You don't know how good this makes me feel...
The latest entry in Alex Kirk's blog (he's becoming really popular here!):
I've spent much of the last month in the first several chapters of Genesis, and I can't read it without thinking about the Creation-Evolution conversation that's ongoing--mostly in Christian circles. Here's my possibly heretical 2-cents (always good when a blog post could end up in apostasy!).
Creationists believe strongly in a literal six-day creation. This is imperative in our understanding of the Scriptures as authoritative, they argue. And so they begin with the Genesis account go from there: they argue for a young earth (about 5,000 years old) and dismiss evolution as conjecture and guesses. You can get a more full explanation of their views from the web site for Answers in Genesis .
In my reading of the first couple chapters of Genesis, this strikes me not only as questionable science (which I confess to know little about) but poor Bible reading (which I know only a little more about). The creation account in Genesis 1 is written with repeated refrains that open and close each section. There is rhythm and meter to it. Genesis 1 is not written as a scientific account of how things came to be. It is written as poetry.
If we're going to be faithful readers of the Bible, we have to read it on its' own terms. The Psalmist writes that God has set a tent in the heavens for the sun. I don't know of anyone diligently examining the galaxy for tent pegs.
Poetry is meant to capture our imaginations and point to something bigger than itself. Often, it is meant to provide symbols and images that point to something that is so large it cannot possibly be captured in words. This is what I believe is happening in the first chapters of Genesis.
And so Creationists not only go astray with their science (struggling to account for dinosaurs and lots of other things), but also with their Bibles that they want so badly to preserve. In trying to make these Scriptures do what they weren't intended to do they actually rob the Scriptures of the glory and beauty that they do have in pointing us to a great God who makes and again-makes over and over again. We fight the wrong battles and so miss the point of the war.
Remember as well that Genesis is written by Moses and company as they're wandering in the desert. In a time of trial and purification, the message in the first chapters of Genesis is powerful: God is the sovereign maker of heaven and earth. He is Lord over all that has happened, from the original formation of the water and earth to what the people have just experienced where the seas parted and the Israelites crossed over on dry land (note how similar the water/dry-land separation account is to how the parting of the Red Sea is described in Exodus).
Let me quickly clarify that there is another camp of Christians who posit an "Intelligent Design" approach to understanding creation which I'm much more in favor of. This view looks at the Scriptures and the fossil record as well as the order and purpose how things came to be and says that mindless Darwinian Materialism (the idea that matter is all that there is) can't possibly account for all of it.
Just my two-cents. I think I'll put on my flame-resistant clothing as the Creationists out there prepare their torches for the heretic-burning.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Not much to add except Intelligent Design, I believe, also has its flaws. But I totally agree what Alex calls "Darwinian Materialism" is indeed 100% false. Any thoughts?
I've spent much of the last month in the first several chapters of Genesis, and I can't read it without thinking about the Creation-Evolution conversation that's ongoing--mostly in Christian circles. Here's my possibly heretical 2-cents (always good when a blog post could end up in apostasy!).
Creationists believe strongly in a literal six-day creation. This is imperative in our understanding of the Scriptures as authoritative, they argue. And so they begin with the Genesis account go from there: they argue for a young earth (about 5,000 years old) and dismiss evolution as conjecture and guesses. You can get a more full explanation of their views from the web site for Answers in Genesis .
In my reading of the first couple chapters of Genesis, this strikes me not only as questionable science (which I confess to know little about) but poor Bible reading (which I know only a little more about). The creation account in Genesis 1 is written with repeated refrains that open and close each section. There is rhythm and meter to it. Genesis 1 is not written as a scientific account of how things came to be. It is written as poetry.
If we're going to be faithful readers of the Bible, we have to read it on its' own terms. The Psalmist writes that God has set a tent in the heavens for the sun. I don't know of anyone diligently examining the galaxy for tent pegs.
Poetry is meant to capture our imaginations and point to something bigger than itself. Often, it is meant to provide symbols and images that point to something that is so large it cannot possibly be captured in words. This is what I believe is happening in the first chapters of Genesis.
And so Creationists not only go astray with their science (struggling to account for dinosaurs and lots of other things), but also with their Bibles that they want so badly to preserve. In trying to make these Scriptures do what they weren't intended to do they actually rob the Scriptures of the glory and beauty that they do have in pointing us to a great God who makes and again-makes over and over again. We fight the wrong battles and so miss the point of the war.
Remember as well that Genesis is written by Moses and company as they're wandering in the desert. In a time of trial and purification, the message in the first chapters of Genesis is powerful: God is the sovereign maker of heaven and earth. He is Lord over all that has happened, from the original formation of the water and earth to what the people have just experienced where the seas parted and the Israelites crossed over on dry land (note how similar the water/dry-land separation account is to how the parting of the Red Sea is described in Exodus).
Let me quickly clarify that there is another camp of Christians who posit an "Intelligent Design" approach to understanding creation which I'm much more in favor of. This view looks at the Scriptures and the fossil record as well as the order and purpose how things came to be and says that mindless Darwinian Materialism (the idea that matter is all that there is) can't possibly account for all of it.
Just my two-cents. I think I'll put on my flame-resistant clothing as the Creationists out there prepare their torches for the heretic-burning.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Not much to add except Intelligent Design, I believe, also has its flaws. But I totally agree what Alex calls "Darwinian Materialism" is indeed 100% false. Any thoughts?