Creation OR Evolution

[Quemtal]

Hi everyone. I stumbled across this site quite by accidence, though I’m terribly glad I did. It’s a lively and open site in which one may expound one’s views, and may hear myriad other opinions.
Reading many of the discussions however, something shocked me: the number of members who seem to believe in evolution/long-age earth and yet call themselves Christians. I’m new to the site, so maybe this issue has been explicitly dealt with elsewhere (if so, please inform me); but if not, it’s one I would like to raise. I’m a Christian, and only a young one at that (eighteen-years-old). The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not. I choose to base my thinking upon the infallible Word of God—that God said what He meant to say. If God meant to say He used evolution and millions of years, He would have written Genesis very differently.
Below I’ve given just a few reasons (there are many more) why I believe that to be a Christian on MUST believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian.
I would just like to hear what others think about this topic. What are your views, beliefs, &c?

Some people say that the Genesis account of Creation is only an allegory or a metaphor. If this is so, a new translation of the Bible is necessary:

‘Then the Lord God formed the metaphor from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the metaphor became a living creature’ Genesis 2.7

‘Through one Metaphor sin entered the world…’ Romans 5.12

‘Enoch, seventh from a Metaphor’ Jude 14

‘The son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli… Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Metaphor, which was the son of God.’ Luke 3.23-28

‘Thus it is written, “The first Metaphor became a living being; the last Metaphor became a life-giving spirit.”’ 1 Corinthians 15.45

Would you consider such a translation to be accurate? I hope your answer is no. So if the Bible doesn’t say this, why do some Christians?
Without a literal belief in Adam, there is no literal belief in Jesus, which is absolutely necessary to be saved. The truths of the Gospel are reliant upon the HISTORY of Genesis 1-11. Without a first Adam, there can be no last Adam! An allegorical or metaphorical reading of Genesis is incompatible with the Gospel. And anyway, how metaphorical could we be? If you don't take 'the first man Adam' literally, how is it you can take 'GOD CREATED the first man Adam' literally?

Millions of years and evolution place death before the Fall. But death cannot have occurred before the fall, otherwise (yet again) the Sacrifice od Christ is negated.

As Christians, we must follow the example of Christ. But Christ was not an evolutionist (I know, it didn't exist then as it does now). Also, he wasn't a long-earther (they did exist then). When Jesus was asked about marriage (Matt. 19.3-6), he quoted Genesis 1.27 and 2.24. Jesus knew that without the history of Genesis, then there was no foundation for His teaching--and without the teachings of Christ, there is no Christianity.

Many read the Bible by reading into it. They put thoughts between the lines, thoughts that are not in God’s Word. And as a result there are evolutionists who call themselves Christians.
So please let’s read the Word for what it says, not what we want or expect it to say. Let’s allow the Bible to shape our view of the world, and not let the world shape our view of the Bible. Let’s keep in mind the words that first deceived Man, the words of Satan in the Garden, ‘Did God really say…?’ If we try to add to God’s Word as did Eve, then we too will fall. Remember Paul’s plea in 2 Corinthians 11.3, ‘But I’m afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.’
Here’s an exercise to try: First, read Proverbs 1.5-6, ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not in your understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him…’ Then, read the Creation account in Genesis, but lay aside all outside thoughts, all your own ideas and notions. Read it, not INTO it.
Thank you for bearing with me so long (if you made it this far). I know it’s a long post, but I thought it necessary, and still there’s so much I’ve left out. I want to hear your thought and opinions on this matter. Thank you.

[Jose]

Did you ever WITNESS an animal mutate to the point that it is now a member of a different genera...or perhaps one mutate to a point that it now has a new body part, appendage or organ? didn't think so

Wow...kind of a limited view you have there on science. I'm not suprised. I'm sure someone has explained to you how this argument is absurd. Bringing this up only shows intellectual dishonesty.

