What do you think?
Rate this book
The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate
An acclaimed, paradigm-shifting evolutionary biologist shows how the biblical story of Genesis uncannily reflects recent scientific discoveries-and finds room for divine inspiration within.
Consider Genesis recounts the story of creation, "Let there be light"; "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; "Let the earth bring forth [vegetation]"; "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life"; "God created the whales"; "And God created . . . every winged fowl." For thousands of years, Judeo-Christian belief has accepted this progression as truth. And now, thanks to recent scientific discoveries, the scientific community does, too (though without the mention of "God").
In The Genesis Enigma , respected evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker explains each parallel between Genesis and science in detail-and the closer he looks, the more amazing the parallels become. But the Genesis account has no right to be correct. The author or authors could not have known these things happened in this order, and with the highlights science has come to recognize.
Ultimately, Parker argues, it must be divine inspiration that guided the writing of the Bible. This startling conclusion will make The Genesis Enigma a must-read for believers and scientists alike.
Consider Genesis recounts the story of creation, "Let there be light"; "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; "Let the earth bring forth [vegetation]"; "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life"; "God created the whales"; "And God created . . . every winged fowl." For thousands of years, Judeo-Christian belief has accepted this progression as truth. And now, thanks to recent scientific discoveries, the scientific community does, too (though without the mention of "God").
In The Genesis Enigma , respected evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker explains each parallel between Genesis and science in detail-and the closer he looks, the more amazing the parallels become. But the Genesis account has no right to be correct. The author or authors could not have known these things happened in this order, and with the highlights science has come to recognize.
Ultimately, Parker argues, it must be divine inspiration that guided the writing of the Bible. This startling conclusion will make The Genesis Enigma a must-read for believers and scientists alike.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published October 8, 2009
33 people are currently reading
266 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Parker
661 books17 followersAndrew Parker is a zoologist who has worked on Biomimetics. He worked at the Natural History Museum in London, and from 1990 to 1999 he was a Royal Society University Research Fellow and is a Research Associate of the Australian Museum and University of Sydney and from 1999 until 2005 he worked at the University of Oxford. As of 2018 Parker is a Visiting Research Fellow at Green Templeton College where he is head of a Research Team into photonic structures and eyes.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
January 27, 2011
"For the first time ever, a respected evolutionary biologist shows how the biblical story of Genesis reflects scientific truths that were only recently discovered – and finds room for divine inspiration at the center of this enigma."
~From the inside flap
Andrew Parker is a well-known and respected scientist. His knowledge of evolution and the Big Bang is extremely impressive, and in his new book, The Genesis Enigma, Parker attempts to show how a metaphorical reading of Genesis 1 actually has numerous parallels to the scientific understanding of world. Eventually, Parker posits some views on how science and religion can coexist, finding room for God to fit within the boundaries laid out by scientific thought.
In theory (no pun intended), this was an interesting idea for a book. The “Battle over the Beginning” has been fought for years, and I was mildly interested to read a book that claimed to find a middle ground. What I found this book to be instead was a science textbook that explains the origins of the universe from the Big Bang on, then uses some extremely questionable exegesis to say that the Bible agrees with the science. I say questionable because, for example, connecting the mention of “lights” in Genesis 1:14 to the development of sight was very unconvincing. What you basically have is a scientific history book (both of the earth and the scientists who developed the theories behind evolution) with a few theological claims tacked onto the end.
Two things were exceedingly evident to me as I read this book: 1) Parker has an immense knowledge of science and can explain complex theories quite well. 2) He is not a theologian and does not understand the theological implications of most of his claims as he attempts to reconcile religion and science. He clearly doesn’t believe the Bible is God’s Word, and he just doesn’t seem to understand why Christians would have a hard time with even the claim that God just created the energy for the Big Bang and then stepped back to watch. Even a cursory reading of the whole of scripture, however, reveals that God is intimately engaged in this world that he created. Additionally, I kept coming back to this as I read Parker’s claims: If God didn’t personally create us, forget Him. He would have no claim on us, no right to enforce a moral law on us, and the need for Jesus to redeem us from our rebellion against that law and God would disappear. Christianity falls if God is not our Creator (See Romans 5).
Throughout the entire book, there were numerous moments where Parker was forced to admit that science has no answer to something (i.e. Where did the energy for the Big Band come from? Why do animals reproduce at all? Why does religion exist at all if it serves no evolutionary function?). In the final chapter of the book, Parker addresses many of these questions to get to his claim that there is “room for God” within a scientific understanding. The problem with this is that the God Parker arrives at in his understanding (sort of, he seems mostly agnostic) doesn’t resemble the God presented in the Bible at all. As I said, Parker doesn’t seem to have a problem with this, but Christians will.
That’s why I’m not exactly sure of his audience for this book. Christians will clearly see that he’s pulling the foundation away from all of Christianity, and non-religious people will likely not care whatsoever that Genesis can be metaphorically interpreted to somewhat match up to science. Parker doesn’t aim at reconciling science with God (consistent with Christianity), he just wants to reconcile it with the possibility of a god.
I enjoyed reading parts of this book simply to get a good summary of what science says about the earth’s origins, but that’s really all. In terms of thinking through how to reconcile that science with Christianity, there’s nothing very new or helpful here.
~From the inside flap
Andrew Parker is a well-known and respected scientist. His knowledge of evolution and the Big Bang is extremely impressive, and in his new book, The Genesis Enigma, Parker attempts to show how a metaphorical reading of Genesis 1 actually has numerous parallels to the scientific understanding of world. Eventually, Parker posits some views on how science and religion can coexist, finding room for God to fit within the boundaries laid out by scientific thought.
In theory (no pun intended), this was an interesting idea for a book. The “Battle over the Beginning” has been fought for years, and I was mildly interested to read a book that claimed to find a middle ground. What I found this book to be instead was a science textbook that explains the origins of the universe from the Big Bang on, then uses some extremely questionable exegesis to say that the Bible agrees with the science. I say questionable because, for example, connecting the mention of “lights” in Genesis 1:14 to the development of sight was very unconvincing. What you basically have is a scientific history book (both of the earth and the scientists who developed the theories behind evolution) with a few theological claims tacked onto the end.
Two things were exceedingly evident to me as I read this book: 1) Parker has an immense knowledge of science and can explain complex theories quite well. 2) He is not a theologian and does not understand the theological implications of most of his claims as he attempts to reconcile religion and science. He clearly doesn’t believe the Bible is God’s Word, and he just doesn’t seem to understand why Christians would have a hard time with even the claim that God just created the energy for the Big Bang and then stepped back to watch. Even a cursory reading of the whole of scripture, however, reveals that God is intimately engaged in this world that he created. Additionally, I kept coming back to this as I read Parker’s claims: If God didn’t personally create us, forget Him. He would have no claim on us, no right to enforce a moral law on us, and the need for Jesus to redeem us from our rebellion against that law and God would disappear. Christianity falls if God is not our Creator (See Romans 5).
Throughout the entire book, there were numerous moments where Parker was forced to admit that science has no answer to something (i.e. Where did the energy for the Big Band come from? Why do animals reproduce at all? Why does religion exist at all if it serves no evolutionary function?). In the final chapter of the book, Parker addresses many of these questions to get to his claim that there is “room for God” within a scientific understanding. The problem with this is that the God Parker arrives at in his understanding (sort of, he seems mostly agnostic) doesn’t resemble the God presented in the Bible at all. As I said, Parker doesn’t seem to have a problem with this, but Christians will.
That’s why I’m not exactly sure of his audience for this book. Christians will clearly see that he’s pulling the foundation away from all of Christianity, and non-religious people will likely not care whatsoever that Genesis can be metaphorically interpreted to somewhat match up to science. Parker doesn’t aim at reconciling science with God (consistent with Christianity), he just wants to reconcile it with the possibility of a god.
