FAITH AND REASON Creation, Faith, and Science Theodore Feldman To take an aspirin for a headache, and reject the earth’s rotation and with it then to repudiate Darwinian evolu- all of astronomy, which traces the for- tion, is hypocrisy. For aspirin’s work mation of stars over billions of years in our bodies, and the biochemistry and cannot abide a six-day creation. of the willow tree from which it is We are compelled as well to discard derived, are inextricably bound to all the historical sciences, which reach evolution. To drive a car and repu- back into time much further than the diate evolution is hypocrisy. For the authors of Genesis ever imagined. car consumes fossil fuel, the knowl- What, for example, are we to do with edge, extraction, and use of which the science of linguistics? Genesis tells are, again, bound to evolution, which us that prior to Babel all nations spoke explains the formation of petroleum the same language. Linguistics cannot from ancient sea creatures. If we live countenance this, any more than geol- in the modern world, enjoying the ogy the six-day creation. If we insist fruits of science, then we cannot reject on a literal interpretation of Scripture, its theories. we will end up rejecting all of modern knowledge. The psalmist proclaims that the Lord “set the earth on its foundations, so But what is meant by “a literal inter- that it should never be moved” (Ps. pretation of Scripture”? The letters 104:5, ESV). It was against this asser- (literae) of Scripture tell us nothing; tion that Galileo stumbled, when his they are marks on a page. They have church persecuted him for arguing no spirit in them. We Christians must that the earth rotates on its axis and read them in the Spirit in whom we revolves around the sun. If we inter- abide. What spirit, then, do we bring pret Scripture literally, then we must to Scripture in a so-called “literal” 30 interpretation? We are told that a they believe, there can have been no 1 For example, literal interpretation insists on the primitive humans outside that area.4 Jesse Dominick, “A “plain meaning,” “simple meaning” They grant variation among species Patristic Perspective or “common understanding” of the but disallow “that one kind or species on a Crucified Mind: 1 Fr. Seraphim Rose words of Genesis. This “plain mean- changes into another,” an argument and the Doctrine of ing” is certainly not the meaning of dating back to Darwin himself, which, Creation” (M.Div. the authors of Genesis; those who despite the abundant evidence in the thesis, St. Tikhon’s bring to Genesis a “literal” interpre- fossil record, was not conclusively dis- Orthodox Theologi- tation make no attempt to discern the proven until quite recently.5 cal Seminary, 2013); Seraphim Rose, intent of Genesis’ authors or the un- Genesis, Creation, derstanding of their audience. Rather, These arguments—involving con- and Early Man: The the “plain meaning” is of course our cepts of the succession of time, de- Orthodox Christian “plain meaning,” the meaning of our scent and inheritance, length of the Vision (Platina, Calif.: common speech and conversation. solar day, ice ages, and skull finds— St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2000). But this speech, this conversation, is abide in a universe of discourse that A search online thoroughly informed by our modern, is governed not by the spirit in which for “Genesis plain positivist, scientific worldview, which Genesis was written but by modern meaning” returns declares that only what science can science. Orthodox who accept evo- many references show us is real. From our youth, this lution and attempt a reconciliation to non-Orthodox discussions. metaphysic has been so ingrained in with Genesis fall into the same trap, us that to see beyond it is as difficult questioning “whether the scientific 2 Rose, 111; Andrei as to jump out of our own skin. evidence of humankind, or Homo Kuraev, “Can an sapiens, being around 200,000 years Orthodox Christian So for example, some creationists old [can] be reconciled with the Bib- Accept Evolution?” in the Orthodox Church argue that lical record that Adam and Eve lived Silouan (blog), February 11, 2016, the six days of creation recorded in at a much later date, probably after silouanthompson. 