there is a thought that we evolved from monkeys, this belief is totally opposite to Islam. We are created by God, and every living organism, plants, animals, space was also created by God. What are the things you hear and know about this monkey belief? check also informative online book Evolution Deceit at http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
Latest comments
- enarchay on The problem of an 'overrealized' eschatology
- Andrew on The problem of an 'overrealized' eschatology
- enarchay on The problem of an 'overrealized' eschatology
- enarchay on The problem of an 'overrealized' eschatology
- Andrew on The problem of an 'overrealized' eschatology
- Andrew on The problem of an 'overrealized' eschatology
- plymouthrock on Greg Boyd and the politics of spiritual warfare
- enarchay on End of the age
- graham old on End of the age
- Virgil on The problem of an 'overrealized' eschatology
Other recent posts
- Andrew: The problem of an 'overrealized' eschatology (20): [I have moved this comment and the discussion attached to it from the Mark Driscoll, the church and the supremacy of Christ
- jjterbeek: Johan ter Beek : user's biography
- Mike Beidler: Mike Beidler : user's biography
- adhunt: Tony Hunt : user's biography
- enarchay: End of the age (9): I find a historically rooted interpretation of the small apocalypses to be the most satisfactory. However, there is one detail
- stech1: C. M. Keel, Sr : user's biography
andrewperriman.com
Blog search: 'emerging theology'
User login
Creative commons
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
Science, monkey's and God
The scientific theory of evolution includes the concept that all species have common ancestry. This includes a diverse grouping of hominoid species that are said to have arisen from an ancestor common also to simians. But no scientist avers that we evolved from monkeys themselves. This language is often used by opponents of evolutionary theory to inflame audiences with the emotianally charged concept that “they are saying we are no different than that obviously lower species.” This approach seems to be intended to shut down the dialogue without seriously looking at idea or putative supporting evidence.
Theistic evolutionists, including many Bible-adhering Christians, see no theological problem with the concept that the Creator may have used ‘natural’ processes in his creative feats, including natural selection, genetic drift, etc. In fact, some of these are more aware than some of their creationist counterparts of the danger of post-Enlightenment dualisms in such polarities as natural vs. supernatural, and see that this may be a false antithesis.
I recommend “Portraits of Creation” (VanTil et al., out of Calvin College) or VanTil’s book “The 4th Day” as a beginning point for those Christians who may wish to investigate this further.
6 into 1
I agree with eric’s appraisal of mertfaruk’s initial post being a little inflammatory to say the least, or rather, it contributes to a less than creditable response to classic neo-Darwinism (“microbes to man”) whenever it utilizes the empirical scientific method available to advocates of both Evolutionism and Creationism.
However…I will raise an objection concerning the much-vaunted ease with which some believers synthesize the notion of an inherently Biblical God and Father with the necessary millions and millions of years required for Evolutionary origins to have its impact and, indeed, any credence. Our doctrine establishes the phenomenon of Death as a result of God’s judgement upon the Sin of male & female described at Romans 5: 12 (also at 1 Cor 15: 21 - 22). Eternal Life is restored by Christ – presumably (!) the Promise forsaken by us and denied to us at the Fall itself (Genesis 3: 22).
For Evolutionism to have any sustenance or credence, it must perforce advocate millions and millions of years’ worth of death prior to the emergence of the Image of God from a pre-biotic gloop: clearly, Man is conceptually understood to be a ‘work in progress’, not a ‘finished’ article, and certainly not due the scriptural distinctiveness alluded to at 1 Cor 15: 39 and stated unequivocally at 1 Cor 15: 47. Finally, this phenomenon of ‘death’ is considered an enemy of Creation and as such will be dealt with accordingly – Revelation 20: 14 and 21: 4 describe this with an unmistakeable finality…
..so much for our doctrine! :o)
If we are convinced our own sense of origins can be informed by such a (shockingly!) brief biblical appraisal as proposed above AND we are equipped to CRITIQUE the underlying materialistic assumptions that inform one’s understanding of ‘Science’, then we may well have a far more fruitful belief and confidence in the ‘the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 1: 3)
NB: My Soapbox moment —> This CRITIQUE of the high-ground maintained by Evolutionary convictions is long overdue and could well contribute to, not an ‘emerging church’ but rather the ‘RE-emergence’ of church.
IMHO :o)
ga_ge
Death -- what is it?
I’m not trying to be slippery, but I do think that ga_ge’s comments on death and evolution may be comparing apples with oranges.
First of all, what does the word “death” mean in the creation narratives? God says to Adam, “…you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Gen. 2:17, NIV) Yet when Adam ate from this very tree, he did not die. In fact, he lived many more years and had several offspring.
Yes, he did eventually die. But can we be sure that his mortality was the effect of his sin, or was it the casting away from the garden that was his “death?” Spiritual death, some call it. Separation from the creator.
What if I were to push your concept of Eden to its extreme?….
If there is no death until the fall, did Adam not shed his epithelial cells? Did he never step on an ant?
Did the garden of Eden contain flowers? Annuals, which die every winter? How about wheat, or corn, or carrots, or onions, or lettuce? Would not Adam, by harvesting and eating these things, be killing them?
Was the fruit fly created at some point in the six days? They have a present reproductive cycle of about one week. With all those fruit trees and no death I doubt it would have taken long for them to completely overpopulate and decimate the garden.
These are not completely tongue-in-cheek questions. The concept of death in the creation narratives makes all the difference in harmonizing the natural sciences with the supernatural sciences. For if the answer is that only humanity would not suffer death, then our creation-evolution conundrum can be harmonized by assuming that at some point in evolutionary development God “breathed into” a hominid the breath of life, and he became a human. Perhaps we can call this the ensouling process. And that was Adam, and Adam became a rational and moral being, and God placed this moral hominid in charge of his creation.
If the answer is that no living things would suffer death, well I just don’t know how you could defend that.
If the answer is somewhere in between, I don’t know how you would define that.
We can know God because He reveals himself to us. He does this in two ways: one is the Bible, and one is His creation. Scientists, contrary to popular belief, are not out to destroy religion. They are out to solve the mysteries of the universe. Why are Christians not interested in this pursuit? The heavens declare the glories of God, the earth proclaims his handiwork.
The earth, as it turns out, does not have four corners. It’s a sphere. And yet the Bible remains true. The sun does not orbit the earth, and yet the Bible remains true. There is no organ in our bellies where our convictions are stored, and yet the Bible remains true. The skies are not canopies with windows that open to let the rain through, and yet the Bible remains true. The mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds, and yet the Bible remains true.
If the earth is billions of years old, and all life on earth shares a common ancestry that developed over those billions of years into the various lifeforms that exist today, yet the Bible will remain true.
