It should be pretty obvious to anybody that the Bible is an incomplete historical account. Large swaths of time are left undocumented.
The largest swath covered in redemptive history is Genesis. In spans thousands of years and only the first 11 chapters cover events. Referred to as the generations of Adam and Noah the central focus is genealogical leading up to the call of Abraham. Abraham, Issac, Jacob (aka Israel) and Joseph occupy the bulk of the narrative . Why should we concern ourselves with the things that remain incomplete when the revelation right in front of us is ignored, marginalized or dismissed as figurative?
If the Bible was a complete scientific and historical manual, the YEC's wouldn't have to go to so much trouble to fill in the holes.
It is history, it's redemptive history and it is complete in Christ alone. Genesis is the beginning of the generations of humanity, I didn't write it and there is not need of a private interpretation to get that from the clear language of the text.
Every....single...thing a scientist has said to use ToE as proof against God has been OUTSIDE THE REALM OF SCIENCE. The battle is with anti-God atheism, not with ToE. Nothing in ToE indicates that there is no God behind it all.
And every scientists that advocates TOE as natural history is deeply and permanently committed to opposing special creation. As an example:
Louis Leaky spent his entire carrier attacking the religious conviction of 'special creation'. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was itself just one long argument against it:
"You know you people at the National Geographic with your facilities and your ability to reach people-you must do something about the evolution of early man. You can't let those Bible people hold back the knowledge we're learning. It must be brought to the public. Promise me Mary you will look into this." (Ancestral Passions by Virginia Morrel)
Louis Leaky had a big problem on his hands, the neat linear model of Darwinism could not demonstrate the anagenesis, or the:
"...the continual and gradual change of one parent species into its daughter species in a linear fashion...Some researchers feel that all species within the genus Homo should have characteristics, such as locomotor patterns, diet and body proportions, that make them more like modern humans than like the australopiths. These researchers feel that the characteristics of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis are more ape-like than modern, a conclusion that would remove them from our genus.
The Homo habilis Debate
Our supposed ancestors all lived in the same place, Oldvuai, at the same time. Far from being a set back for Darwinism, it proved to be unbreakable:
George (
Olduvai Hominid 16) had eroded out of the same geological levels as Homo habilis, making proto-Homo erectus, as Louis refered to this new species, a companion of Homo habilis as well as Australopithecus boisei. In Louis's eyes, only Homo habilis has led to modern humans, while Homo erectus and the australopithecines died out." (Ancestral Passions by Virginia Morrel)
After a while this seems so obvious, the australopithecines did not die out, they evolved into modern apes. When faced with this obvious problem for the Darwinian universal ancestry model Louise said:
"Man developed just like the animals did with various species living side by side until the weaker died out or were annihilated leaving the stronger until eventually modern man emerged. Two million years ago, four species of giraffe had existed side by side at Olduvai, as well as six species of elephants and four kinds of pigs. Why shout there only be one line of man? It's a prejudice which comes from a religious attitude...that man was a special creation" (Ancestral Passions by Virginia Morrel)
There have never been multiple human species, we remain one species while the chimpanzees have at least two as does the gorilla. What is even more telling is that thousands of hominid (human) ancestors fossils are dug up but next to none for our African ape cousins.
I do not get my science from Scripture nor do I expect anyone else will or does. I do not base my doctrinal position based on secular science nor should any Bible believing Christian.
If there are intellectual tools to be built from creationism, then by all means, publish. The vast majority of creationism is anti-intellectual, anti-thinking and reactionary.
No it's not, most Creationism is Christian ministry. By and large they simply publish essays, books and videos meant to encourage believers in the face of dramatic Darwinian attacks on their religious convictions. I don't know what you mean by publish but if you are talking about scientific journals don't hold your breath. It means absolutely nothing if Creationism offers an alternative to Darwinism or even how scientific it might be. Creationism and Intelligent Design is universally rejected in secular academics and scientific arenas based on naturalistic assumptions, not real world evidence.
Creationism has been dismissed without a hearing, much as justification by faith was in Europe at the dawn of the Reformation. Christians must reclaim their place in academia and affirm the Scriptures are redemptive history. I am convinced that compromise in this arena is intellectual suicide. To accept the Darwinian tree of life model is to make an a priori naturalistic assumption that special creation is a mythical fiction.
As for me, I will not have that kind of supposition in my scientific reasoning, my intellectual quests for detailed understanding and certainly not in my theology.
You decide based on the convictions of your own beliefs. If you decide TOE is compatible with Scripture like Louis Leaky did, go in peace I have no problem with you. Just don't poison sound doctrine with it because the New Testament writers were Creationists.
