I Want To Belong

If you ask someone to tell you what they really want from life, not many will answer with “I want to belong”. A typical response is “to be happy”. If you push them to describe what it means to be happy, you might get a variety of responses – good times with friends and family, good health, enough money to live comfortably, to laugh a lot, to party. For many people, this is a difficult question to answer because they’ve never taken the time to reflect on what it is that they really want, what really makes them happy. And yet, many of us spend our lives in the “pursuit of happiness”. How can we pursue something we can’t describe? Is it any wonder we get tired of the race and fill our lives with things that don’t satisfy?

One theory of management motivation (from Maslow) identifies the human need for social interaction - for belonging – as the primary requirement after we have addressed our physical needs (food, rest) and safety needs (shelter, security). This means that after we have filled our stomachs and have a safe place to live, we start to look for social interaction. We long for friends, lovers, people to hang out with – a gathering where we feel we belong, we fit in, we feel safe, and we feel loved.

For many of us, our first area of social interaction is our family – spouse, children, parents, siblings. But for most of us, this isn’t enough. We expand our social network to include neighbours, co-workers, classmates, and friends. With technology, we can now expand that network to include people all over the world. Facebook now has over 500 million users – people who have logged on to connect with their “friends”. The phenomenal success of this website is due in part because it provides us with the sense that we belong to something bigger than ourselves. I think Facebook can be a great addition to our social network, but it definitely shouldn’t be the primary way we connect with people.

I think one of the reasons that the Harry Potter books became so popular is that many young people (and many adults – myself included) could relate to Harry’s desire to belong. His parents died when he was an infant, and he was sent to his aunt and uncle who reluctantly took him in. For the first decade of his life, Harry knew he didn’t really belong to that family, and his cousin Dudley made sure Harry didn’t fit in at school either. When Harry received his letter from Hogwarts, telling him he was special and had been accepted into a very special school, he finally could say he belonged somewhere. He soon discovered there was a place where he was accepted, where he could make friends, where people cared about him. Hogwarts became his new home.

As many young people grow up, they find it difficult to fit in – at school and sometimes at home. Too often, some of these young people find acceptance with groups of other young people who provide them with the “family” they want, but at a price. Ask any gang member why they joined, and they will tell you about being accepted, and becoming part of a family.

Science will tell us that the human desire to belong is an evolutionary trait – something that developed in us as a species to help us survive. The desire to belong is in part, the desire to ensure the survival of our species through procreation – we seek mates to have children with to pass our genes on to the next generation. There are also some practical aspects to belonging to a group – the tribes who could band together were less vulnerable to attacks from animals or rival tribes and the diversity of the group allows for some to be hunters, farmers, warriors, builders, or other specialties allowing for a greater chance of survival by becoming more efficient and effective than trying to do everything by oneself.

But I think our desire to belong is something much more special. It is one of the aspects given to us by our Creator when He made us “in His Image”. Our God is a God of community. He exists in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can’t fully comprehend this relationship, but we can be sure there is a relationship. When Jesus walked among us, He spent time in prayer – in conversation with the Father. And His greatest fear, greatest pain? To be separated from, or “forsaken” by the Father. Consider what Jesus cried out on the cross “My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?” Jesus didn’t dread the physical pain of crucifixion – He simply did not want to experience what it meant to be separated from the Father and the Spirit. Hell is the place where God is not present so the time Jesus spent there, was time when He was separated from God.

When God created us, His plan for us was to be in community with Him. After He created Adam, He noted that Adam needed a companion – someone like him that he could be in community with – so Eve was created. For a time, God was with Adam and Eve in a way we can’t quite understand, but it must have been wonderful. When sin entered the world, the result was the rupture of that close relationship with God. We tend to think of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden as something physical, but the breaking of that intimate relationship with God is the real story. The rest of history and the message of the Bible is the desire of both God and us to get back to that intimate relationship with our Creator, and the path created by Jesus when He paid our debt.

