Why does creation/evolution matter?

[TNF_13]

I must ask the question... why does it matter how God created things, as long as He is the one who created them? Correct me if I am wrong, but the entire point of the Creation story in Genesis is that God is the responsible party, not us, not anyone but Him. So if He poofed things into existence, or used complex biological processes, should not matter.

Thoughts?

 

[salt-n-light]

He didn't just create stuff. He created with purpose, and gave assignments to His creation. The hows reveals the thoughts of God and His intentions for His creations.

Example: Yes it's important that the mere fact of the existence of man and woman shows that there is a Creator. But how He fashioned them and gave them purpose also reveals the divine knowledge and wisdom of God. Sometimes evolutionists try to dumb it down through theories, theories that have influenced the way society view themselves and the world. The amount of hows that's been theorized, makes the hows of God not really important to find out, or have needed importance to our existence. How much of a likened image to God would I think of myself, how much important would I feel about the worth of my existence, of my soul, if I believed that I'm just an evolution of apes or just poofed into thin air?

 

[mark kennedy]

I must ask the question... why does it matter how God created things, as long as He is the one who created them? Correct me if I am wrong, but the entire point of the Creation story in Genesis is that God is the responsible party, not us, not anyone but Him. So if He poofed things into existence, or used complex biological processes, should not matter.

Thoughts?

He didn't raise Christ from the dead with a magical poof, unless you are just that skeptical about the power of God. The resurrection at the end of the age isn't going to be a poof, unless you don't believe the promise of the gospel. It does matter since God promised a new creation at the end of the age or don't you understand Christian hope?

 

[TNF_13]

He didn't just create stuff. He created with purpose, and gave assignments to His creation. The hows reveals the thoughts of God and His intentions for His creations.

I think that is just as subjective as only relying on the Holy Spirit to tell us God's truths (only relying, as in, ignoring the Bible). Without an objective source for God's thoughts, your interpretation of God's "how" could easily be different from my interpretation. Are God's thoughts and intentions only for select people to know?

Your example does not help matters. If your claim is true that the how matters to God's thoughts and intentions, then if theistic evolution is correct, then it shows a high degree of sophistication on God's part, and a capacity for His creation to change for the better, akin to the process of sanctification. I do not think you assertion or your example hold up to scrutiny.

He didn't raise Christ from the dead with a magical poof, unless you are just that skeptical about the power of God. The resurrection at the end of the age isn't going to be a poof, unless you don't believe the promise of the gospel. It does matter since God promised a new creation at the end of the age or don't you understand Christian hope?

Mark, maybe you misread my question. Essentially, I am asking why debating creation vs. theistic evolution matters. Why should we dismiss God's hand in crafting the universe as we know it, either by claiming He only used evolution, or claiming He only used creation? Why should we ignore science, simply because we think it creates a theological problem that could very well be of our own making? Why should we ignore the capacity of God to operate outside the realm of science?

I think ignoring any of those things misses the point of Genesis. Personally, I think the Bible is much too important to use as a weapon to argue with people.

 

[Papias]

I must ask the question... why does it matter how God created things, as long as He is the one who created them? ...... So if He poofed things into existence, or used complex biological processes, should not matter.

Thoughts?

Right - it doesn't matter one way or another how God created. It's not even close to being a salvation issue - unless one has such a dim view of Jesus as to think that His salvific power is so weak that simply accepting evidence makes it fall apart.

... the entire point of the Creation story in Genesis is that God is the responsible party, not us, not anyone but Him.

Yep. I think that's pretty clear. In fact the part that is repeated over and over is God assessing his work and finding it good.

It strikes me as amazing how much so called "literalists" take as non-literal, including a lot of stuff with fewer clear signs of non-literal text than Genesis, and they still claim to be sticking to a literal interpretation. Don't they realize how far they've gone beyond sticking to a literal reading throughout their Bibles? That train left the station back around 1600 AD. The Bibles (*especially Genesis*) are clearly wrong, if read literally with no interpretation, on a numbers of things, like the Earth being flat, under a hard dome, or diseases being caused by demons, or there being impossible amounts of gold in Solomon's temple, and so on. In all of those cases, Christians have already moved to non-literal interpretations or other ways of getting past the literal reading, and had already done so for over 400 years.

