Fallen Earth Creationism

Weston Schaper

Abstract

Science measures what is able to be observed and tested. It holds domain over human understanding of the cosmos and its natural laws. Christianity holds core beliefs that may seem to be in direct conflict with some of these laws. The vast majority of Christians believe in a savior born to a virgin, who was the all-powerful son of God, who walked on water and healed the sick, and who died to save humanity and was resurrected after three days in a tomb. These are supernatural events or properties. For many modern Christians, belief in isolated miracles does not pose a major intellectual hurdle. However, some traditional Christian beliefs – such as a world created entirely by God in seven 24-hour days and not evolution over deep time as science teaches – have created a stumbling block to faith. Christians have responded with numerous interpretations and ideas as to how they understand the intersection of faith and science. These include an outright rejection of scientific views of creation, or the belief that religion and science reign over entirely different domains, or the idea that religion and science can each inform the other and work collaboratively. Through these approaches, Christians hold a wide array of interpretations of the first three chapters of Genesis. This paper discusses the idea of fully accepting both the Genesis creation account and the modern scientific account of our universe and of creation. Proposed is a simple explanation, not widely discussed in theological or academic communities, which would allow for full, literal faith in the Genesis creation account, while also completely accepting all of modern science: A “very good” creation, exactly as described in Genesis 1-3, and a separate, fallen world, which we inhabit, as documented by modern science, where Adam and Eve were banished after they left the Garden of Eden. The title “Fallen Earth Creationism” (FEC) stems from the idea that a fallen, corrupted earth produced and nurtured living things which are themselves fallen and defective.

One of the central challenges of modern Christianity is to maintain serious commitment to its core beliefs in the face of modern skepticism, modern scientific findings and modern culture. Church governments can help guide followers in how they regard certain issues of modern discussion – for example, the Catholic church’s view that belief in evolution may not be inconsistent with Catholic faith – but for many believers, a decree from authority not enough. The findings of modern science, including a several billion- year-old Earth, and the Darwinian theory of evolution, have led to skepticism regarding biblical inerrancy, and in many cases loss of faith. The result has been the growth of agnosticism, atheism, and liberal theology. Modern liberal theology accepts the apparent truth of modern science, including Darwinian evolution, along with other modern strains of thought, and discounts the literal truth of the Bible, in areas where it conflicts with modern science. Stories such as the creation account in Genesis once thought by most Christians to be literal, historical truth are recast as symbolism and allegory.

Over the last several centuries, perhaps dating back to the time of Copernicus, a number of traditional Christian beliefs have been challenged, if not seemingly falsified, by the findings of science. Most of these scientific challenges have been reconciled in the minds of the great majority of Christians. However, the scientifically determined age of the universe, and the earth, along with the theory of evolution presents unique difficulties. Darwinian evolution provides a mechanism whereby the origin of species is explained, purportedly without the need for any divine intervention. While this 160-year-old theory has generated considerable controversy, it is now fully accepted in the academic setting, as well as by most liberal theologians. Additionally, geophysicists have established the age of the earth at greater than 4 billion years. There are a relatively small but significant number of practicing scientists who disbelieve the theory of evolution; however, disbelief in an old earth, and belief in a theologically traditional 6,000-10,000-year-old earth is even more scientifically implausible (Hayward, 1995).

Among Christians, there are different viewpoints regarding the issues of Darwinian evolution and the age of the earth and universe. Fundamentalists tend to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible, and in principle regard any scientific evidence or arguments to the contrary as false. It would seem that the weakness of this perspective is that other testable scientific sources of apparent truth are being ignored. Thoughtful Christians would like to believe that sources other than the Bible contribute to belief in Christianity, not refute it. If the study of nature seems to conflict with biblical teaching, then it is our duty as Christians to face the conflicts honestly.

