The
second reason that I consider Genesis to be wrong, even when interpreted
figuratively, is that Genesis 1 is all about strict and absolute categories.
The most popular figurative interpretation of Genesis 1, known as the Framework
Hypothesis, explains the days of Genesis as categories for classifying the
universe. On the first three “days,” got sets chaos into order; on the second
three “days,” he fills them up. Days 1 and 4 are about the heavenly realm:
light and darkness made distinct, then filled with sun, moon, and stars. Days 2
and 5 are about the fluid realm: air and sea made distinct, then filled with
fishes and birds. Days 3 and 6 are about the solid earth: land and sea made
distinct, then land filled with creeping things, one of which was humankind.
This
is a nice figure, but we must not take it too seriously. There is no absolute
distinction between light and darkness, atmosphere and outer space, land and
sea. The world also has dawn and dusk, penumbra, an exosphere that intergrades
without boundary into outer space, a world of marshes and estuaries.
Genesis
also says that organisms reproduce after their kind. In general, this is true.
Species are not simply useful categories of organisms but are realities. Still,
the boundaries among species are sometimes indistinct. As a botanist, I will
use a plant example. For example, Quercus
stellata (post oak) and Quercus macrocarpa
(bur oak) are distinct species, but there are a few regions in which they
hybridize, producing a hybrid known as Quercus
x guadalupensis. The hybrids are rare and, presumably, less specialized
than the parents; they probably cannot grow as well in dry as do post oaks, or
soil as moist as do bur oaks. Rare though they be, they exist. There are many
hybrids between different species of the same genus in plants, and, among
orchids, even between different genera.
Genesis
1 also makes an absolute distinction between male and female. This distinction
is useless for plants (but Genesis 1 does not apply it to plants). But even in
animals, the male-female distinction is imperfect. Whole phyla of animals (for example
the phyla that contain snails and earthworms) consist largely of bisexual
individuals. In some fish species, individuals may grow up as females then,
when they are large enough to be successful fighters, they change into males.
Moreover, the natural world contains ambiguity of sexual behavior.
Homosexuality is very common in many animal species, where it functions as
social bonding (since it obviously has no reproductive function).
The
male-female distinction is imperfect in the human species as well. Most
individuals are heterosexual males or females. But many humans are gay or
lesbian or bisexual. Speaking as a very, very heterosexual male, I admit I
cannot understand these people’s feelings, but I acknowledge them and I accept
them. I accept their testimony about themselves. They tell me nature has made
them so and it is not a choice they made. In particular, there is no small
number of people who are physically one gender and psychologically another. Many
Native American tribes have long recognized the legitimacy of men who assume
female identities: formerly called berdache,
this identity is now called “two-spirit.”
There
are some people who are born as little girls and then, at puberty, turn into
young men. This happens because the gene that produces juvenile testosterone function is blocked, with the result that
they develop as little girls. However, their adult testosterone function works fine, and they develop male
characteristics at puberty. Of course, they cannot completely turn into men;
they retain many feminine characteristics as adult males. The Dominican village
in which this commonly occurs refers to them as a third gender: guevedoce, or eggs-at-twelve. A similar
phenomenon occurs in Papua New Guinea, where these individuals are called, in
pidgin, turnim-men. Nature does this
to them, their chromosomes do this to them, and scientists know exactly how.
The
absolute categorizations of the universe that are implied in even a figurative
reading of Genesis 1 are therefore imperfect. This does not present any great
problem unless you are a creationist or a fundamentalist. Creationists insist
that “after their kind” means that evolution cannot occur. This is based on
taking “after their kind” too seriously. Fundamentalists insist that all humans
are either male, or female, or deviants who must be restricted or punished in
some way. This is based on taking the phrase “male and female created he them”
too seriously. One example of this is a certain state-funded university whose
academic vice president rejected the tenure application of a transgender woman
on religious grounds. At this point, Genesis 1 becomes an oppressive and
oppressing chapter of scripture, even if
no attempt is made to force Earth history into a six-day schedule.
