Today something was said in class about Christian evolution... You know trying to make those two things mesh just does not work out well. You are trying to mesh two different beliefs. I do not believe that God left room for us to interpret macro-evolution into the creation story or the grand scheme of things. He did so intentionally. "GOD CREATED." That is not to say that there is not micro-evolution. To say that would be like saying someone from up North can never adjust to our weather in Mobile so they have to move back up to New York or wherever. Or saying that someone from Mobile could not adjust to the cold up North... God did create us to be able to adapt. However, we did not evolve from other creatures and I do not believe that the world is millions of years old or that it formed from two atoms striking. Science, history, and the Word do not support such a belief, they actually disprove it.
Ps - AJackson "Never Alone"
This is not a theology class, but I am compelled to comment anyways...
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you, but try telling that to a theistic evolutionist. They'll tell you, "That's just how you interpret the Word. You can't put God in a box" (though he's just taking God out of your box and putting him in his).
The theistic evolutionist, with his "higher biblical criticism," may also disbelieve in a literal Adam and literal Fall, saying it's just symbolic for the human condition. I reject that line of thinking, because it leads to theological liberalism, which is dishonest, playing fast-and-loose with the texts.
Scripture says Adam was a literal man, and it does so outside of Genesis. See the genealogies in I Chronicles 1, Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Also see Spurgeon on evolution.
I am 100% with Josh on this. And I think a lot of problems with macro- and micro- for evolutionists comes from the common genetic code, which is empirically undeniable. We as humans possess the same gene that a fruit fly does that determines whether or not we have limbs, for example.
ReplyDeleteI have a theory that I argued with Mr. Carey on in a paper for biology, and if I knew Hebrew it would be more Scripturally valid because I would have a deeper understanding of the usage of "earth" in Genesis 1 and 2. But if this helps you find deeper resolve as it helped me, Mr. Carey didn't entirely disagree with this:
-Genesis 1 tells us that God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds..."
-Genesis 2 tells us that God formed man out of the dust from the ground.
Yes, I am inferring that our common genetic framework with fruit flies and all other creatures is due to our coming from the earth. Just throwing that out there. You can all throw stones and laugh now. I made an A on that Carey paper, which means more to me than an A on any English paper.
PS - I am not hating on Mr. Carey. He is one of my favorite professors.
I'm not hating on Dr. Carey either. He IS my favorite professor.
DeleteJoy, I agree with what you're saying. Both as a Christian and as a future scientist, macroevolution just isn't something I can support. Even without my faith that God is the creator, I don't think I would be able to see past the lack of solid evidence in support of the theory.
ReplyDeleteSam, your idea that the genetic similarities among species could have possibly derived due to the fact that they came from the earth is an interesting one. However, I would personally go deeper and pose a slightly different argument. The similarities exist simply because the species had the same designer. Not to cheapen the idea, but much in the same way two Coach bags may look similar, or how an artist may use the same technique on several paintings.
Good word, Jamie. I just don't know how much weight that carries in scientific circles that deny the existance of God from the get-go. So to argue it with their version of validity, empirical evidence always comes first with science.
Delete