I think it's unfair to say that this shows intellectual dishonesty. If we look at what YEC actually wrote, we'll see two fundamental misconceptions about science and evolution.

misconception 1: nothing is valid unless we were there to witness it. "No one saw evolution happen, so it can't be true." We all know that this is specious, but it resonates with the non-scientists who really want creation to be true, so they continue to use it. The usual analogy in explaining why it is an invalid argument is forensics, in which forensic evidence is more credible than "eye-witness" accounts. We won't mention the fact that no one was there to witness the biblical creation, of course.

misconception 2: it is commonly thought that "mutation" refers to a single, individual animal changing into something else. Look at YEC's phrasing: "...an animal mutate to the point that it is now a member of a different genera [sic]..." This is a fundamental lack of understanding of how mutation, genetics, and evolution work. Of course it doesn't make sense! We'd all agree that no one has seen such a thing because genetics doesn't work that way.

I prefer to think that YEC holds these misconceptions than to think that he purposely says wildly wrong things as a carefully-crafted plan of deception. The misconceptions are so common, and the inferences drawn from them so clear, that the simplest explanation of the data is that the misconceptions explain what we observe.

I'm not aware of any evidence that points to Genesis at all. Are we talking the creation story , adam and eve, garden of eden?

You'll see, if you look about, that there are lots of people who believe that they have data supporting Genesis (like the ICR). Whether you agree with their interpretation is another story (e.g. the link points out that you have a lot of DNA, which is their evidence that you were "fearfully and wonderfully made"). The key here is the way that data are used to infer conclusions. It seems that the creationism world sees data as information that you find to support your idea. In the science world, data is information from which you build your idea. In the creationism world, data that conflict with your idea are deemed to be wrong. In the science world, data that conflict with your idea usually show that your idea was wrong, although there are many ways that you could be misinterpreting the data, or that you experiment provided you with some kind of artifact. In the creationism world, you look at data that agree with your idea, and pay little attention to the rest. In the science world, you have to pay attention to the rest of the data, because your idea must be compatible with all of it in order to be valid.

This last bit presents an avenue of attack for creationists, which they have been using. Take polonium haloes, for instance. Gentry says "aha! Polonium haloes prove the earth is very young, and igneous rocks must have solidified in an instant."...so therefore, all of cosmology, geology, and evolution is wrong. The hooker is the rest of the data that Gentry didn't consider in reaching his conclusion, which the creationists don't mention. We can play this game all day. as they do--"oh yeah? Then how do you explain this? What about the peppered moths, for which I can claim there was an error, and therefore the entire thing has to be thrown out? How do you explain anything when your fossil record is so incomplete?" You know the schtick.

There's a fundamental difference in thinking about what constitutes data, and how to interpret the data, and how much background information one needs to interpret data accurately.

[bdbthinker]

Did you ever WITNESS an animal mutate to the point that it is now a member of a different genera...or perhaps one mutate to a point that it now has a new body part, appendage or organ? didn't think so

Wow...kind of a limited view you have there on science. I'm not suprised. I'm sure someone has explained to you how this argument is absurd. Bringing this up only shows intellectual dishonesty.

I think it's unfair to say that this shows intellectual dishonesty. If we look at what YEC actually wrote, we'll see two fundamental misconceptions about science and evolution.

misconception 1: nothing is valid unless we were there to witness it. "No one saw evolution happen, so it can't be true." We all know that this is specious, but it resonates with the non-scientists who really want creation to be true, so they continue to use it. The usual analogy in explaining why it is an invalid argument is forensics, in which forensic evidence is more credible than "eye-witness" accounts. We won't mention the fact that no one was there to witness the biblical creation, of course.

He stresses "witness" in all caps. Also, he is well-read in Creationist apologetics. I would have an incredibly hard time believing that he does not know about scientific induction, inference, deduction, etc.. Therefore, since he stresses the witness part, I think it's fair to say he is being intellectually dishonest.
If he really doesn't know about these things, then I offer an apology and will be happy to direct him to sites where he can learn about these scientific principles.
Remember, he is claiming this stuff is science and, IMO, needs to be held to those standards.

I'm not aware of any evidence that points to Genesis at all. Are we talking the creation story , adam and eve, garden of eden?