Hi erlenmeyer71,
Hi erlenmeyer71,
You said “…can we be sure that his mortality was the effect of his sin, or was it the casting away from the garden that was his “death?” Spiritual death, some call it. Separation from the creator.”…
logically and scientifically, this requires an exclusively spiritual atoning death and spiritual resurrection to restore our Humanity to a full (spiritually-alive) humanity in-Christ - i understand some people may already be trying to argue this and have backed themselves into a corner where ‘Christ’ didn’t really, physically, BODILY die nor therefore have any need to resurrect as such and xianity is just buying into earlier ‘re-cycle’ myths (prevalent in eastern cultures especially) to do with purification and the cycle of re-incarnation etc ad infinitum(!!) :o) No Adam didn’t die immediately, in fact he lived a ludicrously long time! The tower of Babel episode spelt the end of long age living and there’s even a reason given for that…
I believe the term scripture uses for understanding the unique relation of death to living things inheres in describing the flesh and other ‘living things’ as “nephesh cha’ya” [or something like that].
This distinctiveness of ‘alive’ things is not extended to ears of corn: I am not clear on this at present but it may not even extend to insects - as it is, you’re arguing from a couple of unwarranted assumptions: given the relity of speciation, did a fruit fly per se exist in the Garden and on what basis do you extrapolate backwards and confidently argue it was there? Will you maintain a fruitfly, in essence, is only 6,000 years old or so?
Observing epithalial cells being shed…is that an illustration of the Fall? Creation in bondage to decay waiting for liberation? How can you know Adam in his created perfection shed epithelial cells? You can’t!! EVERY observation we make is of a world post-Fall. Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is often a sure bet so when death is described as entering the world because of Adam’s sin - somewhere in Romans - that’s a sure bet that death as a phenomenon entered the world when Adam sinned…
…if we are already wedded to the philosophical conviction that our origins are explained by interpretation of scientific data using any number of other conceptual frameworks, then - yeah: you’ll end up with long ages as a means of INFERRING that we came into existence… …curiously, that assumption never explores the implicitly offensive notion that we would have come from a single crucial genetic mutation occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY (what are the chances of that?) in 2 hitherto alike organisms, which gave birth to 2 sufficiently distinctive progeny - so you still have the age-old canard of sex within the single family unit, prehistorical incest etc :o)
You also said: …”Scientists, contrary to popular belief, are not out to destroy religion. They are out to solve the mysteries of the universe. Why are Christians not interested in this pursuit?”…
Why did you introduce this old non-argument? Christians are interested in this pursuit: pop over to the website i redirect to in my posts and it is peppered with Scientisits and specialists and PhD holders galore doing just the very thing that you stated no Christian is!!
It’s VERY important to note that although God’s power and might are intimated/revealed through Creation, yet nonetheless Creation is corrupted, flawed, ‘in bondage to decay’ etc Otherwise, you can legitimately argue that the evidences of loss of life through natural disasters is an expression of this ‘God’ - it’s a logical, philosophical ramification and stymies many an attempt to re-orientate one’s thinking back to a Good Creator.
The earth doesn’t have 4 corners, yes, but we still use that figure of speech today: does that mean we are still positively medieval? Is the Bible teaching us eternal truths when it talks about … actually can you give me a scriptural instance of the 4 corners so i can critique it? The sun orbited the earth according to some greek mathematician (PTOLEMY i think)in the 2nd Century AD: the point that Roman ecclesiasticals filtered Scripture through this a priori mindset and butchered a Hebraic mindset into the bargain - not to mention Gallileo’s freedom of speech and intellectual integrity - serves as a warning to be wary of subsuming secular notions of just about anything into the Salvation landscape.
Logically AND scientifically AND philosophically, the one thing the Bible CANNOT be is true if, as you PROPOSE at your note’s end “…the earth is billions of years old, and all life on earth shares a common ancestry that developed over those billions of years into the various lifeforms that exist today…” IT CANNOT be true BECAUSE it makes statements about origins, history, form and function, purpose and destiny that are shot to pieces and shredded by a materialistic apprehension of the Scientific discipline.
whew!
sorry about the 8 month layoff between your post and my reply!
:o)
Evolution
Most non-scientists, and even many professional scientists, have never taken the time to learn what the current theory of evolution is. I prefer to study such things as taught by the true believer, in this case, “The Skeptics Society.”
Here is a quote from the above linked article, which you might find interesting:
“As paleontologists had known for over a century, most species are stable for millions of years, and change so rapidly that we rarely witness it in the fossil record. Of the hundreds of studies that have been reviewed elsewhere (Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 1986; Gould, 1992), a few stand out (Stanley, 1992). Cheetham (1986) and Stanley and Yang (1987) examined all the available lineages of their respective groups (bryozoans and bivalves) through long intervals of time, using multivariate analysis of multiple character states. Both concluded that most of their species were static through millions of years, with rare but rapid episodes of speciation.”
I have collected a trove of such information over the years, if anyone else is interested.
Mark
Faith is not a euphemism for positive thinking.
Non sequiter
Evolution certainly has its adherents and its opponents. Any belief system inevitably will.
Ironically, evolution’s very definition seems to be constantly undergoing metamorphosis! If paleontolgists accept ‘transitional’ forms do NOT pepper the fossil record environment for all to see, then THAT observation alone refutes many an ardent evolutionist’s claims because there really OUGHT to be an abundance of evidence if THAT is how the Image of God came ‘into Being’ through a process of Change - after all, hasn’t there been an abundance of Time?
So, if a process of change cannot be observed or demonstrated for empirical scientific purposes, then such claims lose the kudos reserved for scientific empiricism and they become a faith-based issue.It is THIS which makes an evolutionist’s position as much an example of ‘being sure of what we do not see’(Hebrews 11: 1) as any professing Theist - which is Ironic! :o)
Beyond this, like Mark I also prefer the input of the scientifically-minded utilising the scientific method, but with a biblical framework (why not? the only alternative appears to be the dominant materialistic assumptions - matter is all there is - we’ve possibly all been raised on). Such sources have their advocates and opponents - but I daresay that’s healthy!
ga_ge
Scientific American's 15 Errors
An interesting article appeared in the July, 2002, issue of Scientific American, one of the prominent scientific journals. Written by editor in chief John Rennie, “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” contained important examples of Darwinist dogmatism. Beginning with its very title, the article and its aggressive style was a living proof of something we have been stating for years: Darwinists are tied to the theory of evolution in a totally dogmatic manner. Their intolerant reactions to criticism are the result of that philosophical rigidity.
In this essay, you will find the errors, misconceptions and even the tricks in the Scientific American article in question.