I'm tempted to ask if they believe that God made each of us by knitting, or if we formed by mindless, atheistic cell division. After all, Ps 139 is clear (if read literally).

For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb.​

Or that the moon is not held up by gravity, but rather is held up because God stuck it in the hard dome of the firmament, which is what Genesis 1:14 literally says.

And this is a verse that they insist must be literal, then they turn around and refuse to take it literally!

He didn't just create stuff. He created with purpose, and gave assignments to His creation. The hows reveals the thoughts of God and His intentions for His creations.

How does poofing things as opposed to biological processes say one purpose over another? What purpose do you say that Genesis says that is no longer applicable if we accept biological processes as how He created?

How much of a likened image to God would I think of myself, how much important would I feel about the worth of my existence, of my soul, if I believed that I'm just an evolution of apes or just poofed into thin air?

Well, a literal reading of Genesis has both poofing out of thin air as well as dirt, so you'll have to decide which literal meaning you want to deny, since they contradict each other. For instance, were parrots made by poofing (Gen 1:20) or by using dirt (Gen 2:19)?

Secondly, are you saying that you'd feel more important if you were made from dirt than if you were made from animals? Why? Is dirt better than animals? I tend to see animals as noble and wonderful examples of God's creative action, while we walk on dirt, brush dirt from our feet, and so on. We are made in God's image either way.

So could you explain why being made from dirt is more elevating than being made from animals for you?

In Christ - Papias

 

[salt-n-light]

Right - it doesn't matter one way or another how God created. It's not even close to being a salvation issue - unless one has such a dim view of Jesus as to think that His salvific power is so weak that simply accepting evidence makes it fall apart.



Yep. I think that's pretty clear. In fact the part that is repeated over and over is God assessing his work and finding it good.

It strikes me as amazing how much so called "literalists" take as non-literal, including a lot of stuff with fewer clear signs of non-literal text than Genesis, and they still claim to be sticking to a literal interpretation. Don't they realize how far they've gone beyond sticking to a literal reading throughout their Bibles? That train left the station back around 1600 AD. The Bibles (*especially Genesis*) are clearly wrong, if read literally with no interpretation, on a numbers of things, like the Earth being flat, under a hard dome, or diseases being caused by demons, or there being impossible amounts of gold in Solomon's temple, and so on. In all of those cases, Christians have already moved to non-literal interpretations or other ways of getting past the literal reading, and had already done so for over 400 years.

I'm tempted to ask if they believe that God made each of us by knitting, or if we formed by mindless, atheistic cell division. After all, Ps 139 is clear (if read literally).

For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb.​

Or that the moon is not held up by gravity, but rather is held up because God stuck it in the hard dome of the firmament, which is what Genesis 1:14 literally says.

And this is a verse that they insist must be literal, then they turn around and refuse to take it literally!



How does poofing things as opposed to biological processes say one purpose over another? What purpose do you say that Genesis says that is no longer applicable if we accept biological processes as how He created?



Well, a literal reading of Genesis has both poofing out of thin air as well as dirt, so you'll have to decide which literal meaning you want to deny, since they contradict each other. For instance, were parrots made by poofing (Gen 1:20) or by using dirt (Gen 2:19)?

Secondly, are you saying that you'd feel more important if you were made from dirt than if you were made from animals? Why? Is dirt better than animals? I tend to see animals as noble and wonderful examples of God's creative action, while we walk on dirt, brush dirt from our feet, and so on. We are made in God's image either way.

So could you explain why being made from dirt is more elevating than being made from animals for you?

In Christ - Papias

So because you think dirt is insignificant, or that animals would make more of a "sophisticated choice" of origin for humans than dirt, that there's no way God could have made us from it? We're gonna just totally ignore Genesis 3:19, or probably dismiss that as symbolic too....

Maybe perhaps, His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts?

Look how a child, when it starts to grow up questions " Hey mom and dad, how are babies made?" or "where did I come from?". Imagine a parent telling that kid " Who cares how you were born, you're here aren't you? Whether it's from us, a stork, or drop off by Santa Claus, you're here!". See how confusing and up in the air that is?

Now imagine the parents actually telling you how you were made " me and mom had sex, and this process happens, and you were formed inside the womb, and 9 months later, mom pushed you out of her womb" and having the child say " hmm, oh that must be symbolic, how could mom push me out of that, her belly looks flat, no maybe her "womb" is really something outside, like a chicken incubator. Or maybe I developed from a puppy. You know my friend was telling me how me and this puppy looked similar...."

