St. Peter, Guitar Tabs, and Uniformitarianism

Most of our biblical studies on creation begin and end with the book of Genesis. Some might throw in a quote from the book of Job or the Psalms, but rarely do people look to the New Testament for information on creation. However, there is an interesting passage in 2 Peter 3:1-7 that sheds light on this topic. Let’s look at the entire passage and then break it down:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly (ESV).

Peter, being guided by the Holy Spirit, addresses the issue of the second coming of Christ. He introduces the topic as a reminder—to remind believers of the teachings of the holy prophets and apostles. He warns believers that there will be scoffers in the last days.[1] They will poke fun at the belief that Jesus is coming back. What is their reasoning? They believe in a world that is continuing now as it was in the past. If there are changes, they are very gradual. They believe that “all things are continuing as they were from the beginning.” They are willingly ignorant about any other possibility.
 

We know that many in the scientific community today view the history of the natural world through a rigid lens—a lens of a particular bias that is so efficient that it does not allow any alternative distractions. Have you ever worn sunglasses that were tinted yellow or some other color? It impacts how you see everything. Yet, if you peek to the left or right, you can see the natural light of the sun or the artificial light from within a building, serving as a reminder that the world does not actually look quite as bright as those yellow lenses would lead you to believe. The sort of bias that some scientists have today about the origin of the universe is more akin to that of a virtual headset than tinted glasses. They can see a version of the world, but it is completely altered. That is the problem of modern science as it looks at collections of data.
 

Charles Lyell was an 18th century Sottish scientist that wrote a profoundly interesting book, The Principles of Geology. It is arguably more influential than the writings of Darwin. Lyell’s writings not only preceded Darwin, but also shaped Darwin’s view of natural history. Lyell argued for the idea of an earth that was much older than most people believed and postulated a theory of uniformitarianism. His theory proposed that all natural processes we can observe today have been happening throughout the earth’s history and at a similar rate. While Lyell’s principles of uniformitarianism have been revised and updated, the general idea is still a cornerstone of science today. It is quite interesting how much this theory of natural history sounds like the theory about which Peter wrote nearly two thousand years ago. He wrote that it would be pervasive amongst those who would mock believers in the last days.

It is very reasonable to assume that the earth is billions of years old based on the data that we observe. Despite many holes in the theory, it is also reasonable to assume that naturalistic evolution is required for human existence if there is no God or if the deists are correct. If one throws in the bias that the best way to interpret the past is by understanding the present, then there is little chance that a person can be persuaded otherwise. To them, the world cannot be anything else other than an ancient rock that produced life in its myriads of forms without divine intervention.

If people come along and propose another view, they are ridiculed by this segment of academia. They are shunned from most of the respected journals. They have little hope of a tenured position on the science faculty of a major university. Their books are rejected by the traditional publishers.

The interesting thing about Peter’s prediction is that it points to the willful ignorance of these people. They refuse to open their minds to the possibility that their worldview is faulty. Furthermore, Peter points to two major historical events in which divine intervention changed everything. The first one was with the creation itself—which happened once. The second one was the deluge. Peter states that the earth that existed before perished. It happened in history. It disrupted and destroyed the world on a level that we cannot truly comprehend. Whatever it looked like before, it is much different now. We have hints through the fossil and geologic records, but there was a major change. It was a singular change that has not, nor will ever be reproduced. Scientific models and computer algorithms can attempt predictions of what this might have looked like, but precise accuracy is difficult, if not impossible. 

Peter’s ancient words tell of a time when the predominate message of the world would be in conflict with the biblical model. He predicted uniformitarianism.

Going back to Peter’s testimony of creation, he simply describes, “The heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God” (2 Pet. 3:5). Could this hint to a time, perhaps even a major gap of time, between the early existence of the heavens and the formation of either the earth or the appearance of land on earth? There is certainly nothing in this passage that would be in conflict with that view. Nonetheless, more importantly, God has intervened more than once in the natural history of the earth.

