January 2018
« Jul    

Recent Posts



Google Translator

    Translate to:

Get the Book That Took the Unknown Out of the Genesis Creation Account:

Buy Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?, the original work by Russell Husted that translates Genesis into modern English and modern Science.
2 - 3 Day Shipping

Not So Good, This Zondervan Commentator

Posted in: Bible & Science,Culture Wars by admin on January 30, 2011

  A few days ago, Thursday morning to be exact, I read:

“On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very large trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently, and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.

The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up…” (Exodus 19:16 – 20, NIV)

 A few minutes later I took a brief detour to read a commentary that Zondervan (the publisher of the bible I was using, the NIV Archeological Study Bible) sandwiched there inside Exodus 19. Its just one of a series of brief articles (each bearing the label, “The Reliability of the Bible”) which Zondervan scattered throughout the edition. I usually read them as I go along. In this one, titled, “The Location of Mount Sinai”, the author starts out telling us that “Scholars continue to debate the location of Mount Sinai…” He then summarizes some of the various arguments in that debate, and then gives us his thinking and approach to determining exactly what and where “Mount Sinai” is:

“According to Exodus 19 … Mount Sinai blazed with fire, was enveloped by a huge plume of cloud or smoke and shook violently as in an earthquake. Flashes of lightning and sounds like trumpet blasts also occurred. The description fits a a volcanic eruption. The emission of hot gases from fissures can produce trumpet-like sounds, and observers have reported seeing massive electrical displays emanating from volcanic clouds. No volcanoes are known to have erupted during that period in the Sinai Peninsula, but Arabia has many volcanoes. One volcanic mountain in the western Arabian Peninsula, Hala al Bedr (Mount Bedr), is according to this theory a particularly promising candidate for ancient Mount Sinai.” (NIV Archeological Study Bible, p. 123)

  I wasn’t all that impressed and continued my reading, pretty much forgetting about it. Until a few hours later. That same afternoon, watching a TV newscast, I saw this photograph:


 The photo is so stunning, I could hardly not flash back to that commentary! Nor fail to see the commentator’s point. And my first reaction – to think he had a really good point. A good theory. So I went back and read it again. And then thought about it again. And with my second thoughts, decided it was something I had to write about here.

  I myself use science and observations of the creation all the time to help me in my own understanding of God and the Bible, and to build my own particular kind of apologetics for Christianity and “The Reliability of the Bible” – an apologia I think both believers and skeptics are in dire need of. At first glance this writer is doing something of the same sort. But on deeper inspection, one can see that he is not. If anything, I think the predictable outcome of his “finding Sinai” rationale is exactly the opposite, is one that serves to undermine belief in God and the Bible.

 When I use science, observations and theories, I start from the premise that the Scripture is true, and if we can’t see it so, then we are misinterpreting or misunderstanding Scripture or something in the natural world or our experiences in it. I go to science to retest or reanalyze our beliefs about the creation, or to retest and reanalyze what we think the Scriptures say. Either way, Scripture rules, and it is our thinking or beliefs that need adjustment. The author of “finding Sinai” has not done that.

 To begin with, he’s looking to finger a “Mount Sinai” by finding a mountain that would have a natural volcanic column, and by implication suggesting there was no “God” there, but a natural phenomenon the Israelites mistakenly interpreted as a god just as many peoples in this world have done before. He’s denying the reality of God’s appearing there, thus implying the Scripture a mere story based on a mistaken interpreting of natural phenomena. Rather than demonstrating the “Reliability of the Bible”, he’s showing it only as possibly a good history of the world but not of God.

 Further evidence of this is the fact he completely ignores the rest of Scriptures that speak of the column of smoke and fire that signaled (or concealed from vulnerable human eyes) God’s presence. There is the column of smoke and fire that led them (and even shielded them) out of Egypt, and on all their wandering about the “deserts”. There is the column that signaled (or concealed…) His presence at the Tent of Meeting, and in all His meetings with Aaron and Moses, and at the Tabernacle the carried with them, etc. None could have been some wandering light-footed volcanic plume, and there’s no reason that plume we are looking at in the photo above, or reading about in Exodus 19, or any other time, such as in:

 “Remember the day you stood before the LORD … You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. Then the LORD spoke to you … You heard the sound of words but saw no form…” (Deuteronomy 4:10 – 12, NIV)

 As for his other, more secular, ambition: to discover “The Location of Mount Sinai”, he has nothing to go on. From his point of view, there’s no reason to believe more in the fiery column Exodus 19 describes than any other, and so no reason to believe the real Mount Sinai was a volcanic peak!