........ok.

Its elevating, to actually know how I was created, because its truth and it speaks about me. The creation of me is unique. I wasn't an evolution, I wasn't just poofed up, I was thought of, and fashioned, there was a process to me, from beginning to end. From the dirt, I was made in His image. And that He didn't just give me gospels and prophecies, God wanted me to understand my identity, is its entirety.Maybe that truth isn't good enough for you. Or doesn't make sense or meaning to you. Maybe it's more meaningful symbolically. IDK.

I just take the Word of God as truth.

 

[salt-n-light]

I think that is just as subjective as only relying on the Holy Spirit to tell us God's truths (only relying, as in, ignoring the Bible). Without an objective source for God's thoughts, your interpretation of God's "how" could easily be different from my interpretation. Are God's thoughts and intentions only for select people to know?

Your example does not help matters. If your claim is true that the how matters to God's thoughts and intentions, then if theistic evolution is correct, then it shows a high degree of sophistication on God's part, and a capacity for His creation to change for the better, akin to the process of sanctification. I do not think you assertion or your example hold up to scrutiny.

Huh?

1. The Holy Spirit is revealed through the Word of God. You have to know the Word, to recognize the Holy Spirit. You wouldn't be able to rely on the Holy Spirit if you weren't relying on His Word. You wouldn't be able to even accept Christ, if you didn't know the truth about who God is.

2. The objective source for God's thoughts is...drumroll please...the Word of God! He reveals Himself again through the Word of God. The Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and God Himself covers us both physically and spiritually.

So now to my statement

"He didn't just create stuff. He created with purpose, and gave assignments to His creation. The hows reveals the thoughts of God and His intentions for His creations."

Let's use the example of a watchmaker.

Watchmaker makes a watch, upfront we know what a watch looks like. I'm given this watch. Although the existence of this watch is cool, how it was created is going to inform me about how it would function and its importance. The functionality of it, tells me the watchmakers thought the process and the intentions of the watch. The hows of how the hands move, the hows of the making of the watch, the hows of the making of the different parts of the watch, the forming of material, the dimensions of it etc, all that is part of what makes this object uniquely and distinctively a watch. It's a watch that I can't wear as a necklace, nor does it makes sense to wear it around my finger like a ring. The design of it have a purpose, and have an assignment.All of this shapes the identity.

So here is God, revealing Himself to Moses, about the Creation of us. Documented, written down, and shared now to all the world through the Word. We are not walking creatures left for interpretation.The design of us is what makes us distinctly us and informs us about His intentions and assignments.

God doesn't need the help of theistic evolution to prove the power of His glory. We are the living testament of His glory. A glory that people are still trying to figure out and study in labs to this day. And even if they got the physical down pack for humans, they can't even measure what happens spiritually.

Like what lab study can prove the existence of my spirit? How can you measure my soul? None, but who would know all these things? Our Creator.

 

[Jamsie]

I must ask the question... why does it matter how God created things, as long as He is the one who created them? Correct me if I am wrong, but the entire point of the Creation story in Genesis is that God is the responsible party, not us, not anyone but Him. So if He poofed things into existence, or used complex biological processes, should not matter. Thoughts?

It might not be as important to Christians, though the arguments here and elsewhere would question the truth of the actual import, but it is a significant influence on many non-believers. Christianity is often seen as anti-science, archaic, judgmental, and hypocritical based solely on what is brought to the public attention by a select few.

I think we would all agree that there exist without question a number of absolute core/fundamental beliefs that defines "Christian". However, it does appear that we do not always approach peripheral issues with respect for differences of opinion or interpretation. There should be a certain humility when approaching subjects such as Genesis, even an agnostic consideration.

 

[Queller]

Huh?

1. The Holy Spirit is revealed through the Word of God. You have to know the Word, to recognize the Holy Spirit. You wouldn't be able to rely on the Holy Spirit if you weren't relying on His Word. You wouldn't be able to even accept Christ, if you didn't know the truth about who God is.

2. The objective source for God's thoughts is...drumroll please...the Word of God! He reveals Himself again through the Word of God. The Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and God Himself covers us both physically and spiritually.