Avoiding Difficult Questions
If you are going to reply to 15 questions regarding a thesis you oppose, then you will be expected to deal with each one in a tangible manner. If, on the other hand, you come up with imaginary questions and waste time with the answers to them, then your readers will naturally come to doubt your credibility. Avoiding getting to grips with the real questions is a sign that you are trying to deceive yourself or your readers.
Scientific American’s “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” is just such an example of “avoiding the truth.” Right from the start, a number of those questions reveal that this is what is going on:
“Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.”
“Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.”
“If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
None of the above are objections expressed by critics of the theory of evolution. Everyone who offers serious criticism knows what the concept of “theory” actually means, and accepts that scientific research into events in the past cannot be carried out by means of observation and recreation. In the same way, no scientists who seriously criticize the Darwinist thesis as regards the origin of man would ever offer such a ridiculous objection as “If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
John Rennie, the author of the article, should no doubt be well aware of this. Yet the way that he puts the above three statements forward as “creationist objections” and imagines that he has given satisfactory replies to them shows that he is “tilting at windmills.” If he really wants to “reply to the creationists” then he needs to reply to such real questions as how it is that nearly all animal phyla suddenly appeared in the Cambrian without any trace of evolutionary ancestors; why not one example of a mutation that developed the genetic information of living things has ever been encountered; or why no trace has been found of the billions of intermediate form fossils that Darwin anticipated.
The truth about the questions that Rennie has tried to reply to, most of which can again be seen as “easy questions,” is set out below.
http://www.harunyahya.com/70Sciam15Errors_sci31.php
Monkeys
As an aside, I just saw the new movie about Alexander the Great. It seems that when his army reached India, they saw monkeys for the first time. Thinking that the monkeys were a hairy race of people who were going to attack them, they began shooting them down from the trees! But when they discovered that the monkeys were animals, they had some new pets.
that's a funny story.
that’s a funny story.
monkeys and human beings
According to recent scientific data achieved by the human genome project, potatoes have the genes most common with those of humans. Then if we are going to accept the evolution hypothesis(as it could not be proved,it is not a theory yet), we have to accept that French Fries are are our grandfathers. This would be ridiculous.
you can visit www.muhammedhasenoglu.com
Potatoes and Humans
This is absolutely untrue. Give me the Genbank sequence number of the genes you are speaking of or the ONE peer reviewed scientific article to support this claim. Otherwise it is hearsay.
trees..wood..pulp..paper..words.......fire..ash..smoke
Scientists and engineers working on various systems have produced computer models of evolutionary processes, which do replicate the evolutionary process. It is a good theory and no one has produced a viable alternative that would get them a job in a University.
The arguments about scarcity of evidence are a bit rich coming from people who base their arguments on words written in a book of academically questionable historical veracity and authorship, and utterly unprovable reliablity. It is interesting that despite a constant re-writing or re-telling of most Holy writtings for centuries, it is only after the emergence of classical academic rigour and early medieval science that the writing stopped, dead!
There may well be countless examples pseudo-scientific ‘proof’ of creation being regurgitated, but there are many millions of research papers published and peer-reviewed since Darwin that serve only to refine his imperfect theory, not refute it.
Please let us see an academically peer-reviewed thesis or any other research published and replicated that demonstrates creation.
Thanks to Albannach!
Great defense of evolution. I think a lot of the attacks on Darwinian evolution rely on a mistaken understanding of how scientific theories are tested. It is of course true that can observe every step in the evolution from, say, early apes to us. But that does not make the theory unscientific. Its an inference to the best explanation for data that is now quite overwhelming (from the fossil record and genetics). If someone wishes to attack evolution on scientific grounds, their best bet would be to offer a competing mechanism that would better explain the data, something that isn’t impossible (hence evolution is testable) but pretty unlikely given evolution’s vast explanatory power.
Evolution does raise two problems for any theist: (1) Evolution-if it is fully explicable without invoking God- seriously weakens any argument from design. (2) We will need an account of why God would choose evolution as his method for acheiving his purposes. Is it because there was no other physically possible means of acheiving those purposes? Is that God valued having the earth to “bring forth” species by its own processes (in something like the way that God seems to value our bringing forth our own actions, even if this is a very long and indirect way of acheiving his purposes)? If we can’t give an answer, evolution will reduce the probability that God exists.
de Chardin
Teillhard de Chardin was excommunicated for his view of a ‘christian theory of evolution’ that included his entire worldview. You may be interested to read some of his stuff, particularly “The Omega Point.” De Chardin sees an ever active Creator constantly in the process of creating (which we, as scientists, observe as ‘evolution’) whose purpose (therefore, it is admittedly and unabashedly teleological) was/is/and will be found in the Messiah—the Omega Point. Scientifically, there are some outdated particulars and the reading is not so easy to follow. But apart from Augustine’s musings on ‘the earth bringing forth’ stuff, I think he is the first to begin investigating this possibility. Just an FYI.
In response to your...
…2 questions above, Khaareji: I’ve offered the following re-direct which I hope goes some way towards raising precise ramifications for attempting to incorporate evolutionary thinking and principles into the salvation landscape plan of God in Christ.
Happy Munching!
ga_ge
Please let us see...
…an academically peer-reviewed thesis or any other research published and replicated that demonstrates information-gaining through the process of genetic mutation i.e. instance[s] where brand new information is added to the genome or, to dumb it down even further, a repeatable, observable instance where one kind of animal changes into another - over millions of years, of course!(NB: this should, of course, not be taking place under too artificial a condition as the closer we get to lab-like conditions, the closer we get to the implicit admission of ‘design’…) As this isn’t possible, inferences must be made. Welcome to the Wonderful World of Hebrews chapter 11 verse 1.
It is interesting, although not surprising, that Albannnach provides no instances, even at this early stage, of the very facts that would make a case for ‘fish to philosopher’ information-augmentation change that Evolution constitutes: we deny the appeal to the process known as Natural Selection as being an instance of the neo-Darwinist mechanism of “goo to you via the zoo” change precisely because the process does not contribute to the information-gaining process required on the DNA level of the Cell. What Natural Selection does provide are instances of naturally occurring change within a species or kind of created animal - modifiction or loss of existing genetic information. As such, it is legitimate to extrapolate a case of varied speciation within created kinds - and that’s all: anything beyond this is bad science.
I look forward to a fruitless exchange of vehemently exchanged worldviews and belief systems! Know this, evolution is as much a philosophically maintained apprehension with all the power and irrationality of a Dogma normally assigned to the orthodox religious mind-set.
