and weaknesses acknowledged. So it should include critiques of Neo-Darwinism as well as other origins theories that are trying to offer better explanations of current observations. It must be teleologically neutral (this rules out Genesis, metaphysical naturalism and design).

The ante has been raised so high by the polemical nature of the controversy that resolution in favor of one school will have catastrophic implications for the other. On the one hand, the scientific community by and large, including the National Academy of Sciences, has staked the prestige of science on a particular theory with considerable explanatory power but known problems, in part because it is consistent with a naturalistic philosophy. On the other hand, Creationists have for all intents and purposes staked the truth of their religion on the falsity of that same theory, because of the perceived need for a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Q: Why can’t Genesis 1 be both functional and material? A: Theoretically it could be both. But assuming that we simply must have a material account if we are going to say anything meaningful is cultural imperialism. We cannot demand that the text speak to us in our terms. Just as we cannot demand a material account, we cannot assume a material account just because that is most natural to us and answers the questions we most desire to ask. We must look to the text to inform us of its perspective.