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.

[Aximili23]

Quemtal, are you even listening to yourself? Can you not take a mental step backwards, examine what it is you're saying, and see how farfetched it all is? You're giving up your ability to reason, analyze, and examine critically, and leaving all of this to a god which, according to your beliefs, makes no sense. Working only with what's been posted lately, obvious contradictions and absurdities already arise. And when you attempt to explain these contradictions, you do so with an interpretation that actually fails to be truly faithful to the literal meanings of words in both biblical text and physical reality.

For example, how can you have days, or a morning and evening, without the sun and stars? You can't do this without redefining "day" as being merely a 24 hour period, and abandoning the central context that a day is derived from the appearance, movement, and departure of the sun across the sky due to the Earth's rotation.

How can there be light without any matter (sun, light bulb, combustible materials) to emit it? If you're saying that God is that light, then does that mean he is a bioluminiscent being that can glow at will? Essentially, you're contradicting what the simple concept of light is and how it arises as we see around us everyday.

How is a woman made from a man's rib? I can't even begin to see how someone who rejects the gradual evolution of human intelligence over billions of years can accept a proposition such as this. If you interpret the Bible truly literally, then Eve would only be about the size of Adam's rib, and would be made completely of bone. To speculate that the rib was actually transformed into a full-sized person is an interpretation that, as you say, acts upon the text. And even then, you still get a God that did a really weird thing for no useful or apparent reason, other than perhaps to justify female servitude to men.

Why were humans created twice? What's so important about resting specifically every seven days? (Should doctors stop healing people on Sundays?) And incidentally, which were created first: plants, or man?

Essentially, you're deliberately and proudly abandoning reason in favor of beliefs that make no sense in the context of the real, physical world that we see around us. I think that's really sad.

[Dilettante]

Quemtal wrote:

Truth is not subjective--the Bible says something even if no one read it.

I never said truth was subjective. I think it is objective and your interpretation of the Bible is objectively wrong in the example given (no days without a sun). The Bible is a book. A book requires a reader, and a reader necessarily interprets what he reads. Unless you can read the Bible in the original Aramaic, Hebrew and koiné Greek, your interpretation is filtered from the previous interpretation by translators. All interpretations are based upon the text, not only yours. How can the Bible say anything before someone cracks it open and reads it? Are you talking about a battery-operated talking Bible here?

Ah, so there is such a thing as a literal interpretatio, only it runs contary to your beliefs?......

No. It runs contrary to reason. Why must "literal" equal "correct" in this case? Is the letter more important than the spirit?

Isaac Asimov (biochemist, author, athiest, evolutionist) wrote: 'And in man is a three-pound brain, which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe'. And yet he claims that the 'most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe' randomly mutated from pond-slime, which grew by chance out of nothingness.

Do you want to discuss evolution or a straw man? Caricaturing evolution is not an acceptable debating move.

And besides, the Word is comprehensible even for the simpleton (Ps. 119.130).

How, then, do you explain the many Protestant sects mushrooming in any American city? Check the yellow pages and count them!

Also, on the first day, God said 'Let there be light!' (Gen. 1.3). Revelation 21.23 tells us that the Sun is not needed, for there shall come a time when God is that light.

The sun is needed to measure days. Are you suggesting God disappeared and appeared every twelve hours?

God didn't have to, he chose to.

You mean he was setting an example? Are you saying Sunday should be a mandatory day of rest for all workers? Please explain.

Do you believe in God? Then you must believe in His word. It is not of men, but of God.

This sounds like circular reasoning to me. You ask me to believe in (your version of) God because the Bible tells you so, and I must believe the Bible literally because it is the word of God. Not a very good argument, I'm afraid.

[otseng]

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?

First off, I am a Christian.

Secondly, yes, I believe in a literal Genesis account of creation.

Thirdly, I do believe that science and a literal reading of Genesis can be reconciled. And I readily acknowledge that I'm probably in the minority of minorities. I also readily acknowledge that if you ask your typical Christian why they believe in creationism, they can only point to the Bible to defend their belief and not to science.

