WAS IT SCIENCE? THE GENESIS OF GENESIS AND THE DEMARCATION OF DICHOTOMY

The account of origins in the Book of Genesis (1:1-31) cannot be verified by the analysis of evidence and thus does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. Indeed, the order of origins given in Genesis contradicts measurable evidence. Although elements of the scientific method were in use before and after the time of Moses, none was applied in the account of origins (except to number periods of time or “days”). The narrative is not science and was not science; it is faith based.

Available evidence does not support attribution of authorship of Genesis but does constrain the time of its composition on the basis of linguistic and cultural characteristics to four principal periods in the millennium after Moses. Judaic and Christian traditions ascribe authorship to Moses, who purportedly received Genesis by direct revelation from God, and/or by compilation of oral traditions and ancient records. Creation science advocate Henry M. Morris speculates that Moses edited earlier written records kept “possibly on tablets of stone,” then “selected those that were relevant to his own purpose (as guided by the Holy Spirit),” and finally compiled them as the Book of Genesis.

Faith and science are distinct intellectual systems. We must clearly demarcate this dichotomy. Understanding terms and concepts in appropriate context is essential to overcoming misconceptions. The essence of faith and the methods of science are widely misunderstood. As explained in the Book of Hebrews (11:1), “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Ronald Reagan memorably distilled the distinction between faith and science, “Trust and Verify.” “Trust” bespeaks beliefs founded on faith, not evidence; “verify” calls for conclusions based on evidence. Trust and verify evoke the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) elucidated by the late Stephen Jay Gould. We of the science education community must be much more effective in communicating the nature of science to students and the public. Too much emphasis is placed on analysis of the scientific method; too little on comprehensibility and inductive logic. A comprehensible characterization of science is detective work applied to Nature: answering questions by gathering evidence, testing, and drawing rational conclusions.