If evolution is not true, what was the process of creation?

[Jamsie]

Hmm. I guess I'm not so quick to dismiss thousands of years of Church tradition as mere ossification. It wasn't me who first received those words from God, and there were a lot of smart dudes back then.

Yes, I wasn't so quick either, but then it is a difficult task to attempt to look at something with fresh "eyes". The questions and mystery aren't about who received the words but rather trying to understand the words....

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, I wasn't so quick either, but then it is a difficult task to attempt to look at something with fresh "eyes".

Why does the meaning need to be different now than it was then?

 

[Jamsie]

Why does the meaning need to be different now than it was then?

It doesn't, it perhaps was misinterpreted then and can be interpreted more correctly now. Just an interesting read...
How was the Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin?

 

[The Barbarian]

Aye, there's the rub. When statements contradict, how does one determine which is true?

"Truth cannot contradict truth."

If our theology contradicts reality, then as St. Augustine said, we must be willing to accept that our personal interpretations are wrong. Is it not significant that the core doctrines of Christianity are never contradicted by new discoveries?

 

[Resha Caner]

It doesn't, it perhaps was misinterpreted then and can be interpreted more correctly now.

Ideas synonymous with evolution have been around since the Ancient Greeks (and probably before). So it's pretty easy to find alternative interpretations to any text from any era.

But you should look at the traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis. It might give you a different perspective than looking to people who were on the fringes and considered heretics (such as Origen). Or you could be correct that everyone from Moses until now got it wrong, and you finally figured out the true interpretation.

 

[Resha Caner]

If our theology contradicts reality, then as St. Augustine said, we must be willing to accept that our personal interpretations are wrong. Is it not significant that the core doctrines of Christianity are never contradicted by new discoveries?

A platitude that does nothing to establish "reality". It means the same thing whether you say it in opposition to my position or I say it in opposition to yours.

 

[Christian_Follower]

The process of creation huh:

God spoke


Mic -drop

 

[Abraxos]

If you believe evolution is false, what then do you think or believe was the process of creation? Fair enough if you disagree with darwinian evolution, but think some other sort of theistic evolution process was involved, but if you don't agree with any kind of evolutionary theory how then did birds, animals, fish, humans, come into existence. I am asking about how God created these? Can that be found out by science?

Let me try and answer this with an unorthodox approach:

Spoiler: Chinese Radicals/Characters

China as you may well know is the one of the oldest and most enduring civilizations in history. Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism came about in 400 to 500 BC in China yet China is much older going back 2,500 BC; and before Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism there was another belief ― a belief in one God named, Shang Di. In the ancient Chinese writing which are known as Chinese radicals similar to the ancient Egyptians pictographs, it uses symbols to represent it's meaning.

You'll notice the Chinese radical for 'create', when broken down reveals a curious meaning; you'd think that to create something you create something with your hands, but the word create is shown to be the creation of man from dust, or to speak something into existence. From that rational, is simply speaking a miracle into existence not a satisfactory answer? The Bible always put emphasis on His Word, because the Word of God is powerful and alive. (Hebrews 4:12; Jeremiah 23:29).

That said, who knows, perhaps there is a scientific language to measure the mechanics behind a miracle, which in this case God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. (Proverbs 25:2).

 

[Jamsie]

Ideas synonymous with evolution have been around since the Ancient Greeks (and probably before). So it's pretty easy to find alternative interpretations to any text from any era.

But you should look at the traditional Jewish interpretation of Genesis. It might give you a different perspective than looking to people who were on the fringes and considered heretics (such as Origen). Or you could be correct that everyone from Moses until now got it wrong, and you finally figured out the true interpretation.

I think this is a wise approach to Biblical interpretation: “I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood.” Galileo

Traditional views of Genesis 1 varied considerably with Jewish scholars. If we believe that the translations we have today are accurate then why shouldn't we give reasoned thought to what Genesis 1 actually says? (And let us be honest my interpretation or anyone's interpretation is derived primarily based on the work of various researchers, writers, and scholars)

 

[Jamsie]

The process of creation huh:
God spoke
Mic -drop

True, each day states that God has not Done something but rather Said something, not to have made something but rather to have commanded something. That is what Genesis states and that is what is ignored as to its meaning....

 

[The Barbarian]

A platitude that does nothing to establish "reality". It means the same thing whether you say it in opposition to my position or I say it in opposition to yours.

It does, however, suggest that we should be willing to accept the figurative nature of the creation story, because doing otherwise would contradict the reality before us.

Mark Twain once said that "faith is believing what you know ain't so." Should never be like that.