You'll see, if you look about, that there are lots of people who believe that they have data supporting Genesis (like the ICR). Whether you agree with their interpretation is another story (e.g. the link points out that you have a lot of DNA, which is their evidence that you were "fearfully and wonderfully made"). The key here is the way that data are used to infer conclusions. It seems that the creationism world sees data as information that you find to support your idea. In the science world, data is information from which you build your idea. In the creationism world, data that conflict with your idea are deemed to be wrong. In the science world, data that conflict with your idea usually show that your idea was wrong, although there are many ways that you could be misinterpreting the data, or that you experiment provided you with some kind of artifact. In the creationism world, you look at data that agree with your idea, and pay little attention to the rest. In the science world, you have to pay attention to the rest of the data, because your idea must be compatible with all of it in order to be valid.

This last bit presents an avenue of attack for creationists, which they have been using. Take polonium haloes, for instance. Gentry says "aha! Polonium haloes prove the earth is very young, and igneous rocks must have solidified in an instant."...so therefore, all of cosmology, geology, and evolution is wrong. The hooker is the rest of the data that Gentry didn't consider in reaching his conclusion, which the creationists don't mention. We can play this game all day. as they do--"oh yeah? Then how do you explain this? What about the peppered moths, for which I can claim there was an error, and therefore the entire thing has to be thrown out? How do you explain anything when your fossil record is so incomplete?" You know the schtick.

There's a fundamental difference in thinking about what constitutes data, and how to interpret the data, and how much background information one needs to interpret data accurately.

I completley agree with you, I have no problem with pointing out flaws in science. That's what the peer-review part is all about, making sure there are no "pet theories" so-to-say that are just accepted.
However, my problem with creationism is that their conclusion is not science. It seems like they exists only to poke holes in scientific theories yet provide nothing new of their own. They confuse the issue of what science really is.
I don't know everything there is to know about how the universe was created. We have theories supported by some evidence, but I feel it's dishonest to say it's the Absolute Truth. But this is exactly what the creationists do, they claim God created the universe and they claim this as Absolute Truth.
Also, many of their arguments have already been refuted to death. For instance, the polonium haloes issue you brought up. This has been refuted yet they still bring it up as an example that somehow proves a point.

[Jose]

He stresses "witness" in all caps. Also, he is well-read in Creationist apologetics. I would have an incredibly hard time believing that he does not know about scientific induction, inference, deduction, etc.. Therefore, since he stresses the witness part, I think it's fair to say he is being intellectually dishonest.
If he really doesn't know about these things, then I offer an apology and will be happy to direct him to sites where he can learn about these scientific principles.
Remember, he is claiming this stuff is science and, IMO, needs to be held to those standards.

You may be right. Still, thinking makes your head hurt, and just saying "yep" doesn't. Not only that, but misconceptions are extremely difficult to change. If we go into a class and explain how something really works, our students will happily memorize it and write it down on the test. But, when the class is over, they'll drop it and go back to their pre-conceived notion. This has been shown numerous times in the education literature. I even had a student once who could simultaneously believe that (1) the reason we have seasons is that, in the winter, the US faces away from the sun, while in the summer, the US faces toward the sun, and (2) the reason we have day and night is that, in the day, the US faces toward the sun, while in the night, the US faces away from the sun. It's possible to hold two misconceptions in different parts of the brain, and never let them interfere with each other.

So, unless something fundamentally weird happens, and makes it absolutely impossible to continue to hold the misconception that animals mutate by turning into new things, it is unlikely (for some people) that they will ever be induced to replace the misconception with the correct understanding. In this instance, there's the deeply-seated necessity that evolution be Wrong. Look up Craig Nelson's rusty hand grenade metaphor for a discussion of the relative dangers of not believing evolution, vs not believing in God. That's a powerful motive not to let the "impossible version" of evolution desert you. Besides, then, when you say "evolution is wrong," you'll be referring to your own private notion of what evolution is, so you'll be right!

Of course, the possibility exists that intellectual dishonesty is involved. It's well-documented for some of the more vocal creationists--you know, agreeing in one "debate" that XXX really has been discredited, and then using the very same argument again in the next "debate" before a new audience that doesn't know they've agreed that it's wrong. So, that's a possibility. The problem with it is that it breaks the 10 commandments, and is thus terribly non-Christian--unless the Moral Relativity of The Faith says its OK to bear false witness when speaking to heretics (aka people who don't share your views).

[bdbthinker]

He stresses "witness" in all caps. Also, he is well-read in Creationist apologetics. I would have an incredibly hard time believing that he does not know about scientific induction, inference, deduction, etc.. Therefore, since he stresses the witness part, I think it's fair to say he is being intellectually dishonest.
If he really doesn't know about these things, then I offer an apology and will be happy to direct him to sites where he can learn about these scientific principles.
Remember, he is claiming this stuff is science and, IMO, needs to be held to those standards.

It's possible to hold two misconceptions in different parts of the brain, and never let them interfere with each other.....

Yea..I think Orwell termed this as "doublethink" in the book 1984...that's a great read!!

Look up Craig Nelson's rusty hand grenade metaphor for a discussion of the relative dangers of not believing evolution, vs not believing in God.

Looks like a good article...diving in right now

[Quemtal]

To Perfessor

Quemtal wrote:
The world constantly bombards us with long-age earth points of view, and I must choose whether to believe these or not.

Just like I must choose to believe that the sky is blue because of diffraction of light, or that water flows downhill because of gravity.

Absolutley. And that's how much I believe God--that He is real and obvious. Truth is not subjective--whether one chooses to believe in God, He exists regardless. For instance, you used the example of gravity, so shall I. Even before it was 'discovered' it existed.

[/quote]But only Humans fell, right? What about animal death? Also nonexistent? Are animals also being punished for Eve's mistake?

Romans 8.22 tells us the whole world groans in expectation of

[Quemtal]

Hi every one. Quemtal here.

I just wanted to say, I think it's great to get so many replies to this post, but....

I started this primearaly to hear what Christians had to say about the issue. Now that I know the site a little bettor, I realise I probably should have posted it in the Christian forum. But having said that, it's still a Christian - evolution matter.

I think the discussions that have been going on are great. It's an important issue, but I was looking to hear from Christians about:

a) Do you believe in a literal Genesis?
b) If not, why? How do you justify (strong word, but bear with me) not believing it as literal truth?

Thank you every. Have an awsome day.

[harvey1]

I think the discussions that have been going on are great. It's an important issue, but I was looking to hear from Christians about:

a) Do you believe in a literal Genesis?

I believe God inspired the scriptures. However, as those who have God's spirit we have the responsibility to understand the scriptures as new creatures in Christ. This means sometimes paying little attention to the circumstantial details of what the story is technically about, and looking at the more important meaning behind the scriptures. This takes a great deal of care and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

b) If not, why? How do you justify (strong word, but bear with me) not believing it as literal truth?

The scriptures never took a strong literal approach from what I can tell. Jesus directly contradicted the 'thus speaks the Lord' in the books of Moses. Paul directly contradicts the decision of the apostles to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, etc. So, it's really the job of Christians to read the scriptures with a high level of spiritual understanding and a strong commitment to truth (i.e., not truth as we would like to define the term, but as it is in terms of our observations, deductions, etc). This is not a literalist account approach per se, but in my view Christians should be committed to the inspiration of scripture and seek to better understand the depths and riches that God has hidden in there!

[Aximili23]

I realize that this isn't really an argument, but perhaps its worth including anyway...

--------------------------------
Religions Supporting Evolution

These churches and religious organizations have come out in opposition to teaching creationism in school:

* American Jewish Congress
* American Scientific Affiliation
* Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
* Central Conference Of American Rabbis
* Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
* The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
* Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
* The Lutheran World Federation
* Roman Catholic Church
* Unitarian Universalist Association
* United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
* United Methodist Church
* United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.

Source: http://wilstar.com/evolution/religious_groups.html

[Aximili23]

a) Do you believe in a literal Genesis?

No.

b) If not, why? How do you justify (strong word, but bear with me) not believing it as literal truth?

Simply put, because it contradicts the scientific evidence. (Radiometric dating, for one).

Cheers!

[Lotan]

realize that this isn't really an argument, but perhaps its worth including anyway...

That's pretty interesting. Do you think that list represents a majority (as measured be the number of adherents) of Christian churches? The Catholics are the largest single group... I wonder if anyone has done the math?