Is denying evolution part of Christian theology?

[philadiddle]

In some cases, such as Genesis 1.

Done.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Done.

Interesting. I was wondering if you noticed whether or not there is actually 2 creation accounts in Genesis? Each has a different perspective to shed on what happened. Understanding this is key in understanding the theological significance to the passages.

See, in Genesis 1, we have a majestic creation account of the whole created order, with mankind in the image of God as man's pinnacle. But to leave the story here would confuse the reader, since the Israelites reading this would know that man is broken and fallen. So how could this pinnacle of creation made in the image of God be so far removed from God?

The answer is a second story in Genesis 2 that focuses specifically on the first 2 people.

So we have a creation account of everything, then a small backpeddle to specifically the creation of man, and a moving forward in a different path of the same story. This means your attempt at trying to put the interpretation of adam in chapter one as mankind onto the adam that appears in chapter 2 has fallen on loose footing.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

So are the geneologies also allegory? The Genesis one you may argue is a literary device to move the story from the primeval naratives to the intended historical account of Abram, but what about the Chronicler's geneology record of Adam forward?

I don't see the geneology as being particularly important. The author might have believed that Adam was a historical figure, or he might have been relating one character to another (literally). The fact that a geneology is included doesn't necessitate that Adam was a historical figure. It could very well be that none of the people listed in the geneology of Genesis 5 were historical figures.

Hosea says like Adam they have broken the covenant.

This doesn't necessitate that Adam was a historical figure. The creation myth of Genesis was allergorical, IMO. Adam was a character in this myth. This would not be inconsistent with Hosea.

Corinthians: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
It was the historical fall that brought death to mankind.

Again, it doesn't have to be historical. In fact the evidence points against it having been historical.

Not everything needs to be interpreted literally, IMO. Allegory can have as much moral/spiritual value as a factual, historical account.

 

[shernren]

Timothy used a literal interpretation of creation to illustrate a point about women.

Firstly, it was Paul who wrote it in 1 Timothy.

Secondly, do you really take 1 Timothy 2:8-15 literally? Because AiG doesn't. Take a look at this article.

Mind you, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is the only place in the Pauline epistles where Paul specifically mentions Eve to make a teaching point. (He only refers to Eve again in 2 Cor. 11:3, and then only as an example of deception; he could have compared the Corinthian church being led astray to, say, Isaac being deceived by Jacob, and his intent would still have been communicated.)

This is important because what is at stake for YECs is specifically the commitment to taking all of Genesis 2 literally. There are plenty of TEs out there (and I am one of them) who would wholeheartedly say Amen to there being an actual Adam, a first sinner, and because of that they (and I) are at complete liberty to take the entire Pauline literature literally while taking Genesis 1-11 figuratively. But 1 Timothy 2:8-15 has not just Adam but Eve, and specifically says Eve was deceived first. That's a bit harder for liberals to swallow, and you would have expected AiG to make a whole lot of it.

Instead, read the article. There are many motivational examples of lovely women from the Bible, a lot of "it's okay, we're equal in God's sight even if you are meant to submit" talk. But what happened to 1 Timothy 2:8-15? What happened to the "Paul mentions Eve and expects us to take it literally" headlines? It's buried in the middle of a whole pile of other verses and left there without any explanation.

And we can guess why that is so, because look at the byline: this article was written by one Becky Stelzer, a woman. I guess she would have found it embarrassing to expound on this:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
[1Ti 2:12 ESV]
​

Hey - hang on Becky, who are you to teach me about sexuality and the Bible? You're supposed to learn in all submissiveness and remain quiet, not publish articles in a magazine (not I, but Paul said so!). Failing that, AiG should have slapped a "Not For Men" sign over the article so that she didn't inadvertently teach anybody on the male side of the human race.

AiG claims to take Genesis seriously; and yet in the one place where Paul uses Eve to make a point, AiG ignores him flat out. It's a little like saying you think Einstein was a genius, except for this weird little theory he had called Relativity, or saying you like Blizzard but think Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft are rubbish.

Corinthians: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
It was the historical fall that brought death to mankind.

