I've spent a lot of time during the past year researching the creationism vs. pure, unguided evolution debate. There are a few resources that I have found to be very intriguing. One of the resources is a debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross.
Even if you think both of the people in the following video series are complete idiots, and you totally disagree with everything they are saying, I hope we can agree that it's nice to see Christians asking these types of questions with each other.
I'm all for taking the Bible literally. However, I'm also in favor of taking the Bible literally, based on its original language. Then, when we are unable to fully grasp the details, we present our theological findings as theories, not as scientific facts.
One more controversial statement: Although the Bible does not go against science, The Bible is not meant to be a science text book--but that's just my theory.
I couldn't watch Kent Hovind. He's too combative. I really like what Hugh Ross has to say. You'll have to borrow my book from him where he exposits Genesis 1.
I particularly enjoy your last paragraph; I think you should check out The Epic of Eden by Sandra Richter when you get a chance. She comments on your sentiments quite a bit, and I find I'm in complete agreement with her.
It's just such an untouched topic in our Church. I know that a pulpit is not the place for such discussion. But I hope that our generation will be more inquisitive with our children. Your thoughts?
Committed Christians disagree on the interpretation of the "Days" described in Genesis. Is it 24hr days or is it a description of epochs? Key to this for the Christian is that no matter what side you're on you must affirm that God created something from nothing. It is also vital to affirm that Adam was created (as opposed to evolved) and that the fall was a historical event. Calling each other names and laying accusations that the opposition doesn't believe in the Bible is unproductive and counter to loving disagreement.
@larry.rudd: I'm pretty sure I agree with you. No matter how many trillions of years you go back, there will always be that beginning, defining moment. Even if I were an atheist, I would still have to be puzzled by the question: How does matter begin? After all, the law of the conservation of energy is that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Well...where did matter come from?
I tend to align with you, as well, on the issue of the creation of Adam--being a literal, first of the human race, created from the dust. If you keep watching, Hugh Ross shares a beautiful description of the creation of Adam.
However, I am intrigued by recent studies done by a group called BioLogos.org--the head of this organization is Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, and a devout Christian. Read up on their interpretation of Adam and let me know what you think.
First off, in the debate over evolution you must define terminology. There is micro-evolution (virus, bacteria, etc.) and macro-evolution (one species changing into another i.e. A giraffe coming from a horse, etc.). What needs to be made clear is that statistically there is not enough time for macro-evolution to be a viable scientific hypothesis, even if you were to allow for a number of years that was equal to one year for every atom estimated to be in the known universe to the power of a number the same size. In other words, macro-evolution is not science but a necessary metaphysical (religious) belief. As for BiosLogos, they promote macro-evolution which contradicts scripture where God creates the animals "after their own kind.". Moreover, they deny the orthodox Christian view of the fall. By doing this they nullify the work of Christ on the cross. I would be very careful about accepting too much from the BiosLogos people.
I first stumbled on some of Dr. Ross' teachings about 20 years ago (before this amazing little thing called the Internet started to bloom.) His assertion that we must be able to discuss these ideas equally in a religious or secular forum without someone crying "heresy" is right on the money. Many Christians remain mute because they haven't been able to intelligently consider thinking outside the "6 literal day" creation model without feeling they're somehow compromising their faith. Centuries of church dogma is hard to shake...apparently.
The critical thing to remember (which is often forgotten) is to concentrate on shared beliefs. If those shared beliefs are orthodox then the differences can be calmly identified. Adherence to the divine origin of Scripture is vital. It is also equally important to draw in other Christian doctrines that are directly impacted by the view expressed about our origins. What you think about God, man, creation, redemption, etc. are all theological concepts that are an interconnected web. A worldview. Christian belief is not just a group of unrelated beliefs. To be a Christian is to have a worldview; a significant number of fundamental interconnected beliefs that define them. So... To disagree on the length of the "days" described in Genesis is a far different thing than disagreeing about the orthodox view of the fall. Deny the fall and you're like a Pelagian and you make the Cross unnecessary. A clearly heretical idea.
I'm really enjoying this conversation. Thank you to everyone who is keeping this alive. I'll definitely respond to the recent comments before the end of the day.
I'm fascinated by the Biblical support the scientific community continues to bring. Sure, there are some theories that are in conflict with the origin of the human race. However, they still remain theories. Moreover, it's been approximately 150 years since the Origin of the Species was released and we still cannot find any verifiable missing links or connecting forms. That to say, I actually agree with many of Darwin's theories--micro evolution, etc.
It is obviously my bias to say that "God did it," but I respect the inquisitive nature of naturalists, such as Richard Dawkins, who says, "When scientists don't know an answer, we re-hypothesize, roll up our sleeves, and continue to search."
It is a sad reality (sad for atheists, that is) that throughout all the turmoil of modern, naturalistic, atheist scientists, their actual findings continue to support the case for a creator. Though their theories deny, their evidence supports.
In closing, I don't wish to bash Charles Darwin. I've read The Origin of the Species in its entirety, and most of it is written about micro evolution. Even in his book, he states that there is not conclusive evidence to place his writings above that of theory.
I found this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville's work "Democracy in American". Although this book has nothing to do with this topic I came across a quote that fits right in with the idea of nature and how it interacts with God. "It is not necessary that God himself should speak in order to disclose to us the unquestionable signs of His will; we can discern them in the habitual course of nature, and in the invariable tendency of events". I thought that many of you on this blog would enjoy this quote.