Young Earth Creationists accept the Genesis creation account as true, and do not accept the scientific account of a universe and earth which are billions of years old, unfolding by cosmic and biological evolution through natural processes. They include in their ranks some working scientists who make an attempt to find scientific evidence and make rigorous arguments for their perspective. However, the scientific case against them is daunting. The astrophysicist and Christian apologist Hugh Ross (Ross, 2006), and many others have challenged this approach, pointing out difficulties with the scientific arguments of young earth creationists.

Old Earth Creationists allow for the scientific finding of an old universe and a several billion-year-old Earth however, most disbelieve the evidence supporting Darwinian evolution. They believe that God, in creative episodes, made the living forms found in the fossil record, including modern life forms. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe, https://www.reasons.org/explore) has authored several books on this and related topics and is one of the most well-known proponents of this approach. However, Old Earth creationists’ belief system rests on disputing the truth of Darwinian evolution. Old Earth creationists are also forced to accept the fact that natural evil, such as suffering, death, predation, and extinction, existed long before the creation and fall of man. This is a serious difficulty, since the creation story in Genesis seems to imply that all suffering, death, and evil entered the world because of the fall of man.

Another view, related to theistic evolution, is the idea of deism. In this approach, God created the universe, including the earth and its living forms, along with natural laws for the functioning of the universe. Since the creation, God has not intervened and has allowed his creation to play out on its own, according to the rules and natural laws He set in place. This idea is thoroughly at odds with Christian belief and much of the Bible, which deals with God's interaction with his creation, especially with mankind.

Theistic evolution is within modern Christendom a popular approach to the issue and is considered by many educated Christians to be an “enlightened” view. Theistic evolutionists tend to accept all of modern science and adjust their biblical interpretation and their theology accordingly. They disbelieve the literal truth of the Genesis creation account, which seems to be severely at odds with the scientific account of creation. Many well-respected thinkers, who are considered leaders in their fields, are theistic evolutionists. A very short list would include well-known scientists such as Francis Collins, director of the NIH, author (Collins, 2006), and former director of the human genome project; and Kenneth Miller, Brown University biology professor and author (Miller, 2000). Theologians who have embraced theistic evolution included such luminaries as CS Lewis (Lewis, 1940) and possibly Pope John Paul II (Pope John Paul II, 1996). The obvious problem with this approach is that the Genesis account of the creation of the universe, the earth, and of living things including man, must be false, or at best an allegory. It is to be regarded as a myth, a song, a metaphor, or perhaps just the best guess of an ancient writer, limited by the scientific knowledge of his day.

Additional theological difficulties may also exist, such as disbelief in the literal event of the fall of man. The fall event, as described in the third chapter of Genesis, is regarded by many traditional Christians as being responsible for suffering and death coming into the world. But theistic evolutionists see that these problems existed long before humans existed on earth. Therefore, in a theistic evolution model, the Genesis story of the fall cannot be completely correct. An additional daunting problem for theistic evolutionists is

the nature of evolution if it is regarded as God’s chosen creative process. It involves vast suffering, predation, waste, and death. Mass extinctions are also part of this creative process. From primitive hominoids up to modern human history, suffering, death, and murder have arguably played a large role in God’s creative processes via evolution. It is asking a lot of traditional Christians for them to accept that parts of the Bible are apparently false, and that the Creator would use a process like Darwinian evolution as his preferred method of creating living things, including humans. The creation of Eve from Adam’s flesh seems impossible to accept as a real event, as considered by a theistic evolutionist.

In his book The End of Christianity the Christian writer William Dembski proposes a reconciliation of Genesis and its apparent conflict with science in which God creates the earth in a fallen state, since he foreknew the fall (Dembski, 2009). The fall event in the Garden of Eden, as recorded in Genesis, was retroactively the cause of the fallen state of the creation. In other words, the effects of the fall preceded the actual fall event in the Garden of Eden. This idea comes close to explaining how both the Biblical and scientific accounts of creation might be true. However, it does not quite square with the description in Genesis, of the entire creation being seen by God as “good”, and “very good” before the fall. However, it is a serious and careful attempt to understand both Biblical and properly understood scientific creation and is worthy of study and consideration.

