Evolutionary Interpretation Of Genesis

In modern society today, a supposed war is raging between science and religion. Some argue that religion and science cannot coexist; a person cannot believe in both as they contradict one another. Others claim that science and religion have no conflicts and can both be believed simultaneously. This type of discourse has taken root in Christianity, with two schools of thought having risen in response to this war. Each side has its unique view of the interpretation of Genesis, the authority of the Bible, the age of the Earth, and how much science can be trusted or believed in. Based on textual and historical evidence, the nonliteral interpretation of Genesis is the stronger argument.

The view that most people associate with or assume of Christianity

This position does not immediately make assumptions that Genesis is a material account of creation, but instead looks at it with the text’s intention and date of writing in mind. Upon deeper reading and careful analysis, it is obvious that Genesis was never intended to act as a scientific account. The ancient people for whom this text is intended for would have never understood the lofty measures of science society understands today, and God recognized this; he choose to speak to them in their language, on a level they understood. This is why Genesis is should be interpreted in a nonliteral way; as John Walton says, while the text was meant for people, it was written for and in the language of the ancient people to which it was given to. In addition to this textual and historical support, Evolutionary Creationism also has the support of science. In this view, science has no conflicts, and in fact shows a lot of evidence in favor of intelligent design and creation. Consider the Earth and its suitability for life. It is the perfect distance away from the Sun so that it is neither too hot or too cold for life; the atmosphere contains the right amount of oxygen and other gases; these are just a few examples of how perfectly shaped the world is for life. No other planet discovered thus far has been found to have life or the

However, upon examination, it is possible for all of these to not only coexist, but support one another under Evolutionary Creationism. Young Earth Creationism and literally interpreting Genesis has become tradition for many churches in modern day society, but that does not make it the right way. Modern presumptions has made people blind to the true intended meaning of Genesis to act not as a literal, scientific and chronological account, but instead as it should be read: an account of creating order and bestowing function to a chaotic world. God’s messengers were ancient people, as was his audience; it is important to recognize this and read the text as such, instead of pressing modern day views upon it. If one is not careful about this distinction, they are likely to unknowingly warp the text of its true intended meaning, as has likely been occurring for some time. Young Earth Creationism is built on these incorrect assumptions, and treats Genesis like a scientific guidebook when it is not meant to be so. Genesis must be treated for what it is, and scholars who are proponents of Evolutionary Creationism such as John Walton have taken the original language of the Bible as well as the time period and culture when Genesis was written into careful account when analyzing what Genesis is really saying. By doing this, these scholars