I enjoyed reading parts of this book simply to get a good summary of what science says about the earth’s origins, but that’s really all. In terms of thinking through how to reconcile that science with Christianity, there’s nothing very new or helpful here.
February 6, 2016
The first and foremost thing to establish about Andrew Parker’s new book on the Genesis creation story is what it is not. It is not a repudiation of evolution theory. And perhaps just as importantly, it is not any sort of proof of the existence of God. As I’ve written before in other places, I do not think that will or can ever be proved, and I think that is purposefully so. Parker is not setting about trying to prove or repudiate anything so drastic. Rather, he asks us to reconsider, in a scientific light, what was once seen as a crude and rather fictional tale. Parker’s basic thesis: “When [Genesis 1] is taken literally, it is left in the wake of an advancing science. But when it is read figuratively…it becomes a great unknown in the way it keeps pace with modern science.”
When I first saw the title of the book The Genesis Enigma at the bookstore, I was excited. A book about how science and the Genesis account agree? I had already recently written a short article on how the Genesis creation account is more scientifically accurate than any other mythic creation account, as it rejects the central tenet of pagan religions: the deification of nature. Yet as I began to read, I became more and more skeptical. Andrew Parker is a scientist, an evolutionist, even, so a book favorable toward religion from such a man is an interesting thing. But it seemed at first that he was stretching things too much in order to fit his idea: sure, there are some parallels between Genesis and the history of the universe -- but other things are out of order, and some are missing entirely. This fact is something I have been aware of for a long time, and is why I -- and some other Christian thinkers, such as C.S. Lewis -- began to consider the Genesis creation as mythic (in the old sense, not in the newer one). As I continued to read, however, these reservations began to be eroded by the facts of the book. Firstly, that Parker was a scientist, with an established career no less, before he became interested in religious ideas, which removed the idea of bias (you can't discount science if you know the science intimately first, and only subsequently compare it to religion).
Secondly, one of Parker's ideas as a scientist began to change the way I think. Sure, there are discrepancies in the Genesis account, and its scientific accuracy is thus questionable, at least in terms of what we presently know. However, Parker urges the reader to start out with a frame of mind stripped of the last 2,500+ years of scientific progress, equipped only by what common sense and guesswork can provide. In other words, with the frame of mind that the Genesis writer would have had. “Michelangelo painted the creation story,” Parker writes, “as one would expect someone without scientific knowledge to represent it -- using the human form. That way everyone could identify with it. But the writer of Genesis opted instead for a cryptic, more abstract description.” God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. This is the historical root of the idea of the Big Bang Theory, first proposed by Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. From here, the Genesis writer continues on, making a few blunders; but Parker's argument holds that it is not the presence of the mistakes we should note, but the amazing accuracy that the account has despite them. One would expect an occasional mythic creation account to get one or two points right, sheerly by accident. But, the book argues, it is inconceivable, when we consider the absence of our two plus millennia of scientific knowledge, that an Israelite desert wanderer could just happen to get so much correct, even if his language is vague and inexact.
This is the basic gist of Andrew Parker's creation chronology:
“Let there be light,” corresponds with the Big Bang itself. As science shows, energy (“light” to the ancient’s terminology) was the first thing to exist in the universe, and from this energy was formed matter. At first glance, the preceding mention of Heaven and Earth's creation in the first verse seems to skew this chronology, but this problem disappears with closer thought. For one thing, a later verse depicts the creation of the Heavens (ancient terminology for the skies and outer space). Add to this the description of Earth as “without form” (without shape) and “void” (without matter), and it becomes clear that Earth, while present in God’s mind, has not yet been created. The same verse in which we see creation of light mentions also day and night, implying the creation of the sun. Again, this seems to be skewed by the fact that the sun and moon seem to be created later on in verses 14-19, but this is countered by the fact that the Genesis writer -- whatever else he was ignorant of -- surely understood, by simple observation, that the presence of the sun means day, while its absence means night. No, Parker has an alternate and much more scientifically interesting explanation for the second mention of “Let there be lights.”
Following the creation of light and the sun, the Genesis writer describes a separation between waters to form the sky. The lower waters are obviously seas, and the upper -- above the sky -- can be read as clouds. As Parker explains, this reflects the scientific order, as the formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen, and the evaporation and precipitation caused by the high heat and subsequent cooling of the earth’s surface, occurred early in history, well before the emergence of life. It is also notable that Genesis has dry land appear before the emergence of life, despite the fact that sea life is the first to be created. This, too, reflects a scientific history of the earth. (The one curious thing about Genesis here is that the creation of the earth itself seems to have been left out. It obviously occurred sometime between the light and the sky, but when is never said.)
Here, Parker says, is where the odds for accurate guesswork begin to become really low; for the next stages in the Genesis account were not known to be accurate until after Darwin. Genesis next describes the creation of plant life, which Parker equates with cyanobacteria: among the first life to evolve from a single-celled organism, these photosynthetic cells are found integrated into plant cells and are known as chloroplasts. From here, the second “let there be light” is a bit trickier. Again, day and night, and hence the sun’s presence, has already been mentioned. Parker’s idea is that these words hint toward the evolution of vision, the sense which let the light into life’s perception, and allowed living creatures to become aware for the first time of day and night and the stars. The idea of signs is also mentioned here, a concept which is both useless and irrelevant unless vision is present. This interpretation would, admittedly, be very loose and shaky were it not for the fact that it interlocks perfectly, in a scientifically historical way, with the rest of the Genesis account.
Immediately after these references to light, day and night, and signs, Genesis says “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures…” This corresponds to the Cambrian explosion, which was brought on, recent science tells us, by the evolution of the eye. The first life did live in the sea, and most of it evolved there. Interestingly, Parker points out, Genesis does not say that God forms or presents the animals, but that He commands the waters to bring them forth, which Parker says “is to summon a process that will lead to the diversity of animals.” A similar expression in Genesis is “Let [life] increase on the earth.” (NIV translation.) All this hints toward evolution.
The main problem with this argument is that birds are created alongside marine life, instead of after land life; yet Genesis afterwards is correct again, in having land-dwelling beasts, and then humanity, appearing last of all. In summary, the Genesis author recorded scientific facts he could not possibly have known from observation, and that scientists did not know until relatively modern times: that the universe was created in a single moment, that energy was the first material thing that existed, that the sun (day and night) preceded formation of the earth, that the formation of seas preceded the rise of life, that the first life was plantlike, that the first animal life originated in the seas, that the rise of vision precipitated the explosion of variety in life, and that sea life preceded life on land. The presence of birds in the wrong place does throw some doubt upon this theory, but in light of all the precise placement of so many other things, which science itself has only recently discovered, this single error is forgivable.
So far, so good. However, several of the author’s comments and proclivities raise questions. Firstly, who is the book’s intended audience? Despite the fact that Barnes & Noble categorizes the book in its Christianity section, there is nothing specifically Christian about it. Perhaps religious people in general? Yet at many points Parker belittles the religious mindset, seeing that side of the science vs. religion debate as clearly wrongheaded, making such comments as, “Collectively, Walcott’s Burgess fossils…would appear as a nail in God’s coffin,” and seeming content to pigeonhole any believers who have at all thought about the subject of natural history as young earth creationists. This is an extremely simplistic viewpoint.