We need to recognize this universal desire of everyone to belong – to be in close relationships with others, but also to be reconciled with God. Many people don’t realize they have this inner longing to be in relationship with God – many will vehemently deny it. But that shouldn’t be the start of the conversation. We need to reach out to people where ever they are, and be willing to form a close friendship with them. And they need to be genuine relationships, not just a means to get them to “be saved”. We can let God take care of the saving part, we just need to be out there loving His people.

So what about you? Do you “want to belong”? What does it mean for you to belong to your family, your church, your small group, your group of friends? Have you ever had your “Hogwarts” moment – finding a group where you really fit in, where you felt you really belonged?

Jac

Ski Day vs Beach Day

It’s been a while since I posted something on this blog, so my apologies for being quiet. My only excuse was that life got busy, and I had some technical issues with my computer so my drafts and research were inaccessible for a while. But I’m back now with a seasonal posting.

Last week I had the pleasure of downhill skiing twice. The first time was with my daughter who had a few days off school (after her exams were done) and we went to the local hill in Kitchener. It was very cold and windy, so we only lasted 3 hours, but it was still fun and I was able to spend some time with my daughter. Later that week, I was a guest at a private ski club near Collingwood and it was a fantastic day. The weather was great, no lines for the ski lifts, and the food wasn’t bad either.

I think what I enjoy most about skiing is that it gets me out of the house in the middle of winter, and allows me (forces me?) to go outside and have some fun in the coldest season of the year. For most of the winter, the only time I’m outside for an extended period is shovelling snow which is not even close to being a fun activity, and I can quickly start to long for a day on the beach after shovelling for three days in a row.

Recently, while having some coffee with some coworkers, we chatted about the weather (like typical Canadians) and wondered how life would be different if we lived in a place where the climate was relatively constant, like many tourist destinations around the equator. Most of us agreed we would miss the changing seasons and it reminded me of a conversation I had with a missionary who was working in the Dominican Republic.

This missionary had grown up in the northern US, so he was familiar with cold winters and changing seasons. He noted that after a few years spent in a warm climate, his perception of time had changed. He had switched to “island time”. If you’ve never heard this term before, then you probably haven’t visited the Caribbean. “Island time” is a general term used to describe the very laid back approach to life that seems to be commonplace on the warm island nations. It’s the “no worries”, “no problem” attitude where tomorrow is another day and if we don’t get something done today, no big deal. Events never start at their scheduled time and people don’t get too offended if you don’t show up at all. This took some getting used to for the missionary – people wandering into a worship service in time to sing the last song, or not showing up at all even if they agreed to share their testimony that morning.

As we chatted about this cultural difference, we speculated on what makes the island people so laid back compared to us northern people. The missionary thought it might have to do with our changing seasons. Our heritage has been one based in agriculture, and with limited growing seasons. There is a relatively narrow timeframe to get crops planted, and another to get them harvested. For the earliest settlers, this was a literal “do or die” scenario. If they didn’t get their act together and plant their crops early enough, they could starve trying to make it through the winter. In the warmer climates, many crops can grow year-round so there is no real urgency to make sure the planting takes place before it is too late – there’s always tomorrow. Even though most of us aren’t active farmers, the changing seasons still force us to meet deadlines – raking leaves before it snows, fertilizing the lawn in the spring, pulling out our short-sleeved shirts for summer. And of course, our lifestyle is impacted by deadlines – filing tax returns, being on time for doctor appointments, getting to work on time (or else).

Our life of meeting deadlines can become stressful, especially if we fill our calendars with too many activities. So I think there is something we can learn from our island friends regarding their attitude of “no worries”. Consider the words of Jesus in Luke 12:25

“Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life?”

Maybe we just need to take a big picture look at our lives and see how much of what we do each day really matters. Maybe some of the stress we go through is brought upon ourselves by trying to cram too many things into a busy schedule.

At the same time, we shouldn’t put off important things that need to be done. Many times when I’ve asked people to volunteer their time to serve on committees or leadership positions, they’ve told me they are just too busy. Too busy with their careers, too busy driving kids to after school activities, too busy with life. Often, they promise to reconsider when life slows down a bit for them, when they’ve settled in their new job, when the kids get older... And too many times, they never do find the time. Consider what Jesus said in Matthew 9:36-38

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”

There are things God expects us to do today. They can’t wait for next week, next month, next year, when your kids are older, when you retire, when you’re not so busy. The farmer who postpones his harvesting too long eventually ends up with nothing.

