If its not real, then its really nothing.

If the creation account in Genesis 1 and reflected throughout the scriptures being presented as the basis for worship of God is not an account of real events in our space-time-event-material (STEM) world, then its relation to truth is uncertain it and can provide no compelling basis for worship in our STEM life-world and its constituting relationship with the Creator-God.

The 'philosophy' of the Bible is 'concrete realism' of events and relationship in the context of logos dominating the material world. If the creation account is not part of the historical flow of God's relationship with his creature-in-his-image, then it is dislocated and God is 'mythologised', removed from our 'life-world'.  His proximity denied by the materialist alternative of evolution and he is pushed away from us and relationship with us in the totality of the interpenetration of his ontology with ours. Lyell's mission accomplished!

 

 ...we see that Charles Lyell has a clear agenda, i.e. to “free the science from Moses”.³ That is what Lyell wrote on 14^th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

1.  --
2. Bailey, E., British men of science: Charles Lyell, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, London, Great Britain, 1962 p. 75. Return to text.
3. Ref. 2, pp. 77–78. Bailey adds re Lyell: “In this matter, he thinks, ‘Prévost has done a little but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France’.” Diluvium was the term used for the surface sediments attributed at the time to Noah’s Flood but later recognized as being formed by glaciers during the Ice Age