I am a musician; I play a number of instruments. I try to keep my music organized. I have piles of guitar books, sheet music, and photocopies of lyrics, chords, and tabs. I also have similar material for banjo, mandolin, cello, and more. Sometimes my piles get messy, and a mandolin tablature will find its way into one of my guitar piles. On more than one occasion, I have started to play a song with tabs [2] to the wrong instrument. I discover my mistake very quickly and stop. I would never willingly continue to play the wrong tabs for the wrong instrument. The result is noise, but not music.

Suppose I only played one instrument and only knew about the existence of one kind of instrument, and somehow, tabs to another instrument made its way into my piles. I would probably keep playing the wrong notes. I would conclude that the song was quite strange. If I didn’t know where the song originated, I might construct a theory about a history of music that is very inaccurate. From this information, I could develop new chord charts and scales to fit in with these strange songs. The problem is that with this limited information, I could never arrive at the truth about these songs; my limited perspective would limit and twist my view of music. I would never discover the true beauty of how these songs were originally written and intended to be played.

As scientists sift through the data and discover new information about the earth, Christians must remind themselves that their reports will be informed and influenced by their own educational backgrounds, biases, and naturalistic lenses. We must also acknowledge that these reports are usually very reasonable considering the limitations of the closed system. Yet, their limitations will result in statements and conclusions that are sometimes very far from the truth of what actually happened.
 

I will say it again. I do not know how old the universe is. I do not propose a date for when the earth was created. I will not try to squeeze the days of creation into a particular scientific model. I was not there when God laid the foundations of the earth. Neither was anyone else. Major cataclysmic events like a flood would alter everything; therefore, what we see today is not what would have existed before such an event. We simply do not know with absolute certainty nearly as much about the earth’s past as many scientists dogmatically assert. Christians should not be dogmatic about such things either, especially where the Bible is silent or inconclusive.

The new theories coming out by some Christian scholars are just that—theories. Perhaps one of them is right, or at least mostly right. Yet, any Christian scholar scrambling to make the latest scientific “dogma” harmonize with the teachings of Scripture is possibly missing a more important point—one that must be addressed by the church. It is ok to explore questions and apparent contradictions between the two. In fact, it is helpful for many of us. Truth is truth, regardless of its source.  Science should not tell us how to read the Bible. If we need to adjust how we understand the Bible, we need to pay more attention to original intent and original cultural context. Just like scientists need to be objective in their quest for answers, Christians who read the Bible should do the same. We should not read into the text of Scripture something that was never intended to be there.
 

If what Peter is saying is true (and I believe that it is), then there are opponents to the view of divine intervention in the world who are willfully ignorant. They are choosing to embrace a worldview that leaves God out of the picture. They are willfully playing sheet of music made for a different instrument. Perhaps before we rush to write more books about Genesis, we should be guided by this fact. Aldous Huxley once stated, “I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning . . . the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”[3] 

Could it be that many scientists are using the wrong sheet music (whether intentionally or ignorantly), assuming there is only one instrument to be played? While scientists should always strive for objectivity (and the best ones do), their limitations are real; one cannot help but wonder if many of them have motives beyond simple objectivity. There is tremendous peer pressure to steer clear of anything that smacks of divine intervention. There are personal reasons that some folks do not want the universe to have real meaning. 

Nearly 2000 years ago, St. Peter predicted that would be the case.

[1] When the New Testament talks about the last days, the entire church age is often in mind. See Acts 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:1. While there will be a consummation of all things and time on this earth as we know it will come to an end, Peter may be referring to either the entire church age or to the end of the church age. Considering this, we may acknowledge that uniformitarianism has always been among us but is more prevalent or sophisticated today than the ancient Greeks or the Eastern philosophers ever imagined.

[2] Unlike standard notation for music, which can have near universal application to any instrument, tablatures have been developed fairly recently in history to make learning songs much easier on specific instruments. Each stringed instrument has its own unique tablature based on the number of strings and its tuning.

[3] Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1937), 270.