Humanity

“Bible believers sometimes take refuge behind defensive positions not supported by the Bible itself.  The Bible does not teach that the world is flat, or that it was created in the year 4004 BC, or that the earth, or the solar system, or our galaxy is the center of the material universe.  Adhering to non-biblical positions in a dogmatic “religious” spirit has created unnecessary problems for biblical faith.” –J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.  The Origin of Man

The meaning of humanity is ultimately tied into the making of the earth.  All traditions, whether religious or secular, see a connection between humanity and all the other species on earth, ultimately connecting humanity to the earth and how it was made.  This is one of the reasons that the evolution debate persists, because the philosophy of how we see humanity hangs in the balance.  If humanity is a result of a series of random events, then humanity has no purpose, no meaning and all we do is of no import.  If humanity was created based on principles of power, then humanity is about power.  If humanity was created in the image of God, then humanity is purposed to act like God.  This is all very heady and conceptual, but the fact is, we have little actual evidence to help us understand the purpose of humanity, so conceptual ideals is all we have.

The evidence: The current debate between evolution and creation philosophies are based on a couple different bodies of evidence.  First, on the evolution side, we have the fossil record.  And then we have various philosophies that popped up from an interpretation of the fossil record.  On the creation side, we have the biblical text.  But we also have various theologies that developed from interpretations of the biblical text.  And most of the arguments between the evolutionists and the creationists have occurred from the philosophies, not the evidence.  It comes down to the interpretation we want to believe just as before we read the evidence and what conclusions we come to after.  It also depends on what community we belong to, as to what kinds of interpretation we will allow ourselves to have. 

Let’s talk about the evidence for evolution.  Evolution has been seen by human eyes, and recorded.  It is shown that birds, who have a variety of colors, will tend toward colors that keep them camouflaged in the environment that they live in.  This only makes sense, for predators will capture the birds that are not camouflaged well.  And this means that within that species, there will be changes over time.  No problem, for any breeder or horticulturalist well knows that you can remarkably change the appearance of an animal or plant to suit one’s purposes—whether on purpose or by accident.  Changes happen.

For evolution there is also the fossil record.  The fossil record shows that over a long period of time, species have changed remarkably, and that most species that existed in the early times of earth no longer exist.  And that humanity is a young species compared to the many varieties of species over time.  The fossil record also shows, in general, that species develop in complexity over time.  Species with fewer cells consistently exist earlier in the fossil record, and systems develop and then are included consistently later on in the fossil record.  This indicates development over time.

However, the mechanism of that development is not clearly seen.  To understand that, there must be interpretation of the evidence.  Darwin was a marvelous interpreter, but many seculars who honor his findings, also find that his interpretation has need of exam and re-interpretation, not least of which is Stephan Gould.  Thus, “survival of the fittest” is simply a principle which could interpret the findings, but not the only one.  In fact, scientific interpreters find, the facts are much more complex than “fittest” could explain.

As to the biblical facts, these come from what the text of scripture actually says.  It says that God created all things, and that a creation took place in six days. It says that God created humanity in a special creation, not naturally, for his own purposes.  It also says that all the earth’s creation was handed over to humanity to be under humanity’s rule.

What is remarkable is what the textual record does not say.  Not only does it not indicate that the earth was created at approximately the same time as humanity, but it says that the earth, heavens and oceans already existed before the six day creation began.  Thus, there is actually biblical evidence that counters a young earth theory along with all the interpretations that go with it.  Also, the order of creation is not clear in Scripture, for while Genesis 1 is clear, the parallel creation account in Genesis 2 discusses a different order.  Thus, the order must not be significant. There is little biblical evidence for a canopy of ice, dinosaurs existing at the same time as humans or other creation speculations.  Certainly there is no evidence of this in the fossil record, and in fact the fossil record clearly speaks against a young earth, the Genesis 1 order of creation (in which day and vegetation exist before the sun), and dinosaurs and humans existing at the same time.

What exactly is the source of the conflict?  Well, the evolutionists look at their evidence and see the interpreters of biblical text ignoring what seems clear to them: a long progression from simple life to more complex.  And the biblical interpreters see the secularists ignoring what is obvious from their evidence: God’s creation and a special human creation.  And these two evidences ARE difficult to reconcile.  After all, if one believes in a single creator, all knowing and all powerful, then it makes no sense that there would be a progression of creation over time.  And if one believes in a natural progression, when why should human creation not be a part of the same progression, and if the process can be seen as natural, why claim that God is involved in the process at all—it simply is not necessary to determine the facts.

