Parable-

During much of the 20th century, scientists have debated over the "Big Bang" Theory of cosmology and the Steady State Theory. Both on paper seemed quite plausible. When the evidence started trickling in however, it seemed that the Big Bang theory described evidences and predicted future results with more and more confidence, whereas those holding to the Steady State paradigm needed to explain away more and more incoming data. The Steady State Theory received its final blow when CMBR (radiation) was predicted in 1948 and then discovered in 1965. Now, it would seem obvious that for those who originally believed that their Steady State Theory was indeed true would switch camps when conflicting evidence would come in, as well as supporting evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It would also seem that those who would not switch camps even after being exposed to overwhelming evidence have either a pride or a stubbornness that is unyielding and unwilling to come to grips with what is much more likely to be the truth, and at the very least, come to grips with knowing their original idea is wrong.

Now the concept of a scientific theory is simply to look at a physical phenomena and try to interpret what it signifies.

Similarly, we all have "theories" about what the Bible says. We all read it, and try to interpret what it signifies.

I'm as guilty as the next of claiming that my interpretation is correct. In fact I can be quite stubborn about it, but after all, I'm right.

Just kidding of course.

So let's go to Genesis, because I believe that it is a spot where the story of the two cosmological models can be translated into our Biblical interpretations. Each of us hold some idea as to how to interpret the first chapter of Genesis. The three most common ways are these:
1. God created in 24hr. periods,
2. Each "day" of creation is an indefinite time period, a "day-age,"
3. the first chapter of Genesis is a piece of literature with the intent of teaching specific messages without any scientific considerations.

I'll pick on the first one because it is easiest.

If someone were to read Gen. 1, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created each grouping during 24 hr. periods. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created everything less than 15,000 years ago. However, when we take our noses out of the book and look around us, it takes no time at all to completely disprove this idea (despite what Recent Creationist literature may say, it is completely impossible). Yet many still believe this. Why? Well, partly it is because a bunch of hogwash that may seem like science is fed to people, but mostly I believe it is because they believe that that is what the Bible says and so there is no other possibility that could be true. Just as those who stuck by the Steady State Theory would not give in to the conflicting evidence, these Christians will not be persuaded that their interpretation of the Bible could be incorrect.

Last class period in my Science and Religion class, we were discussing the above mentioned three interpretations of Genesis 1, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each. A girl piped up and mentioned what she thought was a strength of the literary view of Genesis.

"It is permissive. It allows you to believe what you want about science."

This to me reveals a serious flaw in her integrity. We as Christians ought to be truth seekers. This means that we should not be concerned one bit with what we want to believe or what we think is permitted to believe. We should not say that something is not true or is true based on what we think we are allowed to believe, but rather we should believe true what we are convinced is true. I believe quite strongly in the third interpretation of Gen. 1, but I certainly will not look down on someone who has looked at the evidence and truly thinks that the day-age interpretation is correct. Who I will think less of are those who pick any of these interpretations (even the one I think is right) because they think that is what we are permitted to believe, or because it goes along with their original interpretation of Genesis. Maybe this will illustrate what I'm getting at- In all fields of science, theories are contrived to fit the data. When new data comes which does not fit the original theory, that original interpretation is discarded for a new one (ideally of course, for in reality, people are people, Christian or no, and will stick with their own interpretation or theory). Later if still another theory comes along that describes the data better, it is adopted in place of the old. Similarly, we all have interpretations about Genesis 1, and if an interpretation comes along that better describes the facts that we have accumulated, why stick with the old which is contradicted by what we have discovered?