For anyone interested, the following provides a link to at least one peer-reviewed journal, the like of which Allbanach was asking for - I assume he won’t come back with the taunt “What? Just 1?” :o)
In the meantime, the following websites have hosts of information, often submitted and published in journals etc - although not met with open arms by magazines whose ethos is hostile to the proposals and implicit realities behind a world-view that has God and Morality at the very heart of it (apparently, that’s unscientific!):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp and http://trueorigin.org/camplist.asp
It is particularly important to note that incorporating principles of Evolutionary order into a biblical framework strikes a death-blow to the heart of the biblical maintainance of the existence and uniqueness of Death - an Enemy whose phenomenon is to be rid of as part of the emerging of the new creation [Rev 20: 14]. Categorically, Romans 5:12 and I Cor 15: 21-22 insist Death, as a phenomenon is linked inextricably with the transgression of the One Man, Adam, giving us our common lot (Sin) whilst providing the cause and concern for the ultimate purpose and appearing of the one Saviour, Jesus Christ. I trust this is not open to negotiation but if you propose a world where Death and its corollaries (suffering, travail, struggle etc) are to be admitted of a world which God should subsequently call ‘Good’ prior to the Fall…?
Do give it some thought, and do consider the refutations offered at www.trueorigin.org oftentimes directed and in specific response to the attempts at synthesizing Scripture with the hostile philiophical undercurrents of an neo-Darwinist Evolutionary outlook espoused at www.talkorigins.org
Failing this, you may review the folowing submissions at Insitute for Creation Research.
I think it imperative that Christians know and understand the phenomenal opportunities that exist to critique the Origins question using a biblical framework and the utilty of an entirely Scientific basis/bias – offering harmony not just with observable evidentiary findings but avoiding compromise and dilution of our very own doctrine. L8rs
ga_ge
PS: I’ve already made some of these earlier points in my previous posts at 15 NOV 2004 so am going over old ground somewhat!
Part 1: Something about me
While I hesitate to engage this issue in this format, I feel at least something must be said (although, it will, likely, remain fruitless, since most people responding to this will not likely be interested in real dialogue). Just let it be known that there exists a whole segment of the Christian population who are made to feel like second rate Christians because they (1) happen to be evangelical and radical in their expression of their love for Jesus, our lord, yet (2) happen to believe they have training and information that makes dialogues like this seem like a waste of time. These are people who love and pursue truth, especially and foremost that found in the Messiah. Needless to say, they have their own cultural and sub-cultural biases, their different educational experiences and have developed their individualized conception of ‘life, the universe, and everything.’ But they are doing the best to understand reality with the information they are given and these unalterable influences. My hope is that, in reading this, some will understand that they have brothers and sisters who, with as much integrity as they can muster, just see things differently. And these aren’t ‘poor deluded souls in danger of falling into fatal compromise with the enemy’ (the satan, atheism, naturalism, public school systems, the Man, or whomever). That being said, please try to keep the distinction between evolution and naturalism/materialism in mind as you read the rest. Here is a glimpse into my life:
I grew up a vehement proponent of creationism from the early years of my interest in biology (~7 y/o). In fact, I was one of those kids in AP Biology in high school (I’m American, where this issue is actually an issue) who refused to sit through the parts of the teaching that I felt would be indoctrinating me with evolutionist/atheist propaganda. I insisted that it was my right not to take part in that unless creationism were given time as well. I ended up spending some time on my own in the library while the rest of the class looked at casts of hominoid skull fossils. Despite having a different inclination now, I don’t regret a moment of that time, nor do I think I was ‘just being naive/argumentative.’
I gave my life to Jesus initially at three years of age after I was instantly healed of spinal meningitis and came out of a coma (as my mother prayed and the doctors were just giving up hope). I know, from that and multiple subsequent episodes, the ‘miraculous,’ creative and sustaining power of God, actually empirically witnessed in my own life, and the lives of others (even strangers I would pray for). In light of this seeming extra-charismatic experience(s), I grew up and remain solidly evangelical in my regard for the oneness of God, the sovereignty of lord Jesus, the effectual presence of the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ followers/believers, and the authority of the sacred writings (OT and NT). Within this framework, I have come to a different understanding of Genesis 1-3 than what creationists insist must be the only way to read it. Mine is not a ‘liberal’, ‘demythologized’ position or an allegorical reading, but I have never had a creationist actually ASK me what I think (the ones I have met seem more interested in talking than listening, in keeping the line between who’s in and who’s out in their own control, rather than allow that they, too, may be incorrect). I believe my reading of it is more consistent with its entire context, especially Genesis 4-11 and then the rest of that text. In fact, I came to my rejection of creationism on the basis, first, of an actual reading of the text than on scientific bases. Since then, I have learned even more, scientifically, and have devoted my life to serving Jesus and proclaiming his gospel of the kingdom within the context of science and within the scientific community. Admittedly, I have been changed and influenced in my thinking (‘scientific’ and ‘theological’) in this endeavor, but it is still the same lord I follow and the same Bible that I cherish that I naturally assume ga_ge and other creationists follow and cherish. I, however, happen to think that their arguments are misguided and misinformed. And, it actually hasn’t made a difference in the lives of the people around me—those that the Holy Spirit seems to be working in through me—that my thinking about evolution has changed. I still believe in and know, or rather, am known by, the Creator. In addition, he demonstrates his creative power to us all the time (an added bonus!).
I have looked at the sites to which ga_ge has referred, and, frankly, I just leave them frustrated that they don’t seem to be listening to what is actually being said by those who both consider themselves believers in the one true god, the creator, and who also happen not to see a problem with a guarded acceptance of evolutionary theory as a scientific model for the origin of species. The site that indicated supposed discrepancies between theistic evolutionary thinking and Christianity has noticeably not been in dialogue with many of those who both profess faith in the Messiah and who happen to accept the functional validity of evolution. What he says ‘we’ believe is simply not what we really believe.
I think there are some major flaws and gaps in current evolutionary theories. However, creationism is not just weak scientifically, in my mind it really misses a lot of the point of one of the greatest and most essential texts in the Bible: Genesis 1-3. I think they do this by looking for answers to their scientific questions in the text, while I find no evidence that the questions were anything similar to what Israel coming out of pagan-Egypt would have been asking (or that Yhwh would have wanted them to be considering, you know, things like, should we worship the sun or animals, etc.).
I am glad to be in the company of all you Jesus-people as we grow together. The grace and peace of God in Jesus, the means and sustenance of all creation, to all who confess his name!
Eric
on the need for mutual respect
Eric
Thanks for your tentative introduction of such a personal viewpoint. I’m responding first of all to the comments you made about “being made to feel like second class citizens.”
Eleanor Roosevelt said:
That’s not a dig, by the way, it’s intended to be an encouragement, even though I personally don’t agree with your convictions about evolutionary science, or creationists, for that matter.