 

[Resha Caner]

It does, however, suggest that we should be willing to accept the figurative nature of the creation story, because doing otherwise would contradict the reality before us.

Oy vey

 

[Colter]

Evolution IS the process of creation. Genesis was created by religious men based on speculation. They made no claims of writing by inspiration.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution IS the process of creation.

Yep. I believe that the men who wrote Genesis were inspired by God, though. That doesn't mean God dictated the story word for word, however.

 

[Jon Osterman]

I think, rather than ask nebulous "how" questions, we are better to ask concrete questions about observed facts.

For example, if man and animals were not created by the same processes, why do we share so much DNA? Were there dinosaurs? If so, when did they live and when did they die out? If not, what are the fossils we found? Why does radioactive dating indicate that the Earth is very old? Why do we see stars that are billions of light years away if there hasn't been enough time for their light to get to us? Why do models of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis produce exactly the right abundance of light elements? What is the Cosmic Microwave Background?

These are all question that science has answered. If young Earth creationism is to have any credibility, it has to answer them too.

I am strongly of the belief that young Earth creationism is pushing young people away from God. Their elders in the church tell them that the universe was created in 6 days and evolution and the Big Bang are false. But they go away and research this stuff themselves, see the evidence, and never trust their elders again turning away from God. One should not just stick one's head in the sand and pretend that the scientific facts do not exist. Young Earth creationists are doing the Devil's work for him.

 

[Colter]

I think, rather than ask nebulous "how" questions, we are better to ask concrete questions about observed facts.

For example, if man and animals were not created by the same processes, why do we share so much DNA? Were there dinosaurs? If so, when did they live and when did they die out? If not, what are the fossils we found? Why does radioactive dating indicate that the Earth is very old? Why do we see stars that are billions of light years away if there hasn't been enough time for their light to get to us? Why do models of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis produce exactly the right abundance of light elements? What is the Cosmic Microwave Background?

These are all question that science has answered. If young Earth creationism is to have any credibility, it has to answer them too.

I am strongly of the belief that young Earth creationism is pushing young people away from God. Their elders in the church tell them that the universe was created in 6 days and evolution and the Big Bang are false. But they go away and research this stuff themselves, see the evidence, and never trust their elders again turning away from God. One should not just stick one's head in the sand and pretend that the scientific facts do not exist. Young Earth creationists are doing the Devil's work for him.

Religion has always been slow to reform, it’s slow to recognize reformers as well.

 

[dms1972]

As far as I understood evolution at first (at about ten years old), it seemed and still seems to me quite a plausible hypothesis in that every creature has a distant ancestor (I didn't particularly understand natural selection at that age). I suspect most people do not look into the theory very deeply and accept it, and therefore for Christians they can hold it without a great deal of conflict with their Christian beliefs perhaps. However the theory has always been controversial when it comes to the descent of man.

But in discussions its not uncommon to see people saying to each other 'you don't understand evolution' sometimes they say evolution is simply 'change'. I think the Darwinian theory (and all theories of evolution) say much more than that. And I think this is a sort avoidance technique used by those who want to hold onto the theory and avoid dealing with any difficult questions. People who say this don't advance understanding (of what any theory of it actually is) one jot.

 

[dms1972]

Evolution IS the process of creation. Genesis was created by religious men based on speculation. They made no claims of writing by inspiration.

 

[dms1972]

Evolution IS the process of creation. Genesis was created by religious men based on speculation. They made no claims of writing by inspiration.

Is not evolution also based on speculation? Its an interpretation (one interpretation) of certain observations in nature. Now we have other observations that we did not have back in Darwin's day and we have to interpret those also.

I don't think the book of Genesis is revealing nuts and bolts science, but I don't think should go against science if its inspired and that has been the view for thousands of years. It says somewhere in the Talmud 'God spoke them, and Moses wrote them with tears.' The question for me is whether Darwian evolution is compatible with the book of Genesis.

 

[dms1972]

Evolution IS the process of creation. Genesis was created by religious men based on speculation. They made no claims of writing by inspiration.

Is not evolution also based on speculation? Its an interpretation (one interpretation) of certain observations in nature, seems to go against other areas of study (such as animal breeding) which suggest organisms say true to type. Now we have yet other observations (bacterial flagellum seemingly irreducibly complex) that we did not have back in Darwin's day and we have to interpret those also.

I don't think the book of Genesis is revealing nuts and bolts science, but I don't think it should go against science if its inspired and that has been the view for thousands of years. It says somewhere in the Talmud 'God spoke them, and Moses wrote them with tears.' The question for me is whether Darwian evolution is compatible with the book of Genesis. Some people seem to think its not.