Think about what is stopping you from doing works of service – is it really that important? Reflect on missed opportunities when you’ve turned down a direct request to contribute to the Great Commission, or didn’t respond to an open invitation to be part of something really important. If you are too busy with life to do the important things in life, maybe you’re actually missing out on what life’s all about.

Comments?

Jac Vanderbaan

Big Bang - Boom? Part 2

In addition to the mystery of the “Trigger” of the Big Bang and the “inflation” process (to explain the unexpectedly consistent temperatures), science has been wrestling with two other strange things about our universe. They don’t really have an explanation for these phenomena so they refer to them as Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Dark Matter

The force of gravity is something we can all relate to – it’s what keeps us from floating off our chairs and into space. And most of us know that we would weigh less on the moon since it is smaller than the earth and has less gravity. Many also understand that it is the force of gravity that keeps planets and moons in stable orbits. For those who might not understand how this works, think of the moon and the earth. The earth has a strong gravitational pull on the moon, basically trying to crash the moon into the earth. So why doesn’t the moon crash into the earth? The moon is circling the earth at a very high rate of speed (1.03 km per second), and this speed is the perfect speed needed to keep the moon from getting closer to the earth (picture a ball on the end of a string – if you hold the end of the string and spin the ball fast enough above your head, the string gets tight and the ball “orbits” your hand. Slow down and the string starts to sag and the ball will crash into you. Spin it too fast and you won’t be able to hang on and the ball will fly away from you, maybe crashing into a window.)

The earth and all the other planets in our solar system also orbit the sun in the same way. Solar systems are often grouped together and they will also be in orbit around each other.

To help understand how the universe was formed, scientists studied galaxies and noticed something peculiar. Some galaxies were in orbits that appeared to be moving way too fast for the amount of matter that they could detect. Basically, there wasn’t enough mass to create the amount of gravity needed to keep the system from flying apart. Yet, there they were – these super fast spinning galaxies.

So, to make a long story short, scientists came up with the term “dark matter” to explain there must be something else that is making the gravity stronger. This special something must have similar gravitational properties like normal matter, but we can’t detect it using normal methods (like reflecting light or emitting radiation). Some scientists estimate that dark matter makes up 80% of all matter in the universe. Of course, the concept of dark matter is strictly theoretical – we can’t prove it exists since we can’t detect it. But since these fast spinning galaxies exist, there must be something that holds them together. Something that doesn’t conform to the laws of physics. Something we can’t detect with any scientific instrument yet created. Something is holding this universe together – or should I say Someone is holding this universe together?

Dark Energy

Another unexpected discovery made relatively recently is that the universe is still expanding, and is expanding at a faster rate than before. This is counter intuitive. Basic physics tells us that once an object has been set in motion and has achieved a stable velocity, it can’t speed up unless it receives more energy. If anything, objects should tend to slow down due to the gravitational pull of other objects. Some models of the universe suggest the expansion of the universe was actually slowing down about 5 billion years ago. Yet, the universe appears to be still expanding and expanding faster than previously thought. So, once again science proposes another special something that doesn’t conform to normal physics and is responsible for the additional energy that would fuel our expanding universe. They call this special something “dark energy” because, like dark matter, we can’t detect it or prove it exists. Another special Something that our universe needs to survive.

Conclusion

My explanations of the Trigger, Inflation, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy are very basic and anyone with a degree in physics could likely point out several things wrong with my posts. And I want to be clear that I’m not trying to point out any weaknesses or failures on behalf of scientists who are trying to explain our universe. But I think there are some key things we can learn from the science of the Big Bang.