Parker even bizarrely suggests that a literal interpretation of Genesis is behind environmental devastation. He makes this statement without at all showing where the connection lies -- right after emphasizing the importance of sound observations. Of course, he ignores the fact that the rise of applied science coincides perfectly with the increase in natural exploitation -- not a religious observation, but an environmental one. Again, Parker relies on a skewed and stereotypical view of religion when he invokes the “God of the gaps” idea, as if humanity’s religious pursuits amount to nothing more than assigning God or a god to everything we couldn’t understand. In a short review of early philosophical poles, Parker treats the natural philosophy of Plato and Epicurus as their central and most important concerns. He misrepresents C.S. Lewis, concluding that we cannot ever know what God is; but ignores Lewis’ vehement insistence that we can know (a much more important question) who God is. Perhaps the biggest blunder is his attempt to equate God with energy. As we know energy is a material thing, this is patently ridiculous; or if not, then it at least flies in the face of something most religions have ever said: that this, this world, this material arena we call the universe, is not all there is.
A problem, too, is the book’s lack of focus. It is certainly not a book on religion; there is less religion in it than science, and there is even less science in it than scientific history. Large parts are devoted to profiles of early scientists, usually of the nineteenth century. Are these intended to be for human interest? As I’ve said elsewhere, if I needed such human interest pieces to keep my attention, then I would never have picked up the book in the first place. This is clearly a case of an idea being better than its execution. The core thesis of Parker’s book is intriguing, if a little shoddily executed, but given all the extraneous and, honestly, boring material he heaps on, Enigma could have easily been half its current size, if not less.
In the end, though it has some pretty original and insightful ideas, The Genesis Enigma suffers greatly from a lack of focus, a superfluity of tangents, half-baked thoughts on religion, and a failure to draw appropriate and relevant conclusions. Andrew Parker states a few times in its pages that he hopes the book will help bridge the gap between the two sides in the debate between science and religion: an admirable goal, but one that cannot be achieved by turning religion into science, or forcing religion to operate by science’s rules. That is not to say that religion is, or should be, free of rational thought or inquiry, but rather to say that that inquiry is by its nature of and about a separate realm than concerns the realm of science. This Andrew Parker seems to fail to realize. Again, there are some really good and insightful ideas in Enigma’s pages; but given the slough one has to wander through to get to them, it may be wiser to seek them in other sources.
When I first saw the title of the book The Genesis Enigma at the bookstore, I was excited. A book about how science and the Genesis account agree? I had already recently written a short article on how the Genesis creation account is more scientifically accurate than any other mythic creation account, as it rejects the central tenet of pagan religions: the deification of nature. Yet as I began to read, I became more and more skeptical. Andrew Parker is a scientist, an evolutionist, even, so a book favorable toward religion from such a man is an interesting thing. But it seemed at first that he was stretching things too much in order to fit his idea: sure, there are some parallels between Genesis and the history of the universe -- but other things are out of order, and some are missing entirely. This fact is something I have been aware of for a long time, and is why I -- and some other Christian thinkers, such as C.S. Lewis -- began to consider the Genesis creation as mythic (in the old sense, not in the newer one). As I continued to read, however, these reservations began to be eroded by the facts of the book. Firstly, that Parker was a scientist, with an established career no less, before he became interested in religious ideas, which removed the idea of bias (you can't discount science if you know the science intimately first, and only subsequently compare it to religion).
Secondly, one of Parker's ideas as a scientist began to change the way I think. Sure, there are discrepancies in the Genesis account, and its scientific accuracy is thus questionable, at least in terms of what we presently know. However, Parker urges the reader to start out with a frame of mind stripped of the last 2,500+ years of scientific progress, equipped only by what common sense and guesswork can provide. In other words, with the frame of mind that the Genesis writer would have had. “Michelangelo painted the creation story,” Parker writes, “as one would expect someone without scientific knowledge to represent it -- using the human form. That way everyone could identify with it. But the writer of Genesis opted instead for a cryptic, more abstract description.” God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. This is the historical root of the idea of the Big Bang Theory, first proposed by Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. From here, the Genesis writer continues on, making a few blunders; but Parker's argument holds that it is not the presence of the mistakes we should note, but the amazing accuracy that the account has despite them. One would expect an occasional mythic creation account to get one or two points right, sheerly by accident. But, the book argues, it is inconceivable, when we consider the absence of our two plus millennia of scientific knowledge, that an Israelite desert wanderer could just happen to get so much correct, even if his language is vague and inexact.
This is the basic gist of Andrew Parker's creation chronology:
“Let there be light,” corresponds with the Big Bang itself. As science shows, energy (“light” to the ancient’s terminology) was the first thing to exist in the universe, and from this energy was formed matter. At first glance, the preceding mention of Heaven and Earth's creation in the first verse seems to skew this chronology, but this problem disappears with closer thought. For one thing, a later verse depicts the creation of the Heavens (ancient terminology for the skies and outer space). Add to this the description of Earth as “without form” (without shape) and “void” (without matter), and it becomes clear that Earth, while present in God’s mind, has not yet been created. The same verse in which we see creation of light mentions also day and night, implying the creation of the sun. Again, this seems to be skewed by the fact that the sun and moon seem to be created later on in verses 14-19, but this is countered by the fact that the Genesis writer -- whatever else he was ignorant of -- surely understood, by simple observation, that the presence of the sun means day, while its absence means night. No, Parker has an alternate and much more scientifically interesting explanation for the second mention of “Let there be lights.”
Following the creation of light and the sun, the Genesis writer describes a separation between waters to form the sky. The lower waters are obviously seas, and the upper -- above the sky -- can be read as clouds. As Parker explains, this reflects the scientific order, as the formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen, and the evaporation and precipitation caused by the high heat and subsequent cooling of the earth’s surface, occurred early in history, well before the emergence of life. It is also notable that Genesis has dry land appear before the emergence of life, despite the fact that sea life is the first to be created. This, too, reflects a scientific history of the earth. (The one curious thing about Genesis here is that the creation of the earth itself seems to have been left out. It obviously occurred sometime between the light and the sky, but when is never said.)
Here, Parker says, is where the odds for accurate guesswork begin to become really low; for the next stages in the Genesis account were not known to be accurate until after Darwin. Genesis next describes the creation of plant life, which Parker equates with cyanobacteria: among the first life to evolve from a single-celled organism, these photosynthetic cells are found integrated into plant cells and are known as chloroplasts. From here, the second “let there be light” is a bit trickier. Again, day and night, and hence the sun’s presence, has already been mentioned. Parker’s idea is that these words hint toward the evolution of vision, the sense which let the light into life’s perception, and allowed living creatures to become aware for the first time of day and night and the stars. The idea of signs is also mentioned here, a concept which is both useless and irrelevant unless vision is present. This interpretation would, admittedly, be very loose and shaky were it not for the fact that it interlocks perfectly, in a scientifically historical way, with the rest of the Genesis account.
Immediately after these references to light, day and night, and signs, Genesis says “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures…” This corresponds to the Cambrian explosion, which was brought on, recent science tells us, by the evolution of the eye. The first life did live in the sea, and most of it evolved there. Interestingly, Parker points out, Genesis does not say that God forms or presents the animals, but that He commands the waters to bring them forth, which Parker says “is to summon a process that will lead to the diversity of animals.” A similar expression in Genesis is “Let [life] increase on the earth.” (NIV translation.) All this hints toward evolution.
The main problem with this argument is that birds are created alongside marine life, instead of after land life; yet Genesis afterwards is correct again, in having land-dwelling beasts, and then humanity, appearing last of all. In summary, the Genesis author recorded scientific facts he could not possibly have known from observation, and that scientists did not know until relatively modern times: that the universe was created in a single moment, that energy was the first material thing that existed, that the sun (day and night) preceded formation of the earth, that the formation of seas preceded the rise of life, that the first life was plantlike, that the first animal life originated in the seas, that the rise of vision precipitated the explosion of variety in life, and that sea life preceded life on land. The presence of birds in the wrong place does throw some doubt upon this theory, but in light of all the precise placement of so many other things, which science itself has only recently discovered, this single error is forgivable.
