“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)
A front page story in yesterday’s MetroWest Daily News (Framingham, MA) entitled, “Pastors Have Evolution and Creation on the Pulpit,” told about local congregations that were joining “about 850 in the United States and 11 other countries” in observing the fifth annual Evolution Weekend. The article states:
“Paired with Darwin's birthday on Feb. 12, the event grew out of the Clergy Letter Project, in which some 13,000 religious leaders have signed or written statements saying scientific and holy truths can coexist without conflict.”
Several local clergy are quoted as having signed on the the “Clergy Letter Project”. I had not signed onto the “Clergy Letter Project”. I had never heard of it until yesterday! Even if I HAD heard of it, I can’t imagine that I’d sign on to it.
Perhaps the only issue in “Christian” church and theological circles that’s more controversial and divisive would be “a woman’s right to choose”! I don’t even think gay marriage is as divisive as the whole creation/evolution thing. Frankly, my theologically liberal friends (and I really DO have some theologically liberal friends including some who were named in that article) have things very easy. Whenever something in the Biblical text seems kind of hard to swallow or out-of-step with modern science, they can just call it a “beautiful metaphor” and move on. For those of us who believe the Bible is “God’s Inerrant Holy Word” and attempt to understand and receive it as literally as possible, it’s not so easy. The Bible emphatically states there was a literal historical man called Adam and a literal historical woman called Eve from whom all human beings descend. Jesus Christ absolutely believed in a literal Adam and Eve, and Jesus Christ and all of the earliest Christian leaders absolutely believed Jesus Christ was sent from God to be the Second Adam and redeem mankind. Making it all symbolic and metaphorical and (frankly) Darwinian, really messes up Christianity. You can, then, have sort of a touchy/feely Kumbaya singing “Christianity” but orthodox Christianity just isn’t compatible with the Darwinian position.
Listen, before any readers flip out, I will admit that I’m not comfortable with an extreme fundamentalism which says the universe HAS to have been created in six twenty-four hour days and that (say) Noah’s flood, for instance, happened in 2800 B.C.! And, EXACTLY what does it mean when it says the “serpent” talked to Eve. Was it a literal snake? (That’s not likely; although it COULD have been some sort of reptile or lizard possessed by the devil...we really can’t be sure.) Nobody REALLY knows how old the Universe is. Most reputable modern scientists have concluded after thorough and exhaustive study that the Universe is probably close to 13.7 billion years old. The planet Earth may be as much as 3 Billion years old. As a “new Christian” (that is a recently converted evangelical Christian) back in the early 1970s, I thought I HAD to believe the Universe was no more than a few thousand years old...and any teaching that violated that narrow mindset was disconcerting to me. I now know that IF the Universe is really 13.7 billion years old, there’s NOTHING about that which contradicts the Bible. In fact, something like that just underscores how GREAT God is!
Bill Gothard (a very theologically and politically conservative teacher and writer from the Chicago area) firmly believes the universe IS only a few thousand years old, but that God created it with “built in antiquity”...in other words, He supernaturally did the work of billions of years in some sort of super colossal fast-forward mode....doing the work of billions of years in just a very short period of time. Is that possible? Well, frankly, YES. That’s possible. Whether God DID that though, we just don’t know. It’s a theory a number of evangelical Christians hold to. Other evangelical Christians believe God did a massive work of RECREATION just a few thousand years ago, although the Universe itself is billions of years old. A VERY CAREFUL study of the Old Testament indicates there was a flood LONG PRIOR to Noah’s flood which wiped out ALL living things...even living things in the oceans. Interestingly enough, scientists have discovered all sorts of evidence of strange beings who lived as much as hundreds of thousands of years ago, but for some reason ALL evidence of these beings ceases around 30,000 years ago. I believe that’s compatible with the teaching that God wiped out all life....allowed a large number of millennia to go by....and then started over on Earth. Genesis 1 describes a world (planet Earth) “without form and void” into which God intervened just a few thousand years ago and did a work of recreation from which all life on the present planet Earth descends.
As you might have guessed, I’m one of those who “buys into” the recreation thing. Forty years ago when I was “born again” NO evangelicals believed in evolution as taught, for instance, in public schools and secular universities. I must honestly tell you, that IS changing. Now, I DON’T “buy into” Evolution, but some evangelicals now DO. One is Dr. Timothy Johnson who has been the Medical Editor on ABC for decades. He wrote a great book several years ago entitled, “Finding God in the Questions”. In that book he defends his position on evolution and says it’s perfectly compatible with being an evangelical. Again, I don’t agree with him, but it’s an interesting read.
So, I’m still a Creationist and I guess some of you would call me a “Bible thumping nut” but that doesn’t bother me. I don’t see myself doing an Evolution weekend any time soon, but I’m also not afraid to discuss and ponder difficult scientific topics!
EMMYS 1966: The Dick Van Dyke Show (season 5)
4 years ago
8 comments:
I'm not sure I know of any text which points to a pre-Noahic flood, other than the fact that the Genesis earth was covered in water.
If we consider evolution to be differentiation in a species due to genetic drift or something that that is biblical, and neatly explains the many races of humanity who all descended from one guy. But macro-evolutionary theory that all creation was happenstance and over millions of years anything can happen by trial and error; that some fish sprouted lungs one day and decided to live on the land, that sea mammals were once land mammals who went back in the ocean -- all these things seem outrageous. They make no sense biblically, or quite frankly, logically.
Evolutionists also like to see life as a successive history and will deride the notion that dinosaurs and humans could co-exist. I don't think humans were running around like the Flintstones with dinosaurs. But existing at the same time doesn't mean existing at the same geography; the earth's a big place! Have they ever find dinosaur remains in the middle east? I don't know of any. Have they ever found any in the Americas? Lots! And why is it so hard to believe a human might have seen one at some point? Dragons are "mythical" but dinosaurs are real? so it's just a coincidence that all early human civilizations have tails of giant reptilian beasts, but we aren't supposed to believe they ever saw the real giant reptilian beasts??
