A thought-project: Creation and Evolution (not versus) Day 1

[namuhhtrae]

 
As a postmodernist I believe in both spirituality and science. It was during my re-readings of Genesis and my re-observation of scientific studies that I thought I came across a similarity between the first chapter and modern scientific ideas of astronomical evolution.

I apologise first and foremost if some people are offended by this, as some

Comments

[avekid]

Sure, I also think science and religion can go together and that no one need be "forced" to choose between the two (see my conversation with jryson, above, in which I've already said as much). That doesn't mean there's no debate to be had or that that debate is unimportant.

You can pick out any similarities you want but you're always missing the one you need: God. Imputing the meaning you, namuhhtrae, and the rest of your creationist pals want to impute to the superficial similarities you have available to you -- while ignoring the historical reasons why those similarities are there -- is the problem. I've articulated why that's problematic in a few places, above.

Besides, picking out these similarities is not going to protect anyone from politicians or Satanists and it's not going to be compelling evidence for the possible truth of the Genesis creation myth for anyone but those who already agree with you. Why? As I just wrote to namuhhtrae, this is a standard creationist tactic. You're already firmly planted on one side of the debate and these claims to neutrality are just a smoke-screen.

[tormod]

The reason to believe in the Bible is for its moral message, not for its Creation myth. Science can't prove Judaism or Christianity are true, but if science were to show the creation myth was fundamentally flawed, that would be serious support for the claim that they are false.