So will all be made alive in Christ - even those who don't believe in Him?

 

[hedrick]

But 1 Timothy 2:8-15 has not just Adam but Eve, and specifically says Eve was deceived first. That's a bit harder for liberals to swallow, and you would have expected AiG to make a whole lot of it.

That depends upon the point you think Paul (if it was Paul) was making. There's an ambiguity in the Greek. He could also have been saying that no woman should teach her husband. If so, the point of the Adam and Eve story would be that Adam deferred to his wife when he shouldn't have. After all, Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't. I think that's a much more likely sense than the more general one, from which we would have to conclude that women are so easy to deceive that no man can ever rely on them. The problem is that in his letters Paul talks about a few females who seem to be leaders of one sort of another. Furthermore, if females are so unreliable that they can't teach men, why do we let them teach women? Does it matter less if women get the wrong idea? I doubt that Paul would think so.

My reading of Paul is one that nobody is going to like, because it's not ideologically pure in either direction. I think Paul had in mind that the husband was in one way or another the "head" of the marriage. I don't think it meant what head often does for us, which is boss. But there's still a difference in roles. However he acknowledged at least one female deacon and one female Apostle. Thus I believe the passage on deacons is actually giving qualifications for female deacons. It's not so clear about elders, and i note that there's no corresponding statement about qualifications for female elders. That may be because in the 1st Cent no one would have thought of women in such a capacity. If so, then since in our time it's a scandal *not* to have female elders, you could reasonably say that we are free to make such a decision.

 

[hedrick]

And to get back to the point of this discussion, please think about what it means to have myth in the Bible. Yes, Gen 1 and 2 are myths, but they are canonical myths. That means that they express things that are true, even though they aren't historical. You may or may not accept that concept, but if it's true, then it's perfectly appropriate for Jesus and Paul to cite them. Theologians who think that Gen has myths still use them when they're talking about creation and original sin.

 

[jpcedotal]

In several threads where non-Christians have asked "why do you believe?", several people have stated as a reason denial of evolution and other well-established scientific theories. Disagreement about mistakes over evolution has been interpreted by some as disagreeing over Christian theology (forbidden by the rules of the forum).

So I'd like to ask everyone what they think about the relationship between evolution and Christianity. Is part of Christian theology the denial of evolution? Is such denial an essential part of Christian theology?

Evolution takes away form the literal meaning of Genesis. Once one starts questioning Creation, then next natural step is to question the existence of a higher power.

Every word in the Bible is true. If one does not believe Genesis 1:1, how can one believe John 1:1?

 

[shernren]

That depends upon the point you think Paul (if it was Paul) was making. There's an ambiguity in the Greek. He could also have been saying that no woman should teach her husband. If so, the point of the Adam and Eve story would be that Adam deferred to his wife when he shouldn't have. After all, Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't. I think that's a much more likely sense than the more general one, from which we would have to conclude that women are so easy to deceive that no man can ever rely on them. The problem is that in his letters Paul talks about a few females who seem to be leaders of one sort of another. Furthermore, if females are so unreliable that they can't teach men, why do we let them teach women? Does it matter less if women get the wrong idea? I doubt that Paul would think so.

My reading of Paul is one that nobody is going to like, because it's not ideologically pure in either direction. I think Paul had in mind that the husband was in one way or another the "head" of the marriage. I don't think it meant what head often does for us, which is boss. But there's still a difference in roles. However he acknowledged at least one female deacon and one female Apostle. Thus I believe the passage on deacons is actually giving qualifications for female deacons. It's not so clear about elders, and i note that there's no corresponding statement about qualifications for female elders. That may be because in the 1st Cent no one would have thought of women in such a capacity. If so, then since in our time it's a scandal *not* to have female elders, you could reasonably say that we are free to make such a decision.

Indeed Paul does acknowledge women leaders, as does the rest of the New Testament. However the evidence for using "wife" and "husband" to translate 1 Tim 2:11-12 is sketchy at best. I'd say this for three reasons: one, the preceding commands have little to do with a husband-wife relationship either; two, the reason given has to do with Adam's being formed first, and not actually because the two were married; three, it is hard imagining a wife being bold enough to teach other men if she cannot teach even her own husband!

