The final cause is harmony. “Harmony” is defined “the arrangement of parts in a pleasing relation to each other” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1966, p. 1035). Parker writes, “The principle of harmony, so important to the great Pythagoras, had been upheld” (30).
The seven days of the creation story in the book of Genesis are pleasingly related to “the scientific history of earth” (xxiv). Further, Parker writes, the first chapter of Genesis is “an exact match with modern science” (215). Thus, because the first chapter of Genesis and the account of evolution in modern science have “harmony” (30) and “an exact match” (215), the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.The material cause of the book of Genesis and modern science is the beginning of the universe. According to the first chapter of Genesis, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gn 1: 1). And according to modern science, “The universe began with a cataclysm that generated space and time” (39). Thus, because both the book of Genesis and modern science affirm the existence of a start and a beginning of the universe, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.
The formal cause is “the specific order of events” (43) after the creation of the universe. Parker writes, “The author of the creation account” in Genesis “remained on a parallel course with the scientifically correct sequence of events in the history of life” (117). Further, Parker writes, “The parallel between science and scripture is staggering” (116). Parker kindly provides a chart with two columns on page xxiv. On the left column is the list of seven days of creation in Genesis. On the right column is the list of seven stages of earth’s history according to modern science. Thus, because the unfolding of events in Genesis is “on a parallel course” with the account in modern science, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.
The principal agent cause is the Almighty. Parker writes, “Maybe God is a force with a purpose that could assign direction to the energy in the universe, with the potential for errors that could lead to the necessary changes that has occurred on earth” (217). According to the book of Genesis, “In the beginning God created heaven, and earth” (1: 1). Further, according to modern science, “God is a force with a purpose” (217). Further, according to philosophical principles, “order” and the “the established procedure” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1966, p. 1587) always comes before chance events. “Chance” is defined as “something that happens unpredictably without any direction” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1966, p. 373). For example, traffic rules help us understand traffic accidents. Further, if everything had a beginning, then nothing would start. Hence, there was one Thing that did not have a beginning and Who directed “the energy in the universe” (217) to bring about minerals, plants, animals, human persons and angels. Thus, because both the book of Genesis and modern science agree that a Universal Principal Agent Cause brought about the seven days of creation and the seven states of paleontology, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony. Parker writes, “The Genesis narrative has been confirmed by modern science. Will science and the Bible continue to agree as the story of life continues?” (143).
The preparing agents of the universe are described by both the first chapter of Genesis and modern science.According to the book of Genesis, “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light;’ and there was light”(1: 2-3). Further, according to modern science, “Some 5,000 millions years before the present, a giant cloud of hydrogen gas in the spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy was rotating slowly when gravity acted to concentrate it all into one place… The center became so hot and dense that it began generating energy through nuclear fusion of the hydrogen atoms to form heavier nuclei. It became the sun” (41). Thus, because the book of Genesis and the account of modern science agree on the first day and first stage of physics, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony. Parker writes, “The creation account of Genesis 1 is looking oddly accurate” (143).
The assisting agent helped the Parker understand both the book of Genesis and modern science. Concerning the book of Genesis, Parker writes, “I will refer to the modern biblical scholarship of Richard Elliott Friedman, a professor at the University of California, San Diego” (234). Concerning modern science, Parker writes, “I played a role as science adviser for the Natural History Museum's evolution gallery” (191). Further, he “once acted as a consultant for a cosmetics company which tried but struggled to find a scientific formula for visually attractive hair” (211). Thankfully, Parker’s book, The Genesis Enigma, will assist every student who wishes to find harmony between the book of Genesis and modern science. Parker writes, “We have seen how science and the book of Genesis agree, point by point, verse by verse” (182).
The instrumental agent needed is the scientific method. Parker writes, “Problems are solved through careful adherence to the facts, ingenious thought, and rigorous testing of possible actions” (179). A problem is an unexplained difference and a solution is brought about with “careful adherence to the facts” and “rigorous testing” (179). Further, Parker writes,”Audubon, while studying his bird subjects, watched the logging of American Forests with horror. He commented on the destruction he had observed to take place in just twenty years, that “although I know all to be a fact, I can scarcely believe in its reality” (179). Modern science and the scientific method alone can be harmful to the natural environment. The Bible teaches us to respect the Creator and to find a balance with modern science. Parker writes, “Rather than forcing God to retreat with each scientific discovery, maybe” an appreciation for the Creator has the power to guide the discoveries in modern science (181). Thus, because the book of Genesis and modern science use the scientific method to solve problems and be respectful of the environment, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.
The first counseling agent cause is the author, Parker, who recommends that we read the Bible in the allegorical and metaphorical sense. Parker writes, “That opening to Genesis all makes perfect sense when read metaphorically.” (182) A “metaphor” is defined as “a figure of speech denoting one kind of object or idea in place of another to suggest a likeness” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1966, p. 1421). Using a metaphor is one of four ways to interpret a verse in the Bible. St. Thomas Aquinas writes, “The first sense [is] the ‘literal’ whereby words signify things… There is the ‘allegorical’ sense whereby the things in the Old Law signify things of the New Law…There is the ‘moral’ sense whereby the things done in Christ are types of what we ought to do… There is the ‘anagogical’ sense whereby the words relate to eternal glory” (Summa Theologiae, 1, 1, 10). There are four ways to interpret a verse in the Bible and using an ‘allegory’ and a ‘metaphor’ where two things are partly the same and partly different. For example, St. Thomas shows how the Old Law and the New Law are partly the same, because both have the same goal. St. Thomas writes, “The New Law is not different from the Old Law, since both have the same end, viz., that men should submit to God” (S.T. 1-2, 107, 1). Both the Old Law and the New Law have the same goal of submitting to God. However, the Old Law and the New Law are partly different. St. Thomas writes, “For the Old Law is, as it were, a teacher of children, as the Apostle says in Galatians 3:24, whereas the New Law is a law of perfection, since it is a law of charity” (S.T. 1-2, 107, 1). The Old Law and the New Law are different, because the Old Law does not command charity and the New Law does command charity.
Further, Parker shows how the book of Genesis and modern science are partly the same and partly different. According to the book of Genesis, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’” (1: 3). Further, Parker writes, “After the sun had become a star in the universe, the rest of the material from the edges of the disk separated out into clubs and formed the planets, including the earth. The earth and the sun were born. And there was light” (41). The book of Genesis and modern science are partly the same, because they both state that after the creation of the word there was light. However, The book of Genesis and modern science are partly different, because the book of Genesis writes that the beginning of light happened on the first day and modern science teaches that the beginning of light “around five thousand million years ago” (xxiv). Thus, because the book of Genesis and modern science use allegories and metaphors to bring about a better understanding of the universe, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.
The second counseling agent is St. Thomas Aquinas. He teaches how to focus on the literal sense of a Biblical text first and then examine the other three senses of Biblical interpretation. St. Thomas writes, “The truth of Scripture must be held firmly. Where there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly, that, if convincing arguments show it to be false, anyone would dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture and the way to faith will be closed to them” (Summa Theologicae 1, 68, 1). Students should try to find the literal interpretations of the Scriptures first and if a Biblical verse cannot be taken literally, then a student can look for three other senses to understand the verse. It is illogical and unethical to pretend that 100% of the verses in the Bible are to be taken literally, since that is impossible and will motivate unbelievers to “scorn” the Bible, to reject “the way to faith,” and to ridicule believers.
The process of induction allows a student to understand the difference between a theory and a fact. A “theory” is defined as “a belief, policy or procedure followed as a basis of action” (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1966, 2317). Further, and a “fact” is defined as “a thing done” (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1966, 813). A theory is a conjecture about a discovery, such as Galileo’s (1564-16420) guessing that the earth rotates about the sun in 1609, because their is a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. A fact is a proof about a discovery, such as Bessel’s proving that the earth has different distances to the same star depending on the earth’s location around the sun in 1838. According to Parker, “The meteorite explanation for the dinosaur's demise is the best theory we have, but it is still just that, a theory in the true sense of the word: it could be wrong” (158). Further, Parker writes, “Evolution by natural selection… is more appropriately regarded as a fact.” (158). Thus, because the book of Genesis and modern science allow for theories and facts, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.
The book of Genesis was written between 922 and 722 BC. Parker writes, “Two of the writers of the Pentateuch lived between 922 and 722 B.C.” (234). Historians discovered two writers who probably wrote the book of genesis. Further, the universe began fifteen billion years ago. Parker writes, “All the energy we have in the universe today had just appeared in the Big Bang… Within this fraction of a second, a peculiar form of energy (what it was, we don’t know yet) pushed out the fabric of space” (39). Physicists discovered all the energy in the universe today was in a mysterious form at the beginning of the universe.
