By Luis Lugo

In his recent review on this site of Daniel Kuebler's book on the compatibility of Catholicism and evolutionary theory, Casey Chalk refers to the catechesis on creationism he received during his Evangelical upbringing. He points specifically to the way his church relied on a hyper-literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis to refute popular conceptions of Darwinian evolution.

I had a similar experience to Chalk's during my own Evangelical sojourn and witnessed first-hand the phenomenon he describes. I'd like to press the issue a bit further, though, and suggest that an even larger problem lurks behind this hyper-literalist exegesis. Call it the fallacy of Biblicism.

This fallacy involves not only a hyper-literalist reading of the Bible but also a basic misunderstanding of its very nature. Biblicist reasoning goes something like this: the Bible touches on many topics (historical events, the natural world, politics, the arts, etc.); the Bible is divinely inspired; therefore, the Bible provides us with infallible information on all these topics.

This line of reasoning leads many to view the Scriptures as a kind of encyclopedia of knowledge that, in the case of Genesis, provides us with an entry on how God created the world. For those who take this stance, to believe otherwise is to call into question the veracity of Scripture and betray a "low view" of the Bible. But this lays an unnecessary burden on sincere believers.

One can only speculate as to why Biblicism has found such fertile soil in some (though by no means all) conservative Evangelical circles. Perhaps it's because, having rejected the normative role of Tradition and an authoritative Magisterium, these Christians have become accustomed to turning to the only thing they have left – the Bible – for answers to every question.

Still, one would think that a strong belief in sola scriptura would prompt them to ask what the Bible itself has to say. Did God really intend the Holy Scriptures to serve as a kind of encyclopedia of knowledge, or is its purpose more specific than that?

Ironically, the very passage of Scripture to which these Christians appeal to justify their belief in its divine inspiration also expresses its main purpose and, by so doing, undercuts their encyclopedic assumptions. I refer, of course, to the locus classicus: 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

There, the Apostle Paul declares that all Scripture is divinely inspired (literally: God-breathed). But that bold assertion, with which no orthodox Christian would disagree, is prefaced by a clear statement of purpose: to make us "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

Moreover, the declaration is followed by clear instructions on the legitimate uses of Scripture – "for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness" – and these toward a very specific end: "so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Is it not clear that, by its own account, the Bible's purpose is uniquely redemptive?

That's the reason the Bible's human authors use language that ordinary people can understand. The Bible contains various literary genres, to be sure, but nowhere does it offer scientific descriptions of any kind (which would be an anachronism in any case).

To this day, we still say that "tomorrow the sun will rise at 6:30 a.m.," even though we now know that it's the combination of the earth's rotation on its axis and its revolution around the sun that accounts for the cyclical nature of day and night. Is there any reason to suppose that the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis do not employ similarly non-technical language?

As with many subjects, C.S. Lewis, who is quite popular among Evangelicals, proves to be a trustworthy source on this question as well. Now, it should be noted that no one was more critical of the misuse of science than Lewis. For him, scientism smuggles into genuine scientific inquiry naturalistic or materialistic assumptions that result in ...