Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
A decent metaphor should at least maintain the order of creation and Genesis does not maintain the same order as evolution. Nowhere in creation does it even hint at change over time, It just says that God created. Why would God wait billions of years for things to evolve, suffer and die when he could have just created them the way we see them, he sets up the laws, of course!
I understand these great men of the past trying to reconcile evolution and creation, but I can make one thing a metaphor for just about anything else, but that doesn't make it true, or even plausible.
God must win out over science in this case. Yes evolution is a decent theory - there can be no doubt. But, God isnt a theory, he is real and he didnt say anything about things changing over time.
A decent metaphor should at least maintain the order of creation and Genesis does not maintain the same order as evolution. Nowhere in creation does it even hint at change over time, It just says that God created. Why would God wait billions of years for things to evolve, suffer and die when he could have just created them the way we see them, he sets up the laws, of course!
I understand these great men of the past trying to reconcile evolution and creation, but I can make one thing a metaphor for just about anything else, but that doesn't make it true, or even plausible.
God must win out over science in this case. Yes evolution is a decent theory - there can be no doubt. But, God isnt a theory, he is real and he didnt say anything about things changing over time.
God hasn't told us a lot of things about a lot of things. Not everything is contained in the Bible. If even a small fraction of everything were contained in the Bible, who could read it? How would we know what was essential? Also, I don't think it's a question of one "winning out" over the other. God's Word is in the Bible, His works are in the world. We read both imperfectly. But ultimately, how can they conflict?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on evolution. I studied biology in college and I understand the tenets of the theory.
There is a big problem with it though, a problem so big that it led me not be able to accept it. It does conflict with Genesis.
No, it conflicts with some assumptions people make about Genesis.
Why reconcile the Bible though? The Bible is perfect, it is science that needs reconciling.
Science is constantly being reconciled with creation. Do you think God's creation conflicts with holy scripture?
I know that evolution is an attractive theory, it would seem to explain a lot, but when the choice is between believing the Bible or science, I know which i pick
False dichotomy. You are assuming only two points out of four.
What we have are scripture, creation, human interpretations of scripture (hermeneutics) and human interpretations of creation (science)
The point of conflict is not science and the bible; it is science (an interpretation of creation) and hermeneutics (a human interpretation of the bible).
Why would you choose a human interpretation of the bible over a human interpretation of creation? If a human interpretation of creation can be wrong (and science has sometimes been wrong) is the same not true of a human interpretation of the bible? In fact, do we not have many historical examples of human interpretations of the bible that were wrong and had to be changed?
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
No ones telling me how you can cram evolution into the Bible and have it make sense. And i would think giving a basic outline of how he actually did the first things to create us wouldnt be too much to ask. Thankfully, he did and it's right there in the Bible.
"God hasn't told us a lot of things about a lot of things. Not everything is contained in the Bible. If even a small fraction of everything were contained in the Bible, who could read it? How would we know what was essential? Also, I don't think it's a question of one "winning out" over the other. God's Word is in the Bible, His works are in the world. We read both imperfectly. But ultimately, how can they conflict?"
What else did he leave out? That the whole thing is a metaphor? That hes just kidding about the whole
thing?
Where's the imperfect reading? its very specific. Creation doesnt leave things up to be misunderstood.
Why would God want to confuse us so much?
Last edited by <3God; 3rd October 2009 at 09:20 PM.
Reason: addition
No ones telling me how you can cram evolution into the Bible and have it make sense.
You don't take Genesis literally.
Originally Posted by <3God
And i would think giving a basic outline of how he actually did the first things to create us wouldnt be too much to ask. Thankfully, he did and it's right there in the Bible.
Originally Posted by <3God
What else did he leave out? That the whole thing is a metaphor? That hes just kidding about the whole
thing?
Likely Genesis is allegorical. It doesn't have to be literally true.
Originally Posted by <3God
Where's the imperfect reading? its very specific.
Your mistake is taking the creation story literally.
Originally Posted by <3God
Creation doesnt leave things up to be misunderstood.
Neither does science.
Originally Posted by <3God
Why would God want to confuse us so much?
Scientists aren't confused. People who can't get over the fact that their literal interpretation of Genesis is contradicted by empirical evidence are the one's who are confused.
What other parts of the bible are just allegories?
The parables of Jesus, probably.
Originally Posted by <3God
Creation reads as a list of events.
But it contradicts physical proof
Originally Posted by <3God
The story of Jesus reads much more like an allegory.
And yet it doesn't contradict any physical proof.
Originally Posted by <3God
What's a reasonable understanding of creation that could account for it being a metaphor for evolution?
I don't know. Something like the first hominids that had the cranial capacity for reason had a special revelation from God, and worshiped him until they decided to reject him.
The point is that Evolution doesn't contradict SCRIPTURE, it contradicts YOUR INTERPRETATION of it.
Linear Mode