6 Genesis could not have been enough the end of the last Ice Age.” The logic net/2011/02/can-an- time for evolution to proceed. How of creationism stands Genesis side by orthodox-christian- much time is necessary for the evo- side with science as if the two were of accept-evolution/; lution of species is, however, a scien- one kind, and debates their compati- S.V. Bufeev, “Why an Orthodox tific question. Others dispute whether bility. But since Genesis was written Christian Cannot the days recounted in Genesis were some thousands of years before the Be an Evolutionist,” twenty-four-hour days or longer pe- emergence of modern scientific habits n.d., www.creatio. riods of millions of years, a question of thought, this endeavor will only do orthodoxy.ru/ regarding measurement that takes no violence to the one or the other. sbornik/sbufeev_ whynot_english. account of the world view of ancient html; “Interview Israel, which did not divide the day Its narrow focus on the first six days with Fr. Damascene into hours and had no conception of leads creationism to ignore God’s con- (Christensen),” periods of time millions of years long.2 tinuing activity, and to imply—if only Pravoslavnie.ru Orthodox creationists ask whether by its silence—that his creative work (blog), February 22, 2006, www. God created the heavens and earth afterwards stopped. In this, it adheres pravoslavie.ru/ “all at once” on the first day or over to a constitutive aspect of our modern english/7197.htm. a longer period. They argue that the scientific outlook: that nature runs as sequence of events reported in Gen- an autonomous realm by its own laws. 3 Rose, 135–136. esis contradicts the order of the evo- The notion that after the first six days lution of species.3 They deny that the God abandoned his creation, allowing many ancient skulls found outside of it to run according to the laws of na- modern Iraq are human and questions ture, is often expressed as the “watch- the dating of these discoveries. Since maker” analogy. Favored by seven- Eden was located in what is now Iraq, teenth- and eighteenth-century deists The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 31 and by scientists such as Isaac New- Moreover, God does not reserve cre- ton, the watchmaker analogy grew ative activity to himself. In his bound- up with the young science as part and less generosity he grants to creation parcel of its methods. According to it, itself power to create. He commands God does not eternally fill his creation creation: “Be fruitful and multiply,” with his energies and his love; he is, and in obedience his creatures bring rather, like a watchmaker who builds forth new life through procreation. a watch and then leaves it to run on Even lifeless creatures enjoy a cer- its own. Seraphim Rose, whom we can tain creativity. God commands: “let regard as the father of contemporary the earth put forth” plants, “let the Orthodox creationism, was most likely waters bring forth swarms of living unaware of his adherence to this view creatures” (Gen. 1:11, 20). Earth and 4 Andrew Phillips, when he insisted that the first six days water, lifeless beings, bring forth life. “Towards an Ortho- dox View of Creation occurred “before all the world’s natu- and Evolution,” ral processes began to work. If we Nor does Genesis draw any clear dis- OrthodoxEngland.org can know what happened in those Six tinction between the creative power (blog), August 2006, Days at all, it is not by scientific pro- of the earth and God’s creative act: orthodoxengland. jections . but by God’s revelation.”7 “Let the earth bring forth living crea- org.uk/towardso. htm. Implied is a radical divide between tures. And God made the beasts our Lord’s creative work during the of the earth” (Gen. 1:24–25). The acts 5 Rose, 424–425. first six days and the rest of the history of God in nature cannot be separated Patrick Nosil et al., of creation.8 All of us inherit from our from nature’s own activity according “Host-plant Adap- culture this outlook: that God, absent to its laws. By this I do not mean to tation Drives the from his creation, simply allows it to imply that God is somehow bound to Parallel Evolution of Reproductive Iso- run according to its own laws. the laws of nature or dependent upon lation,” Nature 417 them. Rather, the laws of nature are a (2002): 440–443. Scripture contradicts this view. “My manifestation of God’s creative work. Father is working still, and I am work- Our Lord is “upholding the universe 6 Vladimir De Beer, ing,” Jesus assures us (John 5:17). by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3)— “Genesis, Creation Psalm 104 confesses that God is al- all things, including the laws of nature and Evolution,” OrthodoxyToday. ways creating: “When you send forth themselves. The acts of God in nature org (blog), May your Spirit, they are created; and you are a mystery, the same order of mys- 25, 2010, www. renew the face of the ground” (Ps. tery as his acts in history. And indeed, orthodoxytoday. 104:30). We thank God at every Di- why should they be of a different kind? org/view/de-beer- vine Liturgy, who “by your measure- It is we who draw the distinction be- genesis-creation- and-evolution.