If you live inside the North American evangeli-bubble, you might assume that every legit Jesus follower on the planet thinks the world is six to ten thousand years old, depending on how you track those old testament genealogies.
You would be wrong.
It turns out that many Christians have come to peace with the contentious piece of theology we refer to as the origins debate.
I am one of those people.
Since the day I was blindsided by a fellow musician in my worship band – a geologist with inside knowledge that didn’t sync with my creationist timeline -I’ve been down more than a few rabbit holes. I am now scraping out a new identity as a recovering creationist. I have a budding fondness for Darwin’s idea, and an expanding sense of wonder in a God who is content (even pleased) to let a universe unfold over billions of years.
What I have learned during my journey is that while many believers are asking questions with their inside voices, they are worried that speaking up is seen is a sign of doubt or rebellion against established orthodoxy. I have also discovered that many people outside the church are surprisingly intrigued by the implications of this conversation and are more than willing to engage.
So today, I am pleased to discuss several unfortunate myths about Christianity and evolution. Hopefully these conversation starters will keep your next Bible study lively.
We regularly offer free and discounted books to our readers. If you’d like to make sure you don’t miss out on future offers, subscribe to our email list by downloading our free ebook on Hell via the form below:
Myth #1: Science And Faith Are At War
Most of us have difficulty choosing sides when it comes to the simple things in life like our favourite ice cream or shampoo. It gets even more complicated when we get into deeper subjects like origins. In our zeal to separate the light from the darkness, we adopt this tribe-like trait of drawing lines in the sand so we can tell the difference between us and them. Us are awesome at this. Just ask Galileo, or Newton (Isaac, not Wayne).
Galileo really stepped in it when he suggested the earth was not the center of our solar system. His radical idea was rejected, not because competing scientists had conflicting evidence, but because common-sense (at the time) Biblical interpretation wouldn’t allow it. Scripture was quoted, threats were made and reserved church parking lot spaces were confiscated. Galileo spent his last eight years under house arrest. Though he pleaded with his accusers to gaze through his hand-crafted telescopes and do the math, his appeals to logic were ignored.
Isaac Newton, whose claim to fame includes the three laws of motion, faced similar barbs from church leadership when he suggested that gravity might have a part to play in keeping our feet on the ground. He was accused of promoting occult activity. Gravity, as we would eventually learn, is a pretty good idea and anything but demonic.
See where I’m going with this? We love slicing and sorting scary, new concepts into either/or camps. On one side we have faith, on the other side science. We orchestrate cage matches between ‘belief and reason’ or whatever turf we routinely plant our flags in. It’s just too easy to frame these debates in terms of either/or. And the creation/evolution controversy is only the latest prize fight – a clash of two competing world views where apparently, only one side can win out.
However, there is a simple, fatal flaw in the either/or paradigm. Faith and science are not opposites. The opposite of faith is… wait for it. Fear. I’ll say it again. The opposite of faith is fear. (No need to get sidetracked talking about why doubt isn’t the opposite of faith either. That’s a perfectly wonderful kerfuffle for another day.)
While the scientific community isn’t restricted by our lines In the theological sand, it is incorrect to conclude that they are out to destroy the sandbox. Science is about how. Faith is about why. And this is true regardless of how loud the zealots on either side keep yelling.
Myth #2: Science Has An Anti-Faith Agenda
Myth #2 is an extension of myth #1 but must be considered on it’s own for different reasons. For too many evangelicals science itself is the problem. We have convinced ourselves that the geeky elites are out to corrupt our children and destroy our faith. I hate to break it to you but science could care less about your faith.
The real reason scientists put on their lab coats every morning is this: They want to solve problems AND GET PAID! Geologists, for example, are too busy trying to predict the exact location of the next big natural gas deposit to lose sleep over the fact that their calculations don’t line up with somebody’s interpretation of Genesis.
“Well the reason they don’t care about Biblical interpretation” says the creationist, “is because there are so few Christians involved in the sciences.” This is true. But for decades now we evangelicals have been encouraging our kids to become doctors, nurses, school teachers, stock traders, lawyers (okay not lawyers) bingo callers and professional hotdog eaters, anything but scientists.
“You can study anything you want” we tell our wide-eyed offspring as they head off to college with an open mind and thirty years of looming debt, “as long as the letters on your diploma don’t come at the end of a word that begins with geo, paleo, anthro, archeo, cosmo or, heaven forbid, bio.”
Yes, we would have a higher percentage of Christ following biologists if we weren’t so afraid that science in general, and evolution specifically, might dismantle their faith in God and scripture.
As a result (and I have witnessed this firsthand) curious kids, raised in a faith community inexplicably terrified of the lab, have been given a tragic ultimatum: choose between serving God or serving science. And those kids, not content to list their bunsen burners on Craigslist and join YWAM, have opted for the latter. We did this to ourselves.
If less than 15% percent of university science professors are Jesus followers it is not because science leads people away from God. If we truly believe scientific exploration gets in the way of faith, then what do we do with Romans 1:12 where Paul says,
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Remember, Paul penned these words long before the canon of scripture had been assembled. His claim is that sincere investigation into the natural order will inevitably lead right back to the creator. And yet, when scientific research is unveiled, our first reflex is to downplay it or denounce it as liberal ‘humanistic’ rhetoric.
(Statistics show that the same evangelicals that roll their eyes at evolution, also discount global warming and are the worst recycles on the block. Too many Christians mistakenly believe that doing science leads to anti-God conclusions and anti kingdom of God behavior. Did we forgot that the first commandment in the Bible was to “take care of the garden”? Of course, for fans of evacuation theology who believe our planet is on it’s last legs, it’s no surprise that stewardship of the environment gets ‘left behind’.)
Does science have an agenda? Yes? The short term goal is to learn about stuff. The end game involves bringing all that knowledge into a cohesive whole that can help us make more sense of our place in the cosmos. Snapchat and Spanx are simply fortuitous aha’s along the path to discovering ultimate purpose.
Myth #3: Evolution Denies God
I’ve been asked on several occasions if I am into theistic evolution. My response is a resounding NO! Not anymore than I am into theistic dermatology.
Colossians 1:17 sums it up: He is before all things and in him all things hold together.
Because it is God that makes the whole thing go, we can dig under any rock without fear of backsliding into a vortex of SCI logic that will unseat him as creator. We need not worry about about leaving God sitting on the sidelines, dejected and wishing for the good old days, before humans had figured out the secrets of DNA and yam fries.
Evolution is not qualified to confirm OR deny the existence of God. The rules of science don’t allow it. These rules are contained within a framework known as the scientific method. The scientific method helps us tell the difference between things that are true and things that are not. Asking questions and collecting data to prove or disprove a ‘hypothesis’ is a logical self-correcting way of navigating new ideas. When a hypothesis stands firm in cross examination it gets promoted to the lofty rank of ‘theory’ (see myth #4).
