Theistic evolutionists: a discrepancy between Genesis and evidence?
This is directed towards people who accept evolution, but also believe that the creation story laid out in Genesis 1 is true at least to some extent, even if only allegorically.
Birds are created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20-1:22), and then the day ends (1:23). Land animals then come about on the sixth day (1:24-1:25).
However, all the evidence to date indicates that the first birds evolved around 160 million years ago, well after the appearance of land animals. Even flying non-bird animals, such as pterosaurs (~220 MYA) and flying insects (~250 MYA), appear well after the apperance of land animals. Because most internet creation sites seem to be based strictly on a literal interpretation of Genesis, I can't find a theistic evolution response to this ordering discrepancy.
Could you shed some light as to how you personally account for this?
Darrin2011-11-28T12:18:15Z
Favorite Answer
What evidence indicates the birds evolved around 160 million years ago? You are just taking someone elses word for it.......>
I don't have an exact answer. But remember that "flying creatures" in the Bible can refer to insects as you seem to acknowledge. The fossil record can be scanty at times, and some creatures fossilize better than others.
But the discrepancy could be explained by the author's literary style, where there appears to be a symmetry to the creation days:
Day one: light Day four: celestial lights
Day two: division of oceans and heavens Day five: creations in oceans and heavens
Day three: land masses form Day six: creations on land masses
Despite a few apparent discrepancies, Genesis 1 remarkably matches up with the findings of modern science:
1) The universe had a beginning and is not eternal (Gen 1:1). We find: the universe had a beginning. It had been assumed by secularists that the universe was eternal.
2) The early earth would have been uninhabitable for advanced life. It would have been a toxic wasteland (Gen 1:2). We find: elements poisonous to life (formed in their pure state in some star) were free in the environment until bacteria stripped them from the environment and deposited them as precipitates.
3) The early earth was a water world without landmasses (Gen 1:2). We find: just within the last 10 years scientists concluded that the early earth started out completely covered with water. Plate tectonics could not yet form stable landmasses.
4) Stable landmasses would have formed about halfway through the earth's lifespan (Gen 1:9). We find: about halfway through the earth's present age, plate tectonics could form stable landmasses.
5) The early earth's atmosphere would be much denser than it is today, and it would have fully cleared, allowing celestial objects to be clearly seen sometime after the formation of stable landmasses (Gen 1:2, 14; Job 38:9). We find: the earth started out in a dust cloud and the atmosphere was much thicker than it is today. The earth's atmosphere was probably similar to Venus's or Titan's in that they are permanently overcast. Lower levels of oxygen could have made the atmosphere cloudy.
6) Lifeforms should appear explosively, fully formed in the fossil record (Gen 1:11, 21, 24). We find 50% or more of all known phyla appear at the very start of the Cambrian. The error bar is about 3 million years. The Avalon explosion prior to that has Edicaran specimens, unconnected the Cambrian specimens. There are several other mass extinction and mass speciation events in the fossil record. (Ps. 104:28-30)
7) Genesis chapter 1 shows a progression of complexity of lifeforms, from simple to complex. The fossil record should match such a progression. Advanced lifeforms like humans are much more sensitive to their environments than are simpler forms of life. We find a progression of less complex to more complex lifeforms in the fossil record - forms that were perfectly suited to the environment of their time until they were able to convert that environment to be suited for more advanced forms of life (for example, see #2).
8) Mankind should appear explosively in the archeological record. Their behavior should be distinctly different from any previous ape-like creature, and exhibit 'image of God' qualities (Gen 1:27). We find: modern human archeological sites explode recently on the scene and are culturally and technologically disconnected from any prior hominid sites.
The obvious fact is that if one believes in evolution then they do not believe the Bible should be taken LITERALLY. As a result your observation is just shifting one literal interpretation fo another and for the "theistic evolutionist" your observation is a non-sequitor. That being said, if one did indeed interpret it literally then they could argue that while certainly primitive forms of mammals and reptiles existed before birds could fly, with the mention of the word "cattle" (v24) could mean that the line refers to a modern-day version of these animals. These did not appear until well after birds could fly.
"This is directed towards people who accept evolution, but also believe that the creation story laid out in Genesis 1 is true at least to some extent, even if only allegorically." - Are there any? Not in the mainstream religions.
The book of Genesis is an ancient book of myths. It is of interest because it formed part of the Hebrew Scriptures on which Christianity developed.
The purpose of Genesis is not to outline the history of zoology. If you read it that way, you'll find all kinds of inconsistencies, just as you would if you read a chemistry book to learn about Civil War History. The message of Genesis is simple - "God is the source of all that exists, living and nonliving". Period! If you read it the way it was intended, you learn truth. If you don't, you just confuse yourself. We know that birds evolved later than reptiles. That doesn't conflict in any way with the message Genesis is intended to convey.