Fallen Earth Creationism

Are there any other approaches that could reconcile modern science with a more traditional version of Christianity? Suppose all of modern science’s view of cosmic development is true, and that the creation story in the first three chapters of the book of Genesis is also true. How could the two both be true? There is a plausible reconciliation of these seemingly irreconcilable accounts, and it begins with careful consideration of the event of the fall of Adam.

Genesis records that after the fall, the world inhabited by the first humans was much different than before the fall. As recorded in Genesis, some of the effects of the fall include the curse on the serpent, which presumably took away his legs, relegating him to crawl in the dust, and placed enmity between the serpent and the woman. The woman was given sorrow, painful childbirth, and submission to her husband. Adam, who bears the primary responsibility for the fall, faced a cursed livelihood. The ground was cursed because of Adam’s sin, bearing thorns and thistles, and causing him to have to work hard all of his life to obtain his livelihood. Human death, and possibly animal death was also part of the curse brought on by the fall. Mankind was also thereafter separated from God. The changes given in Genesis, brought on by the fall, describe some aspects of animals, humans, and the earth we inhabit, as we know them today, and as they are known to be by modern science.

Let us suppose that the original creation, which actually existed, was “very good”, (Genesis 1:29, King James Version), un-fallen, just as described by Genesis, and as such, vastly different than the creation we see today. Immediately after the fall, the entire creation we inhabit, outside the Garden of Eden, became exactly as modern science finds it. (The garden itself was perhaps not affected by the fall, as it still contained the Tree of Life after the fall.) However, Adam and Eve were apparently fallen themselves, while still in the garden. We know this because they were described as knowing they were naked and being ashamed.

The key idea which might reconcile the Genesis creation account with the scientific version is this: The original, presumably supernatural creation described in Genesis as “very good”, including the Garden of Eden inhabited by Adam and Eve, was a separate creation from our present creation and did not exist on a timeline connected to the timeline of the universe we inhabit. The humans in the Garden of Eden chose disobedience and separation from God. The outcome of their choice was the fall. As a consequence of the fall, and immediately after the fall, our universe formed, prone to decay and natural evil from its beginning in the big bang. Between the moment the humans in the garden sinned and “fell” and the time of their expulsion from the garden of Eden (probably later the same day, by their reckoning of the passage of time), our present universe was birthed in the big bang, and evolved forward, as science describes, billions of years

Our universe exists separately and on a separate timeline from the original, supernatural world of Genesis, allowing for the apparent differences in the lengths of time which passed in each creation. Some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, as we would count time in our fallen creation, Adam and Eve were cast from their supernatural creation, into our fallen world, which their choice (the fall) had necessitated and caused. This second creation, which we live in, is a fallen version of the original creation. Stated another way, if the events of Genesis 1 to 3 were placed in a separate creation and on a timeline separate from the timeline of our 14 billion-year-old, evolved universe, both the Genesis account and the scientific account of history can be true, occurring in different places and on different timelines. So, science describes the fallen universe we inhabit, in its entirety, while the Genesis creation account describes a different and supernatural world which existed prior to the fall, with the Garden of Eden as a portal between the two worlds. Our world is seen as having the same structure, places, and living things as the original creation, but in degraded or fallen form and prone to decay. Presumably, the evolution of life in our world could appear to be random in the sense evolutionary biology describes, but with the constraint that God intervened to see to it that the living things created in the Genesis account reappeared, though in fallen form, in the fallen creation. Sciences tells us that different types of living things existed in the deep past which no longer exist, and that many modern life-forms we are familiar with appeared on earth more recently, perhaps within the last few tens-or hundreds of thousands of years ago. Presumably the flora and fauna which existed when Adam and Eve entered the fallen creation (approximately 6,000-10,000 years ago) appeared to be fallen versions of the forms they had seen in the original unfallen creation.