But here’s the best part – the scientific method can only account for objects that ‘exist’ in the physical sense. If you can taste it, touch it, see it, smell it, throw it, catch it, or hide it under your bed until it turns blue, you can do science on it. Science is fully qualified to examine everything from asteroids to asthma. God, on the other hand, is spirit. Therefore, science is NOT qualified, on it’s own terms to make any authoritative pronouncement on his existence or lack thereof.
Myth #4: Evolution Is “Only A Theory”
It is a sad fact that ‘untruths’ that bring comfort often run circles around actual ‘truths’ that cause discomfort. Evolution has been targeted by well meaning people, who don’t really know what they are talking about (see Myth #1). Yes, evolution and natural selection are theories. And so is gravity, and flight. Einstein’s famous equation is the poster child for the theory of general relativity. The big bang is also a theory. And every single one of these theories is also true.
In scientific circles, a theory is very different from an idea. While ideas spring up all the time, only good ideas last. Once an idea (or hypothesis) has been formulated, it must be tested and prodded to see if it can stand up under duress. Ideas that don’t survive this vetting process get tossed into the dustbin of history. Lawn darts come to mind. Scientific ideas that hold up under scrutiny become what are known as theories. A ‘theory’ is a conceptual framework, supported by multiple lines of evidence (see Myth #7) that has widespread explanatory capabilities. Evolutionary theory is a conceptual framework, supported by multiple lines of evidence, that has widespread explanatory capabilities.
Myth #5: Random Chance Can’t Accomplish Anything
Tell me if you’ve heard this in a creationist rant: “Random chance over millions of years can’t bring about the diversity of life we see on our planet”. While a repeat of Colossians 1:17 would be worthwhile, let’s look at this from a different angle.
If we were to follow the path of a snowflake in its descent from cloud cover to the ground we might suspect, at first glance, that the journey was random. But after measuring meteorological data like barometric pressure and wind direction, and completing all the necessary vector equations (remember those) showing which forces were acting and for how long, we could confidently say that the route of said snowflake was not, in reality, random. And we would agree that if those external forces acted again on the same snowflake, the result would be identical. It is, after all, our confidence in God’s laws – which guarantee the consistent outcomes of repeatable activity in the natural world – that makes doing science possible in the first place.
But the appearance of randomness that accompanies the falling snowflake would not fade.
(And while we’re at it, let’s acknowledge that those wondrous “storehouses laden with snow”, spoken of by the psalmist – don’t actually exist. If it really was God’s intention to impart precise scientific knowledge to the ancient Hebrews, as the literalists would have us believe, this absurd idea masquerading as meteorology would have never made it past the copy editors. “Oh, it’s metaphorical” cries the creationist, in a twisted fit of irony.)
Here’s the point: the appearance of randomness does not rule out divine guidance.
It is true that in origins banter, words like ‘random’ and ‘chance’ get passed around like poop bags at a dog park. Even Richard Dawkins, the world renowned evolutionary biologist and theology hobbyist admits that these terms muddy the waters, making it harder for critics to see the beauty in the machine. Experts maintain that if our planet began its evolutionary journey all over again tomorrow, and the conditions were identical to what they were hundreds of millions of years ago, that we would end up in exactly the same place give or take a nostril.
Myth #6: Evolution Is A Statement Of Faith
“since neither creation – ex nihilo – nor the primeval conditions necessary for the appearance of life on our planet can be re-enacted in the lab, they are both statements of faith.”
While it might appear that both a 7 day biblio-literal creation and evolution are beyond the scope of any lab, that doesn’t mean that one or the other is or isn’t science. What?
Using the principles of evolutionary theory and natural selection, scientists have made testable predictions. Experts in the field of bio-geography, for example, have been able to predict the likely location of fossils and paint a coherent picture of species migration across the globe. Fossils found on the east coast of South America have close ties (and are in some cases identical) to fossil finds located on the west coast of the African continent. This makes perfect sense when you introduce plate tectonics (another theory) to the conversation. This is exactly what you would expect to find if these two continents were joined together in the distant past. Similar patterns of speciation and fossilization have also led scientists to link Australian species with intermediary species in the Antarctic.
In stark contrast to the successful predictions of species migration solved within the framework of evolutionary theory, sits the claims of the creationists. For the creationist theory of a universal flood to be considered a valid framework for understanding natural history, evidence must be found to support the claims.
If the Bible science guys could uncover fossils for even a few animals (they were ALL on Noah’s Ark according to the literalists) and show patterns of species migration that begin near mount Ararat and radiate outwards across the continents in a way that supports the creationist flood accounts, we would have something to talk about. But we don’t find any of that. Now I didn’t say that Noah’s flood didn’t happen. I only suggested that the Bible science ‘universal flood’ model for predicting species migration bears zero resemblance to the patterns we find in the fossil record. That’s a big problem for anyone that maintains that a literal 6 day creation in Genesis, followed by a worldwide deluge is both faith AND science.
In this sense, Creationism ‘theory’ doesn’t have a fossilized femur to stand on. Creationism is not a scientifically valid framework for explaining what we see in the real world. And science that doesn’t do anything in the real world is good for nothing!
Myth #7: There’s No Evidence For Evolution
We evangelicals have consoled ourselves for decades by saying there is no evidence for evolution. If you’re pinning your faith on this argument, this is where it get’s really scary.
Let’s talk about whales. When those evolutionary zealots on Nat Geo Wild, tell us in their seductive baritone voices, that whales are mammals that returned to the ocean after spending a few million years on land – and we laugh – consider the following:
It is a genetic fact that every whale has the instructions for building a pelvis and skeletal structure hidden inside its DNA. In fact, one of every 500 whales is born with a hind leg protruding from its body cavity. I’m not making this up! This is hard evidence of something that never made it to the flannelgraph in your Sunday School classroom.
Let’s talk about vitamin C. Why do we have to buy it in bottles and almost every creature on the planet makes the stuff internally? Four of the five enzymes required to produce vitamin C internally are present in your body. And the fifth enzyme is in there as well, but it is defective.
We have two options to consider. Either humans stopped producing vitamin C sometime in the distant past due to a genetic mutation of sorts (evolutionary theory), or God created our physical bodies ex nihilo with the appearance of defective genetic material already embedded (deceptive God theory – too much fun, but not enough time).
Either we’ve been created by God from scratch with errors, and that’s why we suffer from colds, or these genetic imperfections are actually clues to another story that involves twists and turns beyond the scope of Genesis. Did I mention the only other species on the planet that don’t produce their own vitamin C are also primates – chimpanzees, orangutans and great apes. Oh, and guinea pigs. Which, when you think about it makes being a human guinea pig now even more hazardous to your health, especially if you’re testing cold medication!
