I was a Creationist...now I don't know what I believe.

[sonic purity]

I've been doing a LOT of research about evolution and Creationism and I'm beginning to realise that many of the Creation science theories are fundamentally flawed.

In particular I've been reading the works of Prof. Richard Dawkins, the world-famous evolutionary scientist.

So can anyone help me? What should I as a Christian believe? Can evolution and religion sit together?

It seems to me that I am helping to answer the OP question, not derail the thread.

Dawkins may be a world famous evolutionary scientist, but his views are from an atheistic view. I have no doubt that after reading his book, someone would be convinced of evolution. That is the whole purpose of the book. But how many books have you read by Authors with Christian views to balance it out. If all you read are books from Non believers you will come to side with them. I can say they are well written and well thought out. But to say they are the absolute truth and hold enough evidence is highly suspect.

 

[sonic purity]

You need to take some courses in literature. Figurative interpretations are not that loose. A critic of literature has to be able to justify interpretations textually and logically. When allegory was the primary tool the Church used for scriptural interpretation, there were not dozens of interpretations. All the allegories were standardized. Free-wheeling and whimsical personal interpretations were frowned on.

I see a great deal more of such independent, unsupported interpretation from people who call themselves (but are not) literalists. So many don't even know what it really means to interpret a text literally. "Literal" has become a meaningless mantra. You can easily get six or seven different "literal" interpretations from self-identified literalists and usually none of them are literal.

Well said, not to mention that the different interpertations do not change the context of the message.

 

[Assyrian]

Knowing the difference is what constitutes Biblical maturity.

Maturity certainly helps, but there were plenty of biblically mature believers in the early church who took the geocentric passages literally and believed bread was literally transformed into the body of Christ. You can still be biblically mature and believe in the real presence. I am not so sure you can be biblically mature now and believe in geocentrism.

It is not incorrect to say that the Bible should be interpreted literally, despite some passages that are allegorical*, just as you would say it's not incorrect to say that the Bible should be interpreted figuratively, despite some passages that are literal.

I would think both are bad ways to describe bible interpretation. I don't think any TE here would ever make absolute claims like 'the bible should be interpreted figuratively', with or without the caveat.

* The Bible almost always alerts the reader when a non-literal passage is coming up. Exceptions would be where a literal interpretation would be obviously wrong, such as the ones you quoted, and the poetic Books.

Well the literal interpretation of Genesis is obviously wrong as is the literal interpretation of the geocentric passages. The earth is not 6000 years old and it orbits the sun. It is also clear that these passages were not so obvious before we learned about the science, though plenty of scripture scholars from the time of the early church questioned the literal interpretation of Genesis, while no one questioned the literal interpreation of the geocentic passages.

 

[Mallon]

It seems to me that I am helping to answer the OP question, not derail the thread.

Dawkins may be a world famous evolutionary scientist, but his views are from an atheistic view. I have no doubt that after reading his book, someone would be convinced of evolution. That is the whole purpose of the book. But how many books have you read by Authors with Christian views to balance it out. If all you read are books from Non believers you will come to side with them. I can say they are well written and well thought out. But to say they are the absolute truth and hold enough evidence is highly suspect.

Make no doubt about it: Dawkins is a kook. His grasp of the philosophy of science is tenuous at best, and he is forced to prattle on outside the limits of science in order to discount Christian theology. He's in way over his head.
But that doesn't mean that everything he says is a lie. James Watson is a self-professed atheist, but that doesn't mean DNA does not exist. Within the realm of evolutionary science, most of what Dawkins says is well-evidenced and can be tested by anyone. It is his abuse of the scientific method in order to discount the metaphysical that makes him a nut. Reject the atheism that Dawkins espouses, not the science he is forced to abuse in order to defend it.

 

[sonic purity]

One of the problems I have with evolution, beside the rejection of God. Is that it gets people thinking down a certain pattern of logic. And instead of trying to figure out to answer the tough questions that the creationist bring forth against evolution. It forces them to try and fit everything into this theory that on a whole does not work.

 

[sonic purity]

And most atheist will say anything to discount the existence of God. And call you ignorant for not believing as they do.

 

[Mallon]

One of the problems I have with evolution, beside the rejection of God.