So far, so good. However, several of the author’s comments and proclivities raise questions. Firstly, who is the book’s intended audience? Despite the fact that Barnes & Noble categorizes the book in its Christianity section, there is nothing specifically Christian about it. Perhaps religious people in general? Yet at many points Parker belittles the religious mindset, seeing that side of the science vs. religion debate as clearly wrongheaded, making such comments as, “Collectively, Walcott’s Burgess fossils…would appear as a nail in God’s coffin,” and seeming content to pigeonhole any believers who have at all thought about the subject of natural history as young earth creationists. This is an extremely simplistic viewpoint.
Parker even bizarrely suggests that a literal interpretation of Genesis is behind environmental devastation. He makes this statement without at all showing where the connection lies -- right after emphasizing the importance of sound observations. Of course, he ignores the fact that the rise of applied science coincides perfectly with the increase in natural exploitation -- not a religious observation, but an environmental one. Again, Parker relies on a skewed and stereotypical view of religion when he invokes the “God of the gaps” idea, as if humanity’s religious pursuits amount to nothing more than assigning God or a god to everything we couldn’t understand. In a short review of early philosophical poles, Parker treats the natural philosophy of Plato and Epicurus as their central and most important concerns. He misrepresents C.S. Lewis, concluding that we cannot ever know what God is; but ignores Lewis’ vehement insistence that we can know (a much more important question) who God is. Perhaps the biggest blunder is his attempt to equate God with energy. As we know energy is a material thing, this is patently ridiculous; or if not, then it at least flies in the face of something most religions have ever said: that this, this world, this material arena we call the universe, is not all there is.
A problem, too, is the book’s lack of focus. It is certainly not a book on religion; there is less religion in it than science, and there is even less science in it than scientific history. Large parts are devoted to profiles of early scientists, usually of the nineteenth century. Are these intended to be for human interest? As I’ve said elsewhere, if I needed such human interest pieces to keep my attention, then I would never have picked up the book in the first place. This is clearly a case of an idea being better than its execution. The core thesis of Parker’s book is intriguing, if a little shoddily executed, but given all the extraneous and, honestly, boring material he heaps on, Enigma could have easily been half its current size, if not less.
In the end, though it has some pretty original and insightful ideas, The Genesis Enigma suffers greatly from a lack of focus, a superfluity of tangents, half-baked thoughts on religion, and a failure to draw appropriate and relevant conclusions. Andrew Parker states a few times in its pages that he hopes the book will help bridge the gap between the two sides in the debate between science and religion: an admirable goal, but one that cannot be achieved by turning religion into science, or forcing religion to operate by science’s rules. That is not to say that religion is, or should be, free of rational thought or inquiry, but rather to say that that inquiry is by its nature of and about a separate realm than concerns the realm of science. This Andrew Parker seems to fail to realize. Again, there are some really good and insightful ideas in Enigma’s pages; but given the slough one has to wander through to get to them, it may be wiser to seek them in other sources.
January 24, 2012
This is an interesting book, for on one hand Parker is saying the Genesis account is correct, but then on the other, he makes it clear that God could not have anything to do with any of it, for (Duh, its obvious) the universe created itself. So in other words, somehow or other the writer of Genesis got the order right for the evolution of the universe and all living things, but was dead wrong to say God created anything. To hear a Darwinist confess that the bible is even in part correct is something else though, but still all throughout the book he cannot hide his scorn for all who would dare to crack open the door and let God in. He does seem to say that maybe (a very unlikely maybe) God caused the Big bang, but after that He never could have done anything ever again, because time + chance + natural selection = everything. Now something I don't get or understand is that even those who are Theistic evolutionist, hold to this notion that after the Big Bang, God cannot do anything, but may I ask who made that rule? Sure, scientifically we cannot prove God had a part, but this by no means suggest He can't and never did. But in Parker's mind, its like universe threw the dice a billion times and it rolled six every time, and since this is possible (Though utterly absurd and unprovable)it had to happen, because as a scientist you never can be open to God having any part in anything. But I think this is stupid, If I roll a dice a l000 times and it rolls a three every-time, i am going to assume something is up, that the dice is loaded.
But yeah, as other reviewers mention, this is like a school textbook, written from an atheistic perspective, yet with this curious addition of science said it happens lines up with the order of creation in Genesis, as long as one keeps in mind the universe created itself and that God by no means created the universe and there is no intelligent design and of course days must represent long periods of time.
Well, at the start of the book I was really excited, but as the book went along, I was tempted to wonder if this book's subtitle was a sly way to try and get stupid bible believing creationist, to read how it "Really" happened, according to naturalistic science. If nothing else he did remind me just reminded how much speculation and guesswork and atheistic wishful thinking surrounds all their construction of what "really" happened. Heck we were not there, it like they are constructing what some prehistoric creature looked like from one bone and then with dogmatic certainty expect us to swallow hook, line and sinker that their rendition is right on.
But yeah, with that said. I am still glad the book was written, if there was some big bang and life did evolve from non-living matter, its interesting that the bible still could be interpreted as accurate through a different set of lenses. The Jury is still out for me, I've yet to reach the verdict on Whether God used evolution to create the universe or if he created in 7 literal days. but yeah, nevertheless, it was an interesting book.
Well, I wrote the above while still in the mist of the book, the least part of it, he tries does a little to reconcile religion with science, mentioning some of C.S Lewis reflections. Unlike the new Atheist, he does not think religion poisons everything, but rather is really important and beneficial, giving people hope, purpose and meaning. Sure, the idea of God may have evolved, but it evolved because it helps us to survive. Yet, still he wonders maybe there is a God and that is why atheism feels so wrong and maybe the authors of Genesis were Divinely inspired.
But yeah, as other reviewers mention, this is like a school textbook, written from an atheistic perspective, yet with this curious addition of science said it happens lines up with the order of creation in Genesis, as long as one keeps in mind the universe created itself and that God by no means created the universe and there is no intelligent design and of course days must represent long periods of time.
Well, at the start of the book I was really excited, but as the book went along, I was tempted to wonder if this book's subtitle was a sly way to try and get stupid bible believing creationist, to read how it "Really" happened, according to naturalistic science. If nothing else he did remind me just reminded how much speculation and guesswork and atheistic wishful thinking surrounds all their construction of what "really" happened. Heck we were not there, it like they are constructing what some prehistoric creature looked like from one bone and then with dogmatic certainty expect us to swallow hook, line and sinker that their rendition is right on.
But yeah, with that said. I am still glad the book was written, if there was some big bang and life did evolve from non-living matter, its interesting that the bible still could be interpreted as accurate through a different set of lenses. The Jury is still out for me, I've yet to reach the verdict on Whether God used evolution to create the universe or if he created in 7 literal days. but yeah, nevertheless, it was an interesting book.
Well, I wrote the above while still in the mist of the book, the least part of it, he tries does a little to reconcile religion with science, mentioning some of C.S Lewis reflections. Unlike the new Atheist, he does not think religion poisons everything, but rather is really important and beneficial, giving people hope, purpose and meaning. Sure, the idea of God may have evolved, but it evolved because it helps us to survive. Yet, still he wonders maybe there is a God and that is why atheism feels so wrong and maybe the authors of Genesis were Divinely inspired.
January 6, 2016
As a scientist I never paid much attention to the Book of Genesis, though I was more than aware of it from my catholic primary school education. As science became my religion through my teenage years and beyond I assumed, like most of my like-minded friends, that such primitive mythology which is believed to have been compiled from several sources between 950 and 500 BC - has long since been 'disproved' by hard scientific fact. In this book, evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker attempts to convince us that Genesis is not only scientifically accurate but that the entire Bible is historically reliable. A step to far in my opinion. Parker's main argument is that "when the biblical text is taken literally, it is left in the wake of advancing science. But when it is read figuratively, it not only keeps pace with the hottest science, it precedes or heralds it".