My own observation about this debate is that so much reesentment has been stirred up by it over the years, that proper discussion is almost impossible; the possibilities of learning from one another, equally so. That’s a shame because being “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to get angry” is one of the strengths a Christian has to offer to the world they inhabit.
The Jewish Rabbinical Schools developed a form of debate and discussion called ‘bet hamidrash’:
In some way, a site like OST offers a similar opportunity, but, guess what - we can still bring our predjudices into our posts, as in real debate.
I hope that in the days ahead as postmodernism and emerging church trends continue to humble us all, we can all learn to listen more carefully to each other in the most controversial areas of Christian theology (and there are so many!) and begin the work of healing so many unnecessary wounds inflicted upon the body of Christ… by the body of Christ.
“By this love, you shall be known as my disciples.”
Shalom!
Part 2: On Death in the Garden
One of the issues I often wrestle with in holding to the sacredness and authority of the scriptures is the issue ga_ge refers to on the Evil and basic non-goodness of Death and the necessity of Death as a part of natural selection and other patterns that drive evolution. The argument is thus: (1) the creator is wholly good. (2) A wholly good being cannot be the author of any evil. (3) Death is evil, a consequence of the first parents’ sin. (4) Evolutionary theory rests on the necessary death of countless successive generation of organisms in order to generate the diversity we currently witness. Therefore, the creator could not use or be the author of what we have come to call evolution before the entrance of sin and death into his creation.
Tentatively, I take issue with #3 (I may, at a later point, take issue with #2, but not now). Specifically, I would like to propose that, while Death-as-we-now-know-it is evil, the consequence of the first parents’ sin, and the enemy of the creator, it is conceivable that a form of death before the Fall existed that is unlike what we now understand as death. In other words (akin to something N.T. Wright has said), death was in the garden before the Fall, but it was not the wreckless, out-of-control executor of judgement that we now know. This is, perhaps, hinted at in the observation that there were seasons marked out by the celestial figures. There was, then, even before the fall, a natural cycle within creation. Presumably this would have included leaves from deciduous trees falling to the ground and decaying into its components, the necessary death of a living thing in digestion and more scatalogical events, etc. Just a thought! I’d love to read what other Jesus-people think about this possibility.
Eric
there is a logic being follow
there is a logic being followed through your message. But your logic has no backing. It is according to your truths. Everyone has different truths.
Truth and assumption
Mertfaruk,
I assume by ‘truth’ you mean ‘assumption,’ to which I would respond that, yes, I have made some assumptions in my proposal. The assumptions I have made that are not spelled out in the logical argument leading up to the ‘therefore’ include that there was a Fall/Rebellion and that the result was Death. However, given those assumptions, what I am interested in is to read what other Bible readers think of the possibility that death of some sort existed before the Fall, and only through the Fall became the aweful executioner we now know.
I apologize if this answer doesn’t quite fit your statement. I am having a difficult time trying to understand exactly what you want to say through this post, but if it is on the nature of ‘truth,’ I know there is another thread in this forum specifically for that. As an aside, I read your statement ‘everyone has different truths’ to music in my head (bet you didn’t know your post could be so fancy!). Pilate in Jesus Christ Superstar responds to Jesus’s statement that he is being damned for looking for truth with: ‘But what is truth? Is truth unchanging laws? We all have truths; are mine the same as yours?” The irony of this is that Pilate was speaking to the fullest expression of truth: Jesus, as he gave his life up in obedience to the Father!
a spider in the garden
Perhaps an interesting way to look at ‘death’ before the fall, or the question of death in the garden, is to start with the intricate and specified design of a predator. Let’s consider the spider:
The vast majority of spiders follow the same basic killing and feeding procedure. The spider’s primary weapon is its chelicerae, a pair of jointed jaws in front of the mouth. Each jaw has two major parts: the basal segment, the bulk of the jaw, and the sharp fang housed inside of it. Normally, the fang is retracted inside the basal segment. When the spider catches its prey, it swings the fangs out into the animal’s body. The fangs work something like hypodermic needles. They have a small hole in the tip and a hollow duct inside. The duct leads to the venom gland, either inside the basal segment or farther back in the cephalothorax. When the spider pierces its prey with the fang, it squeezes out the venom, injecting the animal with enough neurotoxin to paralyze or kill. This makes it safe for the spider to feed on its prey, without the risk of a struggle.
Now, the spider’s body is designed to create neurotoxin, it’s system is designed to create intricate web structures to trap it’s prey. There is nothing about the makeup of the spider that would suggest otherwise.
Did the spider exist in the garden? The average creationist response may be that the spider is a result of the fall, but that would suggest that the spider must of evolved from a completely different biological structure. Also, this would suggest that the effects of the fall acted intelligently as to design a killing machine.
What think ye?
del dominus
Saber teeth and more
Intriguing. I remember a sermon I heard once when I was still a creationist. It actually startled me into my course away from that way of thinking. The speaker said that lions and tigers ate grass before the Fall because there was no Death, so they couldn’t be meat eaters.
My immediate response (silently, of course), in spite of my creationist background was: “What? So the creator gave them sharp teeth for tearing after the Fall? Otherwise they would have starved trying ‘shred’ grass. And what about the life of the grass? Is it only ‘Death’ if it is animal? Next he will try to tell me Adam and Eve did not have rectums, since they were yet unnecessary.”
I ought to add that I really liked this speaker on every other topic.
Of course, there are more sophisticated examples that are too detailed to get into, like host-virus specificity, bacteria and immune mechanisms. Oh, and mosquitoes …
And to be fair, there are answers: All that stuff is either the result of the satan or the creator, subsequent to the Fall. Or the time between creation and Fall was short enough that all that was already built into creation for its known function as soon as Humanity screwed up (and a sub-theory to this that there was no necessity for eating etc. at all before the Fall because everything somehow ‘lived’ off of the creator’s own life).
animal death in the garden
I don’t know if I have a problem so much with animals having the inherent capacity to change in cases of bone structures and digestion. It’s certainly possible that harsh environments and adapted survival behaviors forced herbivores to eat certain kinds of unnatural foods, namely meat, which created some differences in their muscle and bone development.
However, the other examples you gave would be much more difficult to explain.
What do you think of this theory: In the garden, God told Adam that the consequences of sin would result in death – “for when you eat of it, you will surely die.” Is it not probable that Adam had an understanding of what “death” meant? Therefore, God may have designed some form of animal death in the garden as an example for man to grasp the concept of dissolution or the end of life.
If we carry this further, after man had sinned, God provided animal skin to clothe humanity. So just as the death of the animal represented a symbolic means of “provision” after the fall, the death of the animal represented a symbolic model of “consequence” before the fall.