This is actually one of the main reasons I created this site. I wanted to show (in my own limited way) that it is possible to approach creationism scientifically. Some evolutionists like to spout off, "Creationism is not science." However, that accusation is easy to say, but it has been failed to be supported by discussions here on this forum. As Jose has said, "Thinking makes your head hurt, and just saying 'yep' doesn't. Not only that, but misconceptions are extremely difficult to change." To this, I would wholeheartedly agree.

Creation science is an oxymoron.

I would disagree. Creationism and science do not have to be contradictory.

[Aximili23]

Some evolutionists like to spout off, "Creationism is not science." However, that accusation is easy to say, but it has been failed to be supported by discussions here on this forum.

I can't speak for what's been said in this forum, but this accusation has been repeatedly supported elsewhere. Simply put, creationism is not science because it isn't falsifiable. There is no such thing as evidence that might potentially falsify creation. No matter what evidence you turn up, a creationist can explain it as "God did it." Whereas a single fossil in the wrong geological strata would falsify evolution. It is also not science because it ignores a wide range of scientific evidence from different disciplines; radiometric dating for one. A proper scientific theory should account for all the evidence available. Third, creationism is not science because it constantly appeals to a supernatural force. Science rests on the philosophy of scientific materialism, that all things (within the domain of science) can be explained through natural, physical laws. An appeal to an all-powerful, inexplicable entity simply short-circuits any further inquiry. Finally, creationism demonstrates an appallingly poor application of the scientific method because it begins with the conclusion rather than the premises or arguments. It assumes that the bible is literally true, and then searches for/interprets/ignores evidence only in that light.

[Aximili23]

if you ask your typical Christian why they believe in creationism, they can only point to the Bible to defend their belief and not to science.

This is partly because many creationists are illiterate when it comes to real science. But this is also because creationism has no real basis in science.

[Jose]

if you ask your typical Christian why they believe in creationism, they can only point to the Bible to defend their belief and not to science.

This is partly because many creationists are illiterate when it comes to real science. But this is also because creationism has no real basis in science.

"Illiterate" is probably too strong a word, though it is consistent with the notion of "scientific literacy" that is becoming fashionable in educational circles. There are a great many evolutionists who are equally uncertain of just what science is and how it works. This makes it awkward to have a detailed conversation, because each must appeal to authority and not to the raw data to support their views.

Some evolutionists like to spout off, "Creationism is not science." However, that accusation is easy to say, but it has been failed to be supported by discussions here on this forum.

I can't speak for what's been said in this forum, but this accusation has been repeatedly supported elsewhere. Simply put, creationism is not science because it isn't falsifiable. There is no such thing as evidence that might potentially falsify creation.

The creationists will say (as some have in this forum) that some aspects of biological evolution and cosomological evolution are also not falsifiable. The Big Bang is one that has been suggested here. However, as with your example of "fossils in wildly 'incorrect' strata," we could falsify the Big Bang by finding that galaxies are whizzing in different directions, some toward each other, some away from each other. What is missing in the discussion (due to the previous issue of not fully understanding how science works) is recognizing that falsification can be done by determining which predictions are made by the model, and then demonstrating that some of those predictions are not met. We cannot, as you say, do this with the Act of Creation. We can, however, do it with the biblical story of The Flood, which is described in Genesis as an historical event. It is interesting that, although we have the opportunity to explore this in The Flood As Science, and creationists have the opportunity to demonstrate the scientific validity of this particular testable aspect of their model, very few creationists have been willing to contribute support for their model.

Science rests on the philosophy of scientific materialism, that all things (within the domain of science) can be explained through natural, physical laws.

And herein lies the problem. Many creationists shudder at the terms "materialism" or "naturalism." Partly, this is because the processes invoked by these terms exclude God. Partly, it is because some creationist organizations have demonized "materialism" as the source of moral decay. Consider the Design Institute's Wedge Document:

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Consider what Phillip Johnson says:

The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked. Propagandists like Gould try to give the impression that nothing has changed, but essays like Lewontin’s and books like Behe’s demonstrate that honest thinkers on both sides are near agreement on a redefinition of the conflict. Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. When the public understands this clearly, Lewontin’s Darwinism will start to move out of the science curriculum and into the department of intellectual history, where it can gather dust on the shelf next to Lewontin’s Marxism.

Philosophy? Proud tower? How do they come up with this? By inventing a Big Word and demonizing it.

In other words, "scientific materialism" is defined as the bad guy, leading directly to perdition because it excludes god. This reveals a fundamental diffference between what scientists call science and what creationists call science. The former is based on reasoning directly from the data of God's Creation. The latter is based on recognizing the data that are consistent with biblical lore, and bleeping over the inconsistencies. What's puzzling is that so many people are perfectly happy bleeping over so much.

Finally, creationism demonstrates an appallingly poor application of the scientific method because it begins with the conclusion rather than the premises or arguments. It assumes that the bible is literally true, and then searches for/interprets/ignores evidence only in that light.

...and creationists state that the theory of evolution also begins with a premise, and finds data that support it. After all, isn't that what The Scientific Method is? You start with your hypothesis (ie, the answer). Then, you look around for data. It's the same thing! It's not, of course, because we set up the hypothesis in order to determine whether we can disprove it by finding that its predictions are not met.

So, back to the beginning: You are right. There is a lack of understanding of the subtleties of the Nature of Science. To a large extent, this is what leads to the current controversy. We need to eliminate the lack of understanding.

[Quemtal]

creationists state that the theory of evolution also begins with a premise

I agree. Christians begin with a religious--but so do athiests. I say there is a God, and base my thinking upon that premise. An athiest says there is no God, and the moment he reconsiders his opinion, he ceases to be an athiest.

[Aximili23]

"Illiterate" is probably too strong a word

I have heard other evolutionists apply the phrase "willfully ignorant" to some creationists. They've demonstrated it too.

[Jose]

creationists state that the theory of evolution also begins with a premise...

I agree. Christians begin with a religious--but so do athiests. I say there is a God, and base my thinking upon that premise. An athiest says there is no God, and the moment he reconsiders his opinion, he ceases to be an athiest.

You have rearranged what I intended to imply. I was thinking of the claims that The Scientific Method starts with a model (which some would say is "the answer"). Still, to respond to your statement here: you may be right that if one reconsiders the idea that there is no God, then one probably moves from atheism to agnosticism. However, that has little bearing on the religion OR evolution question. That, it seems to me, is a question of how to interpret the bible (mostly inerrant vs allegorical) after evaluating the evidence that God left us in His Creation, and accepting the interpretation that fits all of the available data.

"Illiterate" is probably too strong a word

I have heard other evolutionists apply the phrase "willfully ignorant" to some creationists. They've demonstrated it too.

You are quite right. However, there is a certain value in using less charged terminology. We won't help creationists hear what we are saying if we get them mad at us. It's a little tricky, though--since there are some really vocal creationists who have no compunction about making things up. Apparently, protecting the faith is more important than not bearing false witness. There's that moral relativity again.

[Aximili23]

And herein lies the problem. Many creationists shudder at the terms "materialism" or "naturalism." Partly, this is because the processes invoked by these terms exclude God. Partly, it is because some creationist organizations have demonized "materialism" as the source of moral decay. Consider the Design Institute's Wedge Document:

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Very true. But what many creationists don't realize is that materialism is what works in science. Everytime god or faith or supernatural forces are used to explain the way the universe works, the explanation is invariably wrong (or at best, inconclusive). We get beliefs such as the sun being pushed by a giant dung beetle or pulled by Apollo's chariot, or a firmament covering the skies. When you stick to strict materialism, you're forced to actually try and understand things.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

I'm particularly troubled by this assertion. It seems to imply that we shouldn't try to make the world a better place, or that an ettempt to do so is futile. What's the point of scientific progress if it isn't used to uplift the human condition? Unfortunately, religions often need to promote a dissatisfaction with earthly life, so that people would strive to earn a place in heaven (by following the priests, of course).