A central mantra of the anti-evolutionists has long been that atheism and evolution are two sides of the same coin. Parker’s voice as a wellknown and respected scientist and believer aids in dispelling this myth. Unfortunately, it also reinforces another: namely that a Christian cannot accept the findings of modern science without also stretching the bounds of scriptural interpretation to its utmost limit.
The 2 best examples of this in the book are when (1) Parker’s argues that on the third day of creation the appearance of “grass, herb, and fruit trees” corresponds with the evolution of photosynthetic life in the oceans and (2) when he suggests that the fourth day is characterised not by the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, but by the evolution of sight by the first multicellular animals. Tenuous links to say the very least, and that is being kind!
When Parker comes to explaining how the writers of Genesis knew what they knew, he can only conclude that it was due to 'divine intervention', or 'a lucky guess'. Since the odds of the latter seem fantastically remote, Parker tentatively suggests the former.
He states that "In describing how the planet and life around us came to be, the writer of the Genesis narrative got it disturbingly right". However, one of my many issues with the book is that just because things happen in the order that they are meant to doesn't been that they are historically accurate!
Overall an interesting and creative read on the face of it but one which lacks any credible core. You might say it's somewhat of an enigma itself!
A central mantra of the anti-evolutionists has long been that atheism and evolution are two sides of the same coin. Parker’s voice as a wellknown and respected scientist and believer aids in dispelling this myth. Unfortunately, it also reinforces another: namely that a Christian cannot accept the findings of modern science without also stretching the bounds of scriptural interpretation to its utmost limit.
The 2 best examples of this in the book are when (1) Parker’s argues that on the third day of creation the appearance of “grass, herb, and fruit trees” corresponds with the evolution of photosynthetic life in the oceans and (2) when he suggests that the fourth day is characterised not by the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, but by the evolution of sight by the first multicellular animals. Tenuous links to say the very least, and that is being kind!
When Parker comes to explaining how the writers of Genesis knew what they knew, he can only conclude that it was due to 'divine intervention', or 'a lucky guess'. Since the odds of the latter seem fantastically remote, Parker tentatively suggests the former.
He states that "In describing how the planet and life around us came to be, the writer of the Genesis narrative got it disturbingly right". However, one of my many issues with the book is that just because things happen in the order that they are meant to doesn't been that they are historically accurate!
Overall an interesting and creative read on the face of it but one which lacks any credible core. You might say it's somewhat of an enigma itself!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 3, 2010
So this is not a horrible book, but it is misleading.
Loaded with empiricism--but from a philosophical perspective, not from scientific methodology...which sort of negates its purpose.
Parker wrote the book as if he were just thinking out loud; this, too, detracted from the "Science Vibe".
He does confront the obvious question that most of us who have dual faith in science & creationism ask: "If the 1st law of thermodynamics states (among other things) that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where did the tremendous energy required to set off the Big Bang derive from?"
Unfortunately, I still ask the question.
Loaded with empiricism--but from a philosophical perspective, not from scientific methodology...which sort of negates its purpose.
Parker wrote the book as if he were just thinking out loud; this, too, detracted from the "Science Vibe".
He does confront the obvious question that most of us who have dual faith in science & creationism ask: "If the 1st law of thermodynamics states (among other things) that energy cannot be created or destroyed, then where did the tremendous energy required to set off the Big Bang derive from?"
Unfortunately, I still ask the question.
September 6, 2025
Quite good! This has 3 stars because it is full of great, educated content, but is poorly written.
The author is a distinguished evolutionary biologist, as showcased by the intelligence in the book. The author is also not a writer, as showcased by the writing style. The book is 90% about evolutionary biology - which I appreciated, honestly, as I knew effectively nothing about it - and 10% about a comparison to Genesis, as stated in the title. Because of this much of the book reads almost like an unedited journal in that it’s mostly just Parker talking about something he finds interesting with the occasional quip about what the title promised to write about. Parker takes up a writing style analogous to how a person talks when they are extremely intelligent in a particular subject but cannot teach that subject to others as well, and it requires the student to dig through the words of passion to find what matters and what to retain.
Parker also lends himself to be very acerbic in the first 75% of the book, unnecessarily and harshly blackguarding many people for their beliefs where what’s needed most is correction and understanding. In the last quarter, however, he softens, and can appreciate what he does not know and what he may never know, and he comes to his own conclusions based on what he’s found with the Genesis Enigma.
The entire thing is rather striking, I must say! In a good way. The appendix also summarizes previous studies in the authorship of the Old Testament from a historical standpoint, something I was grateful to read.
All in all, I *could* recommend it to some people. Certainly not everyone due to the nature of the writing being somewhat harsh, ramble-y, and poorly composed, but definitely to some as the content is there. Come borrow it if you’d like!
Edit: also important: the author is most definitely not Christian, or religious in any capacity. But by the end of the book they do appear to find that the arguments for the Genesis Enigma are enough to bring them to theism. This does not show up until the end of the book, however, and the author makes a very remarkable stab at maintaining neutrality on their topic at hand.
The author is a distinguished evolutionary biologist, as showcased by the intelligence in the book. The author is also not a writer, as showcased by the writing style. The book is 90% about evolutionary biology - which I appreciated, honestly, as I knew effectively nothing about it - and 10% about a comparison to Genesis, as stated in the title. Because of this much of the book reads almost like an unedited journal in that it’s mostly just Parker talking about something he finds interesting with the occasional quip about what the title promised to write about. Parker takes up a writing style analogous to how a person talks when they are extremely intelligent in a particular subject but cannot teach that subject to others as well, and it requires the student to dig through the words of passion to find what matters and what to retain.
Parker also lends himself to be very acerbic in the first 75% of the book, unnecessarily and harshly blackguarding many people for their beliefs where what’s needed most is correction and understanding. In the last quarter, however, he softens, and can appreciate what he does not know and what he may never know, and he comes to his own conclusions based on what he’s found with the Genesis Enigma.
The entire thing is rather striking, I must say! In a good way. The appendix also summarizes previous studies in the authorship of the Old Testament from a historical standpoint, something I was grateful to read.
All in all, I *could* recommend it to some people. Certainly not everyone due to the nature of the writing being somewhat harsh, ramble-y, and poorly composed, but definitely to some as the content is there. Come borrow it if you’d like!
Edit: also important: the author is most definitely not Christian, or religious in any capacity. But by the end of the book they do appear to find that the arguments for the Genesis Enigma are enough to bring them to theism. This does not show up until the end of the book, however, and the author makes a very remarkable stab at maintaining neutrality on their topic at hand.
October 23, 2023
4.5 rounded up. Excellent overview of our current understanding of how the world was formed from a geological and biological standpoint. Good research on the Biblical text. Solid discussion of the "science vs. religion" debate; and he gives a very cogent (and unbiased) argument for why this doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. I think in some ways I was particularly excited about it because I just recently finished Pale Blue Dot by Carl Sagan and was particularly frustrated with his treatment of religion, feeling like he was coming from a very biased point of view. I didn't necessarily love this book per se, and I probably wouldn't read it again, but I did learn some things and there are quite a few people I would recommend read it.
Quotes and my commentary:
"Whereas for Christians of western Europe then (and today) religion is a separate, and separable, sphere of life, for the Muslim Bedouin, and for the Jews of Old Testament times, it was an integral part of their existence." This was an important opportunity to reflect for me. I consider myself very religious. I think that religion plays an integral role in my life. I certainly spend a lot of time on it, particularly when I have a particularly time intensive calling. I do think in many ways it is integral to my life, but to the same extent it could (should?) be...that's a question to ponder.
