T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
It is what was taught in the elementary (St. Jude the Apostle parachial school, Atlanta GA) and high school (Marist School, Atlanta GA) that I went to.
- Status
A
alarcon79
Guest
Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work **The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) **provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Chris,
You wrote:
“My objection is that biological evolution asserts that the changes are “random” and “undirected.” Biological evolution ultimately attempts to trace our origins back to very simple organisms, and asserts that all modern species are decendents of that original living organism”
I would say that you slightly misunderstand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory doesn’t “assert” any randomness. Natural selection is not random.
The “random” part comes in when an atheistic evolution-believer is asked “what started that first life form”.
Natural selection can only account for how one life changes into something that looks totally different. Natural Selection can only account for how large rocks are sorted from sand, and they are all laid down in sedimentary layers. But Natural Selection cannot explain how a rock or grain of sand can change into something living.
Using Natural Selection we can trace life back in time right down to the very simplest single-cell organisms. But from there, we can’t answer how did that teeny-tiny thing become alive?
Someone who believes in God easily says “God did it”. But that answer just doesn’t come out of the mouth of someone who doesn’t believe in God. So they say “random chance. A bolt of lightning struck a mud puddle…”
Of course, there we are - made out of mud.
Now we’ve traced things all the way back to a few milliseconds after (or is it before?) the Big Bang, and we still have that question “How did that teeny-tiny ball of matter get there?”
So, evolutionary theory doesn’t depend on “randomness” for the theory to be plausible. Random chance is only an opinion that some scientist hold to explain that very first living organism. All the rest of evolutionary theory is anything but random.
You wrote:
“My objection is that biological evolution asserts that the changes are “random” and “undirected.” Biological evolution ultimately attempts to trace our origins back to very simple organisms, and asserts that all modern species are decendents of that original living organism”
I would say that you slightly misunderstand evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory doesn’t “assert” any randomness. Natural selection is not random.
The “random” part comes in when an atheistic evolution-believer is asked “what started that first life form”.
Natural selection can only account for how one life changes into something that looks totally different. Natural Selection can only account for how large rocks are sorted from sand, and they are all laid down in sedimentary layers. But Natural Selection cannot explain how a rock or grain of sand can change into something living.
Using Natural Selection we can trace life back in time right down to the very simplest single-cell organisms. But from there, we can’t answer how did that teeny-tiny thing become alive?
Someone who believes in God easily says “God did it”. But that answer just doesn’t come out of the mouth of someone who doesn’t believe in God. So they say “random chance. A bolt of lightning struck a mud puddle…”
Of course, there we are - made out of mud.
Now we’ve traced things all the way back to a few milliseconds after (or is it before?) the Big Bang, and we still have that question “How did that teeny-tiny ball of matter get there?”
So, evolutionary theory doesn’t depend on “randomness” for the theory to be plausible. Random chance is only an opinion that some scientist hold to explain that very first living organism. All the rest of evolutionary theory is anything but random.
S
Story
Guest
I have found all this very interesting to say the least.
A number of years ago, after moving from link to link to link, I ran across a site that explained evolution and creation could go hand in hand using (I think) something from Einstein…anyway, the thought went something like this:
The ‘Big Bang’ occurred at an extremely high rate of speed…with 20 seconds passing, most of the universe was approx. 20% of its current size…after 24 hours…it was well beyond that…
It continued at a high rate of expansion till it reached a certain point (almost the size it is now) after 6 days…yet…‘time’ had in fact moved at a faster rate than it does now, making it possible for millions of years (as we know it) to have actually occurred in six days.
The web site I read this off of made some sense to my high school education for the most part…it is known that time is fluid and doesn’t travel at the same speed everywhere (Einsteins Lensing Effect being one example) and that much, if not all is under the influence of gravity…
…thus allowing for both evolution to occur and keeping the story of Genesis intact…with one lousy problem…
I can’t find that web site!!!
If anyone knows this mess, can you post a link to it? I found this absolutely fascinating.
Story
A number of years ago, after moving from link to link to link, I ran across a site that explained evolution and creation could go hand in hand using (I think) something from Einstein…anyway, the thought went something like this:
The ‘Big Bang’ occurred at an extremely high rate of speed…with 20 seconds passing, most of the universe was approx. 20% of its current size…after 24 hours…it was well beyond that…
It continued at a high rate of expansion till it reached a certain point (almost the size it is now) after 6 days…yet…‘time’ had in fact moved at a faster rate than it does now, making it possible for millions of years (as we know it) to have actually occurred in six days.
The web site I read this off of made some sense to my high school education for the most part…it is known that time is fluid and doesn’t travel at the same speed everywhere (Einsteins Lensing Effect being one example) and that much, if not all is under the influence of gravity…
…thus allowing for both evolution to occur and keeping the story of Genesis intact…with one lousy problem…
I can’t find that web site!!! If anyone knows this mess, can you post a link to it? I found this absolutely fascinating.