There are literally thousands of other examples that have led scientists across the globe to acknowledge evolution as a fact. In scientific lingo it’s still a ‘theory’ but so is gravity and few believers in our century have felt the calling to launch a sustained attack on that carnal idea.
Myth #8: Belief in Evolution Destroys Belief In The Bible
While most of us can agree on how those first few chapters of Genesis read, we are lousy at agreeing on what they mean. This is true of all of scripture. This might explain why, on the protestant side of the fence, we have 37,009 denominations and counting. The Bible was written for us, but it was not written to us.
The redaction of the old testament coincides with Israel’s return from exile in Babylon. An entire generation of Israelites had been raised in a culture where the creation stories of their mesopotamian neighbors involved cosmic battles between gods and demigods fighting for control of the elements. The oceans (the deep), the moon and sun were given major roles in this cosmic soap opera. Because the Hebrews were familiar with these tales, reframing the creation story with Yahweh at the centre was vital to the health and spiritual well-being of the nation.
In The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton, the author argues that in the ancient world, creation stories focused on the ‘why’ not the how. ‘How’ was not on the radar. The sole purpose of the Genesis record was to clarify that Israel’s God, the one true God, created the cosmos of himself, and by himself as a place to dwell with men. And this Yahweh wasn’t about to share the spotlight with a band of half-baked pagan deities! So, to claim from our perch in the 21st century that Genesis was an attempt at science is a misguided effort.
“There is grandeur in this view of life” wrote Charles Darwin in Origin of Species. And while he struggled with a recalibration of scriptural interpretation in light of science, I have become more convinced than ever that an evolutionary story is not the enemy of our faith story. The ’how’ as detailed in evolutionary science, brings with it a heightened awareness of the unfathomable creativity and brilliance of a creator who brings worlds into being with only a word.
“In the beginning God said…” is as true as it ever was.
To read more from Calvin, make sure to pick up a copy of his new book Letters From The Slippery Slope. Digital copies are currently free for Kindle Unlimited users.
Click here to grab your copy and be sure to leave a review!
Find out what happens when a believer in Bible Science decides to take evolution for a test drive and ends up in a theological ditch.
Calvin Wray is an author, former aspiring rock star, and web designer out of Vancouver, Canada. Read more of his work at CalvinWray.com.
Excellent piece! Just a couple of thoughts that came to mind along the way. First, “the opposite of faith is fear.” My perspective is that the opposite of faith is assurance, which is in some ways, contributes to the Christian refusal to even consider evolution, as fear does. If I’m positive the Bible is literal and inerrant, any suggestion to the contrary will be dismissed, regardless of scientific facts.
Second, another contributing factor to this is that people are “Bible believers,” rather than Christ followers. Personally, I don’t believe in the Bible, I believe in Jesus, the creator of all that is. I believe most of the Bible is metaphore,vrather than literal, which allows science and my faith to interact quite freely and without much conflict.
My experience was a fear of investigating evolution. I was convinced, as many Christians still are, that if evolution was true, the Bible and the Jesus story could not be. Once I had acknowledged the mountain of evidence for evolution and the scientific method that framed that conversation, I was forced to re-calibrate my understanding of Genesis. But all of us interpret when we read. Not just scripture, but everything. And as we learn about the world around us, we re-interpret.
Literal is an interesting word. Understanding a biblical text in the same way the original audience interacted with it is the truest definition of literal.
The ancient Hebrews, for example, were not thinking in scientific terms when they recited the early verses of Genesis. They were celebrating Jahweh – the God who made everything. This was in start contrast to their neighbors who had all sorts of creation stories that featured demi-gods and love triangles. Cosmic warfare was needed to determine who was in charge. The moon god or sun god or god of ‘the deep’ were always vying for supremacy. And man was always at the bottom of the pecking order.
The purpose of Genesis chapter one was to declare that Israel’s God was one and above all other ancient gods, and that man was his ultimate creation.
Just read and enjoy the Urantia Book. It answers all questions regarding God’s creation of evolution.
Faith is a matter of rational posits and conclusions about who or what caused origins and why. The scientific method can and does explore the how and when the things that exist began and developed. The “faiths” held and practiced by the human species have changed through the ages as “curiosity searches” have led to the incremental development of the advancing scientific method which has provided information about “things” for persons to use in their rational search for what to believe and why. This absolutely incredible exercise of human curiosity has had almost infinitely long ages of past development, and, we know not, but possibly infinite future ages for search, change and (dare we call it) advance.
Sherrill,
Your mention of ‘possibly infinite future ages for search, change and… advance’ definitely helps put it all in perspective. While truth is absolute (either a fossil IS 65 million years old or it ISN’T) Knowledge, our understanding of the evidence and how it all fits together is provisional. We are always learning.
Thanks for your comments. I enjoyed reading what you said. Our one unchanging faith of the Bible in the loving, merciful and gracious Father almighty, all knowing, ever present, eternal and immutable and His only begotten son, Himself in the flesh, crucified and resurrected and come to us as Spirit, is unique and unchanging. This faith is unique. I encourage you to explore the New Testament.
How do I purchase this for the $0.99 on Amazon? I went to the link but it says that it is $17.95.
Hi Andrew,
We’ve got the Amazon Elves working on that right now. It should be resolved before long. Please check back with Amazon and I will let you know once they’ve flipped all their switches.
I apologize for the delay.
You should see 0.99 cents at Amazon.com (.com ONLY) if you go there now. Sorry Canada but the promo is only valid south of the 49th for the next few days.
As a church musician, you might appreciate this. I wrote it because, although we have several “nature” songs (“How great thou art”, “Great is they faithfulness”, etc.), we seem to have absolutely no songs whatsoever, anywhere, that reflect science. It was used at last year’s BioLogos conference, and also has the approval of N.T. (Tom) Wright!
http://www.servicemusic.org.uk/hymn/creation.htm
Great lyrics David!
My songwriting also took a fascinating turn as I become more enthralled with the ‘how’ of God’s creation.
It’s listed for $9.99 in Canada. Not sure if your special crossed the border. Thanks for making the offer.
Hi Mac,
Try Amazon.ca again. We’re working on a glitch but you should have access now.
I’m on your side of the border – on a ferry between Van and Vic as I write this.
Let me know if you have problems and I’ll send you a link.
I’ve been faithfully checking amazon.ca but haven’t seen the deal yet. Is it hidden somehow?
Thanks for this article – super helpful. I recently read this book, and it is fantastic! Calvin Wray is a brilliant and hilarious author. What I love about the book is that it is enlightening and disarming at the same time. His is a much needed voice in this ongoing debate! Highly recommend.
Thanks for all the love Cory. I hope your endorsement convinces a few people to jump in with both opposable thumbs!