 I think Zondervan would be well advised to remove that particular commentary from its next printing of that edition of the Bible!

My last post was about a white paper by Bruce Waltke which looked at a list of “barriers” that block evangelical Christians from considering the possibility evolution is something God designed and used to create life on earth. The paper was part of a workshop held by the BioLogos Foundation. Darrel Falk gave a similar paper, but his purported to look at barriers affecting the other side of the equation, at barriers that keep the “typical agnostic scientist” from considering the possibility God did create life, as the Bible claims, by designing and using evolution to accomplish it.

I looked forward to Falk’s paper since I had once been one of those “agnostic scientists” myself. I could never put God and evolution in the same sentence – except to say one abolished the other. And that argument – that one abolishes the other – was one I often used in even earlier years when, as an out and out “hostile atheist”, I was proselytizing my Christian students away from their faith. After a decade or so of that I changed from atheist to agnostic, and a decade later to Christian. Along the way I heard them all, and the five “barriers” Falk talks about were real and pretty prevalent. But among those and all the others, one loomed especially large, for me and my friends and colleagues. Falk rightly made it #1 on his list. It outweighs all the others together.

Falk, like Waltke, gives a list. His number #1: “The story of Adam and Eve must viewed as history”. As I said, he’s right on target. This is the big barrier, the stumbling block for most every scientist, academic, and high-school grad. But, curiously, it was also my weapon of choice for ending the faith of my Christian students. If someone has trouble attributing creation to God, as described in the first two chapters of the Bible, they will have trouble in believing in God himself, not to mention the Bible and Christianity. And no part of Genesis is harder to swallow for a modern kid, or scholar, or scientist of any stripe, than “the story of Adam and Eve”. The rest of Genesis 1 & 2 is small potatoes by comparison.

Falk starts with an anecdote about a young woman, a student of his, presumably to give us a sense of how a barrier works and the impact it can make. The young lady had grown up a Christian. She was on fire for her faith, going on missions, teaching Bible classes, and all. She went off to college. She came home an embittered atheist, decrying how the church and biblical teachings had put her in a bubble – a bubble of ignorance about the real world, about science and the real truth, a bubble of “fairy tales”.

Falk uses her sad report to question whether we Christians teach things that are not really the truth and in doing so, create barriers between Christians and the world and, I guess, scientific doctrine and scientists. I think he gets into a little trouble there. His example is almost the reverse of his thesis. The bubble, here, enveloped the young lady in Christianity and was popped by the scientists. The barrier was, in effect, the other way around, keeping her from science, not scientists from Christian doctrine. The barrier looks more like a lance in their hands! That was how it worked for me in my atheist days, a weapon more than a shield. The barrier(s), as he reviews them, seem to do Christians more harm than scientists. That’s a problem Falk doesn’t really address. Still, I think he’s generally right about the barriers keeping scientists from accepting God, and evolution as something He invented.

From the information Falk gives us, we can’t really tell what popped the girl’s bubble of faith. (I do like his metaphor, it’s like the isolation bubbles used for immune-compromised patients, right?) But I can guess, from my own decades of first hand experience, and might infer from Falk’s rating it “#1” on his list, that it was the “Adam and Eve story”.

So what does Falk say we should do about it? What’s the reason it’s a problem and how might we solve it? This is where he and I part company. Falk’s solutions only make things worse. To use an old idiom, he throws the baby out with the bath. At least to fix one problem we tend to have, nowadays, in our trusting and believing what the Bible says, he puts the rest in jeopardy. Gets on that “slippery slope” we always hear about, taking an easy out that makes it all the easier to give it all away, throw it all away in the face of the adversities of a modern, and increasingly skeptical and hostile world.

Falk has a couple of problems, very common to all of us who run into what he calls “barriers”, which most commonly are just believability questions modern science and modern culture bring up in the course of the world moving on, growing more sophisticated. We’re constantly being challenged with “whose report are you going to believe?”