"Without light, in its most basic form, life would be impossible." No commentary, just liked the quote.
"Now, more than ever, an animal would live in a world of virtual reality--virtual because what it thinks is there, is actually not. The dolphin thought only the seafloor stood before it, where really there also lay a cuttlefish. We think we see everything there is to see, yet miss out on the world of ultraviolet. Rocks appear completely solid but are in fact 99.9 percent nothing (because of the empty space within atoms, as explained above). Leaves appear green, regardless of the fact that there's no such thing as color in the real world. But that's the way it happened, and virtual reality would become a thing of the future." This idea is particularly interesting to me as an analogy for how important it is for us to remember that we actually cannot rely solely on our senses. As Antoine Saint-Exupery said in The Little Prince, "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eyes." Therefore, assessing spiritual truths through purely physical means will, at one point or another, fall short. As admirable as this book is in acknowledging that there are remarkable, even unexplained parallels between the words of the Bible and the facts we know of natural history, at the end, it cannot replace spiritual revelation. What it can do is show that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive, and that it does in a very clear and accessible way. This is more explicitly explored in this quote from the book:
"What I mean is that where science can progress, then it does; but where it does not, then maybe it cannot. In other words, there may be a realm of the universe that science can explain, and a realm that it cannot."
"A possible explanation for errors is that they are part of a purposeful system, a tool by which to achieve evolution, for instance. Could the parsimonious scenario be that God created the original universe--the energy of matter--along with the necessary potential for errors, and from here everything self assembled in line with our scientific explanations?" This is obviously speculation, but it does remind me a lot of Ether 12:27.
"But why must logical people feel ashamed of having a strong sense of the existence of God? I hope that we can soon demonstrate that science and God are not mutually exclusive, but go hand in hand."
"Now we can live with the real possibility that God exists while fully accepting science, rather than straining to find contradictions. Faith suddenly appears that much stronger."
Quotes and my commentary:
"Whereas for Christians of western Europe then (and today) religion is a separate, and separable, sphere of life, for the Muslim Bedouin, and for the Jews of Old Testament times, it was an integral part of their existence." This was an important opportunity to reflect for me. I consider myself very religious. I think that religion plays an integral role in my life. I certainly spend a lot of time on it, particularly when I have a particularly time intensive calling. I do think in many ways it is integral to my life, but to the same extent it could (should?) be...that's a question to ponder.
"Without light, in its most basic form, life would be impossible." No commentary, just liked the quote.
"Now, more than ever, an animal would live in a world of virtual reality--virtual because what it thinks is there, is actually not. The dolphin thought only the seafloor stood before it, where really there also lay a cuttlefish. We think we see everything there is to see, yet miss out on the world of ultraviolet. Rocks appear completely solid but are in fact 99.9 percent nothing (because of the empty space within atoms, as explained above). Leaves appear green, regardless of the fact that there's no such thing as color in the real world. But that's the way it happened, and virtual reality would become a thing of the future." This idea is particularly interesting to me as an analogy for how important it is for us to remember that we actually cannot rely solely on our senses. As Antoine Saint-Exupery said in The Little Prince, "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eyes." Therefore, assessing spiritual truths through purely physical means will, at one point or another, fall short. As admirable as this book is in acknowledging that there are remarkable, even unexplained parallels between the words of the Bible and the facts we know of natural history, at the end, it cannot replace spiritual revelation. What it can do is show that science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive, and that it does in a very clear and accessible way. This is more explicitly explored in this quote from the book:
"What I mean is that where science can progress, then it does; but where it does not, then maybe it cannot. In other words, there may be a realm of the universe that science can explain, and a realm that it cannot."
"A possible explanation for errors is that they are part of a purposeful system, a tool by which to achieve evolution, for instance. Could the parsimonious scenario be that God created the original universe--the energy of matter--along with the necessary potential for errors, and from here everything self assembled in line with our scientific explanations?" This is obviously speculation, but it does remind me a lot of Ether 12:27.
"But why must logical people feel ashamed of having a strong sense of the existence of God? I hope that we can soon demonstrate that science and God are not mutually exclusive, but go hand in hand."
"Now we can live with the real possibility that God exists while fully accepting science, rather than straining to find contradictions. Faith suddenly appears that much stronger."
February 5, 2021
A very interesting premise. He’s a little too eager to just accept certain things as fact, reflecting I am sure, his own biases. He is also guilty of the very thing(s) he accuses others of: for instance, he is pretty rough on the “God of the Gaps” idea, yet that is exactly what he concludes: that since we don’t know where the original energy came from for the Big Bang, and we cannot know that (ever? Really?), then the source of that must be God. Well... okay. Nevertheless, I appreciate his willingness to keep an open mind and approach the biblical text honestly. There need not be a distinction between religion and science. The first chapter of Genesis is not a scientific study. It is an epic poem that reveals the creator at work. Given that, it should come as no surprise to us at all if it’s more literary truth instead of literal truth. Still, the sequence of events lines up with current biological understanding: fascinating. Whodathunk?
July 22, 2025
Read this book many years ago now. I found it easy to read and moderately interesting at the time and probably would still. However, as I recall there really wasn't much to it. The basic premise, if I remember correctly was that life evolved roughly in the same order that it is described in Genisis, i.e. from simple to complex. I don't think this is surprising at all. It is intuitive for anyone writing a myth to describe it as such, as evolution itself is, I think, intuitive.
The name is also misleading. There is nothing in this book as far as I can recall that talked about a scientifically accurate bible, merely some interesting overlap. If you are interested in evolution, read something else. If you are interested in science confirming your religious beliefs, good luck.
The name is also misleading. There is nothing in this book as far as I can recall that talked about a scientifically accurate bible, merely some interesting overlap. If you are interested in evolution, read something else. If you are interested in science confirming your religious beliefs, good luck.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 26, 2022
Brought this thinking it was fiction, but no. With a love of Geology and ancient history it was a fascinating trip though evolution and geologic time. Did it come to any conclusion…. No… granted it is spooky how the bible matches scientific fact when it really shouldn’t…. But how and why? God? What….. still very enjoyable…. I’d add ancient aliens and time travel if it were me xxxx but hey. Guess if the author wanted to be taken seriously that might have ruined it for him x
May 16, 2025
Realistically, his “impartiality” simply means he is going to offend everybody, skeptics and Christians alike.
With that said, the author is openly agnostic, but recognizes that the order within the Genesis text is so shockingly aligned with modern evolutionary biology that it practically must be divinely inspired.
So, despite that, as a Christian, I found a lot of this offensive, but I still got something from it.
With that said, the author is openly agnostic, but recognizes that the order within the Genesis text is so shockingly aligned with modern evolutionary biology that it practically must be divinely inspired.
So, despite that, as a Christian, I found a lot of this offensive, but I still got something from it.
August 14, 2018
The author provides compelling scientific proofs of the creation chronology described in Genesis as true, and how events that took the scientific community several thousand years to identify and piece together, had already been described back in that book.
December 16, 2021
Interesting. As someone who grew up in both a scientific and religious household it's nice to read a book where they are not at war with each other. It is good to know I am not the only one who thinks they fit together.
June 28, 2020
The hypothesis of this book is quite unique and the author builds a good case.
January 1, 2017
Fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of the Bible will hate this book. The author is concerned to illustrate that Science and the Bible are compatible and strengthen each other; that they are not natural enemies. Parker does this by stating that the Bible must be taken as being 'metaphorically' (not 'literally') true. The book is mainly dedicated to an examination of the first chapter of Genesis, and tries to show that the accepted scientific explanation of the creation of the world is compatible with this chapter.