This of course, could tie into the whole atonement aspect regarding the death of the animal, thus being the lamb, as a symbolic model of “redemption” for the new creation, but I’ll let John and the other folks deal with the atonement theories at this point.
del dominus
death in the garden
I’ve nothing to contribute specifically on this point (death in the garden) - but just wanted to say that my pilgrimage has been similar to Eric’s - in that I’ve moved from away from being an enthusiastic advocate of ‘creationism’, but not at all rejecting a God who is a Creator, and who personally created all things. However, I’m not a scientist, and I don’t have the scientific background to be able to enter into the details of the debate on this thread - but would like to add a few thoughts.
First, our understanding of ‘truth’ (in looking at biblical texts) has tended (over the ‘modern’ period of the last 200 years or so) to be in the nature of what can be objectively, scientifically proven. In this we may have been making a fundamental category mistake, in assuming that Genesis 1 & 2 were presenting this kind of ‘truth’. The evolution/creation debates of the 19th century certainly backfooted the Christian community, but ultimately have we got it wrong in assuming that these texts underpin the kind of debate that this thread, for instance, is pursuing?
If we were to ask what questions the authors of Genesis 1 & 2 were addressing in their account, we might come up with the contrast of the God of order and design (presented in Genesis) with the chaotic creation myths, say, of the Babylonians of that time. And whereas for surrounding cultures, the presence of evil and chaos might have seemed overwhelming, with the ‘gods’ not in control at all, the God of Genesis is well able to bring order out of chaos, and in Genesis 3 introduces a subtle and psychologically nuanced account of the entrance of evil into the human arena. (This approach to the texts would be appropriate for today’s increasing addiction to pagan and other types of spirituality which have an essentially pantheistic base).
On another level, as one whose training is in literature, I have been asking what kind of literature Genesis 1 is. The creation narrative is highly literary - eg the parallels between day 1 & 4, day 2 & 5, day 3 & 6. This is not science as we understand it!
Nevertheless, the questions remain: was the world the result of an act of creation, and can the efforts of a creative God be harmonised with evolution which may have taken place over billions of years? I am not discounting the need to look at our world, and ask if the ‘creation’ we see matches up with the ‘creator’ we believe in. I think in the end the results might produce conflicting evidence: huge evidence for ‘design’ (which seems to increase the more we discover and understand unerlying design), but also disturbing evidence of chaos and amorality.
The ‘theory of evolution’ has been underpinned by philosophical developments such as the ‘death of God’, the moral randomness of the universe, survival of the fittest etc. Does the scientific strand of evolutionary theory automatically lead to the various philosophical strands mentioned, or can the two be separated?
The apostle Paul thought that evidence for the existence and nature of God could be ‘clearly seen, being understood from the things that are made’. I am loathe to dismiss thess as the thoughts of a man living in more ignorant times - for we have an arrogant tendency to dismiss the insights of previous ages as inferior to our own. The same would go for Genesis 1-3; these chapters are packed with truth - but it may not be of the scientifically verifiable kind to which we have tended to give paramount importance.
By the way, there is a movement called ‘Intelligent Design’, which looks at things from the starting point of scientific observation, rather than seeking to impose a supposed ‘biblical’ pattern onto the data. This approach looks to me to be very promising, avoiding the polarisation which ‘creationism’ tends to generate at the outset of discussion.
science faith dualism
I’m just wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on your third paragraph pertaining to the Genesis author’s intent. Granted that Genesis 1 is poetic in form and highly literary, would you not consider Genesis 2 & 3 to be a historical narrative? And if so, would not scientific inquiry correspond to this reality, regardless of the genre of the writing?
I would not suggest that scientific solutions and theories be subject to a specific creationist model, this is the failed agenda of the creationist fundamentalist movement in the 20th Century. Nevertheless, how does a post-enlightenment Christian tell the story of creation apart from a world of objective science? I think that if we make distinctions between science and the worldview that we embrace, then we fall subject to the same dualism that resides in the modernist mindset.
BTW, I’m not suggesting that this science/faith dualism is your position. I’m just thinking out loud.
What think ye?
del dominus
science faith dualism
Thank you for asking the question. I’m having to think these things through. We have a view of history as things which happened exactly and literally as they were. The problem is that all history is recorded and mediated through people’s observations and reflections, which brings interpretation from the outset. So I think in some ways we have to modify our understanding of history - which I suspect we have tended to view in the same way as science: that there must be something objectively true out there which we can see and understand. Because science has declared this (but is now having problems maintaining this position), the same outlook has carried over into history, and also into bible interpretation, and into the creation accounts.
That’s not to say there is no objective truth, or that the creation accounts aren’t reaching back into things which actually happened. But I am wondering whether the accounts we have don’t reveal their intent and meaning by subjecting them to a modernistic scientific analysis. So yes, I think the heavily laden symbolic overtones continue into Genesis 2 & 3. But equally, I wouldn’t go so far as to say they are pure symbolism. I wouldn’t say that they can be read just like symbolic poetry - and be understood without historical anchorage.
On the other hand, as a non-scientist, I do think that our worldviews need to connect, and that the questions of science should be applied to a biblical worldview. I’m just wondering if even our understanding of science (that it can reveal things in the world as they actually, objectively are) has limitations. Hasn’t science increasingly been encountering paradox and contradiction since the early part of the last century, and the exposure of shortcomings in the Newtonian (modernist) models?
Having said that, I think your comments on death in the garden are fascinating, from a speculative point of view, and have the potential for providing fresh perspective on ‘death’ in the wider scheme of things - evolutionary theory and the bible, and so forth. I just run out of expertise and useful things to contribute at this point!
God's timescale
Hi everybody, do you mind if I join in?
Eric mentioned “Augustine’s musings on ‘the earth bringing forth’ stuff,” Can you tell me where Augustine talked about that? I love the verses in Genesis where ‘God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation… And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation…’ Gen 1:11&12. Why do we get upset when scientists tell us that is exactly what happened? All evolution does is tell us about how God created life, and confirms what we read in Genesis.
I really do not see the death of animals in an evolving ecology as a moral problem. If the death of an animal was morally wrong before the fall, it would still be wrong after the fall. Then the whole OT sacrificial system had a serious moral problem because it caused the death of animals too. The evolution of predators before the fall was not wrong because there is nothing morally wrong for a lion to eat a zebra. In fact the bible tells us that lions seek their prey from God. This is in the creation hymn, Psalm 104.