John Stott's framework is to say that in 2:9 and 2:11-12, we have two pairs of timeless principles coupled with specific commands. So the timeless principle in v9 is modesty, whereas the specific command is to not wear jewelry and adornments. (It's exactly the opposite today - braided hair and most jewelry is quite modest, whereas most cheap clothes aren't!) Similarly, the timeless principle in v11 is submissiveness, and the specific command is not to teach - which is a function of the specific situation where women weren't educated and a female priesthood would have evoked images of the temple cults.

But not much of this comes literally from the text - a lot of non-literal interpretation is required!

 

[CarryingMyCross]

Is denying evolution part of Christian theology?

Yes I believe it is. Here's why:

Evolution teaches that we are a bi-product of millions of years, which means death has occurred for millions of years. If this is so, then the Bible is wrong as it clearly says death is a result of Adam and Eve's sin.

If Adam and Eve never brought about death through their sin, then we have no need for Christ, for Christ was the second Adam, the once-for-all perfect sacrifice for the redemption of all sin.

Let us not forget that Christ himself referred to Genesis when resolving a question about divorce (Matthew 19:4). If Genesis is a reliable source for Christ to refer to, then it must be valid and true for all Christians. We simply cannot pick-and-choose the bits we like. If we argue that Genesis 1 is not true and accurate and reliable - at what point do we believe we can start to rely on God's Word? Exodus? or perhaps Leviticus? The fact that there are genealogies SHOWS us how reliable the Bible is from the very first word.

With regard to the earlier remark about the "breath of life" - the breath of life is not placed into the embrio in any way. Conception merely passes on what Adam received from God who breathed life into him. It also indicates a difference between us as people and animals. Again, another thing to indicate that we are not decendants of a single pool of geneic life as Darwin would suggest.

 

[shernren]

With regard to the earlier remark about the "breath of life" - the breath of life is not placed into the embrio in any way. Conception merely passes on what Adam received from God who breathed life into him. It also indicates a difference between us as people and animals. Again, another thing to indicate that we are not decendants of a single pool of geneic life as Darwin would suggest.

... then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
[Gen 2:7 ESV]

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
[Gen 2:19 ESV]

The Bible itself says that the "breath of life" does not distinguish us from any other animal. (And that should be obvious. Does a dog breathe? Is it alive? Then it has the breath of life!)

The fact that there are genealogies SHOWS us how reliable the Bible is from the very first word.

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.
[1Ti 1:3-4 ESV]

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
[Tit 3:9 ESV]

 

[gluadys]

Evolution takes away form the literal meaning of Genesis. Once one starts questioning Creation, then next natural step is to question the existence of a higher power.

Every word in the Bible is true. If one does not believe Genesis 1:1, how can one believe John 1:1?

Evolution does not require questioning creation. Evolution does not require questioning the existence of a higher power. Evolution does not require believing the bible is false. Evolution does not cast doubt on Genesis 1:1.

Evolution is not atheism.

Christians who accept evolution see it as a mode of creation pertinent to living things (has nothing to do with the creation of heaven, earth, land, sea, sun, moon, or stars). And even within the biological realm, it has to do with the origin of diverse species.

Even most non-evolutionary creationists agree that diverse species have originated through evolution. They just claim there are limits to how much diversity can come from one original kind.

 

[jpcedotal]

Evolution is anti-God

 

[gluadys]

Is denying evolution part of Christian theology?

Yes I believe it is. Here's why:

Evolution teaches that we are a bi-product of millions of years, which means death has occurred for millions of years. If this is so, then the Bible is wrong as it clearly says death is a result of Adam and Eve's sin.

Actually, it doesn't. Paul specifically notes that after Adam, all people died as Adam did, because all people sinnned. It is for their own sin people die, not for Adam's sin.

The implication is that if someone does not sin, that person should not die. And, of course, that is precisely the case with Christ. He did not need to die because of sin, but willingly laid down his life to save others.