I have problem with number 2 here. If God's word is objective, how come there are so many different interpretations of it?

 

[miamited]

I must ask the question... why does it matter how God created things, as long as He is the one who created them? Correct me if I am wrong, but the entire point of the Creation story in Genesis is that God is the responsible party, not us, not anyone but Him. So if He poofed things into existence, or used complex biological processes, should not matter.

Thoughts?

Hi TNF,

For me, and I quickly admit that I speak for no one else but myself, the answer is found in the Revelation. We are told that no unbeliever shall enter into God's eternal grace. The place that He has created for all those who have believed His testimony.

The question merely becomes: God has told us that He created this realm miraculously and within six days and has given us an account of years through the genealogies of Adam. Do we believe that or not? If we don't believe that, are we then unbelievers? Many say that no, it's just about believing in Jesus. That he is the Son of God put to death for our sin and raised again to life. Maybe. Maybe not.

When I read Jesus' account of the day of His Father's judgment I find that the people that Jesus turns away likely believed that basic fact. After all, they claim to have done great things in the name of Jesus. Now, who does such things that hasn't at least made the claim that Jesus is Lord? Do we find Muslims claiming to do great miracles in the name of Jesus? Do we find Hindus or Buddhists doing great things in the name of Jesus? How about atheists? How many of them do you know of that have done great things in the name of Jesus?

At one point the Scriptures make the claim that only the one who believes and is baptized will be saved. Believes what exactly? Remember that this claim was made prior to Jesus' death. What was he telling people that they needed to believe?

You make the point that the entire point of the creation account is that God created. However, the creation account is fairly more detailed than that. Why, if the only point of the creation account is that we understand that in the beginning God created, doesn't the account end there? Instead, it goes on to pretty clearly tell us of a line of days in which God created all the things of this realm, and again, then carefully lists a genealogy from Adam to Noah and beyond. Why would God so confuse the issue if all that He wants us to take away from all that is just that He created? That it doesn't make any difference how or when? Why does the establishment of the law of Sabbath begin by repeating for us that it is based on the six days of creation in which God created all things in both the heavens and the earth?

These are questions that each one will have to answer for themselves, but for me, they are questions that tell me that it's a bit more important to God that we believe in His awesome power and glory and the truth of His account of the creation of this realm.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[TNF_13]

I have problem with number 2 here. If God's word is objective, how come there are so many different interpretations of it?

Correct me if I am wrong, but a solid, unchanging text is about as objective as you can get. Going from that point forward and understanding that text is where it ceases to be objective. Different interpretations do not undermine a text's value, they add to it. Different parts of the Body of Christ have different functions, no?

 

[TNF_13]

These are questions that each one will have to answer for themselves, but for me, they are questions that tell me that it's a bit more important to God that we believe in His awesome power and glory and the truth of His account of the creation of this realm.

Can truth be metaphorical and literal at the same time? Can God's power and glory be displayed through the scientific laws through which the universe seems to operate, as well as working outside those laws when the need arises?

Let us presume that evolution is true: It would involve quite a high degree of chance and coincidence unless something was guiding it somehow, and could become an argument for a Creator, rather than undermining His presence.

Let us presume creation is true: It would involve, for God, significantly less effort due to the lack of complexity, but a highly creative process as well.

I believe you ask good questions, however, we know that genealogies are not perfect, we know that if all three beginning chapters of Genesis are meant literally, we have problems. So clearly, parts of Genesis are not meant literally and are meant to be poetic stories pointing to a moral. If we are to apply critical thinking to the Bible, then we must apply it irregardless of tradition.

 

[miamited]

Can truth be metaphorical and literal at the same time? Can God's power and glory be displayed through the scientific laws through which the universe seems to operate, as well as working outside those laws when the need arises?

Let us presume that evolution is true: It would involve quite a high degree of chance and coincidence unless something was guiding it somehow, and could become an argument for a Creator, rather than undermining His presence.

Let us presume creation is true: It would involve, for God, significantly less effort due to the lack of complexity, but a highly creative process as well.

I believe you ask good questions, however, we know that genealogies are not perfect, we know that if all three beginning chapters of Genesis are meant literally, we have problems. So clearly, parts of Genesis are not meant literally and are meant to be poetic stories pointing to a moral. If we are to apply critical thinking to the Bible, then we must apply it irregardless of tradition.