Eric asked ‘…what other Bible readers think of the possibility that death of some sort existed before the Fall, and only through the Fall became the aweful executioner we now know.’ Death changed from a natural part of life to something truly terrible only after God breathed his breath into man and we were given a spiritual life to know God forever. There was more than biological life at stake when mankind fell away from God. With sin man was cut off from God and died spiritually. Physical death then became the final seal on a life estranged from God. Before that death was simply the end of one animal’s life and the start of another’s lunch.
The more I look at the beginning of Genesis, the more I see chapters 2&3 as highly symbolic account of man’s first relationship with God. Del asked Peter if he would consider Genesis 2 & 3 to be a historical narrative. To me these chapters are nearer to the book of Revelation with its primordial serpent in chapter 12 and the reappearance of the tree of life. Genesis 1, though poetic in form, is a more straightforward account of what happened. Our mistake is to try to fit God’s work into a human scale of six calendar days. The bible consistently warns us that God’s timescale is not ours. Why do we insist on applying a human six-day schedule to God’s creation just when science is beginning to tell us just how amazing God’s work is?
Deacon
Augustine, creation and allegory
Deacon, thank you for your thoughts on the subjects I brought up. I am in the middle of writing my dissertation for the next month and a half, so forgive me for not being more thoughtful in my own response here.
The Augustinian reference is to Confessions (Book 13).
I read your point about death and ‘spiritual death’ with an ‘Oh, yeah’ effect. It makes more sense of God’s prediction that ‘in dying you shall die’ after disobeying. What was the ‘death’ Adam and Eve experienced ‘the very day’ that they rebelled against their creator?
Eric
why so upset
I would like to add, though, that I thoroughly understand the perceived threat that many Christians feel toward evolutionary theory, since it is SO COMMONLY, though mistakenly, associated with naturalism/materialism on both sides of the great divide (which others inthis thread have already pointed out is a false dichotomy).
legends of the fall
Thanks for the Augustine ref. I hope the dissertation goes well. I agree about the perceived threat. It is a real pity Christians play into the hands of Atheist apologetics by agreeing with their claim that science disproves God. Where is the searcher who loves truth to turn?
I think the death Adam & Eve experienced was pretty much what Paul talked about in Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Paul lived a full life after this first experience of law and sin and was able to tell us about the experience, so I don’t think it was physical death he was talking about. The main thing to happen to Adam & Eve the day they rebelled was their guilt and loss of relationship with God and denial of access to the tree of life. Adam was told ‘dust you are and to dust you shall return’ but all that says that his mortality was the result of the way he was created rather than a change brought in through the fall. God was reminding Adam of his mortality. Only now Adam no longer has access to immortality when his body wore out.
Do people have any thoughts on the fall? What does the bible actually tell us about it, and how much is tradition?
Deacon
Lapseometer.
Deacon:
I think the death you describe for Adam is right on target as far as it goes. I’ve never really thought about the dust you are/to dust you return as descriptive of Adam’s created nature as you suggest. It is an interesting observation.
I wonder though, if we look at the long lives of subsequent characters, no matter how you define the years given in the record, do we not see a steady decline in their physical duration the farther in time away from the garden they get? Certainly this is true after the flood. Is this some kind of a clue to the consequences of the fall or the flood?
Just a thought. Alario
Live long and prosper \\//,
Hi Alario, I think the dust idea might be what Paul was getting at in 1Cor 15 when he compares our present flesh and blood bodies with the resurrection body to come. Our present bodies are subject to decay not because Adam sinned but because like Adam we are made of dust too (1Cor 15:48).
I am not sure what to make of the patriarch’s longevity in Genesis. Is it literal? Is its real meaning symbolic? Or are we simply misinterpreting a very ancient document? If it is literal, the drop in life expectancy only took hold after the flood, with Jared and Methuselah living longer than Adam did. The only indication of why life expectancy dropped is in Gen 6:3 where God says of mankind “his days shall be 120 years.” This may indicate that God was limiting our lifespan to what is our maximum life expectancy today. Modern genetics seems to indicate that our maximum life expectancy is limited by an inbuilt clock on our chromosomes rather than damage caused by the environment.
Personally I lean towards the idea that the 120 years simply means God was beginning a countdown to the flood and wonder if we may be misreading the long ages.
Deacon
Here we will analyze this sci
Here we will analyze this scientific crisis faced by the theory of evolution. This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific… http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
Inumerable errors and assumptions
I have looked at the site, although it is hard to stay there for very long. Fact upon fact is misrepresented or ignored. There is so much wrong with this site scientifically that I cannot begin to elucidate the errors. Mertfaruk, I want to ask you: how many of those claims do I have to take point by point and demonstrate the error to convince you of how unreliable it is? My guess is that it would be fruitless for me to spend my time trying. I chose three at random and could immediately specify just where the argument was going wrong, but I really don’t think that would do any good.
Thank you deacon et alibi for your discussion on Death. I am finding myself thinking in newer ways that seem more consistent with the Creator revealed in Jesus!
Eric
no good?
a proper, reasoned and graceful response, Eric, would at least distance you from the arrogant cleverer-than-thou attitude which besmirches whole rafts of the evolutionary debate.
Unless, of course, you are happy to be associated with those who practically wish to put down creationists as neo-neanderthals, in a manner that appears very much like it wishes to stifle debate - a tactic usually the last reserve of those who have something to hide?
“The only thing that counts… is faith expressing itself in love…” whether your faith embraces evolution or creation,
Pardon
John, thank you for your comment. While I did not intend to come off as terse as I now see my response is, your point(s) is valid and warranted and I beg apologies from Mertfartuk and all who may have been offended.
Here is the dilemma I find myself in: I am NOT trying to argue for evolution. I don’t think it really matter that much. However, as a scientist and a Christian I am in the crossfire of endless debates about evolution and creationism that don’t serve any purpose because the ‘sides’ are speaking different languages, and most of those engaged in the debate do not wish to take the time to learn the others’ language. The site Mertfartuk provided the link for is one example of that. Beginning with a desire to disprove evolutionary theory, it uses decontextualized bits of data and quotes from scientists to ‘prove’ its point to … whom? The one example that sticks in my mind is the discussion about how science has dis-proven that genetic mutations can account for mutagenisis. But the data (or quote, I forget which, now) were actually about a particular kind of mutation, without reference to the kind that there is increasing evidence actually can provide for major and sudden mutagenesis—chromosomal duplication with genetic recombination. This is particularly important at the phylogenetic junctures where we see the most amazing of these reduplication events occuring (those of homeobox genes and their role in axis development).