1. Many people, Christians and scientists alike, underestimate the significance of the basic premise of the Big Bang Theory – it confirms the first three words of the Bible “In the beginning”. Prior to the Big Bang Theory, most scientists (including Einstein) understood the universe to be static (never changing). This was in stark contrast to the Biblical creation story which clearly stated the universe had a beginning and was created by God out of nothing. As the Big Bang Theory was first introduced, many people in the scientific community were against it because of the “religious implications”. Ironically, many people in the church community felt the Big Bang Theory was a threat to them because it provided an explanation of the origin of the universe without the need for a God. But think about this for few moments. If the Bible was just an ancient book written by men, how and why would they come up with the idea that the entire universe was created all at once out of nothing? All evidence at that time (and up until about 50 years ago) pointed to a universe that was never changing, always there. How could the Bible be right, if it was written by mere mortal men? Was it just a lucky guess or coincidence that they got this right?
   
   
   
2. The laws of physics are not completely universal. Science is suggesting that there must be some things (dark matter, dark energy) that do not follow the laws of physics, yet these things have a profound and sustaining impact on the entire universe. Without these mysterious things, the universe could not exist. If scientists can now accept there must be something that transcends our known universe, perhaps it is now a shorter leap of faith to accept that the God spoken of in the Bible is the One responsible for the effects attributed to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I don’t know about you, but whenever I think about this, a song pops into my head (“He’s got the whole world, in His hands…”).

As always, I welcome your comments and questions.

Jac

Big Bang - Boom?

The generally accepted scientific theory for how the universe began is referred to as the Big Bang Theory (not to be confused with the TV show). Very simply, the Big Bang Theory states that our entire universe began about 14 billion years from a single dot that contained all the stuff (matter and energy) that makes up all the stars and planets. The dot was infinitely dense and infinitely small – referred to as a singularity. For some yet unknown reason, that dot suddenly expanded and as it expanded, the particles and energy immediately started arranging themselves into atoms and molecules eventually creating all matter, energy, planets, and stars. At one point there was nothing, then there was everything.

The Big Bang Theory is a relatively new scientific discovery, gaining scientific acceptance between 1949 and 1969. Prior to this, most scientists felt the universe was relatively static and had always existed (it never had a beginning), thus in conflict with the Biblical Creation account. So when science finally accepted the Big Bang Theory, they had to (somewhat reluctantly) agree that at least the first three words of the Bible – “In the beginning” – were correct. Our universe had a beginning.

For the past 50 years or so, many scientists have been working to refine the Big Bang Theory and figure out a few key questions – what triggered it? why is the background radiation (think temperature) of the universe the same in every direction? Why is gravity much stronger than it should be based on how much matter we can detect? Why does the universe appear to be expanding even faster than before (shouldn’t it be slowing down)?

What’s interesting is how science is handling the answers to these four perplexing questions. As I review their responses in this post and the next one, keep a few things in mind. The scientific method has a few key assumptions – one of the essential assumptions is that everything must adhere to scientific laws (such as the laws of physics). So science simply can’t accept something that doesn’t conform to basic laws (like suggesting there is a heavenly being who is not affected by gravity or time). The extension of this assumption is that if something appears to defy scientific laws, it means we just don’t understand how it works yet.

The Trigger

Before the Big Bang, everything was crammed together into a single dot. Even the concept of empty space didn’t really exist yet. And gravitational theory says that large, dense objects have extremely strong gravitational forces that prevent things from leaving them. So, if everything was inside this dot, and the gravity was infinitely strong – what could have triggered an event so powerful that it could overcome the power of infinite gravity? This is a perplexing question. If everything was inside the dot, the bang must have started from the inside (since there is nothing outside the dot). But what mechanism could be responsible for overcoming an infinitely strong gravity – gravity that is so strong that the smallest particles of matter (protons, neutrons, electrons) have collapsed and there is no motion? Why did it start at that particular time? Why not sooner, or later? How long did that dot exist before the Big Bang?