Story
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Of course if a million years can be crammed into 6 days it’s possible to stretch 6 days over a million years.
And if you travel to the extreme poles of the earth you will find that a year isn’t 365 days at all. It is much less because in June you have one looooooong day, and in December you have one loooooooong night, or vice versa depending on which pole you’re at.
My point is days and nights don’t always work like the ticking of a clock. I see no reason to interpret them so literally. Especially considering that the Maker of Heaven and Earth wasn’t particularly standing on the Earth when He did it all. If He happened to be standing on Jupiter how long would 7 days be?
And if you travel to the extreme poles of the earth you will find that a year isn’t 365 days at all. It is much less because in June you have one looooooong day, and in December you have one loooooooong night, or vice versa depending on which pole you’re at.
My point is days and nights don’t always work like the ticking of a clock. I see no reason to interpret them so literally. Especially considering that the Maker of Heaven and Earth wasn’t particularly standing on the Earth when He did it all. If He happened to be standing on Jupiter how long would 7 days be?
A
alarcon79
Guest
I don’t know why man is so presumptuous as to try cram God the Father‘s creative work into a simple framework that to him seems the most obvious interpretation of what their mind reads into scripture. I do not claim to know God’s design or why he might have chosen to proceed in whatever manner he chose. But, I think it is clear that as Christians everyone can agree that what did take place was ordained by a Creator who outside of time (one of the dimension of our reality) knows everything that is going to take place in that creation. Now I think that is a possibility and completely within the range of God’s ability for him to have created the universe in a week or in a fraction of a second. We can also be agreement I think that God is incapable of false witness. If this premise is true and natural revelation is testimony of God creation, then there should be no inconsistency between God’s creation and the evidence we find in nature that speaks to the history of creation. Would a God who is Truth, leave countless false indicators of a Old Earth pointing overwhelming pro-evolution (or at least the appearance of distinct species of over countless eons.) Theistic evolution is a matter of faith, which science has no business exploring its implications because that is the realm of metaphysics. The reverse is not always true even if science is biased with atheism, humanistic or any other false ideologies, science deals with transparent facts that still can help us to see more clearly even if many who practice science are blind themselves. Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. "The existence of God the Creator can be know with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: ‘By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.’ Heb 11:3 "(CCC 286) The rest of this entry is in the next posting.
A
alarcon79
Guest
By examining nature we should not be lead astray in terms of understanding how God formed heaven and earth and lastly man, but it should confirm and enhance our understanding of scripture. Astrophysics, Geometry and Geology definitively paints a picture of an ancient universe, so the literal interpretation of seven-day creation seems to be allegorical as well as literal. If we can’t take the time frame at face value then perhaps we should consider the possibility that science might bring us closer to understanding God’s design once we infuse it with the faith. That the process of natural selection was the will of God as the instrument of this divine plan is not necessarily mutually exclusive to certain exegesis of Biblical texts. To impose our own preconceived notions based on our possibly flawed interpretation of God’s Word without even being open to the possibility of the Father accomplishing creation in a Day-Age/Macro-Evolution framework is bit demeaning to a God’s creative genius. The universe and human persons are complex yet governed by simple fundamental laws in the physical and spiritual realms, which interact with a perplexing degree of variation. His plan has never been a simple as some would prefer it to be in order to fit more comprehensibly into a humanly and culturally biasness of what they would prefer reality to conform to. I agree with an early post, this is not an either/or proposition, but I do personally vacillate somewhere in the range between theistic evolutionist and Old Earth Creationist. Nailing down where exactly I fall in that range really doesn’t affect my salvation as far as I’m concerned so I don’t really care too much. Science will continue to posit and refine solutions to the question of how we came into being with out ultimate success, adding God into the final equation we as Christians are privileged with a much clearer picture of the entire story, of the physical and spiritual.
P
petra
Guest
If you find the site, please share! I would be very interested. This theory sounds similar to that of Gerald Schroeder, who wrote The Science of God. He provides a very interesting and compelling argument that the universe is 16 billion years old AND the 6 days of creation in Genesis is literally true. He provides a Biblically compatible explanation of macro-evolution, as well.
The passage of time is affected by gravitational force—it slows down with increased gravity. Utilizing the data from the “echo” of the big bang, scientists can calculate the mass of the universe. The mass is the same now as in that instant – just much more spread apart. Taking into account the enormous gravitational force of the super compact and dense universe, it can also be calculated how slowly time would pass relative to our earth-time. Scientists have estimated that the universe is about 16-18 billion years old (earth-time) Converting this to universe-time (the passage of time for a super compact universe), guess how old our universe it? 6 days!
Throughout this book, he explains how the scientific record harmonizes perfectly with the six days of creation. And he explains a evolutionary mechanism that is MUCH different than Darwin’s version. It has the hand of God in it all the way. Through supernatural special creation, God placed all the DNA material that would be eventually expressed in today’s species in the first living cells. Evolution was not a random, million-tries process, but rather environmental factors triggered the expession of traits very quickly in just a few generations. This is why we don’t see any transitional species in the fossil record. This is why we see very similar organs in very unrelated species, like the squid’s and mammal’s eyes. The information was there from the very beginning, dormant until the enviroment triggered its expression.