My lifelong journey has taken me from belief in evolution to creationism to skepticism of both. The reason? Pride is simply thinking too much of ourselves. A bright student I was and soon I noticed how almost everyone else who was as bright was arrogant and proud. As I began looking at the origins debates, I noticed how arrogant men were on both sides. That turned me off from creationism. I have no problem with pure science. There are experiments that always work in the laboratory. But theories about where we came from and what the past look like long before modern man, are not at all pure science. One of the weaknesses of your article is in more than one case you are using the logical fallacies of word confusion and comparing apples and oranges but denying the difference.
Examples: comparing a mathematical theory (Relativity) with origin theories which contains no math. These type of theories are not close to being identical as you suggest. Word confusion around the term “Evolution:” the creation of the first protein macro evolution in highly complex lifeforms micro evolution in species. Indeed, you assume that there is only one model theory of Evolution just as there is only one of Relativity. This, however, is not at all true. Evolution theory has been evolving and their is not a single, totally mapped out theory at the center that scientists agree on.
There is an additional problem in that the center of scientific debate is not “is there any evidence for any given theory,” but is there enough to prove it? The textbooks have changed significantly in my lifetime, with many things that I was told were true when I was young, being disproved during my lifetime. I call this an evidence of pride at work and the foolishness of men who have made themselves foolish by proclaiming themselves wise. I recently watched a video by Michio Kaku where he talked about evidence being found that the Theory of Relativity was wrong. Because of the effect of what this means, he dismissed it coming up with an excuse for how the experiment that was done must have had a flaw in it. When he did that, he sounded very much like the creationists wanting to dismiss evidence that does not fit with their theory. There is plenty of bias to go around. We should be skeptical of all claims coming from the scientific community that are outside of pure science. My view of origins is that the reality is extraordinarily complex, like a puzzle with a billion pieces. The arrogant creation and evolutionary scientists have discovered a few hundred pieces and are telling the rest of us what to think because they “know” what the whole puzzle is. It is simply absurd. They are both also engaging in logical card stacking ignoring the legitimate criticism coming from the other side of how to interpret the individual pieces. A wise man will admit the limitations of his mind and admit that there is much more mystery than known facts. That is my take.
Mr. Jesperson,
Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I agree with you that we may still have more holes in our puzzle than pieces. However, my journey led me to the conclusion that many evangelicals are not even interested in looking closely at the science pieces because they might infringe on our biblical interpretation pieces. If we understand that anything that is scientifically ‘true’ (provisional truth of course, as with all human knowledge) is also, necessarily theologically true, than our distrust of science gives way to exhilaration at the complexity and wonder and ‘not-yet-knowingness’ of God’s creation.
I can’t agree more with Mr Jesperson. We are very far from being able to establish or refute the existence of a creator or the validity of evolutionary theory as it stands, let alone imposing our views. From the physics point of view, we barely know anything. I would assume the same in biology.
Bravo!!! Mr. Jesperson, imagine we pea brains being so arrogant as to say they “know”. Thanks.
FYI, here’s a great video of some REAL great scientists coming together for real serious discussion on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWvS1UfXl8k
Great article, I just had one comment:
[Galileo’s] “radical idea was rejected, not because competing scientists had conflicting evidence, but because common-sense (at the time) Biblical interpretation wouldn’t allow it.”
It was actually the other way around. Galileo couldn’t prove his theory as there was no way to measure parallax shifts in the stars’ positions relative to earth at the time(Aristotle refuted heliocentrism on this account a few centuries earlier). Galileo persisted despite never accounting for the missing parallax shifts, and was eventually told to stop bothering everyone. Galileo responded by calling the Pope a simpleton, which is actually what landed him in jail in the end.
Hi Sven,
Excellent point. But while he may not have had the puzzle completely solved Galileo was convinced that Biblical interpretation was getting in the way. He wasn’t wrong on that count. One of his more famous quotes – “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” – hints at his sense of sarcasm. It’s not a stretch to think the word ‘Pope’ and ‘simpleton’ eventually ended up in the same sentence.
True! There were people who pointed out that his views seemed to contradict the bible. And your point stands, as there are many today who make the same kind of arguments.
You loose a lot of points when you say that Newton had laws of thermodynamics. Newton had laws of mechanics, so how much can we trust your understanding? Your paper is an attempt to “rationalize” intellectual conflicts between the Bible and Science. The only problem is that Science is just now learning that most of the universe is made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which is just an other way of saying that Science doesn’t know anything about anything but “Baryonic ” mater which is only 5 percent of the universe. This means that Science only knows about 5 percent of the universe, which is not much.
Hi Keith,
I was referring to Newtons 3 laws of motion – ie. third law “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” – You are correct sir!
You’re also correct in stating that what we know of the entirety of the universe is extremely limited. However, stating that science has a “lot to learn” is a very different statement than suggesting that creation scientists have a better grasp on the facts that the collective scientific community. If something is scientifically true, it is also theologically true. And I expect that the advances of science will leave more in awe of God rather than less.
I have replaced the word thermodynamics with motion. Good catch!
Real scientists are very much in AWE!!! of all creation especially since the Hubble scope. It’s going to get better, just wait and see. All creation declares HIS GLORY!!! Who needs speculation when the real thing is so great. Let the Fire Works of God begin.
If the universe is endless and our brains are about 3 pounds, maybe 4, how can we “know” even a micro of 1/10 of a percent. Let God be God and let’s get on with real science, demonstrable…repeatable. Here again I strongly disagree with the writers on their theory is truth idea. The “theory” only pseudo scientists need to get to real science.
IS EARTH ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD?
The Bible never claims the earth to be only 6,000 years old, NOR DOES IT CLAIM IT TO BE BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. Many of the generations mentioned in the Scriptures relate to GOD’S COVENANT PEOPLE ONLY. Notice also that the genealogies of women (both covenant and non-covenant) are not usually listed. According to Genesis 11:8, the Lord confused the language of those present at Babel and, then, “scattered them from there OVER ALL THE EARTH.” Then in verse 10 begins the genealogy of Shem only, leaving out Ham and Japheth. In Matthew chapter 1 the genealogical table begins with Abraham up to Christ and does not mention the genealogies derived from Ham and Japheth (that omits two-thirds of the sons of Noah, not to mention all their billions of offspring including females. Finally, the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 begins with Seth the third son of Adam (omitting Cain and all his offspring both men and women). It is simply not possible to accurately determine the age of the earth by toting up the names of those listed in these incomplete biblical genealogical tables.
~ Ivan A. Rogers
Ivan,
I agree with you that the Bible never claims that the earth is only 6,000 years old. However, young earth creationism seems to pull this number more often than not. Also, I find it interesting that while you are comfortable with ‘incomplete biblical geneologies’ ( you are not unnerved by the notion if less than 100% accuracy on the Genesis timeline) many evangelical literalists begin to panic at the thought.
It’s never been a question of how Genesis reads. We all agree on that. The real fun starts when we have to agree on what it means.
Thanks for your contribution.
Hi Roger, thanks for the input. Good points for Ken Hamm to consider. Does it really matter in eternity? You may enjoy this brief history of mankind “The Fuel Project, Know Your Enemy” at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL70118C8DEDCEB4F0 It incorporates many other middle eastern culture’s’ ideas and beliefs into the Biblical scene.
FLAT EARTH?
Pythagoras – (582 B.C.) noted that the altitudes of stars varied at different places on Earth and how ships appeared on the horizon. As a ship returned to port, first its mast tops, then the sails, and finally its hull gradually came into view. Aristotle, who lived 300 years before Christ, observed that Earth cast a round shadow on the moon. When a light is shined on a sphere, it casts the same shadow. The Greeks calculated the general size and shape of Earth. They also created the grid system of latitude and longitude, so that with just two coordinates one can locate any point on Earth. Greek philosophers also concluded that the Earth could only be a sphere because that, in their opinion, was the “most perfect” shape.
But the biblical prophet Isaiah who lived 118 years before Pythagoras (700 B.C.) referred to “the circle of the earth” (Isa 40:22). To these ancient observers it was already an established fact that Planet Earth was spherical. It is simply not true that early Hebrews and the later Christians believed in a so-called ‘flat earth.’
Ivan,
I agree that by the first century, the idea of a globular earth was already a comfortable concept to many. but the Hebrews, and other ancient near eastern societies did, centuries before hold to a flat earth model. The firmament, spoken of in Genesis was percieved to be a chrystalline sphere covering the earth, which was flat. Think really big snow globe and you’d be close.
As far as later generations go, Christine Garwood has written a highly entertaining book entitled: “Flat Earth – The History Of An Infamous Idea”. Garwood details the flat earth revival that swept England in the late 1800’s and even touched down briefly on this side of the pond.
I like your writing style, Calvin.
I have some comments to make not so much in rebuttal of your Myth#8 as in regard to what I’ve read coming from scientists regarding evolution.
“If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” —Francis Bacon (1605) The Advancement of Learning, Book 1, v, 8
Interesting quote above from Bacon I found on google when I was trying to find out what date the Scientific Method was put into practice, and it seems to echo the journey with God you describe on your site, Calvin.
Sometimes, as in this quote from Bacon, it seems that evolutionists when stating a fact about some layer of sediment a fossil is laying in, make a statement about it with bold certainty, as if they were there themselves when the sediment was laid down. Its that attitude of certainty that I have encountered more difficulty with than with the actual concept of evolution, and its interesting that Bacon seems to have hit the nail on the head with the problem of acceptance of evolutionary theory over the years; being presented with great certainty.
Re Myth#8: While not against evolutionary theory per se, to me there seems to be many questions about it and answers that, instead of containing scientific evidence to make the case for it, are only a strongly-held opinion. The higher the university credentials that go with the opinion, the more that believe it, and seemingly with democracy replacing the Scientific Method, the more true it becomes.
What happened to the Scientific Method in this process of finding the truth of our origins?
As with the Scientific Method, the science student should be free to make their own mind up about evolution from the evidence presented, or make up their minds based on what they can believe from the evidence, and not be coerced by supposition on the part of famous scientists who are held in high regard by their peers, or coerced by the threat of a failing grade.
A sign that the evidence itself for evolution has not been the convincing point for students is when they are asked what evidence convinced them of its veracity and they can’t tell you what evidence it was that convinced them personally, but tell you what the theory is. Your quest for hard evidence is then deferred in favour of the numbers of scientists that believe it and the quantity of evidence that supports it.
To either, 1, apply critical thinking or, 2, to get marked ‘correct’ on an exam: Has that latter #2 choice been the driver of the evolution of the Scientific Method as it applies to the Theory of Evolution?
I am open to reading evidence to the contrary.
I started in from the perspective you described. I was convinced that evolutionary theory was the favoured child of the scientific elite, and was surviving on reputation alone. What I didn’t expect when I started digging deeper, was the amount of evidence, multiple converging lines of evidence that strengthened the position of each. The mounting evidence (from archeology, bio-geography, paleontology, micro-biology etc. etc.) combined with the complete lack of peer reviewed evidence for a young earth, or even an old earth without evolution, made me very nervous. The ‘aha’ moment for me was realizing that the scientific method is the perfect vehicle for sorting through material processes, but not at all qualified, according to it’s own rules, to make any pronouncements on the existence of God. God is spirit. He cannot be proved or disproved by the scientific method.
This is great news! Science isn’t the enemy. Not the enemy of faith or Christianity.
Once I landed at this place, my search for understanding and knowledge of the sciences ceased being an exercise in skepticism and morphed into an act of worship.
Hi there Calvin and contributers. I am a Psychologist and Philosopher and a keen Science reader too. Although I mostly connect from the Myth side. I enjoyed reading all your interesting claims and remarks and arguments and ‘presumed facts’ and I am amazed at some of your writing/thinking styles and ways. It triggered many brain paths in my top story too:
How fickle ‘we’ are … how little we know … how smart we can argue to … how many sides and back we can deploy it … how well developed our thinking mostly as laymen (regarding all inclusive fields) are already.
Also ‘Why’ we think and believe those … why we differ so … why we make assumptions … why we try to take on one another … and why and how we always bring in our ‘Myth’ sides too, residing in our Religion.
Then comes the ‘We’ issue … How ‘we’ … Why ‘we’ …
What perplexes me is that the ‘How’ (Method) is but the lowest level of Knowledge … and the ‘Why’ (Theory) is but the second lowest level of Knowledge! Yet those mere 2x questions keep us wholly occupied in every Scientific field … as spelled out by you Calvin … drawing immidiate reactions from others … but also only on HOW and WHY.
Nobody yet touched on the WHAT (Paradigm= 3rd lowest level of Knowledge)
Neither on the WHERE (Epistemology = 4th level of Knowledge)
Interesting though is that ‘we’ all know about and mention the WHO! (Ontology = Top 5th level of Know-ledge)
His manifestations in/through all of ‘us’ actually may answer all our Who, Where, What, Why and How questions! He does manifest beautifully through you/us all … even only in this piece of discourse.
While Science as the earthly Bridegroom struggles and toil with all the unknowns … for instance the ‘fact’ tgat ‘he’ only now is discovering a planet in our own solar system that has 3000years year cycles?!
It just emphasise HOW little the know-ledge yet is … even though the Bridegroom pumps his muscles and parade his knowledge on our earth like this.
This above mentioned fact can maybe solve many of our Myth questions too, like the Gaints we are digging up?! Just think how old a creature can become if one of his/hers/its years is 3000 of ours?!
We know sooo little … in our Jewdeo-Christian Western Science Paradigm …
That while some Eastern Mystics already conquered time and gravity and space in some instances!
But still ‘we’ are killing each other off like tiny battlements of ants fighting for a cause we don’t even know of or believe in -fully- anymore!