Supporting this idea is the Biblical indication that God does not perceive the passage of time as we do. 2 Peter 3:8 says “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. If one accepts the existence of an all-powerful God who has always existed and always will, the creation and development of a fallen universe over billions of years – inconceivable to our imagination – would be a quick and easy bit work for such a God. Certainly, Heaven can be thought of as existing on a different “timeline” than the Earth. Also, modern physics has offered the idea that other universes could exist, with the passage of their time unconnected to the passage of time in our universe. Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity stipulates that even within our own universe the passage of time can in theory be perceived to be different for observers with different motions. The Genesis account teaches that change came over the creation after the fall. While this may have historically been interpreted as meaning that the effects of the fall just “swept through” the original unfallen creation, I'm proposing that the fall caused the formation of a different, “fallen version” of the original “very good” creation. It came into existence on a separate timeline and it has been accurately described and catalogued by modern science.

A key point is this: The Bible does not explain exactly how the changes brought on by the fall were instituted. The Bible certainly does not state that the fall caused a second, fallen creation to come into existence, separate from the original unfallen creation. But that idea may be the simplest and most direct way to explain how the loving creator God from Genesis 1-3 made a universe in which modern science infers cosmic evolution over 14 billion years and natural selection’s role in the formation of life, also over a few billions of years. It should be noted that the veracity of Darwinian evolution is permitted but not required within Fallen Earth Creationism. FEC does not require that strict Darwinian processes produced all living things; perhaps other biological mechanisms which explain the stunning array of life will be discovered by science. Perhaps God brought about the species in creative episodes as proposed by Old Earth creationists. We await further scientific clarification of this issue.

Are there any other Biblical references which might hint at or support this idea of two separate creations? There are several. First, consider that the idea of two separate creations is not without precedent in traditional Christian belief. The Bible mentions a “new heaven” and a “new earth” several times when describing a future creation or state where humankind is reconciled with God. (See Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, and Revelation 21:1.) Revelations chapters 21 and 22 describe the passing of our present fallen creation and the coming of a new heaven and a new earth, in which the effects of the fall are gone, and the tree of life is present in the New Jerusalem. Isaiah 65 v 25 describes an apparently unfallen state in which “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like an ox...”. It should be noted that if time passes in the two creations at vastly different apparent rates, say a ratio of thirteen billion years (the creation time of our fallen world) to a few hours (from the fall to the expulsion into the fallen world), then time passes billions of times slower in the original unfallen creation, relative to our fallen creation. This means almost no time has elapsed in the original creation described in Genesis since the expulsion of Adam and Eve into our world 6,000-10,000 years ago, as we measure time. Therefore, the original unfallen creation in Genesis is still brand-new, and could be the “new heaven and new earth” mentioned in the Bible. Also, consider the Garden of Eden, which was not noted in Genesis to disappear after the humans exited; rather it was apparently left in place and guarded against human return by an angel with a flaming sword. Since no such unapproachable place is known in our world, perhaps it is located in the original creation, separate from ours. Also, why was there a garden in the original creation, which was described as entirely “very good”? I propose that it might have been created in part to serve as a portal between the two creations.

Another implication of the idea presented here is that Adam and Eve would have been unique in all the world as the only non-evolved humans. Perhaps evolved humans were already there, explaining for example how Cain found a wife. Plausibly, the longevity of Adam and his immediate descendants was related to superior genetics, which degraded over time from environmental stress and from interbreeding with “regular” humans. The biblical mention of the Nephilim might be explained as offspring between the “sons of God” (Adam’s descendants) and the “daughters of man” (evolved humans). Combining the rapid, relatively short growth period of “evolved” humans with a plausibly longer growth period of long-lived Adamic descendants might account for the giants described in the Bible. The Bible also refers to a time when “men began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26 King James Version). Perhaps this is the time when evolved humans began to be accountable to God.