Hi TNF,

I imagine that it can be, but the question isn't whether it can be, but whether it is in this instance?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[salt-n-light]

I have problem with number 2 here. If God's word is objective, how come there are so many different interpretations of it?

Define what you mean by interpretations.

 

[salt-n-light]

Correct me if I am wrong, but a solid, unchanging text is about as objective as you can get. Going from that point forward and understanding that text is where it ceases to be objective. Different interpretations do not undermine a text's value, they add to it. Different parts of the Body of Christ have different functions, no?

I have a feeling that the person was mixing up "interpretations" with "translations". But I wanna see what they have to say. I could be wrong.

 

[TNF_13]

Hi TNF,

I imagine that it can be, but the question isn't whether it can be, but whether it is in this instance?

To determine that, we would either need Moses to explain what he wrote, or a recording of what happened. Since we have neither, we can take the position that it is literal, in which case science is wrong, according to the Bible. We can take the position that it is metaphorical with a point behind it, in which case science is untouched. We can take the position that it is poetry of some kind. I am sure there are more options, as it has been a while since I entered this debate with much rigor.

Regardless of the position we take, we are taking it on supposition, not hard evidence, and that being the case, I think we need to be respectful of other positions and not view the subject as an essential to the faith.

 

[Jamsie]

TNF_13 wrote: To determine that, we would either need Moses to explain what he wrote, or a recording of what happened. Since we have neither, we can take the position that it is literal, in which case science is wrong, according to the Bible.

I agree with your "we need to be respectful of other positions", which is essentially my thought in the previous post #8. However, even with a "literal" reading of Genesis it does not render science wrong, rather legitimate questions can be raised concerning interpretation. (Perhaps that is why Genesis offers such lively discussion, but sadly at times comes ossified perspectives)

 

[miamited]

Hi TNF,

You respneded:

To determine that, we would either need Moses to explain what he wrote, or a recording of what happened.

Or we could understand that Moses did explain what he wrote when God had him to write: and there was evening and morning the first day. Let's consider that there really isn't any reason for God, who I don't believe just babbles when He speaks, to cause to be written that further descriptor which does nothing more than to define the day. If God merely wanted us to understand that it was a day and that men could argue and debate the term 'yom' until Jesus returns, then He could have just said that He created such and such and thus ended the first day. Just as He did in the law. He didn't add any further descriptors to give us any indication in the law by which the six days on which He was establishing the Sabbath, were anything more than just days. But in the creation account He is clear to establish for each of the six days of creation that there was an evening and a morning of that day.

Now, many believe that there couldn't have been such an evening and morning without the sun or moon, but I disagree. I've gone into Walmart at 3 a.m. and everyone says 'good morning' to me and yet, when I look up at the sky there is no sun cresting the horizon or anywhere in sight. How can it be morning, if the determination of morning is the appearance of the sun? I contend that evening and morning are exactly similar to our present division of the length of time of a day just as we now have a.m. and p.m. They define two equal halves of the length of time of a day. God established the 'day' as the length of time that the earth makes one complete rotation. Whether there is a sun or moon even existing, if the earth is rotating, then each time the earth completes one full rotation, a day has passed. When God created the earth, if it began spinning at the moment that it was created, then each time it completed a rotation a day has passed. It's actually how we still determine the length of a day on all the other planetary bodies in our solar system. Why would the earth be any different?

Then, just as God divided the light and darkness surrounding the earth and called the light 'day' and the darkness 'night', He also divided the length of 'a' day by evening and morning. So, we see that even God understood that 'day' would always have at least two meanings. The period of light during a day and the length of time of a rotation of the planet. Even today, when we say the word 'day' we need to understand whether or not someone is talking about the period of time in which the sun is above us shining its light upon the earth or, as when one says that 'two days ago' they are speaking of the rotational day. I believe that God so gave us the contextual indicators by which we can also make that distinction in the Genesis account. Was He talking about the 'light of day' or was He referring us to the 'length of day' by telling us that on each of the days of creation there was an evening and a morning?

That's really the strongest evidence that I have that God intended us to understand His power and glory and majesty in that He created all the beauty of the heavens that we see surrounding us, by which God's word even tells us that those same heavens declare the glory of God, in regular rotationally defined days. Just as He also created all that we see around us upon the earth, the beautifully and perfectly made flora and fauna, that our eyes gaze in wonder upon, in a rotational day of the earth.

