I was having a discussion with some Christians the other day that touched on belief in evolution vs. literal belief in the Creation stories in Genesis. Of course the decision is not binary, but people often treat it so. Some other possibilities:
1. We're all replicants a la Blade Runner who were created 5 seconds ago with fully formed memories.
2. As suggested in various sci-fi universes, an ancient alient precursor race seeded the galaxy with its DNA and humanity is one of the byproducts.
3. The creation story of some other religion is true.
4. You're all figments of my imagination, or we're all figments of someone else's imagination.
5. We live in a Matrix-like simulation. (Here's how to survive in a simulation, just in case.)
6. The creation stories in Genesis are figuratively true.
Ok, there's more, but the sixth one is what I want to discuss today. (Of the rest, I find number five most compelling.)
First, so I don't get burnt as a heretic, let me say that I do interpret the Bible literally... at least the portions that are intended to be taken so. It's clear to anyone familiar with the Bible that large portions are intended to be figurative, and a "literal" interpretation of those parts would be nonsense. Jesus taught almost exclusively in parables, by wrapping a spiritual message in a worldly envelope so that his students could understand. Furthermore, huge swaths of prophecy in Daniel, Revelation, the Gospels, and elsewhere use vivid imagery that is intended to convey a message to the readers but not necessarily be taken literally. Consider John's vision of Jesus Christ recorded in Revelation 1:12-16.
I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man," dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.
The returning Christ's hair is like wool, his feet are like bronze, and his voice is like the sound of rushing waters. Clearly the language of metaphor. However, no "like" is to be found where John tells us that "out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword"... but will that be literally true? I doubt it. It seems much more likely that the double-edged sword is an illustration of how the returning Christ's words will divide humanity and bring judgement and destruction.
The Bible contains more than prophecy -- it also contains law, history, poetry, biography, personal communications, letters of instruction, and much more. It's important to interpret the Bible as a whole, a single work with one author who wrote it using many hands. No part of the scriptures can be properly interpreted without an understanding of the whole work, and that includes the question of literal and figurative interpretation. Does this make interpretation harder and more error-prone than if one were to simply declare a literal belief in the Bible? Certainly... but who ever said that understanding God's Word would not require wisdom and discernment?
As for the creation stories, here are a few questions.
Does literal or figurative belief in the creation stories impact one's salvation? I'd say certainly not. They give insight into sin and foreshadow redemption, but those principles can be grasped by a figurative reading of the stories as well. All that is required for salvation is a personal realization of sin, confession thereof, and acceptance of Jesus Christ's death as payment.
Does a literal or figurative belief in the creation stories affect how one lives one's daily Christian life? Again, I don't think so.
And so, why the controversy? Many who are quick to denounce the mere suggestion that the creation stories could be intended to be figurative have no problem figuratively interpreting clear instructions that are explicitly literal. (The passage is long, but I have bolded the portions I wish to draw your attention to.)
1 Corinthians 11:3-16Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
I personally believe that the purpose of this passage is to instruct the church in modesty, and that if men and women dress and act modestly and with propriety suitable for their culture then they are in obedience with these instructions. However, the text itself is clearly intended to be taken literally, and the last sentence in particular rebukes any who would discount the instructions.
If clear commands such as those above can be obeyed as principles rather than exact instruction, then who has a basis for disputing the literalness of the history of the creation stories? I think the topic is fascinating to discuss (as I have just done at length), but arguments over the matter are clearly not profitable for the work of Christ.
I think that the issue runs deeper than that. While I believe, as you do, that the issue is what one believes about Jesus Christ, not what one believes about the Creation story, I think there are other fundamental issues.
Now, the Creation story's basic idea that sticks in people's craw is that HE did it. Interpret the story how ever you like... spread out a day to millennia, etc etc. In the end, HE did it. He made us. It was not an accident, it was a plan.
The argument about the Creation story is as simple as this: A world without God does not want to believe that He exists.
The portion of the world who knows God does not want to give up that simple fact in order to 'get along' because people's eternity depends upon their simple understanding that God exists.
So, if I believe what God says, truly... and if I care about others, truly... then I can not just let the evolutionist factor God out of the equation without an argument.
Sometimes, I think believers forget why they argue, and their arguments become shrill and lose compassion.
Sure, many people try to support Creationism with Genesis and other Biblical texts. But I am willing to bet that most people who reject evolution - or think that a natural, "accidental" process of evolution is only part of the answer (i.e. those who believe in theistic evolution) - do so primarily because they think it is too unlikely that modern complex animals (especially intelligent ones like us) came to be "by accident", without any "design". I think this idea is the one that is most important to tackle when defending evolution.
While it is fairly clear that not all of the Bible is to be taken literally (most people eat crustaceans, wear clothes woven from multiple materials, and do not punish their family/neighbors physically), it is not quite as clear (but it is true) that it IS possible for all life on earth to have evolved "by accident" from previous, more primitive forms. These accidents may appear to be staggeringly improbable when you compare a mammal to a fish or to a paramecium, which leads many people to think that evolution could only have happened with God "helping" by triggering extremely improbable mutations. However, the fact is that every helpful small mutation preserves itself, so evolution is like a ratchet that accumulates small not-that-improbable changes and lets them build on each other.
In other words, some people who do not believe in godless evolution (or who think it is too improbable) says that the odds of us evolving are comparable to the odds of a tornado hitting a junkyard and blowing a lot of metal around into a working 747. You have better odd of winning the lottery than of hoping that this happens! But, every time the wind crates something that is at all like a 747 (or a piece or subassemlby of one), if that thing somehow evaded destruction better than other forms, then over millions of years it would be fair to expect 747s to randomly be created by the wind. Or here's another way of looking at it: You chance of winning the lottery is very small, you can easily play your whole life and not win once. But your chance of getting one number right is pretty decent, like one in 15, and your chances of getting two numbers right is non-negligible. Now, every time you got any numbers right (even just one or two), imagine that this "carries over" indefinitely until you had a total of 5 or 6 (at which point you win). You would probably get one number right every 3 or 4 months, and after a couple years you'd win the lottery! Of COURSE the lottery doesn't work this way (because the chance of winning over a period of a few years is very close to 1), but evolution does. I wish more people would realize that, when there is a selection process that preserves any helpful change (organisms eating each other), then some amazing systems can arise from randomness, without any design.
Of course, if you believe in God, then you probably believe that this is all part of the plan from the start. But that's different from saying it is too improbable to have happened without miraculous assistance, which is what most people who reject godless evolution think.
Sorry about the long comment, but this is an issue that a good fraction of America misunderstands badly, so I feel I have to do my part to get the message out that evolution is not so improbable as to require miracles. And don't even get me started on irreducible complexity...