The idea of separate creations might bear on the account of the flood as well. The people described as extremely wicked in the flood narrative were presumably people in the near east, who were descended from Adam and Eve. They were long-lived, which potentially increased their opportunities for carrying out evil. If superior genetics accounted for longevity, it may have also granted them high intelligence. Also, they had an historic connection to the Creator through Adam and Eve. God possibly at times spoke/interacted directly with them, as suggested by the account of Cain and Abel, and also suggested by the story of Enoch. Therefore, they may have directly rejected God, compounding their evil. The Bible records that these wicked descendants of Adam were destroyed by the flood, except for Noah and his family. If the flood was localized to the Near East, it would have spared most “evolved” humans, those not descended from Adam. This would have included most of the humans on the earth, including those in Africa, most of Europe and Asia, the Americas, Australia, Polynesia, etc. The rest of the world would have been occupied by humans, who although fallen, were not evil to such a degree as to warrant extermination. The ark would have needed to preserve species only from the Near East, perhaps most especially the domesticated animals developed by these long-lived people.

Most thinkers who wrestle with the difficulties presented by comparing the scientific history of the universe with the Genesis account have already accepted at least some of the ideas of FEC. For example, Young Earth creationists would agree with the proposal that Genesis 1-3 describes literal events, people, and places (the “very good “creation in Genesis, which Adam and Eve were cast out of). Old Earth creationists would accept most of the scientific history of the “fallen creation”, other than Darwinian evolution. Theistic evolutionists accept all of modern science, including Darwinian evolution. Fallen Earth Creationism accepts all of Genesis and all of modern science, without exception, (other than scientific errors) including the possibility that Darwinian evolution is true. However, FEC requires that the hand of God would have guided evolutionary processes, or perhaps other unknown creative processes, so that a fallen version of the created life-forms from Genesis appear concurrently with humans. FEC represents a combination of some of the main ideas of Young and Old Earth creationists, and theistic evolutionists.

Legitimate criticism of FEC can be raised. For example, Genesis names rivers (the Tigris and Euphrates) which flowed out of the garden of Eden and existed in the unfallen creation. Rivers with these names exist in our world today. This would lend credence to the idea that we are in the same creation, which was changed from unfallen to fallen form. However, FEC would stipulate that our world is a close, though fallen and degraded copy of the original, having the same general geography, hence the same names. Another very obvious criticism is the fact that the idea of separate creations is not given in the Bible. However, the Bible omits detail regarding how exactly the fall was placed on creation. Genesis 3: v:18 mentions that Adam would face thorns and thistles, which presumably came into existence after the fall. The Bible leaves it a mystery as to how thorns and thistles came to be, along with many other harmful features of the fallen world, which are complex features of creation.

Prior to modern science, theologians must have wondered how the wasp got its stinger, or the lion its appetite and digestive machinery for eating lambs. Young earth creationism would seem to imply that after the creation was finished as noted in Genesis 2:2-3, and after the fall, God must have done a great deal of additional work, to create the features of natural evil in living things, like wasp stingers, or thorns. Life on earth is filled with structures, systems, and cellular machinery needed to support natural evil. FEC allows for the scientific explanation of our universe and for living things, which are brought into existence by the natural-appearing processes of the fallen creation and fallen earth. Another criticism might be that traditional Christian belief through the ages has never considered the fallen creation we inhabit to be separate from the original creation described in Genesis chapter 1. If the subject of controversy was an important theological idea or doctrine, then time-honored, traditional Christian beliefs would be extremely important, probably definitive. However, I would argue that FEC resolves the scientific conflict with Genesis, does not conflict with any mainstream Christian doctrines, and in fact helps maintain the paramount Christian belief in the literal and actual fall of man, who is redeemed by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