I couldn't watch Kent Hovind. He's too combative. I really like what Hugh Ross has to say. You'll have to borrow my book from him where he exposits Genesis 1.
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoy your last paragraph; I think you should check out The Epic of Eden by Sandra Richter when you get a chance. She comments on your sentiments quite a bit, and I find I'm in complete agreement with her.
ReplyDeleteIt's just such an untouched topic in our Church. I know that a pulpit is not the place for such discussion. But I hope that our generation will be more inquisitive with our children. Your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteCommitted Christians disagree on the interpretation of the "Days" described in Genesis. Is it 24hr days or is it a description of epochs? Key to this for the Christian is that no matter what side you're on you must affirm that God created something from nothing. It is also vital to affirm that Adam was created (as opposed to evolved) and that the fall was a historical event. Calling each other names and laying accusations that the opposition doesn't believe in the Bible is unproductive and counter to loving disagreement.
ReplyDelete@larry.rudd: I'm pretty sure I agree with you. No matter how many trillions of years you go back, there will always be that beginning, defining moment. Even if I were an atheist, I would still have to be puzzled by the question: How does matter begin? After all, the law of the conservation of energy is that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Well...where did matter come from?
ReplyDeleteI tend to align with you, as well, on the issue of the creation of Adam--being a literal, first of the human race, created from the dust. If you keep watching, Hugh Ross shares a beautiful description of the creation of Adam.
However, I am intrigued by recent studies done by a group called BioLogos.org--the head of this organization is Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, and a devout Christian. Read up on their interpretation of Adam and let me know what you think.
This is a topic that I am extremely addicted to
First off, in the debate over evolution you must define terminology. There is micro-evolution (virus, bacteria, etc.) and macro-evolution (one species changing into another i.e. A giraffe coming from a horse, etc.). What needs to be made clear is that statistically there is not enough time for macro-evolution to be a viable scientific hypothesis, even if you were to allow for a number of years that was equal to one year for every atom estimated to be in the known universe to the power of a number the same size. In other words, macro-evolution is not science but a necessary metaphysical (religious) belief. As for BiosLogos, they promote macro-evolution which contradicts scripture where God creates the animals "after their own kind.". Moreover, they deny the orthodox Christian view of the fall. By doing this they nullify the work of Christ on the cross. I would be very careful about accepting too much from the BiosLogos people.
ReplyDeleteI first stumbled on some of Dr. Ross' teachings about 20 years ago (before this amazing little thing called the Internet started to bloom.) His assertion that we must be able to discuss these ideas equally in a religious or secular forum without someone crying "heresy" is right on the money. Many Christians remain mute because they haven't been able to intelligently consider thinking outside the "6 literal day" creation model without feeling they're somehow compromising their faith. Centuries of church dogma is hard to shake...apparently.
ReplyDeleteThe critical thing to remember (which is often forgotten) is to concentrate on shared beliefs. If those shared beliefs are orthodox then the differences can be calmly identified. Adherence to the divine origin of Scripture is vital. It is also equally important to draw in other Christian doctrines that are directly impacted by the view expressed about our origins. What you think about God, man, creation, redemption, etc. are all theological concepts that are an interconnected web. A worldview. Christian belief is not just a group of unrelated beliefs. To be a Christian is to have a worldview; a significant number of fundamental interconnected beliefs that define them. So... To disagree on the length of the "days" described in Genesis is a far different thing than disagreeing about the orthodox view of the fall. Deny the fall and you're like a Pelagian and you make the Cross unnecessary. A clearly heretical idea.
ReplyDeleteI'm really enjoying this conversation. Thank you to everyone who is keeping this alive. I'll definitely respond to the recent comments before the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous...I'm guess you're my dad. ;)
I'm fascinated by the Biblical support the scientific community continues to bring. Sure, there are some theories that are in conflict with the origin of the human race. However, they still remain theories. Moreover, it's been approximately 150 years since the Origin of the Species was released and we still cannot find any verifiable missing links or connecting forms. That to say, I actually agree with many of Darwin's theories--micro evolution, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt is obviously my bias to say that "God did it," but I respect the inquisitive nature of naturalists, such as Richard Dawkins, who says, "When scientists don't know an answer, we re-hypothesize, roll up our sleeves, and continue to search."
It is a sad reality (sad for atheists, that is) that throughout all the turmoil of modern, naturalistic, atheist scientists, their actual findings continue to support the case for a creator. Though their theories deny, their evidence supports.
In closing, I don't wish to bash Charles Darwin. I've read The Origin of the Species in its entirety, and most of it is written about micro evolution. Even in his book, he states that there is not conclusive evidence to place his writings above that of theory.
I found this quote from Alexis de Tocqueville's work "Democracy in American". Although this book has nothing to do with this topic I came across a quote that fits right in with the idea of nature and how it interacts with God. "It is not necessary that God himself should speak in order to disclose to us the unquestionable signs of His will; we can discern them in the habitual course of nature, and in the invariable tendency of events". I thought that many of you on this blog would enjoy this quote.
ReplyDelete@Aaron--Well said.
ReplyDeleteCourt's Adjourned.