Parker then goes on to examine what we know about the the 'author' of Genesis 1 (it is the 'author' known to scholars as P (the Priestly source of the Hebrew Torah — the others are E (Elohist, possibly the earliest), J (the Yahwist/Jehovist source, later but almost contemporary with E), D (the Deuteronomist source, 7th-c BCE), followed by P (the Priestly source, ca 6-5th-c BCE) and finally R (the Redactor, who stitched all the various narratives together)).
Both the scientific perspectives and the information on the (human) authors of the Hebrew Torah are quite well presented.
I enjoyed reading this book — but probably for the wrong reasons. I agree with the scientific explanations provided and with the general presentation relating to the authorship of Genesis 1. But Parker both wants his cake, and wants to eat it too. Atheists, for example, are given short shrift — basically because atheism 'doesn't seem right' for Parker. He still wants God; and he wants to convince us that P was inspired directly by him by giving him the correct relevant information to correct earlier misunderstandings, and thus to write Genesis 1 in the correct scientific way.
But Parker is deceiving himself and us a little. He is selective; he does not dwell on the early verses (where the 'abyss' is spoken of; and of god's 'breath' over the waters; or of the separation of 'the waters above' from 'the waters below'. He argues that the first command "Let there be light!" is the creation of the Sun (to counter the otherwise contradictory creation of the Sun and the Moon several 'days' later; and the latter he reinterprets as referring to the development of image-forming eyes in the creatures of the earth). The ordering of the rest of creation then seems to follow what scientists have determined to be the sequence of life on earth.
Parker finds this 'agreement' astonishing. In considering the P source, he also argues that such an author could not possibly have known about oceans, and various animals, since he was occupying an area that was land-locked. Consequently, this concordance with scientific explanations must have been revealed by God to Moses and the information only 'corrected' hundreds of years later by P. I find this opinion to be quite naive.
Besides, there is a perfectly rational explanation of the 'order of creation': humans feed on animals and plants, so they must be last in creation terms; animals feed mostly on plants, so animals must have come later than plants. Everyone needs water, so water must have been there before anything else; and fish, who live in water must have come later. The authors must also have been aware that land does not normally float on water, so the land/earth is 'beneath' and the waters sit above the land; and since there is not water everywhere, they would have had to have been 'gathered' together to reveal the earth below it... You don't need any of the extensive scientific explanations of the development of the earth to follow this logic. So Parker's thesis is tenuous, at least.
Should literalist Christians feel good about this, their feeling is misdirected. They don't have a leg to stand on — the contradictions within the Bible itself take care of that. Indeed, I have never understood why literalist Christians insist on their approach: even if Genesis 1 were to be absolutely and completely the truth (which it is not) then surely Genesis 2, which has a completely different order of creation, must, of necessity, be absolutely false.
Further, 'the Bible' is more than just Genesis 1. Even if this chapter were to be scientifically accurate, as Parker says it is, it is quite a different matter altogether to say that the rest of the Bible (Parker seems to want to talk mostly of the Hebrew Torah only, as representing 'the Bible' — a problematic distinction) this is not the same thing as saying the whole of the Bible, however one defines it, must also be scientifically accurate. It isn't.
'The Genesis Enigma' is obviously written for those who know that Science is based on solid foundations, but who also wish to retain the good feeling that god really still exists, that he is a Christian god, and that he operates in tandem with whatever Science, despite its limitations, can come up with. Some may find consolation in this. Personally, I find this all wishful thinking; and in the end, rather sad.
Parker then goes on to examine what we know about the the 'author' of Genesis 1 (it is the 'author' known to scholars as P (the Priestly source of the Hebrew Torah — the others are E (Elohist, possibly the earliest), J (the Yahwist/Jehovist source, later but almost contemporary with E), D (the Deuteronomist source, 7th-c BCE), followed by P (the Priestly source, ca 6-5th-c BCE) and finally R (the Redactor, who stitched all the various narratives together)).
Both the scientific perspectives and the information on the (human) authors of the Hebrew Torah are quite well presented.
I enjoyed reading this book — but probably for the wrong reasons. I agree with the scientific explanations provided and with the general presentation relating to the authorship of Genesis 1. But Parker both wants his cake, and wants to eat it too. Atheists, for example, are given short shrift — basically because atheism 'doesn't seem right' for Parker. He still wants God; and he wants to convince us that P was inspired directly by him by giving him the correct relevant information to correct earlier misunderstandings, and thus to write Genesis 1 in the correct scientific way.
But Parker is deceiving himself and us a little. He is selective; he does not dwell on the early verses (where the 'abyss' is spoken of; and of god's 'breath' over the waters; or of the separation of 'the waters above' from 'the waters below'. He argues that the first command "Let there be light!" is the creation of the Sun (to counter the otherwise contradictory creation of the Sun and the Moon several 'days' later; and the latter he reinterprets as referring to the development of image-forming eyes in the creatures of the earth). The ordering of the rest of creation then seems to follow what scientists have determined to be the sequence of life on earth.
Parker finds this 'agreement' astonishing. In considering the P source, he also argues that such an author could not possibly have known about oceans, and various animals, since he was occupying an area that was land-locked. Consequently, this concordance with scientific explanations must have been revealed by God to Moses and the information only 'corrected' hundreds of years later by P. I find this opinion to be quite naive.
Besides, there is a perfectly rational explanation of the 'order of creation': humans feed on animals and plants, so they must be last in creation terms; animals feed mostly on plants, so animals must have come later than plants. Everyone needs water, so water must have been there before anything else; and fish, who live in water must have come later. The authors must also have been aware that land does not normally float on water, so the land/earth is 'beneath' and the waters sit above the land; and since there is not water everywhere, they would have had to have been 'gathered' together to reveal the earth below it... You don't need any of the extensive scientific explanations of the development of the earth to follow this logic. So Parker's thesis is tenuous, at least.
Should literalist Christians feel good about this, their feeling is misdirected. They don't have a leg to stand on — the contradictions within the Bible itself take care of that. Indeed, I have never understood why literalist Christians insist on their approach: even if Genesis 1 were to be absolutely and completely the truth (which it is not) then surely Genesis 2, which has a completely different order of creation, must, of necessity, be absolutely false.
Further, 'the Bible' is more than just Genesis 1. Even if this chapter were to be scientifically accurate, as Parker says it is, it is quite a different matter altogether to say that the rest of the Bible (Parker seems to want to talk mostly of the Hebrew Torah only, as representing 'the Bible' — a problematic distinction) this is not the same thing as saying the whole of the Bible, however one defines it, must also be scientifically accurate. It isn't.
'The Genesis Enigma' is obviously written for those who know that Science is based on solid foundations, but who also wish to retain the good feeling that god really still exists, that he is a Christian god, and that he operates in tandem with whatever Science, despite its limitations, can come up with. Some may find consolation in this. Personally, I find this all wishful thinking; and in the end, rather sad.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 26, 2016
The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is scientifically accurate from 2009 is an intriguing book and is a bold endeavour but unlikely to find many advocates. If you're a six-day young earth creationist then 'there's nothing to see here'. Dr Parker is a staunch advocate of evolution and research leader at the Natural History Museum in London.
What's more interesting is that Dr Parker isn't a Christian and from evidence in the book is moving from atheist to deist or theist position. However his attempt to reconcile scripture and evolution quickly ran foul of ardent evolutionists who want no entente cordiale with divine revelation.
Parker's bold attempt seems to have been influenced by conversations with John Lennox and Alister McGrath amongst others and some deep reflection while visiting the Sistine Chapel. What he sets out to do is match the verses of Genesis 1 with the evolution of life on earth and it's here that he gets into trouble with basic exegesis.