If Adam and Eve never brought about death through their sin, then we have no need for Christ, for Christ was the second Adam, the once-for-all perfect sacrifice for the redemption of all sin.

What if Adam and Eve had not sinned, but Cain or Abel did? Would we not still need Christ for redemption from the sin they brought into the world? What if you yourself were the first sinner in all history, would you not still need Christ as your Redeemer?

Adam's sin brought death into the world, but it is the sin of everyone that necessitates a Redeemer, not the sin of Adam alone.

Further, the link of sin with death applies specifically to humans. As Paul says, the sting of death is sin. Death for creatures who do not sin is perfectly compatible with everything Genesis and Paul say about human death and sin before and after the fall.

If Genesis is a reliable source for Christ to refer to, then it must be valid and true for all Christians. We simply cannot pick-and-choose the bits we like. If we argue that Genesis 1 is not true and accurate and reliable - at what point do we believe we can start to rely on God's Word?

No one is arguing that Genesis 1 is not true and accurate and reliable. (And anyway the Adam & Eve story is not in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2-3). The point is that it can be true, accurate and reliable without being interpreted in the manner of concordant literalism.

 

[CarryingMyCross]

... then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
[Gen 2:7 ESV]

Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
[Gen 2:19 ESV]

The Bible itself says that the "breath of life" does not distinguish us from any other animal. (And that should be obvious. Does a dog breathe? Is it alive? Then it has the breath of life!)

You missed the very point I was alluding to:
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

God did not do this for the animals - only for Adam. It sets us apart from the animals as well as the fact that we were created in His image.

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.
[1Ti 1:3-4 ESV]

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
[Tit 3:9 ESV]

Wow - so you think I'm a false teacher? (which is the section you have taken these quotes from.) I was merely using the genealogies to highlight the consistency of God's Word. If we cannot see the consistency of God's Word, how can we know it is reliable? How do we know where to start trusting it from? Or do you (global "you") simply ignore Genesis to better suit your views on evolution?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Firstly, it was Paul who wrote it in 1 Timothy.

Secondly, do you really take 1 Timothy 2:8-15 literally? Because AiG doesn't. Take a look at this article.

Mind you, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 is the only place in the Pauline epistles where Paul specifically mentions Eve to make a teaching point. (He only refers to Eve again in 2 Cor. 11:3, and then only as an example of deception; he could have compared the Corinthian church being led astray to, say, Isaac being deceived by Jacob, and his intent would still have been communicated.)

This is important because what is at stake for YECs is specifically the commitment to taking all of Genesis 2 literally. There are plenty of TEs out there (and I am one of them) who would wholeheartedly say Amen to there being an actual Adam, a first sinner, and because of that they (and I) are at complete liberty to take the entire Pauline literature literally while taking Genesis 1-11 figuratively. But 1 Timothy 2:8-15 has not just Adam but Eve, and specifically says Eve was deceived first. That's a bit harder for liberals to swallow, and you would have expected AiG to make a whole lot of it.

Instead, read the article. There are many motivational examples of lovely women from the Bible, a lot of "it's okay, we're equal in God's sight even if you are meant to submit" talk. But what happened to 1 Timothy 2:8-15? What happened to the "Paul mentions Eve and expects us to take it literally" headlines? It's buried in the middle of a whole pile of other verses and left there without any explanation.

And we can guess why that is so, because look at the byline: this article was written by one Becky Stelzer, a woman. I guess she would have found it embarrassing to expound on this:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
[1Ti 2:12 ESV]
​

Hey - hang on Becky, who are you to teach me about sexuality and the Bible? You're supposed to learn in all submissiveness and remain quiet, not publish articles in a magazine (not I, but Paul said so!). Failing that, AiG should have slapped a "Not For Men" sign over the article so that she didn't inadvertently teach anybody on the male side of the human race.

AiG claims to take Genesis seriously; and yet in the one place where Paul uses Eve to make a point, AiG ignores him flat out. It's a little like saying you think Einstein was a genius, except for this weird little theory he had called Relativity, or saying you like Blizzard but think Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft are rubbish.



So will all be made alive in Christ - even those who don't believe in Him?

As for the authorship, I knew it was Paul. If you look at my list you'll see I wasn't refering to authors, only book names (Corinthians).

As for the rest... you totally pwned me. I got nothin'. I just hope you are a woman so I don't have to listen to your answer (according to Paul in Timothy anyway).

 

[shernren]

You missed the very point I was alluding to:
then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

God did not do this for the animals - only for Adam. It sets us apart from the animals as well as the fact that we were created in His image.

You're not reading Genesis 2 literally.

Firstly, the "breath of life" is simply the breath that living beings have - at least, it's consistently used in this sense throughout the rest of Genesis.

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
[Genesis 1:30]

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
[Genesis 6:17]

Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.
[Genesis 7:15]

Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
[Genesis 7:22]

Why, that last quotation even sounds like God breathed the breath of life into the nostrils of animals as well as people! Try reading these verses as if they're only referring to people and see where that gets you.

Secondly, in Genesis 2 the effect of having "the breath of life" in his nostrils was that Adam became a "living creature", which is the exact term used for the animals later. Even if God breathing into him was unique, it apparently did not set him apart from the animals.

If you read Genesis 1 carefully you'll see that man is made in God's image because God can delegate responsibility to him.

Wow - so you think I'm a false teacher? (which is the section you have taken these quotes from.) I was merely using the genealogies to highlight the consistency of God's Word. If we cannot see the consistency of God's Word, how can we know it is reliable? How do we know where to start trusting it from? Or do you (global "you") simply ignore Genesis to better suit your views on evolution?

I think creationism "promotes speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith". I think it is "unprofitable and worthless". The only reason I still bother to think carefully about creationism is because I foresee that the majority of Christians I will encounter in future will be creationists, and I need to know how to edify them, while neither letting falsehood stand uncorrected or tearing their faith down beyond repair.

If pressed I would say that I do think creationism is false teaching. But there are those who wilfully teach it and those who simply pass it on.

As for ignoring Genesis, heavens no! Genesis is very important. It's the first book of the Bible after all. It's just not meant to be interpreted literally. I can take my mother seriously when she says "Clean up your room, or you're so dead!" without taking her literally, either.

 

[Jase]

Is denying evolution part of Christian theology?

Yes I believe it is. Here's why:

Evolution teaches that we are a bi-product of millions of years, which means death has occurred for millions of years. If this is so, then the Bible is wrong as it clearly says death is a result of Adam and Eve's sin.

If Adam and Eve never brought about death through their sin, then we have no need for Christ, for Christ was the second Adam, the once-for-all perfect sacrifice for the redemption of all sin.

Let us not forget that Christ himself referred to Genesis when resolving a question about divorce (Matthew 19:4). If Genesis is a reliable source for Christ to refer to, then it must be valid and true for all Christians. We simply cannot pick-and-choose the bits we like. If we argue that Genesis 1 is not true and accurate and reliable - at what point do we believe we can start to rely on God's Word? Exodus? or perhaps Leviticus? The fact that there are genealogies SHOWS us how reliable the Bible is from the very first word.

With regard to the earlier remark about the "breath of life" - the breath of life is not placed into the embrio in any way. Conception merely passes on what Adam received from God who breathed life into him. It also indicates a difference between us as people and animals. Again, another thing to indicate that we are not decendants of a single pool of geneic life as Darwin would suggest.

Death existed prior to Adam and Eve's "fall". Why do you think there was a Tree of Life in the Garden? That tree granted immortality. Adam and Eve never ate from it, therefore they were mortal and subject to death even prior to their fall.

You can believe what ever you want, we all know denial isn't just a river in Egypt. However, you'd have a very very hard time accepting the literal truth of Genesis if you understood the millions of pieces of evidence against it. Including the fact that there was no global flood, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, there is no dome above the Earth, the Earth is not flat or geocentric, all of humanity did not originate from 2 individual humans.... shall I go on?