Some scientists speculate that time itself didn’t exist before the Big Bang. Hmm … sounds familiar. I think I read that in a Book written a few thousand years ago. Before God created the universe, time (as we experience it) did not exist. As for the trigger, there are some theories that suggest that something (neither matter nor energy) must have existed outside of the dot in order to have triggered the event. This special something is not bound to the laws of physics as we know them - perhaps a parallel universe existing in a different space-time dimension. Wait a minute – doesn’t this contradict one of the basic assumptions of science that everything must conform to the laws of the universe? Ok, let’s assume the trigger was something that existed outside of the dot that does not conform to the laws of the universe. That opens a nice doorway for me to introduce scientists to Someone who doesn’t conform to the laws of the universe and actually claims to be the Trigger of the created universe.

Inflation

Let’s move on to the next issue with the Big Bang. If the Big Bang was a random, uncontrolled event (ie no Intelligent Being was in charge), then we should expect that the results should be somewhat random also. Think about what happens when things explode in the movies – some particles are brighter than others because they have different temperatures, and there is no set pattern as to why some are hotter than others. So if there was this incredible rapid random expansion of this dot, we should expect that some sections of the aftermath are hotter than others. This is exactly what scientists expected to find / prove to support the Big Bang Theory. They directed their telescopes across the sky and recorded the “temperature” of the universe in different locations.

To measure the temperature of the universe, they actually measure the background microwave radiation. Instead of finding lots of random temperatures, they found very consistent temperatures. In fact, they found identical temperatures in completely opposite directions in space which meant that at some time, those regions must have been close together. But this would mean that the Big Bang was not a sudden event, but one that took a much longer time – perhaps years instead of seconds. But a “slow” Big Bang doesn’t follow the laws of physics – things that go “boom” start fast and then slow down, not the other way around. If it started slowly, the strong gravity should make it slow down even more and perhaps collapse it.

So, when this unexpected result was discovered, scientists needed to refine the Big Bang Theory. They couldn’t explain these results so they added a new step in this process that is referred to as “inflation”. After the initial expansion event, the relatively small universe found a new equilibrium – a somewhat stable state with a uniform temperature. It then “inflated” very quickly and fairly evenly (think of blowing up a balloon) thus explaining the uniform temperatures across the sky. But what would cause the inflation to happen? Scientists don’t have a clue. It doesn’t follow the laws of physics. It must have been something that doesn’t conform to the laws of physics. Hmm…maybe it was this mysterious Someone who triggered the event in the first place?

Next time I will review two more strange things about the Big Bang. Very dark things.

As always, I welcome your comments and questions.

Jac

Dinosaurs - Part 2

{Please read Dinosaurs – Part 1 before this one. Thanks.}

So if the “Literal Bible” and the “Liberal Bible” approaches aren’t very good, what is the better approach? Somewhere in the middle? A compromise? Not really. I don’t think it is wise or necessary to compromise scientific methodology, and I’m definitely not in favour of compromising the integrity of the Bible. To help you understand this third approach, I need that Canadian quarter I mentioned last time. Imagine you and I are sitting across the table from each other enjoying a cup of coffee. I pull out a quarter and hold it up between us so I’m looking at the back and you are looking at the front.

I ask you to describe what you see. The conversation might go something like this.

“I see a small circular object, it’s shiny with some raised lettering and a head embossed on the surface.”

I would of course agree with you and say that we are definitely looking at the same thing. Then I would ask you to describe the head in more detail.

“Well, it looks like a moose or maybe an elk, I can’t really tell the difference.”

I start laughing and wonder what the waitress put in your coffee, because it’s definitely not a moose or an elk, but a very regal looking woman. This is when you suggest my vision is faulty and insist it is definitely an animal not a person. So we start raising our voices, calling each other rude names and pounding the table until the waitress walks by, rolls her eyes at us, and flips the quarter over so you can see what I was looking at and I can see what you were looking at.

We then realize our mistake, apologize to each other and wonder why we got mad at each other. While we knew we were looking at the same object, and we agreed on almost everything we saw, we felt the minor differences were worth fighting over. And why did we see something different? Simply put, we were looking at the same object from a slightly different perspective. Now this is a simple example, and one that the waitress could solve very easy by simply turning the coin over, but I hope it gives you an idea of where I’m going.