There's plenty of times where his scheme is just plainly forced but nowhere more evident that on the fourth day. In Gen 1:14-19 it seems at pretty much every level that this is talking about the creation of the sun and the moon. For Parker trying to keep his chronology intact this can't be so because the sun came before the earth and anyway the author of Genesis accounted for that back in Gen 1:3-5.
So what is Parker's solution? It is, he says, the evolution of vision - the beginning of sight in the pre-historic trilobites and just as it happens that fits in very neatly with his theory (the light switch theory) to explain the Cambrian explosion which remains a matter of some debate and not quite the closed book that Parker presents.
However, it all falls really because Gen 1:14-19 isn't talking about the evolution of vision but the creation of the sun. Anyway that small fact doesn't stop Parker from ploughing on and in it all gives an evolutionary tour of life on earth and then attempts to reconcile science and religion. I said it was bold.
I'm all for his conclusion that Genesis is divinely inspired (although the conclusion that the final redactor was Ezra is interesting) and that science and religion need not be enemies and that there are things which science can't explain and that atheism is empty and cold in comparison to faith in God but sadly his means of getting there will leave most people unhappy. Indeed I think there are plenty of areas where Genesis and science are in remarkable agreement without the need to do utter violence to the biblical text.
There are a few other shortcomings to the book, firstly it's somewhat hubristic of Parker both to showcase his own evolutionary theory as a clear solution (when it isn't) and that somehow all this is new (which it isn't either). The tone and style are supposed to be some sort of 'come with me on a unique adventure' and seems to have been written with clear hopes of a TV series in mind.
Those things aside what stands out is the utter contempt he has for creationism and this is in itself very interesting (I shall reserve those thoughts for another post) because Parker is not opposed to religion but is opposed to bad science which is what he accuses the creationists of.
In the end it's a book which is a bit like my old maths exams sort of the right answer but with horribly wrong workings out.
What's more interesting is that Dr Parker isn't a Christian and from evidence in the book is moving from atheist to deist or theist position. However his attempt to reconcile scripture and evolution quickly ran foul of ardent evolutionists who want no entente cordiale with divine revelation.
Parker's bold attempt seems to have been influenced by conversations with John Lennox and Alister McGrath amongst others and some deep reflection while visiting the Sistine Chapel. What he sets out to do is match the verses of Genesis 1 with the evolution of life on earth and it's here that he gets into trouble with basic exegesis.
There's plenty of times where his scheme is just plainly forced but nowhere more evident that on the fourth day. In Gen 1:14-19 it seems at pretty much every level that this is talking about the creation of the sun and the moon. For Parker trying to keep his chronology intact this can't be so because the sun came before the earth and anyway the author of Genesis accounted for that back in Gen 1:3-5.
So what is Parker's solution? It is, he says, the evolution of vision - the beginning of sight in the pre-historic trilobites and just as it happens that fits in very neatly with his theory (the light switch theory) to explain the Cambrian explosion which remains a matter of some debate and not quite the closed book that Parker presents.
However, it all falls really because Gen 1:14-19 isn't talking about the evolution of vision but the creation of the sun. Anyway that small fact doesn't stop Parker from ploughing on and in it all gives an evolutionary tour of life on earth and then attempts to reconcile science and religion. I said it was bold.
I'm all for his conclusion that Genesis is divinely inspired (although the conclusion that the final redactor was Ezra is interesting) and that science and religion need not be enemies and that there are things which science can't explain and that atheism is empty and cold in comparison to faith in God but sadly his means of getting there will leave most people unhappy. Indeed I think there are plenty of areas where Genesis and science are in remarkable agreement without the need to do utter violence to the biblical text.
There are a few other shortcomings to the book, firstly it's somewhat hubristic of Parker both to showcase his own evolutionary theory as a clear solution (when it isn't) and that somehow all this is new (which it isn't either). The tone and style are supposed to be some sort of 'come with me on a unique adventure' and seems to have been written with clear hopes of a TV series in mind.
Those things aside what stands out is the utter contempt he has for creationism and this is in itself very interesting (I shall reserve those thoughts for another post) because Parker is not opposed to religion but is opposed to bad science which is what he accuses the creationists of.
In the end it's a book which is a bit like my old maths exams sort of the right answer but with horribly wrong workings out.
September 17, 2010
I picked this book up because I'd picked the Bible as my long classic read for the year. Knowing nothing of the Bible, but lots about science, I was surprised that the first scenes in Genesis, read as metaphor and not as fact, parallel the story that science tells in our time about the origins of the universe and the evolution of life. I was interested in a book that expanded this theme and filled in some of the gaps in my own knowledge about evolution and about the actual writing of the Bible. The Genesis Enigma did that pretty well.
September 7, 2016
I was really on the fence about this book. I generally agree with the author's thesis, i.e. a figurative interpretation of Genesis can agree with the modern scientific consensus, and the science that the author relates is accurate and understandable.
But the author fails to adequately address the concerns of textual criticism. Why did he use the specific edition that he chose? Did that edition accurately reflect the original text of Genesis? When discussing an issue where the exact wording can affect things greatly, I feel that it should have received more than the brief gloss over it did.
But the author fails to adequately address the concerns of textual criticism. Why did he use the specific edition that he chose? Did that edition accurately reflect the original text of Genesis? When discussing an issue where the exact wording can affect things greatly, I feel that it should have received more than the brief gloss over it did.
September 19, 2011
A good light read on the history of life on the planet.
An interesting section on the historical writers of the first 5 books of the bible.
The logic linking the genesis order to the real order was contrived.
That some parts of the bible are historically accurate and therefore the whole thing has credence means my wifes bodice rippers with some historical facts should be read as gospel.
Still in all a decent read.
An interesting section on the historical writers of the first 5 books of the bible.
The logic linking the genesis order to the real order was contrived.
That some parts of the bible are historically accurate and therefore the whole thing has credence means my wifes bodice rippers with some historical facts should be read as gospel.
Still in all a decent read.
March 27, 2016
I was not able to read this book thoroughly. I will probably pick it up again. Of what I did read, I am quite impressed. I always believed The Bible and the scientific theories of the the creation of the Earth coincided. This book points it out so clearly.
It is full of details and histories that I was just not able to focus on at this point, and I love history.
Any historian or scientist, would enjoy this book.
It is full of details and histories that I was just not able to focus on at this point, and I love history.
Any historian or scientist, would enjoy this book.
August 20, 2012
Had some very original thinking in it. I don't think he had an axe to grind in the science vs religion debate. He did gloss over the obstacle of DNA origination in the creation debate. His attempts to harmonise science and religion were at least honest and not contrived. Very worth reading and a good effort.
March 13, 2014
The author lays a scientific groundwork for evolution appropriate for a reader with little scientific background on the subject. I think his final conclusion is a bit shaky considering his metaphorical interpretation of rather vague statements in Genesis, but is an Interesting read if you would like more context on evolution as well as biblical times.
December 28, 2016
Read based on recommendation from friend in a church discussion group. Some interesting stuff here, but a bit more textbooky than I was in the mood for, and I didn't quite finish it before I had to return it to the library.
Read
February 3, 2010I'm mainly reading this book because I believe whole-heartedly that the bible is complete fiction and I want to see if there's any way this scientist can convince me otherwise. Good luck!!
March 9, 2010
An interesting view of seeing how the book of Genesis is accurate in telling how the world was created.
May 18, 2013
Excellent book. So interesting. I really enjoyed it.
May 7, 2013
The main part of the book is excellent. The epilogue is hard to follow. It is an interesting idea that perhaps need more study.
April 6, 2014
I loved reading this book. Whether I agreed or did not with what Parker was arguing, his observations and thoughts were still eye opening and made me think.
August 6, 2011
Abandoned...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews