Tuesday, 17 April 2012

  • Questioning the Creation-Evolution Debate

    [This is reposted as part of our Best-Of Revelife Week. It was originally posted on March 3, 2011.]

    "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." 1 Corinthians 1:17 (English Standard Version)

    Seeing as the whole creation/evolution debate has calmed down from when it exploded a week ago, I thought I would throw out some of my thoughts on the whole issue. Not to stir the pot hopefully, because I sit on the fence, and truly, I have no clue anymore. Once upon a time I used to be the poster child for Creationism, and for a period of time I did used to understand evolution, reading all the magazines and articles, I knew a lot about the whole thing.

    I don’t know what happened next, maybe a few too many debates on evolution and creationism, I became somewhat ambivalent about the whole issue. When 90% of a debate is spent on this issue of how the world became how it is, instead of whether Jesus Christ was who he said he was, and the historicity of the resurrection, the whole experience loses its shine. The truth is, I also find a lot of obstacles for believing whether God created the earth in 7 days or 7 billion years.

    What I can agree on is whether we take the creation account as literal or as figurative, the essential idea is that God is the beginning and source of human life, and he is sovereign over all creation. Whether God uses evolution or things were created already specifically, the person of Jesus Christ is what I care about most above all.

    That being said, when push comes to shove, I find Creationism is the belief I would defend. Recently, through the whole drama, I found a lot of times I would feel inclined to write something defending the creationists as opposed to the evolutionists. As for convincing me, I find a lot of evolutionists seem very anti-theistic and come off sounding like they like bashing Christians more than the science they uphold. Here are some questions I have nevertheless, which stop me from embracing either field, I do realise there are a few more position than these:

     

    Creation-evolutionists                                             

    What way would you reconcile the New Testament, especially in Romans 5 where Paul compares the death through Adam’s sin, and the life that comes through Christ. If Adam is a metaphorical figure here, how is Jesus not a metaphorical figure? Paul treats the person Adam as a literal figure, and how then does that affect our interpretation of Genesis 1?

    Death is essential part of evolution of species, but depicted as a negative experience in the Bible. How do you reconcile death, which is essential to evolution, occurring before the Fall when Man had not died a spiritual death yet from consuming the fruit of the Tree?

    How do you deal with the interaction of human wisdom and godly wisdom? That is to say that there is a line between what “science” (speech marks intended) tells us, and what God has already said. As much as Christianity can be man-motivated, I think that some scientists can be similarly atheistic-motivated.

    At what point does the narrative in Genesis become not literal? Some place it at Abraham, but others just after the creation account. The notion that the line is ambiguous in Scripture, does this suggest we are reading into the account something that isn’t there?

    Creationists

    How does the death of animals correlate with the Fall of Man? How is it a domino effect that since man fell, that animals suddenly became dying as well?

    I’ve been reading the bible in 1 year, and alot of the feel seems crazy similar to how the Ancient Greeks would have written their myths of how the world came about.  In comparison to other creation accounts in other religions, it is strikingly similar. How do you explain the almost mythical poetry writing style of Genesis chapter 1 to (let's say) 11?

    How does a global flood account for the sifting of animals into a chronological order in rock strata? I’m speaking in a general sense, geologists have been able to gain a whole insight into millions of years through rock strata which show general evolution. How does that work with the flood if all creatures were on the earth at the same time?

    A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. Play nice and you might get your hot cup of cocoa. (skit i am referring to which is ironically not very Christian)

Comments (9)

  • Captric@xanga

    Two words prove the common ancestry of the higher level apes - you and I - and all "lower level" forms of life on earth: Endogenous Retrovirus. Endogenous retroviruses provide molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

    There are many other proofs of common ancestry but this is one of the most easy to understand for people who do not spend their lives studying science and specifically genetics.
  • SteveB

    You said, " When 90% of a debate is spent on this issue of how the world became how it is, instead of whether Jesus Christ was who he said he was, and the historicity of the resurrection, the whole experience loses its shine. The truth is, I also find a lot of obstacles for believing whether God created the earth in 7 days or 7 billion years."


    The underlying problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores the fact that belief in the Resurrection requires belief in a LITERAL interpretation of Scripture - that is, belief that the Resurrection is a real historical fact. If the biblical account of creation is NOT literal, but is an allegory or a myth, the account of the Resurrection - as well as everything else in the Bible - is brought into question (if the creation account isn't literal, why should anything else be?).