Allegories and metaphors help us understand the book of Genesis and modern science. St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419) shows us how to use an allegory and a metaphor with the Bible. He understood the four senses of the Bible described by St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) and writes, there are “four senses of Sacred Scripture.” First there is the “literal sense,” then the “allegorical,” then the “moral,” and finally the “anagogical from άνώ which is ‘above,’ and άγώ ‘I lead’ (Feria VI post Laetare Sermo unicus, 1570). St. Vincent Ferrer gives the example of a metaphor and says that the Lord’s action of curing a physically blind man (John 9: 1) resembles and is like the Lord’s action of forgiving a spiritually blind man (Luke 5: 20). St. Vincent writes, “Note how everyone in the state of mortal sin is blind, because he does not see the danger of suddenly plummeting into the pit of hell” (Feria 4 Post Laetare). Further, Parker show a metaphor in the book of Genesis and modern science. The book of Genesis writes, “Let the waters under heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the drylands appear” (1: 9). Parker writes this verse from Genesis is analogous to “the formation of the seas and the separation of land areas around 4200 million years ago” (xxiv). The book of Genesis and modern science are partly similar, because both show that “drylands” appeared. However, the book of Genesis writes that the drylands appeared on “the second day” (1: 8) and modern science proves that the drylands appeared four thousand and two hundred million years ago.
Parker shows a second metaphor in the book of Genesis and modern science. Genesis writes, “Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life” (1: 20). Parker responds to this verse and writes, “The sea… was necessary for life itself and the diversity of modern life” (62). The book of Genesis and modern science are similar, because both state that “modern life” were “brought forth” from the waters. However, they are different, because the book of Genesis said life came out of the sea on “the fifth day” (1: 23) and modern science proves that life came from the water “around 520 million years ago” (xxiv). Thus, because the book of Genesis and modern science are understood more clearly with analogies and metaphors, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.
The motive for the book of Genesis and modern science is the same. Both want to “understand, interpret and realize the creation story” (xxiii). Parker writes, “The Genesis creation account was written as it is because that is how the sequence of events really happened” (xxiii). The writers of the book of Genesis tried to understand the history of the earth and wrote an accurate account. Further, Parker writes, “On [the Sistine Chapel] ceiling was Michelangelo’s attempt to understand” the creation story. Michelangelo tried to understand the history of the earth and painted the seven days of creation in the Sistine Chapel. Further, Parker writes, “Rather than use the mediums of paint and plaster, our tools will be those of modern science” (xxiii). Parker is trying to understand the history of the earth and uses the “tools” of modern science in this book. Thus, because the book of Genesis and modern science share a similar motive, the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.
I shall now use my freedom to review the investigation above in order to freely chose my two favorite reasons to support the thesis that the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony. I choose the formal cause and motive as my favorite reasons. I shall now make a command to express my favorite reasons. The book of Genesis and modern science have harmony, because “the parallel between science and scripture is staggering” (116), and because the book of Genesis and modern science want to “understand, interpret and realize the creation story” (xxiii).
Three objections appear when studying the book of Genesis and modern science. Parker reviews objections from young earth creationism, intelligent design, and atheism.
First, a person may object that “the earth and all its forms were created within a single week, six thousand years ago” (48). St. Thomas responds to this objection from young earth creationism and writes, “There are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text” (ST 1. 68. 1). Further, Parker writes, It is “safe to engage in scientific study of the natural world.” (48). Further, Parker writes, “The forces acting today could only have shaped the planet through very gradual changes, and that would have taken considerable time” (49). The book of Genesis and modern science can be studied together, because the book of Genesis and modern science have harmony.
Second, a person may object that “complex structures in nature must have been built in complete form from the beginning of their history” (197). Parker responds to this objection from intelligent design and writes that complex structure are built in “incremental steps” where each step “provides an advantage over its predecessor” (197). Further, Parker writes, “According to intelligent design, there is design inherent in all species, so it follows that there must be a designer. But it certainly does not follow” (197). Effects resemble their causes but do not provide a strong description of the cause.
Third, a person may object that “the physical stuff in the universe provides richness in our live that can compare with biblical religion” (193). Parker responds to the objection from atheism and writes, “The atheist's world is a dark one. Let’s face it, the elegance and beauty in hummingbirds and hills will not provide the solace fashioned by a belief in life after death, nor will it provide comfort in people’s individual’s lives” (193). No beautiful sunset can forgive one’s sins or give hope for life after death. Further, Parker writes, “Science can offer some wonder to us as a species, but maybe only religion can provide guidance and purposefulness to the individual passing through his or her daily routine.” (193) Knowing that the Lord hears our prayers and sends angels to guide are steps is more comforting that the sight of a hummingbird.
Final remarks. St. Thomas Campanella enjoyed studying the Bible and Galileo’s physics in 1600. Parker makes it enjoyable to study the Bible and modern science today.