By Lewis Loflin
I have never regarded Genesis as a scientific text, nor do I approach it as such. Holding fossils—dinosaurs, trilobites—and guided by a steadfast rationalist perspective, I interpret Genesis as an ancient narrative rather than a factual account of Earth’s origins. To me, it comprises two distinct threads: the emergence of nature in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a, followed by humanity’s ascent to consciousness in 2:4b to 3:24. I do not view it as depicting six literal days or a literal Adam formed from dust; rather, it resembles Near Eastern myths, such as the Enuma Elish, which frame the ordering of chaos. My analytical approach—tracing cause to effect—reveals cultural influences embedded in the text, not empirical truths. In 2024, some on X have noted that “Lewis discards Genesis as science,” a sentiment I readily endorse.
Gerald Schroeder’s *The Science of God* (1997, ISBN: 978-0-684-83806-9) has significantly informed my perspective. A physicist and Jewish scholar, Schroeder proposes that the “days” of Genesis 1 span 15 billion years, leveraging relativity to reconcile cosmic time with an Earth-bound narrative. This framework aligns seamlessly with the evolutionary evidence I observe in fossils, maintaining a unitary conception of God free from Trinitarian complexity. While I do not present Schroeder’s hypothesis as definitive proof—his work remains within the realm of scientific inquiry—it offers an intriguing synthesis of empirical observation and textual interpretation. Guided by reason rather than doctrine, I find his approach a compelling complement to my rationalist stance.
My interpretation of the Garden of Eden narrative, spanning Genesis 2 and 3, draws inspiration from Elaine Pagels’ *The Gnostic Gospels* (1979, ISBN: 978-0-679-72453-7) and takes a distinctive turn. I do not see this account as involving a celestial deity; instead, I view it as an allegory rooted in nature—the animal origins from which humanity emerged, though the mechanisms remain speculative. The Serpent, Eve, and the apple function as symbols rather than historical figures. Previously, I interpreted the Serpent as embodying Wisdom, akin to the Gnostic Sophia, but I have since refined this view. I now consider it an allegory for a creator-bestowed gift—not the Christian Logos or Jesus, but a concept akin to Jewish Wisdom or Heraclitus’ Logos: reason itself. In Genesis 3:6, Eve’s act of eating represents not a fall into sin but the awakening of sentience and free will. Humanity was not expelled from Eden; rather, we transcended our instinctual state, potentially guided by an unseen, intelligent force—perhaps analogous to dark matter—that shaped us into rational beings.
This narrative entails no fall or divine retribution, but rather humanity’s elevation above nature, catalyzed by a creator’s gift of reason, whether termed Wisdom or Logos.
This perspective crystallized during my studies at King College, where I examined the Old Testament without Christian presuppositions, approaching it as a rationalist. I discerned no human deity or Holy Spirit, only a unitary divine presence consistent with Jewish theology. This aligns with my Arian rejection of a co-eternal Jesus and my Pelagian emphasis on reason over notions of inherent sin. Schroeder’s scientific insights corroborate the evolutionary timeline evidenced by fossils, while Pagels’ Gnostic scholarship enriches my understanding of Eden’s symbolic depth. This interpretation echoes my stance during the 1999 Sullivan County Ten Commandments debate, where I challenged Trinitarian overlays. In 2024, X users have dubbed this “Lewis’s radical Eden,” a fitting description of my effort to weave history and reason into a coherent, faith-independent analysis.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
