What would happen to the creation/evolution debate...

[public hermit]

For an alternative Christian viewpoint, this book has been well recommended:

Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins - Cosmology, Geology & Biology in Christian Perspective
​

It's written by Christians for Christians by five authors on the faculty of Wheaton College. All authors have PhD qualifications in their respective fields.
OB

And, Wheaton is not a politically liberal school. To the best of my knowledge it's fairly conservative. So it's not like the authors are out to push some liberal agenda, presumably.

 

[SLP]

Yes...it does. Have you never read Genesis? It is quite clear.

Quite clear that it is mere story telling, yes.

 

[Speedwell]

You don't need a PhD to understand Genesis, since it was originally written to an audience that likely had an education less than that of an 8th grader. You must consider the historical context of the inspired work, it wasn't solely written for the Information Era that we currently live in today. It was written in the common speech and understanding of those who lived 3,500 years ago. It says the world was created in six days, they would not have understood it in any other way. It says Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, they had no concept of human evolution to connect this with. You are reading the text through your modern lens, that's the problem.

And you're reading it as historical-positivist narrative, an historiographical genre that wasn't even attempted by humans until a couple hundred years ago.

 

[Jonaitis]

And you're reading it as historical-positivist narrative, an historiographical genre that wasn't even attempted by humans until a couple hundred years ago.

How does Jesus quote the Old Testament? As historical, unless you can prove it wrong?

 

[Speedwell]

How does Jesus quote the Old Testament? As historical, unless you can prove it wrong?

He quotes Genesis as authoritative. In most cases, as I remember, He makes it clear that He is referencing the texts themselves, not the events underlying them. What He thought of the historicity of those texts is nowhere recorded.

 

[Mathetes66]

"What is "advanced teaching?"

I don't know. I never said that. You misquoted me.

Millions of Christians around the world who believe in creation, instead of evolution & the numbers are growing. Polling data to support that?

Already gave some. Perhaps you missed it.

Here are a few more.

A recent survey of public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries did include one Muslim country, Turkey. The study found that about 25% of adults in Turkey agree with the statement, “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” well below the United States (at 40%). The result is all the more WORRISOME, because Turkey is one of the most educated & secular of Muslim countries. A recent sociological study analyzing religious patterns in Muslim countries (Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan) included a question about evolution as an example of an idea that challenges a “fundamental religious belief widely held by Muslims”. The respondents were asked:

“Do you agree or disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution?” Only 16% of Indonesians, 14% of Pakistanis, 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians & 22% of Turks agree that Darwin’s theory is probably or most certainly true (see chart, page 1637). The former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, already showing differences in religious patterns with other countries in the study, had the highest fraction that accepted evolutionary theory. In fact, only 28% of Kazakhs thought that evolution is false.

[Salman Hameed - Bracing for Islamic Creationism - (www.sciencemag.org), Science Vol 322 December 12, 2008]

Even Richard Dawkins stated that Islamic influence is the likely explanation for the growing popularity of creationist beliefs in Britain, where a recent poll found that 30% of teenagers agree with the idea of “intelligent design.”

[Mark Henderson, Science Editor - Professor Richard Dawkins wants to 'CONVERT' Islamic world to evolution - The Times Online, August 22, 2009]

It seems quite obvious 30% of the teenagers in Britain aren't all Muslim so this may be exaggerated as well as Dr Dawkin's 'zeal for 'converting' the whole Islamic world to evolution. I wish he would quit 'stealing' our Christian terms.

Then you must be an expert - weird, I've not seen you providing pro-creation evidence on this forum. Must have missed it.

Expert? I have & yes you did.

Well, sure - to admit otherwise is seen as a failure via indoctrination.

I could use the ad hominem as well & say the same thing of yourself concerning evolution, 'via indoctrination.'

Or, you could just read some of the threads here. Other than analogies, bible verses, out of context quotes, diversions, etc., I really think the OP is onto something.

I think not. We obviously have a difference of opinion.

Carry on your indoctrination zeal for the choir & as fast as you can, send some money to Dr. Dawkins to help him in his conversion crusade of the Islamic world. Might even need to buy him a BIG tent!