I could go on, trust me. and that is another dilemma I find myself in: the scientific language and knowledge base for these kind of studies is so specialized at this point that most scientists have just given up trying to address the public because it is so difficult to present the mass of information, and the grounds with which to understand it in its contexts. I would not expect to understand the basis for information technology and computer programming without immersing myself in its theory, although I benefit from its application daily. In the same, science, whether biological, quantum, chemical, astronomical, etc., (and within biological, my area, you have immunology, developmental, etc, and within immunology you have innate versus adaptive, and within innate you have molecular, micro, or cell specific or any combination of these) each has its on specialized language that is becoming taxing for even people within the same general field to understand (I am writing my dissertation on macrophage function signaling with increasing age as I write this. My committee is made up of immunologists. My biggest challenge in this education is that most of my members have no idea what I am talking about unless i break it down to them from the beginning, just because of the cell type I am studying!).
My point is that most scientists, in struggling to beat out the next guy for grants from the NIH or NAS, simply don’t have the time or energy to engage in these debates with any real answers apart from generalization. Unfortunately, the few that do have a philosophical crusade, naturalism, which, although it does not reflect all, and maybe even most, of the scientist, is the immediate target for well-meaning, but misinformed, Christians et al.
Add to that the fact that the philosophical crusade most of these Christians are on seems to influence their own presentation of the data. A critique of both scientific and creationist non-integrity is found in the edition I gave above: Portraits of Creation. In this vein are authors like Johnson, who is not a scientist, but a lawyer who with word-manipulation and smoke-screen is able to say two contradictory things from the beginning to the end of his book (Darwin on Trial or something like that). I don’t think I need to mention Morris. And Behe (Darwin’s Black Box) actually knows what he is talking about and has the integrity to engage in real dialogue and listen to critiques of his synthesis of the data, and even to recant … but creationists use his stuff all the time without quoting his recantations.
Now add to all this the fact that I don’t believe it makes a bit of difference with regard to, as you quote, faith expressing itself in love. As a matter of fact, I am leaving the scientific enterprise once this dissertation is written and i get my degree… there are more important things, and i find myself quite disillusioned with it all: I don’t think all our experiments and all our knowledge gaining have done us that much good (although, I hold in tension the belief that acquistion of knowledge is a good in itself). But it is hard to watch my siblings in faith engage too passionately in a struggle that i feel is fruitless and misguided and a waste of good christian energy. Unless that is their field, in which case, the creator has called them specifically to engage the inadequate narratives around them.
As far as this thread is concerned, I was hoping, in my response to Mertfartuk (which I now wish I’d never sent!!!) to put the discussion back on, what i understand as, the more appropriate track of theological engagement and the issues of Death, the Fall, and the Cross. Again, I apologize for not giving the proper respect and having a more thoughtful response.
I have a feeling I said enough to spin off four other discussions with all this, but, being as behind as I am in my writing, I will have to limit the subsequent posts I respond to.
peace
brave new world?
Eric
Thank you for your obviously heartfelt explanation. I think we both share some of the same frustration about the evolutionary / creationist debate, though your own exposure to it is much more considerable than my own.
On that front, I’m sorry to hear about your disillusionment. Perhaps a day may yet come in which the gap begins to close between the different “camps,” either through the kind of harmonisation which Gerald Schroeder proposes (do you give that any credence?) or through the waning of enthusiasm for divisive debate.
I think your point about some of us keeping quiet w/r/t fields of expertise that we are not necessarily called into is valid and important. Christians, I feel, are frequently burdened to get involved in (having an opinion on?) everything from politics to evolution, just because they are Christian. I think we ought to be much better at concentrating upon our own areas of work and responsibility and expressing our faith practically, particularly within the arenas of marriage, family, work and community.
My own position is unashamedly a faith-based position regarding the mode of creation. I’m not convinced by the science and I don’t trust the scientific establishment implicitly. Some of the reasons re funding which you include are poignant pointers to why this may be so. But it does seem to me that even if the scientific theory can be proven as a whole, then the implicit level of design still points to a brilliant creator…
I think the scientific community have probably fallen into some of the same dangerous waters which the “church” is just now starting to recognise and emerge from. That is to say, it holds itself to be above correction, except from within; that outside “infidels” ought to know their place and keep quiet in the presence of experts etc. In this sense, they have become quite dogmatic and religious. The chuch has less excuse because our calling is first to love, whereas Science is to explore. Nevertheless, as the new opiate of the masses, today’s pseudo-science is in danger of creating it’s own Brave New World, not quite as dark as the Orwellian one, but the idea that we can trust Science and Scientists to Lead the world of tomorrow is fast being exposed. Just as the Church discovered, there is an accountability to other human beings that can’t be avoided forever.
Shalom! and thanks for your generous response to my own admittedly rather sharp dig-in-the-virtual-ribs. You’ve demonstrated you’re much more of the man than your initial post would have indicated.
Center for Theology and Natural Sciences
For those who are interested, there is an excellent resource for Christians who relish in the wonders of God’s creation by way of knowledge, research, investigation, critical thinking, and the treasures of the scientific method: try visiting The Center for Theology and Natural Sciences at www.ctns.org .
Here is a brief mission statement from their scrumptuous website:
“CTNS is committed to drawing theologians, religious scholars, ethicists, philosophers, and historians into conversation with natural scientists. Through this interaction, CTNS hopes to foster a legacy of mutually enriching scholarship that will continue to serve as a foundation for science-religion dialogue. Over its nearly twenty-five year history, CTNS has engaged in some of the most respected and well-known research on the relationship between the natural sciences and theology.”
The Christian’s role in this discussion, or any other, is to bring the interlocutor’s back again and again to the bottom line of love.
Always asking the questions, “Where is love in your theory, diagnosis, analysis…how does it serve love; or impede it, cultivate it, ignore it, celebrate it, illuminate it?”
The details of fossil dating, punctuated equilibrium, biblical source and historical criticism, human genome projects, etc…are not trivial matters- neither are they more important than love. More precisely, find out what the interlocutor loves about these matters…what drives them to search, exmaine, learn, understand the issues surrounding Evolution and Creation; find out what the partner in conversation really loves about this stuff, and we will be much closer to the truth than we had imagined.
Cheers!
Darwin never mentioned the or
Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living things had very simple structures. Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was believed that insects came into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course.
Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances. Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared in meat was believed to be evidence for spontaneous generation. However, it was only realized some time later that maggots did not appear in meat spontaneously, but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.
Even in the period when Darwin’s Origin of Species was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread.
However, five years after the publication of Darwin’s book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin’s theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.”
the origin of life
I don’t see that the origin of life is at issue here. All of us here believe(?) that life on earth began, either directly or indirectly, when God said ‘let the earth bring forth…’ Technically this isn’t even spontaneous generation, but was at the Lord’s command.
With regard to Pasteur’s experiment, all Pasteur demonstrated was that spontaneous generation does not occur regularly in unattended food. Science only suggests it happened once over billions of years.
Deacon