When I consider a being, who asks us to be known as our God, could merely command all that surrounds me to exist in mere moments, the awesome power and glory and majesty and love of God is paramount to the god who merely starts some heavenly experiment and then waits to see how everything turns out and it becomes, by some natural processes all the stars and flora and fauna that surrounds us. I contend that the first God is so much more wise and powerful than the second god. Not that the second god would surely be powerful in relation to our power, but the first God, He is the God who creates all things fully formed and perfect just as it needs to be immediately...now!

Such a concept and reality of the first God also allows me to understand that Adam wasn't some evolved creature, but was a perfectly created human being on the day that he came to exist. He had no parental lineage here on the earth. He was not some creature that was one day born of some previous creature that had evolved over eons of time, but was perfectly formed from the dust of the ground just as God's word describes to us his creating Adam. Further, I believe that God created this realm, not so that He could look out for eons and eons from His front picture window and watch all the stars and planets to coalesce into what we see today, but He created it all for nothing more than a place for a creature of His creating to live. He created the earth as the singular planetary body in all of the universe to have the perfect air and water ratio to sustain both the life of man and the life of everything else that He created. He created the plants to grow on the earth, not, so far as we know at this point, on any other planet in all of the universe that it might be used to feed the creature of man that He created to live in this realm of His creating. It merely boggles our finite and limited understanding of all things when we consider that because God is...we have life. Because God created all things perfectly, we have food and water and all that is necessary on this planet to sustain that life.

The Scriptures end up telling us that one day God is going to just as miraculously and just as near instantaneously, roll the heavens up as a scroll is rolled back into its tubular form and He will then judge all the living and dead for their response to Him, that God who created all that is and asks us to trust and believe Him. For those that have done so, God is going to give unto them eternal life with Him. A life of peace and joy eternally. Where, as the Revelation closes out the plan, He will be our God and we will be His people. The Revelation tells us that there will be no need of the sun because God will be our light. Imagine all those wise and honored scientists trying to figure out how we can live without the sun. That day will come and God is going to look into the Lamb's Book of Life to ascertain if one's name is written there. Jesus will have written down the names of all those who believed.

What will they have needed to believe? Per the description of the day of his Father's judgment, many will be turned away that did great things in the name of him who wrote in the Book the names of those who believed. Jesus describes them as people who, while living on the earth, claimed to have done great things in his name. I can't imagine that there is anyone who thinks of themselves that they are doing great things in the name of Jesus, that they haven't declared that Jesus is Lord at some time in their life, but there's something that they didn't get. What is it? So, when I weigh all this evidence that apparently merely claiming that Jesus is Lord is not the end all be all of what Jesus meant when he said that only those who are baptized and believed, only meant that they had to believe that Jesus is Lord. I have to ask the question of myself, who is the Revelation really talking about when it says that no unbeliever will enter into God's eternal rest.

That's my understanding of all that the Scriptures tell us. Finally, Jesus himself told those who were to be his, that they would gain the Holy Spirit and that he would make known to us all truth. In this discussion there is a truth. Either God did take billions and trillions of years to conform the earth and the heavens to what we see today or God didn't. Both cannot be true. They are contradictory claims. What is the truth? What does God want us to believe about Himself and all He has done?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Jamsie]

He didn't add any further descriptors to give us any indication in the law by which the six days on which He was establishing the Sabbath, were anything more than just days. But in the creation account He is clear to establish for each of the six days of creation that there was an evening and a morning of that day.

Yet I believe he did in fact give us "further descriptors" concerning his creation. Each day involves spoken commands, nothing more being necessary, and it is on that basis that quite "literally" suggests an interpretation of creation that can compliment the many discoveries of science. (old earth and evolution) That God created all is not in question only the how...and that is and should be an open question.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I must ask the question... why does it matter how God created things, as long as He is the one who created them? Correct me if I am wrong, but the entire point of the Creation story in Genesis is that God is the responsible party, not us, not anyone but Him. So if He poofed things into existence, or used complex biological processes, should not matter.

Thoughts?

I think part of the divide is some people take the creation account in Genesis literalistically. That's where we get dioramas of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs and stuff like that. Others consider it metaphoric, an account of something unexplainable in terms that could be understood.