When we view the miracle of Creation through the perspective of the Bible, it has the appearance of a relatively short event, but there are very few details. In my opinion, the Creation event is the single most incredible miracle ever performed by God (out of nothing He created everything), yet the Bible spends a relatively short time describing it. Perhaps it’s because the Creation of the universe is not the most important message of the Bible. (If you want to know the most important message of the Bible, you’ll need to read it on your own then come and talk to me in person about it.)

When we view the miracle of Creation through the perspective of science, it has the appearance of a very long event that took place a long time ago. There are lots of details, lots of ‘after the fact’ evidence, lots of theories (many that have been proven wrong or refined many times), lots of assumptions, but no firsthand accounts. No matter what science may say, all we will ever have regarding the origins of the universe and the creation of life are a set of theories that fit with observations we make today. We can’t observe the event first hand. We can’t re-create the conditions that existed prior to Creation in a laboratory and make another universe. We can’t conduct experiments to watch single celled organisms evolve into a fish – even the theory of evolution tells us this would take millions of years. But this is how science works. You observe evidence, develop a theory, then test the theory as much as you can. As long as you have no evidence that contradicts the theory, the theory stands and is accepted.

We should expect differences in these two perspectives – just like looking at two sides of the same coin. We should be slow to tell either side that what they observe is “wrong” if it if seems to contradict what we observe. Some of those differences might be resolved by finding the correct way to read a Bible passage (like the verses describing the movement of the sun being in contradiction with Galileo’s observations), others might be resolved through advances in science. But many differences will remain unresolved. I’m not expecting some breakthrough anytime soon that will show us how this all fits neatly together. We need to feel comfortable saying that we don’t know how they fit together and not be quick to make absolute statements that the science is wrong, especially if we have not fully researched and understand exactly what the science says (even many scientists don’t understand exactly what the science says or doesn’t say).

The great thing about science is that for the most part, it complements what the Bible tells us about our Creator. The Bible account of creation is pretty short on details. But when you add to that some of what science tells us, the miracle of creation becomes much larger, much deeper, much more “impossible” – it starts to add a sense of scope to how powerful our God must be. He didn’t create a single planet with a fabric sky with small dots for stars and larger ones for the sun and moon. He created a universe so big, so vast, so varied – it boggles our mind.

He didn’t create a few hundred or a few thousand different kinds of life – He created millions of types of life and we are still finding new ones in places where we didn’t think it possible for life to exist (the depths of the oceans near volcanic heat vents, under the polar ice caps, deep in rocks).

When you bring God into science, suddenly there is purpose and meaning for everything. The big bang was not a random event. Life didn’t just happen due to blind luck. I am not here simply to pass on my genes to the next generation. There is something beyond what we can observe in this reality – something much greater than we can imagine.

So what is a good response to someone who asks you how dinosaurs fit in with the Bible? Basically, my suggestion is to acknowledge that dinosaurs existed but there are differences between the scientific account of creation and the Biblical account of creation. We don’t know if or when those differences will ever be resolved, but we need to keep moving forward with both scientific exploration and understanding what the Bible tells us. We need to cooperate, not quarrel about who is right and who is wrong. We need to be willing to look at the miracle of creation from both sides, so it enriches our understanding of who we are and who God is.

Or you can pull a quarter out of your pocket and say – “take a look at this coin and tell me what you see”.

Questions and Comments?

1. Was the coin illustration useful? Can you think of other examples where changing our perspective changes what we see?
2. Are you willing to engage people in productive conversations about science and scripture, or will you still avoid them?

Jac

Dinosaurs - Part 1

I was asked to do a post on dinosaurs and how they fit in with the Bible. This is a great topic suggestion since it is something that most Christians will wrestle with from time to time. It’s also a great topic since it automatically leads to discussions about the age of the earth, the sequence of evolution, and ultimately how ought we to read the creation story in Genesis.

To start, we need to acknowledge that dinosaurs once existed on earth. There is an overwhelming amount of fossil evidence that makes it foolish for us to think otherwise. To put things in perspective, there are over 1000 different species of dinosaurs that have been discovered and named. One of the largest collections of dinosaur fossils discovered is near Drumheller, Alberta in place called Dinosaur Valley. If you are ever in that area, you should plan to make a stop at the Royal Tyrell Museum.