    Regarding the location of fossils in rock strata, creationists have very logical explanations for this being the result of a worldwide flood. Any of the major creationist Web sites (ICR, AIG, CMI) have a wealth of information about this. I have to wonder: have you ever accessed these sites? If you have, why haven't you investigated this issue on them? If you haven't, I strongly suggest that you do. 

  • llamalima@xanga

    @SteveB - Honestly, though, I do tend towards a 6day creationist view, I don't see how it is an issue between whether it's 6 days or 6 billion years. It's a matter of how we interpret Genesis, and it doesn't really impact how we interpret Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The contention is whether Genesis is a piece of poetic prose. I think the same applies to Revelation, I don't see it as a literal chronology of the end-times, but rather, as semiotics of the soverignty of Jesus. It's not any less power and glory to the Ressurection account, which I do believe strongly was literal. 


    I have checked out those sites. I know AiG quite well, and I am of the opinion that a lot of what it does is cheapen the value of science. Bastardises science. I also think the same of some secular scientists while I'm on the subject. 
  • Lovegrove@xanga

    "If Adam is a metaphorical figure here, how is Jesus not a metaphorical figure?"

    Exactly

  • SteveB

    You said, "I know AiG quite well, and I am of the opinion that a lot of what it does is cheapen the value of science. Bastardises science."


    "Cheapen the value of science ... Bastardises science," are vague terms. Can you provide some SPECIFIC examples of exactly why AIG is guilty of these things?  

  • hzcummi
    The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record.  There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution.  In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis.   In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality.  For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.


     


    Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text).  Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis.  How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error?   You can’t do it.  That is why Creationism fails.  It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers. 


     


    The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which is the ONLY presentation that reveals the truth of Genesis chapter one.  It is the true rendition of the Hebrew text.  Everything else, unfortunately, are false and foolish interpretations of scripture.


     


    Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis.  The truth has been available for more than 18 years.  Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.


     


    There are no "creation stories" in Genesis.  In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about.  You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.

    For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years.  The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve".  Has modern science discovered that yet?

    Herman Cummings
    ephraim7@aol.com

  • hzcummi
    The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record.  There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution.  In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis.   In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality.  For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.


     


    Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text).  Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis.  How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error?   You can’t do it.  That is why Creationism fails.  It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers. 


     


    The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which is the ONLY presentation that reveals the truth of Genesis chapter one.  It is the true rendition of the Hebrew text.  Everything else, unfortunately, are false and foolish interpretations of scripture.


     


    Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis.  The truth has been available for more than 18 years.  Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.


     


    There are no "creation stories" in Genesis.  In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about.  You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.

    For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years.  The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve".  Has modern science discovered that yet?

    Herman Cummings
    ephraim7@aol.com

  • llamalima@xanga
  • TrekkieECH@xanga

    @SteveB - AiG cites studies that blatantly disregard the scientific method. In science, you start with an educated guess, a hypothesis, that seems to explain something about the world. You then do experiments and gather data regarding the phenomenon you are attempting to explain. If the resulting data fits your hypothesis, and your results can be repeated and verified by others, then you have a working theory, which can still be disproved at any time if conflicting data is presented. If the results are counter to your hypothesis, then you must reject it. Scientific methodology requires absolute impartiality.


    AiG and "creation scientists" start with a conclusion, and find data to fit their beliefs. Rather than reject their theory in the face of conflicting data, they do the exact opposite: they reject the data if it conflicts with their predetermined conclusions. In other words, they are completely partial to their beliefs.
  • Sign in to Comment

  • Give eProps (?)

About the Author

  • llamalima@xanga
    • From: llamalima@xanga
    • About Me: Who am I? I am 19 year old university student, prone to stressing over about some assignment due the next day. I sometimes have time to blog mostly about Christian thoughts. In my spare time, I am also a musical connoisseur, ninja, movie junkie, and full-time hypochondriac. I may have lied about one of those, or a few.
    • True
    Stats: This Week All Time
    Posts: 0 163
    Views: 0 144399
    Comments: 0 1746
    View all posts by llamalima@xanga

Who recommended?