Falk’s first problem is that, at least here in Genesis, he’s ready to believe the world and the scientists are right when conflict or contradiction arises between them and the Bible. That’s pretty common, of course. Scientists have done a great job building their case – across the board, in fact, for all the sciences (it’s the very nature and methodology of science) – especially for evolution and genetics and all the biological/medical sciences that support it, that belie the Adam and Eve account.

I can’t blame him. I couldn’t help but accept what science has to say and plainly show that contradicts “Adam and Eve” either, certainly as I read it in any Bible version I can find. And I’ve never known any scientific colleague, fellow academic or more educated person who could. They mostly join Falk in finding some way to disregard or rationalize that little bit of Scripture away. So I certainly can’t fault Falk for throwing Adam and Eve under the bus like he does. His way is to declare that it wasn’t intended to be factual or truthful, to be “historical”, but should only be taken as “allegorical”.

Unfortunately, once we start throwing the Bible, or little parts of it, out, we’re on that slippery slope. And that shows in the last century or so, especially in our losing “culture war” with science over evolution. While, as I just said, scientists are ever building their case for their side, we aren’t. Not to say Intelligent Design” isn’t a good try, at least, but the real high ground of our position is the Bible, and aside from our almost childish protestations “is too!”, we’ve done very very little to match what science has so successfully been doing.

We shouldn’t be so ready to give up, to plead the Bible’s authority away. Don’t cop the plea saying, “it was never intended to be a scientific text” – of course it wasn’t to be a science text, but it should be scientifically testable, and verifiable; the archaeologists are doing a magnificent job practically sweeping the old critics away. Don’t take a passage – Adam and Eve – clearly intended to be every bit as much “historical” as the rest of the creation account of Genesis is, and plead it out as “merely allegorical”.

Instead, do like the sciences do. Go back through your data, Reexamine the fossils and artifacts and archives, see if there’s anything there. See if we’ve missed anything. Scientists constantly find errors, new understanding, even the basis of new theories in their past work being reevaluated in light of today’s contradictions and latest revelations. That’s how they build and strengthen their case. But we, in Genesis 1 and 2, just simply take what we got 400 years ago. What King James’ scholars said Genesis said!

Suppose Genesis’ “Adam and Eve story” read like this:

Genesis 2:20 And the Man (Adam) proclaimed names for all the beasts of the land and every flying creature in the air, to every living thing on the land, but there was not there any appropriate partner for the Man (Adam).
Genesis 2:21 The Lord God caused a trance to come over the Man (Adam), and He brought to the chamber where he slept, a chosen female, and He delivered her for the purposes of the flesh.
Genesis 2:22 The Lord God established the family in that chamber, where He brought for marriage a woman from among men and ushered her in unto the Man (Adam).
Genesis 2:23 And Adam joyfully declared, “At last, this is bone of my bones and kindred of my kind. She shall be renowned among women for she was chosen for marriage from among the women.
Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man be set free of his father and his mother and he shall be joined together with his wife and they shall be one flesh.”

Well, it’s my contention that it does! Not allegory, but another bit of history of our relationship with God, just as Genesis intends. Not an allegory about the way and meaning God’s people should mate and marry, but a record of the way He wanted it. And an explanation of how it is different than mating and coupling of the creatures of the secular world (which evolution produced?): “[among] all the beasts of the land … there was not any appropriate partner [until] He brought … a chosen female (surely, spirit-filled – reborn – just as Adam was).” Not outrageous in the face of modern knowledge, and science, but fully compatible. Not something anyone would be embarrassed about, but proud of – proud of what God gave us and not the rest of His creatures.

Isn’t that a better way to go, to take away the bubble, and disarm the atheists and agnostics?

When I taught various applications of the evolution paradigm at a couple of universities, I would teach the danger of assuming evolution. The danger was ad hoc and post hoc interpretation and explanation of a biological history or current biological form/design. The danger was rationalization instead of science, of teleology: that the end explains the beginning and process, that the theory explains and confirms the hypothesis. That’s how evolution came to be “a fact” instead of a theory, and scientific research became little more than fleshing out the story of Creation and extolling the beauty of evolution as Creator. All this is exactly what critics say about Intelligent Design. And they were pretty much on much of the time. But what is good for the goose must surely be good for the gander.