Why do you think evolutionary theory necessarily rejects God, sonic purity? Evolution is simply a theory describing how life's diversity came about via natural, describable processes. But does that make it atheistic? We can describe the formation of weather without appealing to miracles of God, but does that make weather forecasting atheistic? We can describe the development of the fetus in utero, but does that make developmental biology atheistic? Does that mean we are not also a creation of God?
The theology you hold on to, whereby natural processes are seen as atheistic and miraculous ones are understood to come from God, is a dangerous one and not at all biblical. There are many references to natural processes in the Bible that are described as coming from God's providential care (e.g., Amos 4:6, Mt 5:45, Job 38-41, Ps 104). Evolution is no exception (regardless of what Dawkins might say).

And most atheist will say anything to discount the existence of God. And call you ignorant for not believing as they do.

You compared evolutionary creationists to brainwashed minions of Hitler earlier for not believing as you do. What's the difference?

 

[sonic purity]

That is how it starts. Because I have a view against the theory of evolution, you assume that I have no use for science and dismiss all evidence that has been put forth. You sound like you read none of my post except for part of one involving hitler. Taking things out of context will not support your side of the argument.

 

[Mallon]

That is how it starts. Because I have a view against the theory of evolution, you assume that I have no use for science and dismiss all evidence that has been put forth.

Not at all. But you appear to reject evolution primarily because it is described as a natural process, rather than one that is miraculously promulgated by God. Is that not why you described it as a "rejection of God" just now? If not, then please elaborate because this is the same unbiblical viewpoint that many anti-evolutionary neocreationists espouse. Let's hear why you think evolution is inherently atheistic, while other natural sciences are not.

 

[Melethiel]

That is how it starts. Because I have a view against the theory of evolution, you assume that I have no use for science and dismiss all evidence that has been put forth. You sound like you read none of my post except for part of one involving hitler. Taking things out of context will not support your side of the argument.

Mallon has addressed your posts quote by quote. Why don't you address his posts instead of playing the martyr?

 

[sonic purity]

Not at all. But you appear to reject evolution primarily because it is described as a natural process, rather than one that is miraculously promulgated by God. Is that not why you described it as a "rejection of God" just now? If not, then please elaborate because this is the same unbiblical viewpoint that many anti-evolutionary neocreationists espouse. Let's hear why you think evolution is inherently atheistic, while other natural sciences are not.

The reason I say it is a rejection of God. Is that the theory as a whole attempts to explain away the biblical account of creation. If you dont believe me, you can read darwin yourself. To say that I reject all science is completely false. There is plenty of evidence to support different parts of the theory. The problem I have, is that the theory creates more questions than it answers. Then based on the pattern of logic put forth by the theory, you have to come to conslusions to fill in the large gaping holes. This is called thinking inside the box.

 

[Melethiel]

The reason I say it is a rejection of God. Is that the theory as a whole attempts to explain away the biblical account of creation. If you dont believe me, you can read darwin yourself. To say that I reject all science is completely false. There is plenty of evidence to support different parts of the theory. The problem I have, is that the theory creates more questions than it answers. Then based on the pattern of logic put forth by the theory, you have to come to conslusions to fill in the large gaping holes. This is called thinking inside the box.

1) The theory of evolution has progressed a long way since Darwin.

2) Who cares what Darwin's personal beliefs were? It's not like he's the Pope. (Incidentally, which of Darwin's works in particular are you referring to?)

Finally, the whole point of science is to keep asking questions and attempting to answer them. As for "thinking inside the box" - historically, within the scientific world, people who challenge the status quo, ask hard questions, and overthrow the current working model usually end up with a Nobel Prize. Yes, they may be ridiculed by others at the time, but the evidence eventually wins out. If evolution is that easy to prove false, go ahead and do it. You'll end up in the history books.

 

[Mallon]

The reason I say it is a rejection of God. Is that the theory as a whole attempts to explain away the biblical account of creation.

Only if you insist the biblical account of creation must be read as a literal, historical document. Only if you insist that the narrative vessel of the Genesis creation account is of greater importance than the doctrine of creation it was meant to deliver. Evolutionary theory in no way contradicts the doctrine of creation.

If you dont believe me, you can read darwin yourself.

I have read Darwin. He references God's creative powers throughout his Origin of the Species. That's pretty significant, I think. The man who founded the theory of evolution as we know it today attributed the process to God. A far cry from your description of evolution as atheistic.

To say that I reject all science is completely false.

I didn't say that, though, did I?

The problem I have, is that the theory creates more questions than it answers.

Please elaborate. Is it necessarily a bad thing to raise new questions? Do you think creation 'science' answers more questions than it creates? Do you think ANY science answers more questions than it creates?

Then based on the pattern of logic put forth by the theory, you have to come to conslusions to fill in the large gaping holes. This is called thinking inside the box.

Again, I would love an explanation to this one.