There is absolutely no way to reconcile a literal Genesis with reality. The only way to believe it is to live in a state of cognitive dissonance, and pretend every piece of evidence in existence is a lie. Which in turn would make God a liar, since he put it there!

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Death existed prior to Adam and Eve's "fall". Why do you think there was a Tree of Life in the Garden? That tree granted immortality. Adam and Eve never ate from it, therefore they were mortal and subject to death even prior to their fall.

You can believe what ever you want, we all know denial isn't just a river in Egypt. However, you'd have a very very hard time accepting the literal truth of Genesis if you understood the millions of pieces of evidence against it. Including the fact that there was no global flood, the Earth is not 6,000 years old, there is no dome above the Earth, the Earth is not flat or geocentric, all of humanity did not originate from 2 individual humans.... shall I go on?

There is absolutely no way to reconcile a literal Genesis with reality. The only way to believe it is to live in a state of cognitive dissonance, and pretend every piece of evidence in existence is a lie. Which in turn would make God a liar, since he put it there!

I think you have things backwards. You are looking to creation to interpret scripture. That seems to be the opposite of the Biblical author's intentions. You should be using the Bible to change your view of the world, not the world to change your view of the Bible.

The fact is that evolution utlimately leads to a break down in morality and a rejection of God. It promotes philosophies that put the self first and without need for God. I'm not a scientist, and few on these forums actually are, so all we can do is speak of what others tell us the evidence says. And even those people grow up in traditions that tell them how to interpret the evidence for them.

The only way to believe science is pure, inbiased, and without agendas is to live in a state of pure cognitive dissonance.

 

[shernren]

I think you have things backwards. You are looking to creation to interpret scripture. That seems to be the opposite of the Biblical author's intentions. You should be using the Bible to change your view of the world, not the world to change your view of the Bible.

Chapter and verse please? It would be nice if you could support your assertions about the Bible from the Bible.

I think there are many points at which the Bible assumes prior knowledge, for example:

Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
[Romans 7:1]

Paul takes knowledge from outside the Bible - namely, that law holds over a man only as long as he lives (I don't know a chapter and verse for this; I could be wrong about it being outside the Bible) and uses it as a foundation for his argument.

The fact is that evolution ultimately leads to a break down in morality and a rejection of God. It promotes philosophies that put the self first and without need for God. I'm not a scientist, and few on these forums actually are, so all we can do is speak of what others tell us the evidence says. And even those people grow up in traditions that tell them how to interpret the evidence for them.

The only way to believe science is pure, inbiased, and without agendas is to live in a state of pure cognitive dissonance.

Like I've said previously, there are actually actual scientists floating around here. Ask and you might receive. As it is, I take lectures from the very same building where some of Australia's finest were radiodating water from the Murray-Darling basin to determine how quickly Australia is using up its groundwater.

And this leads to my second point: nobody here is telling you to accept Science as your saviour and lord. If anything, I believe that the whole problem with creationism is that it pays too much attention to science, not too little. Someone who doesn't believe that scientific accuracy isn't the only determinant of truth will believe that the Bible doesn't have to be scientifically accurate to be true, and that probably includes most TEs around here - so we're the ones who take science less seriously, not more.

But the least that we need to acknowledge is that science works. That radioactive dating which YECs often try to destroy, for example - that's basically the same science that happened in my university and helps to inform Australia about how to manage her water supplies right here, right now. If it doesn't work, we may well kill the breadbasket of an entire continent. Unfortunately this same science that works is often science that gives evidence about the age of the earth. And any honest creationist must reconcile these facts. Can you?

 

[The Penitent Man]

Teaching biblical Genesis would necessitate the contradiction of evolution. But personally I would not reject the latter whole-cloth. I don't spend a lot of time or energy contemplating the paradox created by these two opposing narratives. Contemplating paradoxes does to the mind what staring directly at the sun does to the eyes. A good piece of avidice for those who seek good mental health: Avoid logical paradoxes!

If a supercomputer was asked to solve a Zen riddle, it would fry its circuits before it came up with an answer. It would ponder and ruminate for a thousand years before finally reaching the conclusion that it had pondered and ruminated itself into a pile of melted slag.