When I critiqued evolution articles and books, and research and authors, for that sort of language and reasoning I was keeping biology and anthropology honest, and most people in the field agreed. And truthfully, error of that sort remained rare in evolutionary science but not so much in Intelligent Design. I think that sort of error contributed much to the decline in standing which Intelligent Design has suffered in the past couple of years, and why the “Evolutionists” have won essentially every major contest in courts and school boards and politics in general. It might be hard for the proponents of Intelligent Design to admit they’ve lost enough battles that many on both sides think the war is over, I think most of the science and anti-ID community are confident they’ve won. Certainly their hackles and anxieties are way down today compared to, say, the time of the Dover trial.

Along with their hackles, however, I fear they’ve also dropped their guard against sloppy language and thinking, and a lot of that ad hoc and post hoc and teleological garbage is sneaking back into the picture. And in so doing, the science of evolution is beginning to sound like many researchers are not so anti Intelligent Design. Like those studying evolutionary biological topics, at least, are open to, or leaning towards accepting the idea that evolution of life has had some hand of a higher intelligence guiding or directing or influencing the flow of creation!

I’ve always seen some of this and figured it was, as I’ve said, sloppy thinking or speaking. But in recent times its gotten to be more than just a rare thing, and not just error by junior or less – say, bright? – scientists. To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, here are three examples I came across in one brief session reading online reports.<.h3>

The first:

“Smoke plays an intriguing role in promoting the germination of seeds of many species following a fire,” Johannes Van Staden and colleagues point out in the report (in ACS’s Journal of Natural Products) They previously discovered a chemical compound in smoke from burning plants that promotes seed germination….
In their new research, the scientists report discovery of an inhibitor compound that may block the action of the stimulator, preventing germination of seeds. They suspect that the compounds may be part of a carefully crafted regulatory system for repopulating fire-ravaged landscapes…. The inhibitor thus may delay germination of seeds until moisture and temperature are right, and then take a back seat to the germination promoter in smoke.

Comment: “They suspect that the compounds may be part of a carefully crafted regulatory system…”. “Crafted” by an overseeing Intelligent Designer of the ecological system?

The Second:

Has the almond tree developed a unique way of drawing potential pollinators? A group of researchers at the Department of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology and the Department of Science Education at the University of Haifa-Oranim speculate that the toxin called amygdalin that is found in almond tree nectar is in fact an evolutionary development intended to give that tree an advantage over others…. it is likely that amygdalin is produced in the almond nectar so as to give the almond tree an advantage in reproduction…. it is possible that the plant produces it so as to attract potential pollinators.
Another possibility is that the almond tree has developed this substance in its nectar as a form of filter: it repulses “non-expert” pollinatrors, but gives access to the “experts”… providing efficient pollination services….

Comment: “[A] possibility is that the almond tree has developed this substance in its nectar as a form of filter: it repulses ‘non-expert’ pollinatrors, but gives access to the ‘experts'”. Is the intelligence and discernment of which pollinators are “expert” in the tree, or an outside Intelligent Designer of the system?

The Third:

A team of University of Toronto chemists have made a major contribution to the emerging field of quantum biology, observing quantum mechanics at work in photosynthesis in marine algae….
“Our latest experiments show that normally functioning biological systems have the capacity to use quantum mechanics in order to optimize a process as essential to their survival as photosynthesis…. We were astonished…. This and other recent discoveries …. [raise] some … potentially fascinating questions, such as, have these organisms developed quantum-mechanical strategies for light-harvesting to gain an evolutionary advantage? It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans,” says Scholes.

Comment: algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans. We all doubt the ability of an algae to know about and use quantum mechanics, but does this suggest there was a much higher Intelligent Designer that did, and helped start this life form some 2 billion years ago?

Now, I have come to a fairly neutral position regarding the creation-evolution-ID debate. Each has its own strength and possibilities, and each can provide a satisfying paradigm/explanation for some people. My only conclusion is that the Bible, in Genesis 1 and 2, and elsewhere, does not tell us how creation happened. But it does tell us God was at least a witness to it all, and knew where it was going, as evidenced by (in my own translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) by the description, in some detail, of its history, so many years before anyone could have ever had even an inkling of what we have slowly discovered through science – so accurately and so long ago that it reads, as I’ve said, at least as a most remarkable prophecy! Wichever, whatever, this is enough to lend incredible confidence and believability to Genesis 1 and 2, and the Bible’s claim that God is the Intelligent Designer of life and universe, by whatever means He chose … but did not precisely tell us about.

