I am fascinated and often irritated with the mindset of many who support theistic evolution, the idea that God is somehow the force that drives naturalistic evolution. I do not believe science and scripture are incompatible but I do believe scientism and naturalism are incompatible with the supernatural theism that seems inextricably embedded in scripture. And there is the rub. Theistic evolutionists seem to accept, either implicitly or explicitly, a belief in naturalism. They accept, at least regarding origins, that there is a uniformity of natural causes and that all things related to origins can (and must) be explained in terms of natural processes we observe at present.
It seems to me that theistic evolution is a fool’s bargain where naturalism gets the whole farm and theism gets next to nothing in the wager. It also seems odd and exceedingly inconsistent for theistic evolutionists to state they believe in miraculous New Testament events like the resurrection and the virgin birth, but then limit discussions of origins to purely natural causes.
So I am particularly interested to read from various Theistic Evolutionists the assertion that Augustine’s small tract “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” provides an historical understanding of Genesis that supports a reading of the text in a way that is compatible with the whole gamut of modern Darwinian assertions including the common descent of man from lower life forms.
This view has been mentioned on Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog by a fairly cordial scientist who goes by the blog handle RJS. It is a prominent link on the Biologos website founded by Francis Collins and is alluded to by Allister McGrath in a Christianity Today article from several months back. The suggestion is, in a nutshell, that Augustine, Aquinas, Origen and others allowed for a range of interpretations of the creation account, and Augustine in particular warned Christians not to pick a fight with science, because if our interpretation of Genesis is found to be in conflict with factual science, then our interpretation will discredit the faith. It is commonly asserted in this context that YEC views in particular are a recent and naïve development that grew out of the fundamentalist/modernist controversies of the early 20th century but are not a normative reading of Genesis. It is usually the case that Intelligent Design is presented as almost as wrongheaded as YEC.
If it is true that ancient interpreters read Genesis as an allegorical story, it is a point I would consider, because I do believe our interpretation of scripture should be influenced by the great exegetes of the past. So I took it upon myself to actually read Augustine. I dare say, I think he is being seriously misrepresented or at least selectively quoted.
In reading through his “Literal Interpretation of Genesis” it is clear Augustine is making a case for humility in the reading of the account of the creation of the cosmos. Point for their side. But never does Augustine deny the historicity of the events of the creation of the earth nor the creation and the fall of man. And far more of the YEC case is dependent on the latter than the former.
First, Augustine alerts us to the reality that the author of Genesis can use terms that can mean things in more than one sense. He asks, for example, if the phrase “heaven and earth” is a literal or figurative term? It needs to be stated that Augustine believed scripture can and should have more than one sense, particularly the Old Testament. There were literal historical events – one meaning found in the literal sense. In the Old Testament, there was clearly a foreshadowing of the New Covenant, so the Old Testament had a prophetic sense in addition to the literal. There is also a moral sense, the precepts that are suggested by the text. But Augustine did not suggest that the literal sense should be ignored or explained away. Prophetic and moral meanings exist in addition to the literal, not in spite of it.
Says Augustine: “…we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given.” All these senses are equally important to Augustine, not at the expense of the literal.
Augustine also clearly thought parts of Genesis 1 were beyond easy interpretation. This difficulty was a feature of the text itself, not a concession to outside influences. The text was simply ambiguous in some, though not all, matters. In chapter 2 of the Literal Meaning of Genesis (hereafter LMoG) he ponders the meaning of “light”, the idea of imperfection in that which is initially formed. In ch. 9 he ponders the very meaning of time and its relation to the initial creation of light and the words “Let there be…” In ch. 10 he wrestles with the question of light being in existence on a “day” when the sun had not yet been created. So he alerts us that there is a real hermeneutical puzzle inherent in the text in that “light” might mean visible light or it might mean something else, since the sun and stars did not exist at the first mention of light.
In ch 13 he suggests the basic form of earth may have existed before the first creation day, (which could allow for some forms of a “gap” theory, where the time between the initial creation in Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the account from 1:2 forward is open to discussion).
“A further question, then, arises as to the time when God created these distinct forms and qualities of water and earth. No mention is made of this act in the six days. Hence let us suppose that God did this before any of the days began; for, before any mention of the first days...”
In all this, his modest point is simply that the intent of the author in the first few verses of Genesis is not precisely clear. There are difficulties within the text itself –seeming contradictions and unanswered questions. What is being described is something we have no real context from which to triangulate a precise meaning. And because the text itself is not easy to interpret, it may be unwise to tie the wording of the first few verses of Genesis to any scientific explanation of how specific early events of creation came to pass.
Hence the oft-quoted paragraph from McGrath, Collins, RJS:
“In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.”
Augustine then adds:
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
Notice that Augustine says we should seek to conform our opinions to the scriptures rather than force the scriptures to conform to our understanding. Hmm. Sounds like Augustine is saying we should bow to the text – when its meaning is clear. He is also saying we should be cautious where scripture is unclear. But he is surely saying we should bow to the text.
But Collins and others mean by quoting the above two paragraphs that YEC advocates who attempt to find scientific support for a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 are making a mockery of the faith, because science has, in the view of Collins and RJS, proven beyond any question that the universe is very old and that all biological life descends from common ancestors. Their citing of Augustine is intended to lead questioning YEC believers away from the apparently indefensible pseudo-science of YEC (and ultimately ID) to their more enlightened view which is baptized naturalism and de facto Darwinism. They use Augustine to assert that it is quite permissible to read Genesis in a way that fully conforms with current Darwinian science.
But is that what Augustine meant to say? I think not. Part 2 will look at the quotes from LMoG that are conspicuously left out.
