Galileo vs. Darwin - the Psalms vs. Genesis

Introduction

Often times, supporters of evolutionism will call to our remembrance the trial of Galileo. To the evolutionist this is an illustration of the more contemporary debate between creation and evolutionism. But there are two key differences between these two controversies.

Galileo vs. Darwin

One key difference is that Galileo made use of observational science to show that the solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric. His finding was not interpretive, it was based on observable facts.

In contrast, Charles Darwin's work was interpretive. His view of origins is based on deductive reasoning, not science. 

Darwin wrote: "No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef." 

Operational science is characterized by inductive observation, not deductive reasoning.

Darwin also wrote "In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling."

Darwin never observed humans evolving from molecules. He imagined that scenario before hand. And than he, and others since him, interpreted the data within that preconceived framework.

The evolutionary worldview is not science. It is not an observed fact. It involves the use of patently naturalistic, atheistic assumptions about the past to interpret scientific data in the present.

The Psalms vs. Genesis

Another key difference is that those who controverted Galileo relied on a verse from the book of Psalms to argue their case.

Psalm 104:5 reads: "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever."

However, the book of Psalms is admittedly a collection of poetic literature. And the cited verse is not meant to describe the earth as being fixed in space. It is meant to describe the earth as being a generally stable place for its inhabitants to live.

In contrast, we who controvert Darwin point to scientific data, interpreted within the framework of the book of Genesis.

Genesis is very clearly written to be understood as a literal historical narrative. It belongs to a completely different class of literature from the Psalms. 

The genealogical passages in Genesis clearly place the named persons and related events in the context of human history. And the genealogies of Jesus, recorded in Matthew and Luke, further connect the history of Genesis to New Testament history.

So not only do we consider Genesis by itself, but also its relation to the rest of Scripture. This includes the gospel of salvation by grace, through faith in the death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

To interpret the narrative of Genesis as non-literal is to completely disregard the context of the Scriptures as a whole. If Genesis were not a literal historical narrative, then the literal life, death, and resurrection Jesus the Messiah would have been completely unnecessary.

The Crown of Thorns

On Good Friday, Christians commemorate the Crucifixion of Christ. In Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:17, and John 19:1-6, we are told how Jesus was made to wear a crown of thorns on that day. There is a poetic beauty about that crown of thorns. And doubtless, the Roman soldiers who made the crown and put it on Jesus' head were oblivious to the significance of what they were doing.

In Genesis 3:17-19 we learn that thorns and thistles are a result of the fall of man. They are a part of the curse of sin. Death itself is also a part of the curse of sin resulting from the fall of man.

In 2 Corinthians 5:21 we read, "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God." And in Galatians 3:13 we read, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree')." The parenthetical quote is from Deuteronomy 21:23.

When the Roman soldiers put that crown of thorns on Jesus' head, they unwittingly coronated Him King of the Curse; King of Fallen Humanity. They took something that represents the fallen state of creation (including humanity) and put it on His head as a mock symbol of authority. It actually signified that He, Christ, was taking the consequences of our sin onto Himself - owning them. Christ the Son of Man, had become the monarchical representative of fallen, sinful humanity, in the presence of God the Father who is the King of kings, Creator and Judge of all the universe. So Christ wore our sin like a crown of shame. 

And because He did that, because He took our sin upon Himself, having no sin of His own, we are able to take His righteousness upon ourselves, having none of our own.