**The three articles can be accessed at the following URLs:

The Secret Life of Smoke….

Almond Tree’s Secret Weapon

Quantum Mechanics at Work in Photosynthesis…


That’s the title of a book featuring 5 essays on the subject. Each expands a lecture given in Yale’s annual series entitled Lectures on Religion in the Light of Science and Philosophy. Talk about credentials, these authors could hardly have better: two scientists, a philosopher, an historian, and a sociologist, all tops in their fields. I had to have high hopes about what they would have to say. If anyone could be, they should provide some new insight, right?

Unfortunately, they don’t have much. Brilliant, erudite, and knowledgeable as they are, they offer little to advance our understanding. They, too, are still stuck in the past, have never tried to reexamine the 400 year-old interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, and are more of the same ol’ same ol’. The Intro, by natural historian Keith Thomson, sets the tone and sums it up:

“While the basic issue concerns all of science, the bellwether point of contention is evolution.” That, of course, we all know. We don’t have much problem with astronomy. Or physics. Or biology, genetics, or medical sciences. Nor chemistry or any of the engineering sciences. Contention only arises if they get into EVOLUTION! And why is that? We all know the answer. As Thomson says, its about “The perception of scientific hostility to religion…” And why that is so, Thompson is clear in his explication, but hardly pioneering.

“The debate concerns first and foremost the ‘popular assertions’ – that there is a God who controls our lives and destiny and who is worthy of worship.” What does evolution really have to say about that? Nothing of course. But, in the course of human affairs, there have always been atheists, and for almost 200 years they have said it does. For the most part they are always “antichrists”, not “antibhuddists”, or “antiallahists”, or anti any other religion. Now that’s interesting. Why the focus on God, of the Bible, and his Christ? Why is the “Religion” in the title, and in the minds of everyone involved in the “debate” with science, the religion rooted in the Bible! Not Allah, not Buddha, not Hindus or animists or Zoroastrians. The answer to that question actually moves the ball down the field, a bit (football metaphor, here – can’t help it, I like that sport).

When Thomson talks about “recent attacks on religion by scientists such as Richard Dawkins that have contributed nothing but rancor to the debate”, he assumes everyone knows it is Christianity being attacked, and debated. If he would get explicit and point directly at Genesis 1 & 2, he could set the stage for something new. It is the fact that Christians, for the most part, have always accepted the Genesis assertion that God is the Creator; that God, the god of the Bible, created this universe and all its parts. From quarks to atoms, from energy to the dynamics of the billions of galaxies that make up the fullness of the physical universe, and from the chemical molecules like DNA and proteins to the sentient and spiritual top of the “web” of life on this planet, God created it. He caused it to begin, and become, and be what it is. No other religion does that, at least in terms and details that impress us as serious. Others may have myths about the earth being on a turtle’s back, or springing forth from the dreams of a snoozy prince, etc., but these don’t really spark any fear or debate among scientists, or atheists. Genesis 1 and 2 is why there is a “Debate”! Genesis claims, or is thought to claim to be a record of creation, from the infamous Big Bang to your great and wonderful self.

Darwin never claimed “evolution” created any of these things. Evolution was his theory of how the universe’s physical matter and chemistry became not life in the first instance, but how life (and only life) once started managed to get to be what it is today: very sophisticated, so multifaceted we still discover new “kinds” every day, and so forceful it threatens to consume the physical base upon which it thrives. Darwin’s theory is all about “descent with modification”, modification of life once begun. He doesn’t pretend to address the origins of the universe, matter, energy, physical/existential law and order, or life itself. To Darwin, this “anthropic universe” and the first event of life are outside the paradigm of his theory. And I’m sure he would insist that all the subsequent modifications and new generations of that theory cannot claim to replace God as Creator, but only suggest that God is not an ongoing “Intelligent Designer”! Rather than being the artist of record, Darwin would rather see God as the supplier of paint and canvas and (probably) the Teacher who set the rules for what art is. Darwin proposed that life itself was the power behind the brush, and Natural Selection the Adam Smith-like guide to the emergent painting(s). He knew his theory was challenging some common tenets of Christian doxology, but not the idea or sovereignty of God. That has always been the illicit expansion and disingenuous/ignorant claims and assertions atheists who hoped it did, or hoped Christians would accept that it does and get discouraged and quit their faith. These are the “antichrists” the Bible so often warns about.