So since they did exist, when did they exist? This is where many Christians start to squirm a bit in their seats. The common scientific claim is that dinosaurs roamed the earth about 230 million years ago, and died out after a massive meteor hit the earth about 65 million years ago (see the Sept 20, 2010 posting called Asteroid Collision). And when people date the age of the earth using the Bible, they typically come up with 6500 years. So something doesn’t add up.

A second troubling claim of science is that dinosaurs died out long before man appeared on the planet, around 100,000 years ago. That’s a huge gap of time that we can’t fit anywhere in the 6 day creation week.

So how do we reconcile these differences? That’s the BIG question isn’t it? God has revealed His truth in the Bible, but He has also revealed His truth in His Creation. They seem to be out of alignment – how do we bring them together?

I have found that there are three typical approaches that people take to this reconciliation. The first one is what I’ll refer to as the “Literal Bible” – people start with the position that the Genesis account of creation in 6 days of 24 hours each is irrefutable. This implies that dinosaurs were created during that week, and existed at the same time as humans. So, the dating methods used for determining when dinosaurs existed must be wrong. The fact that no dinosaur fossils have be found near human bones (or other mammal bones) is strictly a coincidence. There are oblique references to large animals found in the Bible (see Job 40:15-24 for a description of the behemoth, or Psalm 104:25,26 for the leviathan), and many attribute these to dinosaurs. Organizations such as Answers in Genesis have gone to great lengths to make science fit into the “literal Bible”. I applaud their efforts and their desire to provide alternative explanations for scientific evidence that fits into Biblical accounts. This works for many people, but not for me. I find they can alienate people in the scientific community by criticizing their work and dismissing what most scientists accept as factual information regarding things like the age of the earth. I also fear they may be making the same mistake the church made with Galileo regarding the scientific discovery that the sun does not orbit the earth but the earth orbits the sun. The church threatened Galileo with expulsion unless he recanted. Over 400 years later, the church admitted the scientific evidence was overwhelming and finally issued an apology. They accepted that the Biblical verses they originally felt were in contradiction with science were poetic and metaphorical, not scientific. But that event was one of the pivotal moments that started the breakdown in the relationship between the church and science. If we want to reach out to the scientific community and let them know that they can believe in God and still be scientists, I don’t think telling them that their basic assumptions are all wrong is a good starting point.

The second typical approach is at the other extreme end of the spectrum in what I’ll refer to as the “Liberal Bible” – people start with the position that science is essentially correct and that the creation account in Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. They use science to guide how the Bible ought to be read. If there appears to be a contradiction between science and a Bible verse, we shouldn’t take that Bible verse literally. So when the science tells us that the earth is billions of years old and formed over millions of years, this means the creation story in Genesis shouldn’t be taken literally. They argue that the creation story is presented in a format that gives us a pattern for how we should live our lives – work six days then have a day of rest. It’s not meant to be a play-by-play account of the process God used to create the universe. Basically, this group takes the opposite approach to the “literal Bible” group. Instead of making science fit into the Bible, they make Biblical accounts fit in with scientific evidence. Most of the people in this camp accept the earth is billions of years old, life started with single celled organisms and evolved into all other life forms we have today (including humans) over millions of years, a global flood never occurred (only a regional flood affecting a limited area), and dinosaurs died millions of years before humans were created. Many Christians are not comfortable with this approach since it allows science to direct how we should read the Bible, and in their eyes, it diminishes the mystery and power of God. There is the fear that as science continues to advance, the Bible becomes less relevant. Overall, this approach works better with people who have a scientific background, but doesn’t often build bridges with people who have traditional views about the inerrancy of the Bible.

So if these two extreme approaches don’t work for you, what approach can we take? That will be covered in the next post and here’s a hint – a Canadian quarter makes an appearance.

Questions and Comments?

1. Have you had conversations with people about dinosaurs and the Bible? How did that go?
2. Have you checked out Answers in Genesis or similar websites? What do you think of their approach?

Jac