Editor’s note: This post is part of a series featuring outstanding excerpts from student papers at the BibleMesh Institute, which offers affordable online training for local churches, schools, and ministries. The author’s name has been withheld for privacy and security purposes. She is preparing to serve as a missionary overseas.
The modern period brought a flood of new interpretations for Genesis. Advancements in science led many theologians to try to find new interpretations that would unite scientific discoveries with the Bible. One of the most influential scientific theories of this time was the articulation of the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. Darwin asserted that all life developed over time through a process of genetic mutations and adaptations. Simple organisms eventually evolved more useful genetic information and became more complex organisms, he claimed. Darwin argued we are still experiencing this today as organisms continue to adapt and change to their environment.
These kinds of ideas have existed for much longer than Charles Darwin’s theory. Previous thinkers had argued scientific processes could lead to the diversity of life we see around us without God creating in the format described in Genesis. Scientist Louis Pasteur, for example, hypothesized that matter could come into being through spontaneous generation. He claimed the universe had an underlying mechanism that allowed matter to come out of nothing.
The difference between previous theories and Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was the evidence Darwin collected on the Galapagos Islands. Darwin found that finches on the Galapagos Islands had different sizes of beaks depending on what they ate. These different sub-species of finch originated from a single species of finch. Some finches had thin beaks and would eat insects. Some of the birds had slightly larger beaks so they could eat nuts. These nut eating birds’ offspring also had larger beaks. Over time, these birds adapted until they were distinct from one another. Darwin extended his visual evidence to say that an exceedingly large amount of time, millions of years, could lead to simple organisms becoming complex. This evidence captured the minds of many scientists. There was now physical evidence that adaptations did lead to a change in species over time, and this became the most popular theory to explain the existence and diversity of the world without needing an omnipotent being to direct all things.
Many modern theologians sought to interpret the Bible in light of these new theories. Thomas Chalmers was an Anglican theologian who supported the Gap Theory of interpreting Genesis 1. Gap theory suggests there was a long period of time that occurred in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:3. God created the matter of the universe, then used long periods of time to allow the rocks, rivers, and other geological phenomena to come to pass through slow, natural processes, according to this theory. Then, after millions of years, Genesis 1:3 shows God formed all life and made form out of the void.[1]
George Stanley Faber adhered to the “Day-Age Theory.” He believed that we could interpret Genesis 1 in a way that allowed for the process of evolution. Day could simply mean “a period of time” instead of a literal 24-hour period. If each day in Genesis represented a much longer age, then those six days in the Bible could represent millions or even billions of years. God was still sovereign, but He created through evolutionary processes, not all at once.[2] This would mean that when God created the sun, moon, and stars, He did not do so in an instant, but had the individual particles of matter form slowly over time to create stars. Mankind was not created in a 24-hour period, but over the course of a long age after the other pieces of creation had formed.
One other theory for interpreting Genesis considering evolution is the Framework Hypothesis. Several modern theologians held this theory as a reasonable way to combine Genesis with science. Henri Blocher described the Framework Hypothesis as understanding Genesis 1 as a literary tool. This was not an account to be taken literally, but a way of saying something that is more poetic or allegorical. We are meant to see that God is sovereign over creation, but we are not meant to believe this was the exact timeline of how God created.[3]
Other modern theologians, such as Thomas Hartwell Horne, continued to adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Genesis was a historical account of how God created from nothing in a six-day period. Horne also explicitly expressed his belief that all of Scripture is inerrant. It is sufficient for all to know God, and we can read the Bible literally.[4] Horne believed that God wants us to know Him. God was clear when writing Scripture and did not over spiritualize or hide the meaning of His Word to us. God wants a relationship with us, and we can know some of who He is.
Regardless of how God created, there are some things all Christians can cling to. We know the character of our God is good. He is completely powerful and upholds all of creation. We can also see throughout Scripture that God wants a relationship with those He has created. These truths are clear regardless of how you interpret Genesis. It is also clear that Darwin cannot govern how we interpret Scripture. Science can complement Scripture, but Scripture must always take supremacy over science when they disagree.
[1] Terry Mortenson, Great Turning Point (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Publishing, 2004).
[2] George Stanley Faber, “A Treatise On The Genius And Object Of The Patriarchal, The Levitical And The Christian Dispensations, In Two Volumes – Google Play”, Play.Google.Com, accessed 7 February 2021, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=WSNAAAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA112.
[3] Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, trans. David G. Preston (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984).
[4] Mortenson, Great Turning Point.