If Christians were to accept his paradigm of “evolution”, I think Darwin, if alive today, would be happy to simply agree that “evolution” was a pretty good tactic, or technique, planned and put in motion by God, and be quite impressed by what we have learned about the intelligent design of a universe with such anthropic rules and laws and principles. If left up to Darwin, as with many modern scientists, the “debate” might very well have never arisen. Certainly not continued. Especially if he knew what I know about Genesis 1 and 2.

What everybody’s missing, and what leaves this latest try at explaining the long life and vitality of the culture war between science and religion search falling far short, is the truth about Genesis. They do not know that Genesis’ account of creation is seriously mistranslated, and the whole “debate” is practically groundless! The Genesis account says nothing about method or means. Those Christians, and there are many, who refuse to take part in the culture war because they understand that there is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and Genesis 1 & 2 are absolutely correct. Even if they don’t exactly know why, they nonetheless are correct.

The belief that God merely “spoke various things into creation as they became” is somewhat quaint, and was OK for believers 400 years ago, but not the best translation of what Genesis says. Genesis doesn’t say the way things (especially all the “kinds” of life that currently inhabit the earth) came to be, or actually say how long each event it does mention took to become what it is.

Genesis 1 & 2 are not so much a description of creating as they are an historical account of creation. It is a very abbreviated, sketchy outline of the history of all creation, but mostly of earth and life. So brief and sketchy that it is more like a quick assemblage of headlines or topics, the bold print in an article or textbook.

Tradition, and most people, has it as a series of “Let there be” type statements that command or speak into existence a list of features and things in the natural world. A better translation of those statements, say, “Let dry ground appear” (Gen 1:9, NIV), both a better representation of original Hebrew and what modern science attests, would be “Watch … see how dry land appears”. Plate tectonics are a perfectly good (and natural) and effective explanation of how God produced (and still does produce) dry land from the earth’s crust under the seas (as described in Genesis 1:2) and fit perfectly well with the best translation of the Hebrew texts!

My book walks one through a forensic reinterpretation of the Hebrew language of Genesis, utilizing the best of linguistics and scientific knowledge. It redoes what was last done in 1611. It brings the message of Genesis into modern language and modern understanding of the creation. It brings together Genesis 1 and 2, and Romans 1. It has reached many thousands now, but obviously not the authors at Yale. Our reinterpretation does not remove the miracles from the text and testimony of Scripture, but rather lets us understand another whole sense of the Scriptures, that there is in Genesis a remarkable foretelling, a prophesy of what we will learn as we do study the creation. Its a great testimony for our time, not something that modern science refutes, but something that modern science confirms! Genesis gives, in its outline of creation’s history, something no one in the time it was written could know, let alone understand. It is hard not to believe that the author was there, and saw it all, and told us about it.

Read my rendition of Genesis. Its posted here on this website. Read my book if you want to see how and why I interpreted Genesis as I did. Check the linguistics, the evidence, and the forensic analysis for yourself.

The resulting account is much like the records of the prophets. It tells us the end from the beginning. And, importantly, it answers and corrects a lot of misunderstandings commonly touted by those who accuse Genesis of significant scientific or historical errors. For instance, they like to say birds appear too soon in Genesis. Not so, birds come in at the right time – the King James translators simply thought winged insects were also birds. Critics like to say that the plants are out of order according to modern science’s analysis of “evolution”. Not so, the King James scholars simply mistook simpler plant life for sophisticated/complex grass. Many wonder why there are no dinosaurs in the Genesis account. Actually, the dinosaurs are there – in exactly the right place in the history of things!

So, the best answer to “The Religion and Science Debate, Why Does It Continue?” is “Because no one really knows the truth about what Genesis 1 & 2 actually say”. That’s why the Yale papers get no where new … they, like almost everyone, are saddled with the naiveté and errors of the past – the King James past of 1611.