I have just read Clifford Goldstein’s diatribe against those who do not accept a literal reading of Genesis 1-2:2a. So he wants Adventists like myself to leave. Bit of a quandary that, where does he suggest I go?

It is like the Florentine priest who in 1614 demanded the arrest of all mathematicians and astronomers who were opposing the “true” understanding of the universe as taught by the church and scripture.

However, Goldstein’s assumption that those who reject a literal six-day creation and a 6,000-year time-span are Darwinists and macroevolutionists is untrue. One can reject Darwinism and macroevolution, as I do, and still not hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2:2a, or accept any imposed time span. Scientists like Behe (1990s), Sir Fred Hoyle and the mathematician Wickramsanghie (1981), using science and the maths of probability, demolished Darwinism and macroevolution as untenable, without making any appeals to Genesis. Hoyle’s mode of creationism and argument for design is far more dangerous to the present orthodoxy than anything produced by the fundamentalists of the Creation Science Movement and their ilk.

The second assumption is that the creation account in all of its parts is verbally inspired, infallible and therefore, by inference, exhaustive; this too is untrue. The Bible, while thought-inspired and progressive in understanding, is not inerrant, nor exhaustive. In the case of the first creation story the cosmology is Babylonian in character and the progress of creation is very close to other creation stories.

The difference is the theology and the Hebrew understanding of God that stands in contrast to pagan perceptions of their deities. It is both a liturgical and theological statement containing good news, given in an accessible language and time frame to a nonscientific people; the maths and science of it all could wait. God begins where people are, and is not afraid to allow existing cultural models, images and metaphors, however faulty, to be used so long as He is at the centre. The Bible is full of such images and literary forms that have initially pagan usage, the psalms, for example, and the structure of the tabernacle. If God was to “re-encode” the same information to us today the information level would be much more scientific and mathematically sophisticated, but not exhaustive. One could also conclude that unlike the Greeks, the Hebrews had no real interest in the age of the earth or the extent of the heavens, rather they were interested in the Who of the heavens, and how that impacted upon their existence, reason for worship, a covenant relationship and ultimately salvation.

Thirdly, the obsession with six days and 6,000 to 10,000 years is, in the light of Wilder-Smith’s information theory, and the issue of probability, meaningless. If the probability of a single enzyme randomly occurring is 1040,000 in other words, nil, then the argument about age is a red herring. If the earth could be shown to be 8.5 billion years old or the universe 100 billion years old, life as we know it would still not exist. In principle Genesis is right, and there is a powerful case for creationism, but not as put by Goldstein and his ilk. The time span of six days or 144 hours is more symbolic and encapsulates a microcosm of a truth pointing to a greater reality stretching far beyond the mere text of the Bible.

Finally, to support that point, at Cambridge University in 2002 there was a private meeting of the top astronomers to discuss the problem of the speed of light and other issues; one of the conclusions reached was that despite the billions of light years of space observed we could be living in a sub-universe! The vastness of space should tell us something. What a God! Living in eternity and speaking to us from infinity, what language can he use to express his time frame and his reality? I suggest that Genesis 1:1 alone is sufficient to give support to origins, Divine sovereignty, worship, and the Sabbath, because before such a Being time is meaningless. It is we who live in time with all its limits. While embracing the great principle of creation, let the argument over literalism cease; God is too vast and great for such schoolmen-like pedantry. Now, as an unrepentant creationist of a different school of thought, I will look out for the postman to bring me my letter of excommunication.

John Rosier | Hednesford, Staffs, England

E-mail: johnrosier@supanet.com