Is there a way to pull together these claims?  Yes, if one looks at both sets of evidence, but doing so requires some release of favorite interpretations.  It means that we, as theologians, must look at the fossil record fairly for what it says.  That the earth truly is old, and that there is a progression.  Is there any hint of this in the biblical text?  And, in fact, there is a hint, although not easy to find. 

Psalm 74 says:

God is my king from of old, Who works deeds of deliverance in the midst of the earth.

 13 You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea monsters in the waters.

 14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan; You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

 15 You broke open springs and torrents; You dried up ever-flowing streams.

 16 Yours is the day, Yours also is the night; You have prepared the light and the sun.

 17 You have established all the boundaries of the earth; You have made summer and winter.

This is an ancient interpretation of Genesis 1.  It describes the creation event as being an act of war against Leviathan and sea monsters, which the earth had to be delivered from.  This indicates not only that the earth already existed, but that some kind of creatures already existed on it.  That there may have been a creation before the Genesis 1 account.

And this makes sense.  After all, the Genesis 1 creation begins with the earth already existing and it being covered with ocean.  Interestingly enough, this is the same state of affairs in Genesis 8, after the flood in which God “delivers” the earth from the mass of humanity who had become too violent.  Thus, a creation event could very well be a wiping of a previous creation and the creating of a new one.  The biblical record, then speaks of two of these events.

It just so happens, that the fossil record also speaks of a “wiping out” of species.  In fact, there are indications of five mass extinctions in the fossil record, followed by a heightened period of new species being developed.  The complexification of species does not exclusively in this period, but it certainly increases.  Thus it is possible that both science and theology can agree upon various periods of destruction and re-creation.

But what about God’s participation?  This requires a little speculation, but it is possible to reconcile theology and science in this regard as well.  It is clear in the biblical text that God had “helpers” in creation.  Some of these helpers are metaphorical, such as “wisdom” in Proverbs 7, but some are considered to be literal, such as the Word in John 1 and Jesus in Colossians 1.  And Elohim in Genesis 1 calls himself “we”, which is rare in the Bible text. 

My speculation is this: that God created the earth much in the way that a CEO of Microsoft creates programs.  The CEO orders the programs made, but the actual creation is done by underlings.  This is not that the CEO cannot do the programs himself, but that he is teaching his underlings to create.  Thus, there is a progression in creation, and it happens over time, while an all powerful, all knowing creator would do it all at once.

My speculation goes further: A computer program is not actually made by a single person, but later programmers actually borrow pieces of earlier programs in order to quickly develop their programs, without having to re-invent the wheel.  Thus, if one looks at computer programs over the whole of the invention of them, it looks as if they “evolved”, that is, developed in a natural progression.  This is because a single program develops a useful set of text, which is then found after in many other programs.  However, we understand that there were many designers involved that made that progression possible. 

Again, this is speculation, but it is this sort of speculation that might help there be a new kind of creationism that, like the intelligent design philosophy, would take a fair look at both the biblical text and the fossil record and try to determine God’s plan from that.

From the fossil record, and from looking at other creatures, we can determine that the parts of humanity were compiled from other creature’s collections of cells.  However, the whole of humanity remains unique.  Humanity truly is a special creation.

It seems difficult to justify self-consciousness from an evolutionary standpoint.  What possible benefit can self-consciousness provide any species?  I am not saying that other species besides humanity cannot have self-consciousness.  It is clear that other animals can have this possibility.  But what is the benefit of it?  It only leads to speculation and failed attempts to control ones environment.  On a survival basis, self-consciousness is decidedly unhelpful.

The beginning of a human relationship with the Creator is to know ourselves as creatures.  Humanity is dust—one with the world—yet created in God’s image.  Earthiness and divinity in one neat package, multiplied by billions.  Weakness and strength; bound to both the physical and the spiritual; fallen yet eternally linked to God.  Humanity is the perfect bridge, between heaven and earth, yet fundamentally warped.