Evolution and The Bible are incompatible

Introduction:Are the Bible and evolution compatible? With many contemporary theologians affirming evolution and the verity of biblical authority, it seems a very astute and particularly pressing question to ask. So far as I can see, there are three ways in which the resolution can be addressed: (1) Evolution and the Bible are possibly compatible. (2) Evolution and the Bible are probably compatible (requiring 1). (3) Evolution is supported by the Bible (requiring 1 and 2). (Though this is irrelevant to the resolution as worded, I include it only because my opponent used this wording in his opening round.) Now, (1) would work something like a theodicy – inasmuch as compatibility need not be likely or even at all true, it need only be possible. This allows a Christian to take seriously the overwhelming scientific consensus of the evolution of species without having to deny the truth of the Bible or its respective authority. Further than this, however, and requiring the truth of (1) – insofar as probability deals directly with the likelihood of possibilities – (2) insists that the compatibility of the Bible and evolution is somewhat greater than 50%. Or, in other terms, compatibility is seemingly more likely true than false. The benefit of (2) is that a theistic evolutionary position needn’t ride on the far fringes of possibility in order to affirm compatibility. In fact, this position means that there are no good reasons for affirming that evolution and the Bible are NOT compatible. On mighty step further, though, (3) affirms that compatibility is not only possible and probable, but that the Bible actually supports the grandiose hypothesis that species evolved over a long duration of time. This position is much harder to affirm but much more powerful if true. I am of the mind that, per the resolution as stated, the truth of (1) would fulfill whatever burden I may carry in this debate. But I would not really be challenging myself or others if I did not also seek to give reasonable evidence for (2) and (3) as well. (1) Evolution and the Bible are possibly compatible. This position is relatively easy to affirm, as it requires very little evidence. In fact, its falsehood would require some sort of undeniable and contradicting premise like, say, “the Bible is always literal.” Of course, if the aforesaid statement is true, then the statement, “The Bible is sometimes not literal,” is necessarily false. But the first statement certainly does not seem true! The Bible is rife with poetry, parables, hyperbole and literary flourish. Certainly Solomon did not literary think a certain woman’s breasts were like fawns (Song of Solomon 4:5)! Jesus did not actually want us to cut our hands off or gouge our eyes out when they lead the body astray (Matthew 5:29)! And help us all if everything is literal in the book of Revelation (see Revelation 13)! Instead, the statement, “the Bible is sometimes not literal,” is far more congenial with scholarship and any plain reading of the Bible. This means that any scripture that seems to indicate that humankind or animals were instantaneously created is possibly not literal, allowing for Christians to affirm evolution (and evolutionary biologists to affirm Christianity) without necessary contradiction. (2) Evolution and the Bible are probably compatible (requiring 1). In order for (2) to be unlikely, it must be more likely that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 are a literal, historical and scientific recounting of the origin of the universe, earth and biological life. Contrary to that, do we have any precedent for thinking that the Bible may speak in ways that identify with the audience but may not be ideal or necessarily literal? I think we do. Consider many aspects of the Mosaic Law. It is relatively clear that certain commands are largely contingent upon the realities of the human condition relative to the social milieu in which the addressees of those commands exist. For instance, in Matthew 19:8, Jesus informs his listeners that the Mosaic Law that permitted divorce was not the ideal or the way God intended it to be. However, as stipulated, there were certain prevailing conditions (hardness of heart) that required the Bible to deliver its message in a more progressive, less ideal way. The question is, then, are there any obvious, prevailing conditions that may have made it necessary for the creation account to be depicted in a way that was understandable and accessible by its original recipients? I certainly think there is. For instance, there are no good reasons for thinking that a literal, scientific accounting of the way in which God created the universe and all that dwelled within it would have made sense to minds not privy to such intricacies. In fact, such an account would lead to far more confusion and dissension than it would clarity – just consider the rigidity and obtuseness of those trying to fathom a heliocentric model. Even more telling, however, is the fact that the creation account in Genesis is reflective of other ancient, Mesopotamian creation accounts. The original readers would have been aware that this account was not literal. It was simply the use of story to portray timeless, divine truths. Is this obvious in the text? I think so. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is full of the number 7 - from the seven days of creation to the 7 seals of Revelation. But the creativity of the creation account is seen in the way the days parallel. What we have is a marvelous parallel of the realms: sky (or the celestial realm), water, land. Realms: The first day God creates the celestial realm. The second day God creates the waters. The third day God brings forth the Land. Then we see that each following day parallels the previous days with the entities that inhabit those realms: The fourth day God creates all the celestial entities that inhabit the sky. The fifth day God creates all the animals of the sea The sixth day God creates all that inhabit the land. Moreover, the context seems to confirm this inference of non-literalism. The author of Genesis seems to be readapting preexisting mythological stories for his own purposes. The genealogies that follow in 4:17-5:32 have a remarkable similarly to early Sumerian king lists that predate Genesis by thousands of years [1]. These lists carry many of the same features. While those in the genealogy in Genesis have insanely long life spans (even though no paleoanthropologists have yet discovered any ancient skeletal remains that are even remotely close to that sort of age), the Sumerian kings have impossibly long reigns. More remarkable is that the two Sumerian lists each end with the character who supposedly survived a flood (like Noah). This shows us that God used the familiar as a way to explore the divine. Literal interpretations rob Genesis of this beauty. Needless to say, I think we have a reasonable basis for affirming that the creation accounts in Genesis were probably not literal, therein allowing for evolution and the Bible to be compatible. (3) Evolution is supported by the Bible (p1) God does not lie (Numbers 23:13). (p2) Evolution of species true (p3) Creation account is literal We cannot affirm all three premises without contradiction. If (p3) is true, either (p1) or (p2) must be false. If (p2) is true either (p1) or (p3) is false. (p1) is not false. Therefore, the question is, out of (p2) and (p3), which is most likely true. Given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it seems more likely true than false. (p3) given point (2), seems more likely false than true. Therefore, (p1) and (p2) are most likely true. That is to say, God, who does not lie, always supports that which is true. Evolution is likely true. Therefore, the Bible (or the God described therein), likely supports evolution.Conclusion:I will expand upon these points in more detail as the debate unravels. Moreover, I will have to use some forthecoming round for sources.