What do you think?
Rate this book
Biblical Challenges in the Contemporary World
The Nature of Creation: Examining the Bible and Science
It is generally assumed that science and religion are at war. Many now claim that science has made religious belief redundant; others have turned to a literalist interpretation of biblical creation to reject or revise science; others try to resolve Darwin with Genesis. "The Nature of Creation" addresses this complex debate by engaging with both modern science and biblical scholarship together. Creation is central to Christian theology and the Bible, and has become the chosen battleground for scientists, atheists and creationists alike. "The Nature of Creation" presents a sustained historical investigation of what the creation texts of the Bible have to say and how this relates to modern scientific ideas of beginnings. The book aims to demonstrate what science and religion can share, and how they differ and ought to differ.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
5 people are currently reading
31 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 8, 2014
Mark Harris begins by noting that the science-religion debate “has tended to take place on scientific grounds, focusing on the interpretation of scientific data and theories rather than the interpretation of Scripture.” His discussion of creation, God and time, the Fall, original sin, suffering and evil, and eschatology very much takes place on theological grounds.
His discussion of creation includes an extensive discussion of God and time, the three-tiered model of the cosmos, and the relationships of the Big Bang model and biological evolution with God’s transcendence and immanence. He describes Genesis 1 as “a theological portrait of God as creator before it is anything else.” (p. 49)
The best part of the book (for me, at least) was the extensive and helpful discussion of historical Adam, the Fall, and the nature of original sin. Chapter 7 on the Fall is an excellent discussion of current view. It begins with a correct explanation of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. Harris notes that Neolithic Adam and homo divinus are entirely theological (as opposed to scientific) distinctions.
Citing Henri Blocher, he suggests that the key interpretive question is whether the apostle Paul regarded Adam and the Fall as historical or not, and whether his theology of atonement requires it. The problem is that, contrary to popular belief, Genesis 2-3 does not say that Adam’s sin actually introduced death into the world. He mentions Augustine’s reliance on a faulty Latin translation of Romans 5:12, reading it as “in whom all sinned,” rather than ”because all sinned” as in the original Greek text. Harris suggests that it might be simpler just to say that all humans have sinned since their beginnings, and that “the Fall is the theological name for the onset of consciousness (and especially of conscience) in humankind.” (p. 145)
In his chapter on suffering and evil (Chap. 8), Harris begins with a discussion of the views of Teilhard de Chardin, Christopher Southgate, and Irenaeus. He suggests that “Irenaeus offers a startlingly effective solution to many of the problems we have seen with the Augustinian model of the Fall. If we assume, with Irenaeus, that the original creation was not meant to be perfect, but to grow towards God through Christ who completes (“recapitulates”) all things in himself, then we have no need to preserve a historical model of the Fall at all costs, nor to insist upon the initial perfection of creation, in order to preserve God’s goodness. Creation will be perfect, and will reflect God’s perfect goodness, but it will be so at the end of the process not the beginning.” (p. 156)
Harris suggests that “modern science has rendered a service to the Bible’s creation texts by indicating that some long-standing interpretations need to be re-assessed.” The obvious case in point is the traditional Western Christian reading of Genesis 2-3, which sees it as the story of the Fall. Evolutionary biology creates severe difficulties for this reading, but at the same time it has inspired fresh modern theologies of creation and redemption which have led to a better appreciation of the subtleties of the biblical texts.” (p. 185)
The book includes an excellent 8-page bibliography, a 5-page Scripture index, and a 5-page subject index.
Mark Harris’s book is a nice companion volume to Denis Lamoureux’s “Evolutionary Creation” and Peter Enns’s “The Evolution of Adam.” I highly recommend this thought-provoking book to anyone struggling with reconciling modern science with Christian theology.
His discussion of creation includes an extensive discussion of God and time, the three-tiered model of the cosmos, and the relationships of the Big Bang model and biological evolution with God’s transcendence and immanence. He describes Genesis 1 as “a theological portrait of God as creator before it is anything else.” (p. 49)
The best part of the book (for me, at least) was the extensive and helpful discussion of historical Adam, the Fall, and the nature of original sin. Chapter 7 on the Fall is an excellent discussion of current view. It begins with a correct explanation of Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. Harris notes that Neolithic Adam and homo divinus are entirely theological (as opposed to scientific) distinctions.
Citing Henri Blocher, he suggests that the key interpretive question is whether the apostle Paul regarded Adam and the Fall as historical or not, and whether his theology of atonement requires it. The problem is that, contrary to popular belief, Genesis 2-3 does not say that Adam’s sin actually introduced death into the world. He mentions Augustine’s reliance on a faulty Latin translation of Romans 5:12, reading it as “in whom all sinned,” rather than ”because all sinned” as in the original Greek text. Harris suggests that it might be simpler just to say that all humans have sinned since their beginnings, and that “the Fall is the theological name for the onset of consciousness (and especially of conscience) in humankind.” (p. 145)
In his chapter on suffering and evil (Chap. 8), Harris begins with a discussion of the views of Teilhard de Chardin, Christopher Southgate, and Irenaeus. He suggests that “Irenaeus offers a startlingly effective solution to many of the problems we have seen with the Augustinian model of the Fall. If we assume, with Irenaeus, that the original creation was not meant to be perfect, but to grow towards God through Christ who completes (“recapitulates”) all things in himself, then we have no need to preserve a historical model of the Fall at all costs, nor to insist upon the initial perfection of creation, in order to preserve God’s goodness. Creation will be perfect, and will reflect God’s perfect goodness, but it will be so at the end of the process not the beginning.” (p. 156)
Harris suggests that “modern science has rendered a service to the Bible’s creation texts by indicating that some long-standing interpretations need to be re-assessed.” The obvious case in point is the traditional Western Christian reading of Genesis 2-3, which sees it as the story of the Fall. Evolutionary biology creates severe difficulties for this reading, but at the same time it has inspired fresh modern theologies of creation and redemption which have led to a better appreciation of the subtleties of the biblical texts.” (p. 185)
The book includes an excellent 8-page bibliography, a 5-page Scripture index, and a 5-page subject index.
Mark Harris’s book is a nice companion volume to Denis Lamoureux’s “Evolutionary Creation” and Peter Enns’s “The Evolution of Adam.” I highly recommend this thought-provoking book to anyone struggling with reconciling modern science with Christian theology.
October 26, 2014
Very interesting book exploring intersection of the bible and science. Much more theology than science but he is attempting to bring these two worlds together. I think he succeeds! He presents views provisionally saying there are lots of things that we only know partially (even in Science). Not a super easy read but I got through. Recommended.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews