Multicultural Views on Creation/Evolution

[Fortran]

Hello all,

I was raised in the American "Bible Belt" with a conservative fundamental upbringing. As I have matured and looked to the Bible and outside my own little fundamental world, I have admittedly become quite disenchanted with conservative Evangelical American 'segment' of Christianity (no offense).

One of the things typically emphasized by the group is a very literal six day Creation account; doubting this almost seems likened to blasphemy at times. From a personal standpoint, right now, I am just trying to kind of 'gloss' over the specifics of the Earth and its origins, because I think it can become a bit of a trap that takes our focus from more pressing issues.

It seems as if Americans are by far the most vocal on the issue. With all that aside, I am curious what is the prevailing opinion of Creation/evolution in other cultures - European, Canadian, South African, Indian, etc? Do they believe that it is very important to adhere to a strict six-day Creationist model, see no problem combining evolution and God, or just pay little attention to the issue?

Thanks!

 

[paloma22]

Canadian here, Young Earth Creationist all the way! Not because I am a Canadian, but because the Bible teaches it clearly! (and that's where the evidence leads to.) Culture should really have no bearing in this as the Bible message is not culturally bent.

Does this mean your not saved if you don't believe this? No!

But for some people, the destruction of Genesis, or the issues in Genesis, (I.e talking serpents and 930 year men) can cause insurmountable barriers to finding Jesus and the Gospel.

For these people, there is amazing news, Genesis can be trusted in all it says right down to the talking animals.

The foundation of any building is the most important aspect. Destroy this, and the building cannot stand. This is why Satan's attack concentrates on Genesis!

So in one way, its vitally important for some people. But if you can believe some form of "evolution" and still be saved, great for you! ( The good news is that Genesis clearly implies micro-evolution, so, science and the Bible are in total agreement!

No worries!

Blessings

Paloma

 

[Hoghead1]

Hello all,

I was raised in the American "Bible Belt" with a conservative fundamental upbringing. As I have matured and looked to the Bible and outside my own little fundamental world, I have admittedly become quite disenchanted with conservative Evangelical American 'segment' of Christianity (no offense).

One of the things typically emphasized by the group is a very literal six day Creation account; doubting this almost seems likened to blasphemy at times. From a personal standpoint, right now, I am just trying to kind of 'gloss' over the specifics of the Earth and its origins, because I think it can become a bit of a trap that takes our focus from more pressing issues.

It seems as if Americans are by far the most vocal on the issue. With all that aside, I am curious what is the prevailing opinion of Creation/evolution in other cultures - European, Canadian, South African, Indian, etc? Do they believe that it is very important to adhere to a strict six-day Creationist model, see no problem combining evolution and God, or just pay little attention to the issue?

Thanks!

The vast majority of Christians in Western Europe, anyway, have no trouble with evolution. The big flap was well over in England by the end of the nineteenth century. Given that the Catholic Church has about a billion members and given that the Pope has sanctified evolution, I'd say about the only place were evolution is still a problem is the good, old American Bible Belt.

 

[Hoghead1]

Canadian here, Young Earth Creationist all the way! Not because I am a Canadian, but because the Bible teaches it clearly! (and that's where the evidence leads to.) Culture should really have no bearing in this as the Bible message is not culturally bent.

Does this mean your not saved if you don't believe this? No!

But for some people, the destruction of Genesis, or the issues in Genesis, (I.e talking serpents and 930 year men) can cause insurmountable barriers to finding Jesus and the Gospel.

For these people, there is amazing news, Genesis can be trusted in all it says right down to the talking animals.

The foundation of any building is the most important aspect. Destroy this, and the building cannot stand. This is why Satan's attack concentrates on Genesis!

So in one way, its vitally important for some people. But if you can believe some form of "evolution" and still be saved, great for you! ( The good news is that Genesis clearly implies micro-evolution, so, science and the Bible are in total agreement!

No worries!

Blessings

Paloma

Either Adam as created after the animals (Gen. 1) or before the animals (Gen.2). It can't be both. Also, this "micro-vs-macro" talk is unscientific. Only unscientifically untrained laity think in terms of micro vs. macro. Those distinctions are out he window in real science. The reason is that the laws of nature apply everywhere. hence, it is arbitrary and irrational to posit some stopping point beyond which the evolutionary process cannot proceed.

 

[hedrick]

It may well be that US is the core of support for creationism, but support is broader than suggested by posting 3. See http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634. The Muslim world is even less in favor of evolution than the US. Europe, however, is largely accepting of evolution. I haven't found complete results from the non-Muslim third world, but here's some data for Latin America: http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/chapter-8-religion-and-science/. Note that there's a range from US levels to European levels, but acceptance seems higher than here most places.

 

[paloma22]

Either Adam as created after the animals (Gen. 1) or before the animals (Gen.2). It can't be both. Also, this "micro-vs-macro" talk is unscientific. Only unscientifically untrained laity think in terms of micro vs. macro. Those distinctions are out he window in real science. The reason is that the laws of nature apply everywhere. hence, it is arbitrary and irrational to posit some stopping point beyond which the evolutionary process cannot proceed.

