The universe, as the Biblical authors saw it
James McGrath linked to this rather beautiful illustration of how the Biblical authors saw what we now call the universe by Michæl Paukner. Check out his other illustrations too.
Creationists say they read Genesis literally or naturally. On the face of it, that might sound true. But when you see an illustration like this, you see how much modern cosmology creationists import in to their readings. Reading literally and naturally is, in fact, a way of reading uncritically, of not properly thinking through what you're reading. Ironically, it also becomes a way of actually not reading Genesis literally, since the cosmology is simply ignored or missed.
The best thing to do is, of course, to actually reading Genesis literally - that is, not reading it as some sort of modern journalistic account of a scientific event, but according to its literary character. That is to say, as myth. That's allowing the text to be as and what it is and to allow it freely to address us. Because, while I'm sure they're not doing it intentionally, creationists, by insisting on reading Genesis as scientific and anti-evolutionary text, get so worked up that they miss the theological point entirely.
Or as Rowan Williams said,
My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it.
Click for a larger version.
Pannenberg on Genesis and evolution
God always used creatures to bring about other things. Think of the function of the earth in the first part of Genesis. The earth is addressed by God to assist in His act of creation. First, the earth is addressed to bring about vegetation. So we may wonder, 'How can the earth, an inorganic reality, bring about an organic reality, vegetation, and then bring about the self organization of organisms from inorganic materials?' Yet, this is the Christian creation story.The second address of the earth is even bolder than that! God addresses the earth to bring about animals. And the text means higher animals. Such boldness does not really characterize even Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin wouldn't have dreamed to have higher animals spring immediately from the earth, from inorganic matter. Darwin is much more moderate than that. In criticizing the doctrine of evolution, our creationist friends among Christian theologians should read their Bibles more closely.
Creation ex materia in action
Creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing, is a pretty basic Christian doctrine. Traditionally, creatio ex nihilo has been seen as opposed to creatio ex materia, creation out of material. In the creation myths of Genesis, it is obvious, though, that both ex nihilo and ex materia co-exist, so to speak. God creates "in the beginning" (1:1) and then proceeds, forming the world out of the stuff that's already there, turning chaos into cosmos, disorder into order.
I say this as an introduction to the wonderful video above. It, in its own very cool way, illustrates what creatio ex materia looks like. Creator (!) of the video is Israeli DJ Kutiman, who spent two months trawling through YouTube looking for music he could splice together into a new musical whole that he called Thru You. The result is, in short, amazing - as is perfectly obvious.
It makes sense of course to emphasise the ex nihilo aspect God's creative action. But not at the expense of ex materia. It can be thought, reasonably I think, that the over-emphasis on ex nihilo is a result of theology being done in a pre-Darwinian world. Conversely, in a post-Darwinian world, we see that as important as ex nihilo is, ex materia is as important, if not even more so. God is continually creating the world through the evolutionary process first formulated by Darwin 150 years ago.
And Kutiman illustrates that aspect of God's creative action in this song - fittingly entitled "I'm New".
Dawkins speaks the truth
His theology might be abysmal and his philosophy a disaster, but apparently Richard Dawkins' ecclesiology is pretty good. Just listen to this excerpt from his upcoming book, The Greatest Show on Earth. While I don't share his aversion to symbolism (how could I and still call myself a theologian?), I think the point about clarity is important. We shouldn't speak of the Genesis texts like they're history - if we don't think they are, that is.
All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin,” or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.
Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen—one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some—perhaps members of their own family or church—and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.