An additional criticism of FEC might be found in Genesis chapter 3:30, King James Version: “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” This verse is difficult to reconcile unless one is a Young Earth creationist, in which case it is not problematic. If scientific investigations eventually confirm the beliefs of Young Earth creationism then the science/Genesis controversy is resolved, and ideas like FEC are unnecessary. At present this seems very unlikely. The idea of Eve being the single biological female ancestor of all humans, within the last 6-10 thousand years, seems untenable within the framework of either FEC, theistic evolution, or Old Earth creationism. Per FEC, Eve would be the “mother of all living” if considering only the descendants of Adam discussed in Genesis, including those killed by the flood. She could however also be considered a “mother” to all humans in that her form and genetics would serve as a template for all humans.

To recap, Fallen Earth Creationism proposes that a “very good”, probably supernatural creation was formed by God, with unfallen living things including no predatory animals, along with Adam and Eve, the first humans. Eve was made separately by God, from flesh taken from Adam’s side. Eve, then Adam disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit, causing the fall. The entirety of the Genesis creation account is accepted at face value. The effects and curse of the fall was placed on creation as follows: the event of the fall precipitated the so-called Big Bang, which birthed the separate fallen universe in which we live. From the moment of the fall until Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden (perhaps later that same day, as they perceived time passing), our universe evolved up, separate from theirs, with billions of years passing. At a point in the history of our fallen world approximately six to ten thousand years ago, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden and from their world into our fallen world. Even though they were the first humans to exist, due to differential passage of time in their garden and our fallen universe, humans paradoxically existed in our world which appear to far pre-date Adam and Eve. Genesis 1-3 tells the actual creation story of the original unfallen creation, why and how the need for a fallen creation arose, and how the first couple was cast out of the garden and into the fallen creation. Modern science teaches us about the fallen creation, the age of our universe (13- 14 billion years), evolutionary cosmology, and the biological sciences, including Darwinian evolution. Science can only study the fallen creation, not the original unfallen version of creation.

If accepted, the idea of the fall bringing into existence a second fallen creation would reconcile the conflict between the creation account in Genesis, and modern science. Furthermore, it would go a long way towards reconciling all apparent conflict between Christianity and science. Christian theology could now see the entire natural world as being just as science finds it to be, and containing natural evil, in accordance with the fall. Darwinian evolution, deep time, and an old earth are no longer theologically problematic. The currently understood scientific narrative of the Big Bang, the evolution of the universe and of living things, is not the modern alternative to the Genesis creation story; it’s the outcome of the Genesis story. Evolution, plausibly even of humans, is part of the history of the fallen creation, and is the means by which the consequences of the fall came to living things (hence the phrase “Fallen Earth Creationism”). Whatever neuroscience and evolutionary biology find in regards to instinctive or innate human traits would not be problematic. For example, if the human propensity for violence were shown to have a biological and neuroscientific basis, this could be regarded as a consequence of the fall, and not a product of God's preferred mechanism of creation. Christians could be comfortable believing in all of science and also the traditional theology of the fall and redemption of the human race through Christ's death and resurrection.

This paper is a brief description of the ideas of Fallen Earth Creationism. Numerous other implications and details are not covered in this shortened description of the idea. A full length book with a more detailed treatment of the topic has been written and is under peer review. Like all of the attempts to reconcile Genesis and modern science, FEC is certain to be controversial, if it is ever widely considered. As Christians we believe the Bible is our greatest source of truth. Science is increasingly powerful in demonstrating at least provisional truths about the natural world. Fallen Earth Creationism with one simple idea allows for acceptance of both the Genesis account and the scientific story of creation.

References

Hayward, Alan. Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Ross, Hugh. Creation and Science. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2006 Hugh Ross. Reasons to Believe https://www.reasons.org/explore

Collins, Francis. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York: HarperCollins. 1999

C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, 1962, pp. 72, 77, 79.
October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Blessed John Paul II.

Dembski, William. The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2009

Originally Published: March 2020