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/god-created-animals-man-and-woman-in-that-order/

SNIP >>>Genesis 2 is not a different account of creation. It is an expansion of, and comment upon, the events of Day Six of creation. When Genesis 2:19 states “The LORD God formed every beast of the field ...,” the Hebrew verb can be translated as a pluperfect. A better translation would be “Now the LORD God had formed ...,” which is how it is rendered in the NIV. When read as a pluperfect, there is no contradiction between the order of creation. God made animals first, then people. Correctly read, Genesis 2 does not contradict the order given in Genesis 1. Even if one accepts the translation of Genesis 2:19 with a simple past tense, there are ways of interpreting the whole verse that do not contradict the order of creation given in Gen. 1.<<<

 

[Hoghead1]

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/god-created-animals-man-and-woman-in-that-order/

SNIP >>>Genesis 2 is not a different account of creation. It is an expansion of, and comment upon, the events of Day Six of creation. When Genesis 2:19 states “The LORD God formed every beast of the field ...,” the Hebrew verb can be translated as a pluperfect. A better translation would be “Now the LORD God had formed ...,” which is how it is rendered in the NIV. When read as a pluperfect, there is no contradiction between the order of creation. God made animals first, then people. Correctly read, Genesis 2 does not contradict the order given in Genesis 1. Even if one accepts the translation of Genesis 2:19 with a simple past tense, there are ways of interpreting the whole verse that do not contradict the order of creation given in Gen. 1.<<<

Sorry, doesn't even come close. Below, is my explanation why I say that.

1. 
   When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
   
   
   
   Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
   
   
   
   Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
   
   “The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
   
   
   
   Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
   
   
   
   There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
   
   
   
   There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
   
   
   
   There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
   
   
   
   Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
   
   
   
   Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[Papias]

As I have matured and looked to the Bible and outside my own little fundamental world, I have admittedly become quite disenchanted with conservative Evangelical American 'segment' of Christianity (no offense)......

It seems as if Americans are by far the most vocal on the issue. With all that aside, I am curious what is the prevailing opinion of Creation/evolution in other cultures - European, Canadian, South African, Indian, etc?

First of all, note that another *culture* will often have a different religion, and hence a different scripture, and hence a different creation story in that scripture.

For instance, Hindu creationists of course wouldn't care what this or that Bible says, but rather look to the Vedas, etc. There are several different stories there (note that Genesis has two different stories itself). Here is probably the most widely accepted one:

And one from China:

You can find tons more creationist stories by searching on youtube, the web, etc.

Do they believe that it is very important to adhere to a strict six-day Creationist model, see no problem combining evolution and God, or just pay little attention to the issue?

Thanks!

In every culture, there will be some that deny scientific evidence on any issue (vaccines, the moon landing, germs, evolution, etc.) Those who deny evolution are called "creationists". Creationists generally take their culture's sacred scripture literally about origins - hence the evolution denial.

The interesting thing is that all the creationists from different cultures disagree with each other - because their stories are all different. For instance, in addition to the Indian story above, the Chinese story involves sequential separations, starting with Yin and Yang, then hot and cold, etc. The Japanese story is different too, and there are dozens of other stories (Zulu, Mayan, Norse, and so on).

Evolution, on the other hand, is supported by some believers of all these cultures, all of whom see their God as the one doing the creating using evolution. Thus evolution has the broadest acceptance (due to the evidence), and is the only story that actually has cross-cultural appeal.

Do they ...see no problem combining evolution and God,...?

Thanks!

Mostly, that's exactly what people do the world over. Since there are not many Atheists, most of the "accept evolution" people are accepting evolution as the way their God created. For instance, in India, 80% accept evolution, with only 20% taking the video story above as literal history. The countries with the most support for creationism are usually the strongly Islamic countries like Iran. Other countries can be seen in this graph.

http://ethology.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EvolutionStats.png

In Christ-

Papias

 

[paloma22]

First of all, note that another *culture* will often have a different religion, and hence a different scripture, and hence a different creation story in that scripture.

For instance, Hindu creationists of course wouldn't care what this or that Bible says, but rather look to the Vedas, etc. There are several different stories there (note that Genesis has two different stories itself). Here is probably the most widely accepted one:

And one from China:

You can find tons more creationist stories by searching on youtube, the web, etc.



In every culture, there will be some that deny scientific evidence on any issue (vaccines, the moon landing, germs, evolution, etc.) Those who deny evolution are called "creationists". Creationists generally take their culture's sacred scripture literally about origins - hence the evolution denial.

The interesting thing is that all the creationists from different cultures disagree with each other - because their stories are all different. For instance, in addition to the Indian story above, the Chinese story involves sequential separations, starting with Yin and Yang, then hot and cold, etc. The Japanese story is different too, and there are dozens of other stories (Zulu, Mayan, Norse, and so on).

Evolution, on the other hand, is supported by some believers of all these cultures, all of whom see their God as the one doing the creating using evolution. Thus evolution has the broadest acceptance (due to the evidence), and is the only story that actually has cross-cultural appeal.



Mostly, that's exactly what people do the world over. Since there are not many Atheists, most of the "accept evolution" people are accepting evolution as the way their God created. For instance, in India, 80% accept evolution, with only 20% taking the video story above as literal history. The countries with the most support for creationism are usually the strongly Islamic countries like Iran. Other countries can be seen in this graph.

http://ethology.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EvolutionStats.png

In Christ-

Papias

Only the first video would play for me, thanks for posting. After watching that first one ( Hindu creation story) it so sounds like Genesis but twisted and colourful.

I love seeing how so many creation stories sound like Genesis. Because this is exactly what we would expect to see.

After Noah, the peoples of the earth spread out. At first, around camp fires, the true truth was told by Noah and his sons to the whole family. As time past, and people moved around, some lost the truth due to sin, neglect etc... But the basic story would be retained and passed on in different cultures that drifted from truth. But you can see the basic core is still there.

Amazing proof that Genesis contains the true truth!

 

[Papias]

I love seeing how so many creation stories sound like Genesis. Because this is exactly what we would expect to see.

Well, they should sound similar because they are all creation stories. After all, in general, a creation story is going to start with the simple and make it more complex - just like how anything actually progresses - such as evolution itself. We know they aren't corruptions of the Genesis story because many of them were made up long before the Genesis story was made up.

In Christ-

Papias