Evolution Is Fun (and makes Christians think again)

Feb 15, 2009 16:09

Why is it that the Genesis 1 account makes so many believers feel like they should reject evolution? That is the key question in this article, and I will suggest to stop doing this. Do not instantly fear as if I would necessarily feel uncomfortable with the idea of creation. I believe in the creation as described in Genesis 1. Yet I think evolution ( Read more... )

creation, evolution, science, religion, genesis

Leave a comment

Comments 46

malvino February 16 2009, 16:01:56 UTC
I don't have any kind of problem with evolution, for me it confirms that Genesis is inspired of God. How else could a nomadic tribe a couple of thousand years ago have got the order of creation so right?

Reply


uberreiniger February 16 2009, 16:29:54 UTC
Well, I'm not scared because I already see no conflict between science and religion so I'm in good shape here!

Reply


susannah February 16 2009, 16:37:32 UTC
the bible is not a science text book

Reply

log_junkie February 16 2009, 21:04:43 UTC
Some would consider theology to be the highest science, although I agree that the Bible shouldn't be used as an evolutionary science text book.

Reply

susannah February 16 2009, 21:14:43 UTC
Well what I mean is: the bible can inform us about the nature of the Holy One and the person of the Holy One, and our relationship etc - but is not necessarily the place to find out about how species 'a' evolved (or didn't) into species 'b' >>> because that wasn't the purpose and intention of the bible or the people who wrote it...

But I think we're in agreement about this...

There's just no point in trying to turn the bible into a science text book or building up scientific theories around theological premisses...

Science needn't be set in conflict with theology...

Science can get on with its own business, based on the collection of data to test out theories...

And that's a really practical and useful discipline...

And theology can get on with *its* own business, which includes the exploration of the nature of the Holy, and our relationship to the Holy, and conclusions based on encounters or faith...

Both disciplines should just be left to get on with their own objectives.

Reply

karcy February 17 2009, 18:46:29 UTC
I fully appreciate, accept, respect, and applaud the separation of theology from the sciences. But it does not address, and rather avoids, the central question: the validity of faith. The call for the separation of theology and the sciences is only a defense of academic disciplines, not a defense (apologia) of faith. That is the greater question, and why the Creationism vs. Evolution thing is so important.

jcmmanuel believes that Creationism and Evolution are one and the same, and the setting up of those dichotomies is putting up a false dichotomy, because the Genesis account is True (whether spiritually, allegorically, literally, etc.). But this is an assumption predetermined by faith. Nothing in any of what is observed by the sciences has pointed way to the Christian God as of yet.

Reply


talkofcake February 16 2009, 18:06:08 UTC
Although I do consider myself a Creationist, I always like to remain open to possibilities that I have never considered before. I don't like brushing things off because "the Bible says so", since my knowledge of the Bible is at times very limited (and thus, how do I know that in its entirety, "the Bible says so"?). So Evolution vs. Creation is an interesting topic for me that I try to to keep an open mind about.

One of my main issues with the theory of Evolution is a simple one, maybe, but I'm a picky person. :)

Why is the Genesis story then told in the way it is? If we're to assume it's a metaphor or a representation of the science that really happened, why not just write it that way? Assuming that it is a representation (a parable, so to speak), why is it not clearly marked that way?

That is a question I would love to have answered, but nevertheless, I remain with an open mind.

Reply

xenaclone February 16 2009, 19:29:55 UTC
Well, a certain talking snake makes me suspect very strongly that it's got at least parable type elements......

IMO, of course.

Reply

talkofcake February 16 2009, 19:59:34 UTC
You do make a point, but the truth is, we have no firsthand knowledge of the possibilities creatures pre-sin possessed. And if I'm not mistaken, nowhere is an actual snake written into a story, but the creature is referred to as a 'serpent'. I've always had the idea that many animals and creatures pre-sin were much, much different than the ones walking and slithering around today, and probably much more magnificent. Job does refer to the Behemoth and dragon-like creatures after all. :)

Feel free to correct me on anything, however! I don't claim to be spurting out facts.

Reply

susannah February 16 2009, 21:18:12 UTC
If there really *was* a pre-sin, presumably those creatures didn't die, because as I understand the theology, sin brought death into the world?

And so I find that quite problematic, if the Fall account is literal, because I honestly believe living creatures have been dying for hundreds of millions of years, and long before human beings had even evolved?

Reply


lordhellebore February 16 2009, 18:11:26 UTC
Why is it that the Genesis 1 account makes so many believers feel like they should reject evolution?

I have no idea, since I never got told anything like that at Church. I find it strange beyond measure that people actually see a conflict here.

Reply

susannah February 16 2009, 21:24:21 UTC
There need be no conflict if theology is seen as theology, and science is seen as science.

The problem may arise if theology attempts to be scientific, and fit science and rational data into pre-conceived theological parameters.

Or, indeed, if scientists like Mr Dawkins attempt to intervene in theology...

If religious people insist on being fundamenatlist and literal then they start creating all kinds of problems for themselves...

But I'd argue that they are creating unnecessary problems by requiring the texts to be literal or prescriptive, and therefore trespassing on science, when the original authors had little knowledge of science and were just trying to tell people about their encounters and faith in the divine.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up