How hard we try to KNOW- while ‘we’ (homo sapiens) are all standing on the LEDGE thereof …
As Jung predicted: The beautifully adorned but likewise confused and heart splintered earthly Bride named MYTH … is waiting for her seemingly strong muscled and sinewed Brother Groom … likewise confused and mentally slintered … to take her hand and to recognise and learn from each other on ‘our’ mutual journey down the Earthly isle …
I will add … On our way to our beautiful Kingdom … that IS! Here and Now … waiting for us to recognise our Unity and Strength together … bathing in the brilliant Light of Creation-Science! Who is a WHO (within What-Where)! Not a How or a Why!
Please let us get past tge Why’s and the How’s! Let us focus on Homo Sapiens … and WHO we are WHERE … and the WHAT we are doing and WHAT we need to do becomes clear and easy … resempling the word … SIMPLE … or Simpleton 🙂
Blessings to BrotherGroom Science from the world of SisterBride Myth! Go for it our Brother part … we are applauding you … and we are … waiting … and preparing for we have eons of LEDGE-KNOW to share too! The moment you join Muscles … we will join Hearts! … The result will blow us away in … ecstacy …
Love Ye Baby!
You say you are not into theistic evolution, but isn’t theistic evolution just evolution guided by God? Can you explain?
Hi Peter,
I thought you’d never ask! My Christian worldview starts with the premise: “God IS”. From this point everything else flows. every thought, every experience, is a result of God. Every concept and theory is predicated on the faith statement that “Because God exists; exhibit A is possible”.
To be honest, the term theistic evolution might be helpful to some, or a derogatory slam from the lips of others. And answering ‘YES’ might just be the end of the conversation.
I always answer (to borrow from a blog post still in progress) – “No!” Not anymore than i am into theistic dermatology. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a big believer in proper skin care AND Yahweh but I am not convinced he needs to personally intercede when i exfoliate. That’s what crushed walnut shells are for. My worldview allows for a God who delegates to nuts! (Insert political joke here).
What I find even more challenging to a literal reading of Genesis than evolution, is a fourth day creation of the sun, moon and stars. This is a day after the appearance of dry land and the creation of plants, and after three days of “morning and evening’ and light and darkness. Even the creation museum near Cincinnati doesn’t attempt to explain the fourth day sun. I’ve heard the sun only then “appeared” through the thick cloud cover, but no one was yet on the earth to observe this and God certainly wasn’t limited to the view from the earth’s surface. This only fits with an early Mesopotamian cosmology, but totally contradicts all we know to be true about the universe with far more certainty than our current understandings of evolution.
Hello Heretic Dwayne,
I think what you’re trying to say is this: the opening lines of Genesis are more like ancient Hebrew poetry – A song of rejoicing in the spectacular creation work of Jahweh – and not at all like a scientific thesis. Yes, Yes Yes!!!
I only disagree with your opening statement about the challenge of a literal reading. If the original audience processed Genesis as poetry – than you ARE, in fact, reading it literally.
I wish I had time to talk about that museum near Cincinnati you mentioned. The story of Noah’s Ark was a major detour for me as I researched my book (that was a plug).
Thanks for your input.
Thanks for sharing
A professor friend of mine liked to comment that the 4th day creation of the sun was to poke fun at the local sun worshippers of the time. Something along the lines of: “Look how great our God is… He creates light and darkness, earth etc., before creating the image of your god…”
You’re right Greg,
The Hebrew creation account doesn’t share any of the spotlight with the gods of their neighbours. This is Jahweh’s universe alone. The son and moon didn’t even get names or speaking parts. No respect at all! Sort of like “Thanks for coming out. We’ll get back to you.”
“Yes, evolution and natural selection are theories. And so is gravity, and flight.”
Evolution is a theory. Gravity and flight are not. They are both observable and repeatable, inside and outside the lab.
Hi Elizabeth,
Your definition of what constitutes a scientific theory is a very common misunderstanding. I held the same view until I did the research. Gravity, for example can be discussed in terms of both law and theory. The law of gravity says what will happen if we drop a bowling ball. Gravitational theory is a discussion of why it happens.
And it turns out that the effects of evolution are observable all over the planet. Fossil discoveries create patterns that allow paleontologists to ‘predict’ what the next fossil will be found, or even where. Using principles laid out in theory of natural selection, scientists have observed how geographically isolated species reproduce and diverge so much so that they can no longer cross breed. Yes, only fish and bugs BUT the ‘theory’ is supported by real world evidence.
One of the hardest things for Christians who hold that the account in Genesis is empirical fact is time. The Colorado River could not have carved out the Grand Canyon in 6000 years, let alone one day. The flood could not have done it either. So how to reconcile these differences? Science comes to the rescue. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity says basically that time is only a constant when you are in the same point in the space-time continuum. If you leave the planet, time moves at a different rate. So, according to this theory, God could have easily created the world in 6 literal days AND take 6 billion years or so for the world to experience it. Which leads to my belief that religion and science are not enemies. If you study God’s creation scientifically, it always leads to a convergence between what we know and what the Bible teaches. If there seems to be a contradiction, it is our ignorance that is at fault, not the Bible.
Hi Kenneth,
Thanks for plugging in. I am familiar with this model and I think it can be very helpful to Christians who are nervous about letting to of those stubborn 24 hour days! In the scenario you present the 6 billion years happens to be the way humans keep time.
And I would further your last comment and say that our ignorance is in the Bible itself. There are only about 8000 Hebrew words used in the old testament. Nuance is something we might be sadly lacking almost 2600 years removed from the early manuscripts.
Hello Calvin,
Really enjoyed your article!! Just had a couple follow up questions/comments. I was curious regarding your comment about not needing to associate as a theistic evolutionists any more than a theistic dermatologist? I gleaned some understanding from your reply above, but when you say you believe God is all and in all, would you still lean towards creation being initiated by God, with the full knowledge of how everything would turn out or are you more in the boat that creation was just a byproduct of God, with its own processes that play out and can, for lack of a better word, “surprise” God?
Also, in reference to you calling evolution a theory similar to gravity, as far as I know Gravity is classified as a Law, which according to my understanding is a much more concrete, and dependable scientific class than being a theory?
Hi Destiny,
Let’s start with your last point. Gravity is, in fact a law. Break it at your own peril. But gravitational theory is the discussion of ‘why’ gravity does what it does. The word theory, is the trip point here. In every day conversation we use the word theory to describe something that more resembles a hunch. So when we here the scientific community using the word we think they are just tossing ideas at the wall. But the word is more tightly defined as ” a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.” (Wiki) In the case of evolution, one example would be when predictions are made based on the theory (ie. the location of certain fossils) and then science uncovers that evidence exactly where they predicted it would be. But the theory is by it’s very nature open to changes as new evidences is tossed on the table.