 

[shernren]

Hey WorshipBassist, I hope we haven't scared you off.

Vossler's quite right by the way - the issue, when you come right down to it, is what is true? To me it's quite apparent that in a scientific sense evolution is true, and as both a committed Christian and as someone who has at times skeptically examined the Scriptures Christianity is true. So if Vossler takes offence with the way I posed my questions permit me to slightly realign them:

1. Is there any reason for me to accept that Young-Earth Creationism is true?

2. If I cannot see any reason to accept that Young-Earth Creationism is true, is there still any reason for me to believe that Christianity is true?

As to the Scriptures, don't get overwhelmed by the rhetoric surrounding its inevitable literalism. John Dickson (a well-known Australian evangelical apologist) has written a very helpful article on the Genre of Genesis; he examines the possibility and implications of reading Genesis non-"literalistically" without letting the science of origins enter the equation.

An analogy may help. Let’s take Jesus’ famous parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30 – 37). Suppose that some clear historical evidence were discovered that around AD 29 a certain fellow from Samaria was traveling along the Jerusalem-Jericho road and came upon a Jewish man stripped of his clothes and beaten half to death. The Samaritan promptly tended to his wounds and paid two denarii for his care at a nearby guesthouse. Would this chance discovery—perhaps in some passing report by Josephus or Philo—have any bearing on the actual point being made by Jesus in the parable, where precisely such details are narrated? The answer is: no. It would certainly be a happy coincidence if one of Jesus’ didactic illustrations turned out also to be a true story, but it would not alter the fact that the ‘parable’ itself—a well-known literary device of Jewish antiquity—was never intended to be heard as a historical narrative.

The point here is not that Genesis 1 is also a parable. Not at all. I am simply emphasizing that some parts of Scripture, rightly interpreted, commit us to no particular view of the factuality of what is described. I do not believe that Genesis 1 teaches a six-day creation but this is neither an endorsement of theistic evolution nor a denial of six-day creationism. It is simply a literary and historical statement. I am happy to leave the science to the scientists.​

 

[sonic purity]

I give up, you guys win. We could do this all day but it wouldnt get us anywhere. I just hope your study of evolution doenst lead you to deny God.

 

[huldah153]

Darwin based Origin upon William Paley's natural theology.

But he later became agnostic as a result of family bereavement.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gluadys --- for the sake of the lurkers, I'm [again] going to answer this in-depth:

On what basis do you claim your description of the "first heaven" "second heaven" is literal?

On the basis of Genesis 2, which reads ---

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Noticce that the word heavens is plural? This is because there is more than one heaven --- at minimum, two.

It was singular in Genesis 1.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

One heaven --- one earth.

But now, it's plural --- heavens.

So just how many heavens are there? If Genesis 1:1 mentions one heaven, then Genesis 2:1, after the creation week, mentions more than one; just how many are there?

Well --- we don't really know --- but we can identify three of them, because Paul mentions a third one.

...such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Conclusion: Scripture mentions three heavens, called heavens, and also called firmaments.

A firmament is nothing more than a containment field, with the atmosphere being contained in First Heaven - (Genesis 1:7-8); outer space being contained in the Second Heaven - (Psalm 19:1-6); and Heaven proper contained in the Third Heaven - (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

 

[Mallon]

I just hope your study of evolution doenst lead you to deny God.

On the contrary. My study of evolution has only brought me closer to God and to understanding His magnificent creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You need to take some courses in literature.

Do I now?

Have you taken any? (I suspect you have.) And if you have, and you can't tell when someone is allegorizing a literal passage, then I think I'll respectfully pass on your suggestion.

Can you explain what Hebrew Poetry is, and why it doesn't rhyme? Or give me one simple example of Contrasting Hebrew Poetry, and one simple example of Complimentary Hebrew Poetry? (I won't ask for a complex example.) If not, then please don't act like you know what I'm talking about.

 

[gluadys]

So just how many heavens are there?

Paul mentions 3 heavens.

A firmament is nothing more than a containment field,

Not literally it isn't. And what happened to the waters above the firmament? If you are interpreting the biblical cosmos literally, the firmament is a solid dome supporting the waters above.

So your whole description of the heavens is a figurative one in which you take the literal firmament to be a symbol for a containment field.


I suppose the literal waters symbolize outer space?


That is not interpreting the passages literally. That is devising symbolic meanings for the terms in the text so that they fit your conception of the structure of the cosmos.


So what do you think "literal" means since you insist that your clearly figurative interpretation of "heavens" is literal?