Recently I published a second edition of my book ‘Creation and Cosmos – The Literal Values of Genesis. Then I found an interesting book, new to me, named ‘The Genesis Enigma; Why the Bible is Scientifically Accurate’ by Andrew Parker that prompted me to think that one day if enough new ideas occur I may write a third edition.
Parker is not simply a man of faith, he is also a biologist who developed an interesting theory named ‘The Light Switch Hypothesis’. The reviewer of Parker’s book ‘In the Blink of an Eye’ was quite critical of the idea that the ability for evolving life on Earth to see stimulated the Cambrian explosion of life that is Parker’s main premise. For a biologist to develop a new theory is not too common-they tend to be a conservative group except for rare wild Christians like Charles Darwin. Parker believes as well that God evolved the world-theistic evolution, and that the book of Genesis is code for that evolution.
If the Cambrian explosion was actually stimulated by the state of Eukaryotic life and the rise of the level of oxygen in the atmosphere it is also probable that the appearance of vision conferred a tremendous advantage in predation and energy intake onto the creatures in the competition for survival. The development of vision centers in the brain of animals, and in fact the development of brains was probably stimulated. Parker’s theory seems reasonable enough and it did afford him the opportunity relating the Biblical paradigm of creation to that of evolution.
In my 2005 first edition of C & C I used Peter’s statement that a day to God is as a thousand years to man to roughly calculate the appearance of life on Earth with those literal values (literal such as are algebraic literals) and discovered that the eras of the Bible are like those of evolution and of the order of appearance of life.
I have tried to consider as many meanings and contexts for the book of Genesis as I could given the circumstances of having more time to read than opportunity to write. Andrew’s critic stumbles for me on Biblical criticism and in understanding the context in which the Bible was put together. Although my ideas differ a little from Parker’s in that regard too, it is interesting that Parker’s appendix on who wrote the Bible is comparable paradigmaticaly to Rosenberg and Bloom’s ‘The J Book’ and ‘Abraham; The First Biography’. Parker provides more links to authors that considered the book of Genesis as a paradigm sketching out evolution theory from the 19th century.
The topic of theistic evolution is a work in progress and of course Christians will want to not only trust the Bible, they may wish to read Paul Tillich to get a notion of how the Unconditional relates to the conditional, to critical-scientific contexts and to mysticism, theonomy and autonomy. The world is a lump of stellar ejecta in a space in the middle of nowhere far from being a locale survivable for the species without significant intellectual, spiritual and ecospheric development in competence. It would be wrong to pout on the blinders of scientific critical analysis soley as if in an existential environment pure chess gaming and bureaucracy for themselves would adequately address the wild and unconditional reality in which God is all-in-all.
It is useful to comprehend much and act intelligently to conserve life.