Your first question is intriguing. I don’t think God is surprised any more at the appearance of a new species than he is when we do things based on our free will. I believe He created a universe that unfolds and meanders about with new twists and colours. And it is good. Sort of like the Israelites in the wilderness. It was only a 20 day journey as the crow flies, but God seems to have very little interest in straight lines. I am convinced, by history and my own life experience, that He is rather wrapped up in the journey for the shear joy of watching the story unfold.
The theology here gets nutty because the question is “How can God be the one holding it all together and NOT be directing the path of every molecule and DNA mutation?” Is free will contingent on God being less than in control? Not an easy answer, but I believe that this much is true: If it were possible for God to cease to exist (stretch with me on this one) the universe would also cease to exist at that very moment. It wouldn’t just run out of gas, or become immoral or evil because He wasn’t around to monitor the dashboard. It would simply vanish, because his demise would leave absolutely no atom behind.
I’m not sure this helps, but I sure like doing the gymnastics!
Your imagining God ending and all of everything ending is time and space essence and that’s where most everyone is stuck because of their 5 (only) senses and 3 (only) dimensions. We are spirit and made in God’s Spirit image, placed in time and space for a proof, not a test, that He “is” and “does” by those of faith. Those who saw Him when He miraculously arrived through the birth cannel were most blessed and we are blessed by that faith in their witness and the “power” He mentioned in Acts 1 and they (we) experienced in (of) Acts 2. God’s In-Charge not control. He is your God or you are your own god.
The list leaves off the most important issue for Christianity, I think. Evolution does away with original sin and the fall from grace. The DNA evidence, as I have read, refutes the possibility of a 2-person bottleneck in human history. The diversity of our genome tells us we evolved from a group or early primates, numbering around 100,000 individuals. There seems to have been no place in human evolution when two individuals did something to get Yahweh’s panties in a wad, such that He cursed us with some “original sin” thingie, and brought death into the world. Obviously we know from fossils that death existed for millions of years before humans.
Fundagelicals dispute evolution because they understand the implications for original sin and thus the need to believe, say or do the right things with regard to Jesus in order to be “saved” – whatever that means. Paul did not know anything about evolution, and surely, like Jesus, he assumed the Genesis creation myth was literal. Jesus didn’t even know what germs were, or the value of sanitation, so he surely didn’t know anything about evolution, or he’d have made it clear that there was no “original sin.” That concept, designed by Paul and fine-tuned by Augustine, is primarily designed, I think, to make sex bad, because that’s how original sin is passed along. If you can take the most personal and private things and make them inherently “bad” then you can use guilt, shame and fear to control the sheeple quite handily.
The Catholic Church as dug itself into a hole, because the last several popes have begun carefully at first, in hopes that evolution would be proven wrong, to slowly accept it, to the point where Catholics are now “allowed” to believe evolution – but they are still “allowed” to believe in the creation myth as well. So much for seeking truth. The RCC insists upon a literal event with two individuals, from whom all of us descended, even if it happened 200,000 years ago – but the DNA evidence does not support that ever happening. Fundagelicals, just take the easy route and insist that the Bible is literally correct, because accepting evolution pretty much kills the entire basis for the religion as it is understood by most today.
Evolution should be the most wonderful news of all time, but people love their fear. Evolution tells us that sin did not enter the world through one man (Adam) as Paul thought to be the case. This is wonderful. We aren’t destined to one of the four Hell’s by virtue of our parents having had sex and passing along original sin. We should be delighted. We no longer have to live in fear of not believing the right thing. This is the biggest objection from the fundagelicals. How on earth can you have Christianity without fear?
“I hate to break it to you but science could care less about your faith.” I think you mean, “I hate to break it to you but science COULDN’T care less about your faith.”
Yup. you got me.
Not sure I can reply to everything you mentioned but your first comment on original sin caught my attention right away.
In the book of Romans, Paul talks about sin entering the world through one man. This idea of original sin has had a colourful past to say the least. However, I am of the opinion that Adam was representative of humanity when he sinned. (However in Eastern Orthodox, original sin isn’t part of the mix. I just learned this.)
1 Cor. 15:22 is an interesting verse. I don’t like to toss Bible verses around because, as you likely know, almost any position can be argued from a verse somewhere.
It says this: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
I would suggest that Adams disobedience was representative and had far reaching ramifications – in the same way the believers understand the death and resurrection of Jesus had dramatic, even cosmic implications on human kind.
Of course the question comes up “Was Adam a real person?”. This isn’t a new question. 150 years before Jesus was born, Jewish rabbis were already debating this. I am of the opinion that there was an actual person named Adam, who had a family and descendants. I also believe that Adam refers to mankind in a more generic sense. And no, I don’t believe that the person Adam was the only human. Genesis hints at other stories going on.
The existence or lack of an actual Adam, is not a new debate but, as I understand it, Jewish tradition doesn’t seem to hold Adam in the same high regard, like they do Abraham, Elijah and King David. This may be partly because they never settled on the answer either.
Calvin, I’m a little confused as to your stance on original sin. The DNA evidence does not support mankind coming from two specific humans, but rather from a group of earlier primates numbering 100,000 or so, according to my research. (Visit the BioLogos site – a Christian site that talks about evolution and DNA). Do you believe that all humans have original sin? If so, when did this happen? How are we to know? What could a bunch of early homo sapiens – or just two of them – struggling to survive, while living in caves before agriculture was developed, and dying in their 20s, have done to get Yahweh’s undies in a twist 50,000 or 100,000 or 200,000 years ago? The only source we have for this, is Genesis, which is largely debunked (no 6 day creation, no global flood, no mass Exodus, no conquest of Canaan). The bible says death entered the world with Adam’s sin, but of course that’s ridiculous as the fossil record indicates – even early primates died. There is no evidence for a time on earth when there was no death. Yes, you can speak of spiritual death, but that means proving that we were given souls at the time of Adam – and you’ve already indicated that you believe there were other humans around. Which of us descended from them (without original sin) versus those that descended from Adam (with original sin?) I maintain that I was from the group that did not have original sin – and I guess that means I have no soul (which is highly likely in any case). Prove me wrong. No, the “other people” are irrelevant, and for original sin to have been a real thing, it would have had to pass down from one man, Adam and that just isn’t the case, as the DNA evidence reveals.
The whole concept as best I can tell, came from Paul, and was further developed by Augustine. Paul doesn’t seem to think Jesus was even a real person; it’s pretty clear Paul thought of him as a celestial being and that his (virtual) crucifixion was probably by Satan up in outer space, under the seven heavens – which is what people believed in back then. Paul makes no mention of Jesus’ family, baptism, ministry, disciples, miracles, crucifixion details or anything else that would apply to a real human being. He never attempts to solve his congregations’ issues by suggesting, “Jesus in the parable of blah, blah, blah… tells us by example…” or “Jesus solved this problem by blah, blah, blah..”) We are supposed to believe that none of his parishioners ever asked questions about a human Jesus? Paul has no concept of a human Jesus, so why should we accept his concept of original sin? He obviously knew nothing of evolution. He and Augustine believed in the literal Genesis story – and that story has been debunked beyond all recognition in recent years, and without that foundation, there is no other mechanism for Yahweh’s very existence.