If your faith requires you to believe that Genesis is actual natural history, then your faith requires you to accept and propagate falsehoods. Refusal to learn is how cultures become moribund and die.
There is a big difference between a ‘nice metaphor’ and believing that Biblical references are limited by the scientific and cultural understanding of the time in which the text was written. Whatever the ‘truth’ is regarding the age of the earth and the universe, why it anymore believable that God would create an elaborate false reality of ‘built in antiquity’ rather than using a complex, amazing and beautiful evolutionary process to accomplish creation escapes me. If the age of the universe underscores how GREAT God is, why is it that the concept of God using an elegant evolutionary system to accomplish creation is not another testament to God’s glory.
I must read Dr. Johnson’s book as I have always found his medical commentary clear and cogent. I think his thesis would probably fit well with my own. At some point in evolution there would be a first couple who meet the genetic criteria of human, hence a literal Adam and Eve. Evolution also provides an explanation of the origin of Cain’s wife, which is omitted in Genesis.
Evolution is a currently accepted hypothesis which like all scientific theories is subject to modification as additional data is uncovered and eventually provides a body of evidence that cannot be accounted for by the current theory. Evolution as a linear model is the simplest basic form taught in introductory science courses. In higher level discussions, non linear fossil evidence is applied to the theory and alternative theories of non-productive evolutionary branches are proved or disproved by observation and experimentation.
For Jon, I know of no evidence to suggest that man and known dinosaurs coexisted in time. The fossil evidence is just not dated to the same time. However that does not preclude the possibility of some lizard/dinosaur/dragon forms for which we do not have fossil evidence coexisting with humans. I have experienced several ‘facts’ that I learned in graduate school overturned by contradictory evidence from subsequent experiments over the past 30 years. So there may be some basis for the common dragon mythology from previously existent species.
At some point in evolution there would be a first couple who meet the genetic criteria of human, hence a literal Adam and Eve.
This is a misunderstanding of speciation. The line between species is nowhere near this definite. It takes many generations for two populations (not individuals) to diverge from each other.
There is no way other than poetic license to reconcile a literal Adam and Eve with evolution. Well, maybe that's too strong; even Genesis can't be understood with a single couple as primogenitors of our whole species. Cain and Seth didn't reproduce with each other, after all.
The firm evidence is that dinosaurs were gone long, long before humans arose in Africa. Geography doesn't enter into it.
Dinosaurs did leave descendant species, however, including crocodilians and birds, and we certainly coexist with those. But no human - no primate even - ever saw a T. rex in the flesh, nor could have without a time machine.
Thanks for the very well done comments here. Carolyn, indeed most of the evangelicals who DO believe in evolution believe God took a man and a woman (when homo sapiens had reached a certain place in evolution) and then infused His spirit into them...thus making them in "His image". I believe Timothy Johnson and former President Carter and others (there's a Biology Prof. who teaches at Wheaton in Ill - the "Harvard" of evangelical universities who is a fully committed evangelical and a believer in evolution) pretty much see it that way, as you do (Carolyn). Having experienced SUCH a powerful salvation experience as a teenager and several very powerful and supernatural experiences with God, I'm not so quick to dismiss literalness in the Bible and not in the Creation account...however, as I wrote, we certainly should be open to discussing this stuff and not fear it. We had occasion to send our kids to a couple of Christian schools for K-8. ONE taught both Creation and evolution, just so kids would be familiar with both and what each teaches...one taught a very fundamentalistic Creation viewpoint only. I frankly think the former school did a better job...but at this point I remain a Creationist...
I certainly agree that this is among the most divisive issues in the 'Christian' church and theological circles. At least if measured by the number of comments on this entry.
I think the one major thing to remember when discussing macro-evolution is that so much of the information we work from is founded emphatically in speculation. There are certainly observable facts. There are certain fossils of certain things found in certain strata in certain locations. There are similar, though divergent, species isolated primarily by geography. But notions that all human life originated in Africa is based predominantly on very partial hominid skeletons which have been PRESUMED to be human ancestors. Is this any more reasonable than believeing these fossils are simply extinct species of ape? We cling to the "ancestor" label because without it there is no link to modern humans which the theory desperately needs for validity.
I will say that the scripture states that Adam was formed from the ground and then placed in the garden. It is thus possible for him to have originated in Africa, though I still disbelieve it. Why is all early civilization based in the Middle East?
Finally, while we are talking about books, I highly recommend Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. It is about 25 years old now, but his primary points and arguments are still strong and reasonable. He's not a creationist. He's a scientist. He believes in species evolution. But he points out a number of problems with the accepted "big picture" theory that to my knowledge have never been cogently refuted.
Although trained as a biologist I have not done an extensive study of evolution as I am more interested in cell biology and the immune system. That being said, it is my understanding that the human genome project has provided additional evidence of the African origin of humanity. Gene mutations can be traced to demonstrate human migration patterns. Now this could be the result of seeing the evidence through the lens of the current hypothesis, but there is more than fossil records indicating the origin of man in Africa.
I will grant that human understanding of evolution is as subject to error as human understanding of the Bible. However, I agree with a friend who said: "God is the ultimate scientist. To ignore the elegant biologic systems would be like me pooping out fully complete intricate knit hats instead of forming them from the systematic combination of different yarns. Then just to create dissent among people pooping out some hats in various stages of completion."
If I am created in God's image, I prefer to believe that image is includes the rational, loving and forgiving parts.
Post a Comment