 

[Jonaitis]

He quotes Genesis as authoritative. In most cases, as I remember, He makes it clear that He is referencing the texts themselves, not the events underlying them. What He thought of the historicity of those texts is nowhere recorded.

I should have said referenced, instead of just quoted. He referenced several historical events in Genesis. So yes, what he thought of the historical events in Genesis are recorded.

Noah and the Flood

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:37-39).

Adam and Eve, Marriage and the Creation

"And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?' He answered them, 'What did Moses command you?' They said, 'Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.' And Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, "God made them male and female. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate'" (Mark 10:2-9).

Abel really was murdered by his brother Cain

"Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation" (Matthew 23:34-36).

Lot and the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

"Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:28-30).

 

[JohnAshton]

Yes...it does. Have you never read Genesis? It is quite clear.

No, Jonaitis, your doctrine is only for you, but it does not rule out evolution: that is quite clear in Genesis, which is not a literal but rather symbolic narrative of First Man and First Woman in the Creation.

 

[JohnAshton]

How does Jesus quote the Old Testament? As historical, unless you can prove it wrong?

No, Jonaitis, that is your assertion, so you have to support it before anyone can prove it wrong.

 

[Occams Barber]

You don't need a PhD to understand Genesis, since it was originally written to an audience that likely had an education less than that of an 8th grader. You must consider the historical context of the inspired work, it wasn't solely written for the Information Era that we currently live in today. It was written in the common speech and understanding of those who lived 3,500 years ago. It says the world was created in six days, they would not have understood it in any other way. It says Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, they had no concept of human evolution to connect this with. You are reading the text through your modern lens, that's the problem.

Arguing that Genesis is written in simple language is not an argument that it should be taken literally.

I've given you two separate authoritative references (BioLogos and the book - Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins) Both references are written by and for Christians and support the concept of evolution.

I get the impression that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that there is a valid, alternative Christian opinion.

OB

 

[Jonaitis]

Arguing that Genesis is written in simple language is not an argument that it should be taken literally.

I've given you two separate authoritative references (BioLogos and the book - Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins) Both references are written by and for Christians and support the concept of evolution.

I get the impression that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that there is a valid, alternative Christian opinion.

OB

It is interesting how there are people who clearly show their lack of biblical knowledge, yet pride themselves as experts against the Christian faith. Jesus was not the only one who quoted Genesis as historical, literal, typological and authoritative. You have the histories, the prophets, the gospel accounts, the epistles to support that this had always been accepted as the way to read it. I am not going to quote every single place, that is up for you all to do on your own time.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Arguing that Genesis is written in simple language is not an argument that it should be taken literally.
I've given you two separate authoritative references xxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyyyy Both references are written by and for Christians and support the concept of evolution.
I get the impression that you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that there is a valid, alternative Christian opinion.
OB

< shrugs > Take it if God Reveals it to you. If not, then there's nothing to take/ understand.

 

[Speedwell]

Yet figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and never occasioned the vicious condemnation heaped on them by Evangelical Protestants in recent years. What is really at stake here? What essential point of Christian doctrine depends on the Genesis stories being 100% accurate literal history?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

How does Jesus quote the Old Testament? As historical, unless you can prove it wrong?

Jesus spoke the Father's Word as the Father's Word, TRUTH.

There is nothing to prove - it is Revealed to little children.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yet figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself....

Not.

 

[Speedwell]

Not.

LOL! So easily you dismiss the writings of the Fathers, and even Midrash.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

LOL! So easily you dismiss the writings of the Fathers, and even Midrash.

Not.

State a point, so that it may be evaluated. Even IF AN APOSTLE stated a message was from GOD, it was (and is) TO BE TESTED and VERIFIED FIRST....

FIRST, BEFORE ACCEPTING IT.

 

[JohnAshton]

Speedwell said: Yet figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself...

Not.

Oh, yes, indeed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Speedwell said: Yet figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself...

Oh, yes, indeed.

In man's mind, like falsees, yes indeed.

Not in reality. Thankfully.

 

[JohnAshton]

In man's mind, like falsees, yes indeed.

Not in reality. Thankfully.

In reality, indeed yes.