No, its not unreasonable, I used to think along those lines myself. But, eventually my light led me in a different direction.
I understood. That's why I said "I do reconcile it beyond the simple statement..."
I chose to answer what I thought was the most important part of his comment. Inappropriate is your opinion.
What stumps me the most is more basic than that. I have no idea how to bridge the gap between the need to cling to a very ancient middle-eastern creation story and the creation story that science has opened up to us today. Even if the Evolutionary details are understood by Creationist, they still go back to those ancient creation stories for understanding.
I think one thing that attracts scientists and the scientifically inclined towards science is the sense of wonder. There is so much incredible in the universe; the awesome energies of a supernova as it spews out the newly formed atoms that may one day form part of a new solar system, or even a life form; the slow grinding of tectonic plates as they collide, contrasted with the massive pile of Olympus Mons, formed on a planet devoid of plate tectonics; the industry of worker ants; the interaction of Hadley Cells and the jet stream. The list is endless, the excitement and the delight at new discoveries ongoing.
Well said. When you utilize the ability to wonder about such things, even just considering in awe something you do not understand and being able to explain your feelings about it, that to me is evidence of a Creator. Also, being able to take that further (study, education, scientific method, etc.) and explain, or try to explain, how many things work in the physical world is testimony to the unique abilities man has been given, and to me further evidence of a Creator. We have what many consider just an ‘ancient middle-eastern creation story,’’ while to others it provides the best answer to the how (God did it) and why (He chose to) we’ll never understand. 9,999,999 years from now, despite changes and advancements we can’t even imagine, man will still die without knowing anything more. And, I believe that somewhere in an equivalent quiet, dimly-lit hospital room and on an equivalent nightstand by an equivalent bed… there will still be a Bible for those who can and choose to reach for it.
But how many of those who reach for it and are comforted by it will take the first two chapters as !00% accurate literal history? I think your smugness is premature.
It’s hard to explain, but for me the power of the Bible lies in its overall message. There can be a lot of difficulties when you start breaking down every word thinking you can speak for God and say this is exactly what He means. That is vanity. To me there is nothing at all wrong with scientific pursuit (part of my education and career was in a science field), until it also becomes vanity and takes God out of the picture.
I'm not surprised.
I didn't pit the Bible and rationale; you're doing that. I said when you remove God from the picture.
True, not in a technical sense, but for some, yes it does... 'God did it' is all the 'how' they need.
There is no vanity in neutral scientific explanations.
Sure, I agree. I was just explaining some's rationale. To me, vanity comes when you think you are speaking for God, or when you deny His involvement (which you know nothing of).
How can creation be explicable without a Creator?