No, I hold to my original proposal that evolution does away with original sin, and the fundagelicals hold to a literal reading of Genesis because they understand the ramifications – without original sin, there’s no need to believe, say and do the right things with regard to Jesus in order to be “saved” whatever that means. However to be honest, I can’t really tell from your reply whether you think there was an Adam from whom we all descended who passed on original sin through sex, but Christianity has used original sin to make sex inherently bad, to the detriment of all of us. It’s time to put an end to that absurd concept.
Great piece!
One thing to consider when discussing the fight over the Copernican vs. Ptolemaic models of the solar system is that the math behind the Ptolemaic model was well established and using that math and model, the calculations of where planets would be, were better than those based on the new Copernican model. Galileo provided visual evidence, and then it took Kepler, Newton, and Leibniz to develop the math to show the Copernican model could more easily calculate better results.
The worth of a scientific result is based on the conclusions it makes. I suspect the state of modern quantum/particle physics is due to a poor mathematical model and the physicists and mathematicians studying that stuff are just inventing so many “epicycles”.
I’m not going to say there were no theological objections, but it was more than just that.
on #4 You say, …”The big bang is also a theory. And every single one of these theories is also true.” So, the theory is true but could be and in my perspective is not absolute “truth”, as it is man’s ideas become theory which could be proven some day to be untrue. If God could have created everything to have evidence of age on the first day, then that fact would still stand, thus making everything to look aged more than it actually is.
on #5 you say, ” our confidence in God’s laws – which guarantee the consistent outcomes of repeatable activity in the natural world – that makes doing science possible in the first place.” You seem to be disregarding SUPERnatural which is what faith and the miracles of The Lord and the His resurrection is all about. You can repeat and to some extent prove the theory of gravity and lift by true “science” but not evolution. See Hebrews chapter 11, “…by faith/through faith we believe…” in the death and resurrection, the supernatural. Even Dawkins in a moment of brain freeze admitted that God is or did or does. There is a law of thermodynamics that states something like “…things go naturally to dis-order”.
on #8, Darwin once said somewhere something like….”if one part of this theory is proven wrong/incorrect, it must all be disregarded”. He may have been a scientist of his time but true science has surpassed his observation, imagination, speculations and theories. Let’s go to the oceans and other earthly frontiers and see what really is instead of this pseudo science of observation, imagination, speculation and theorization of space and evolution.
Hi Alex,
in response to your first point about God creating everything to have the appearance of age. I believe we have a bigger theological problem if we have to defend a God who purposely leads inquisitive searchers astray with evidence made to appear older than it really is. If we are unable to draw reasonable conclusions from physical evidence because God is toying with us, or ‘testing our faith’ how do we actually trust him. I don’t believe God is a lying, or misleading spirit. That title belongs to a different character all together.
Some great work to bring clarification on what is really understood, believed and possibly facts. You may find this interesting and helpful to the conversation from a Prof at University of Alberta. The Evolution of An Evolutionary Creationist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD2i7tD4qqA&list=PLGBuBE5kt5zbhSCbbUvJqLC_VpPq3xey-
Thanks for these links Drake. I have yet to connect with Denis Lamoureux but I am still working on it.
When it comes to this particular conversation – he’s a rock star and I am a busker!
WOW! Just WOW! I have never read an article with so much ego, arrogance and that attacked Christians who believe the Bible to be the literal, God-breathed word of God, and such an attack on God himself.
FYI – correction # 1 – it was Romans 1:20 not Romans 1:12.
Correction #2 – Moses through the inspiration of the Creator himself , that wrote Genesis 1 – the Creation account NOT someone coming out of the Babylonian captivity.
Correction #3 because the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are still just theory – still in need of proving to be true, they should not be taught or preached to be truth.
Correction #4 – The Bible WAS written for us and to us. God’s ultimate desire in creating man was to have a relationship with us. His inspired Word is a part of that relationship with us.
Sheila,
I recognize every single one of your comments (except the appropriate Romans smack down) because I held the same position as you only a few short years ago. I know it seems incredulous that someone who calls himself a Christian could appear so ‘anti-Biblical’. I get it.
But I am not attacking Christians, or the Bible or God. My faith is stronger now than it has ever been precisely because I dared ask some very big questions and wade into some territory that is quite foreign to many evangelicals.
In response to your point #2: Bible historians and archaeologists have long attempted to put together the pieces of the actual writing of the Torah – or ‘the law’. Genesis and the following four books became known as ‘the books of Moses’ when they were given the name “Quinque Libri Mosis.”. This is a Latin phrase. Moses never studied Latin. Not because he was allergic to Italian food but because Latin was not an elective in Egyptian schools until centuries after his death.
It is believed by most Bible scholars there may have been 4 authors plus redactors involved in the writing of Torah. I’m not an expert on these things, but you and I can likely agree on at least 2 different writers because Moses died before those 5 books were wrapped up. At least one other person was involved.
Now, as for the ego and arrogance comment – I didn’t make this stuff up! I didn’t unearth any hidden theological texts or archeological evidence that lay hidden for millenia from the eyes of the world. I didn’t receive revelation from on high (although I did experience the presence of God in my learning) and I very much doubt I am any smarter that you. I simply started to read and ask questions. Mark 12:30 became a “go to” verse for me. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart… soul, with all your mind, and… strength.” – with all your mind was a brand new way of worshipping for me.
Questioning and reasoning are not the enemy of faith. They push us to discover more about God’s incredible creation and how our human story fits into the bigger picture.
I hope this helps
Thanks, good article , lots of comments. A minor language point: The correct expression is ‘couldn’t care less’. If they could care less it defeats the whole point of the expression and doesn’t make sense.
Hey, don’t make fun of theistic dermatology as I am both a theist and a dermatologist! Seriously, it is a good article and am glad it was linked by Biologos. I am also a recovered literal creationist (scientific concordist) and am free to enjoy both Scripture and science as God’s Word and God’s World.
Thank you
Hey, don’t make fun of theistic dermatology. I am both a theist and a dermatologist! Seriously, it is a good article and I discovered it as a link from Biologos. I am also a recovered literal creationist and my faith is stronger in the Creator as I am free to enjoy both God’s Word and God’s World as discovered by science.
Thanks
” In fact, one of every 500 whales is born with a hind leg protruding from its body cavity. I’m not making this up! ”
no, I know you’re not making it up, but someone is.
Claims of ‘1 in 500’ having a ‘hind leg’ are probably more than just a little exaggerated.
http://creation.com/the-strange-tale-of-the-leg-on-the-whale