A subject that I touched on briefly in my recent sermon on the Fall is how our scientific understanding of the origins and development of man should fit with Genesis 3. This is not one of the main points of what Genesis 3 is saying, so when preaching, I only acknowledged the issue rather than discussing it in detail.

But all truth is God’s truth, and so understanding how the Bible and science fit together is important. Also, our culture gives a very high status to science, and there’s a widespread perception that the Bible and science are at odds. For these reasons, I put together the following notes for my handout to encourage people to think about these questions:

Science and the Fall

How would you respond to the following?

“The Bible says that there was no death before the Fall, but science shows us that life evolved through millions of years of pain and death. Science disproves the Fall, and without the Fall there is no need for Jesus to die for our sins. The whole of Christianity is based on a fairy-tale about a talking snake, a magic tree, and two people who never existed.”

Some points to consider:

• We need to take seriously the study of the God’s word. We should study the Bible to understand what exactly Genesis teaches, interpreting it correctly in light of its style and genre, and its Biblical and cultural context.
• We need to take seriously the study of God’s world. We can and should study science, since God created the world in an orderly fashion, and gave us minds to understand the laws by which it works. At the same time, he is entirely able to intervene miraculously in creation.
• Questions of science and the Bible are a real barrier to faith for some. As Christians, we need to try and show people that the Bible is true and reasonable, and engage with people’s genuine questions.
• The “how” of Creation and Fall from a scientific perspective is a secondary issue doctrinally. As Christians, we can legitimately disagree on it, and must show grace and love in our discussions.

Christians have a variety of opinions on how the Fall fits with scientific understandings of the origins and development of humanity. Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose? by Denis Alexander (Monarch Books, 2008) lists five basic models:

• Model A – the Fall is a purely theological concept with no historical content, and is a metaphor for the universal human experience of alienation from God through disobedience.
• Model B – the Fall is a narrative symbolising a long historical process by which humans evolved into an understanding of God and rejected him, leading to spiritual death.
• Model C – the Fall is about an historical Adam and Eve, whose ancestors had evolved, but were the first to be made spiritually alive and aware by God, and led to spiritual death.
• Model D – the Fall is about a historical Adam and Eve, who were specially created by God and would have been immortal had they not sinned, though the rest of the world evolved and contained death. The Fall brought spiritual and physical death to humanity.
• Model E – the Fall is about a historical Adam and Eve, who were specially created by God after six literal days. No higher forms of life would have died prior to the Fall. The Fall brought spiritual death to humanity, and physical death to both humans and creation generally.

Which do you most agree with, and why?

What are the wider implications of how we interpret Genesis 3 for what we believe? See Romans 5, especially verses 12-21. What’s the connection between Adam and Jesus?

Some further reading:

• The Problem of Pain by C S Lewis. (Examines the question of suffering, including the Fall and related topics.)
• Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose? by Denis Alexander. (Argues for the compatibility of the two.)
• Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History by Francis Schaeffer.

I hope to explain my current thinking on how exactly I think the Fall in Genesis fits with science in subsequent blog post.