God was preparing a creature that would love and worship him. When such a creature finally offered that potential, He created Adam. He placed a human spirit in a hominid, and animal became human. Eve was formed from Adam, and they were the first human couple. The human soul and spiritu did not evolve, it was special creation (something created from nothing).
Interestingly, the word “created” is only used 3 times in the creation story. This word implies that He created something from nothing. God created the heavens and the earth (big bang). He created life (single celled organisms). And He created man by giving Adam something animals did not have: a human spirit in which God can dwell and commune with us.
P
petra
Guest
Darwin’s macro-evolution that has random events as the mechanism for change is ridiculous. Most scientists accept that the universe is 16-18 billion years old, and even this is not nearly enough time for life to have developed in this manner. We also do not see transitional species in the fossil record, which we would expect with this type of evolution.
But if God placed the code for all of life in the first organism, and if the environment triggered the expression of traits that were waiting to be expressed, given the right conditions, this would be perfectly feasible given 16-18 billion years. The mechanism is not random mutations, but rather species emerged from environmental factors in response to His design. This mechanism would create punctuated changes rather than slow ones, and we would not expect to see many, if any, transitional fossils.
Young earth creationists must deal with Romans 1:20. This part of scripture indicates that God has sufficiently revealed Himself in nature so that everyone is without excuse, whether they are exposed to the Church or not. The revelation in nature is not meant to merely create a sense of awe with regard to its beauty, but it is meant to be a simplified gospel with the results that men will be saved or perish. Considering that nature is a gospel message, it makes no sense that God would create an earth in its present form, with the false appearance of sedimentary layers, continents that look like they could fit together as a puzzle, current movement of the continents that imply the same, fossils that predate 6000 years ago, etc, etc. To imply that this evidence was put in place simply to make the earth look old, implies that there is deception in the gospel of Romans 1:20. God cannot lie, and He certainly would not embed lies within His Gospel message. The explanation in Schroeder’s book is the most Biblical and scientifically compatible theory I have come across. The young earth theory contradicts science and the Bible.
I am absolutely a creationist. God created the universe from nothing. He created life from nothing. And He created the the human soul and spirit from nothing. Everything else was “made” by Him, as species emerged from environmental factors in response to His design. So I am also an evolutionist. This position is not a compromise, but the most reasonable position given Scripture and natural evidence.
But if God placed the code for all of life in the first organism, and if the environment triggered the expression of traits that were waiting to be expressed, given the right conditions, this would be perfectly feasible given 16-18 billion years. The mechanism is not random mutations, but rather species emerged from environmental factors in response to His design. This mechanism would create punctuated changes rather than slow ones, and we would not expect to see many, if any, transitional fossils.
Young earth creationists must deal with Romans 1:20. This part of scripture indicates that God has sufficiently revealed Himself in nature so that everyone is without excuse, whether they are exposed to the Church or not. The revelation in nature is not meant to merely create a sense of awe with regard to its beauty, but it is meant to be a simplified gospel with the results that men will be saved or perish. Considering that nature is a gospel message, it makes no sense that God would create an earth in its present form, with the false appearance of sedimentary layers, continents that look like they could fit together as a puzzle, current movement of the continents that imply the same, fossils that predate 6000 years ago, etc, etc. To imply that this evidence was put in place simply to make the earth look old, implies that there is deception in the gospel of Romans 1:20. God cannot lie, and He certainly would not embed lies within His Gospel message. The explanation in Schroeder’s book is the most Biblical and scientifically compatible theory I have come across. The young earth theory contradicts science and the Bible.
I am absolutely a creationist. God created the universe from nothing. He created life from nothing. And He created the the human soul and spirit from nothing. Everything else was “made” by Him, as species emerged from environmental factors in response to His design. So I am also an evolutionist. This position is not a compromise, but the most reasonable position given Scripture and natural evidence.
C
Charash
Guest
If anyone has read this far, here are two quick points that should be contemplated until you reach the obvious conclusion–they are both absurd:
My point is simply that evolution is just another test of faith, just as anything that takes us away from God and truth always is. . . .
Science attempts to answer how, but it will never be able to answer why without God.
- The formula for evolution is as follows:
Code:**Nothing + noone x chance = everything**. - Since all evolutionary theory is based on the principal of random mutations and chance in an infinite time scenario, the following will also occur:
My point is simply that evolution is just another test of faith, just as anything that takes us away from God and truth always is. . . .
Science attempts to answer how, but it will never be able to answer why without God.
V
Vindex_Urvogel
Guest
Evolution has a formula? Are you stating that this formula or indeed any other is an underlying nomological statement of evolution? Quelle surprise! I have studied evolution for years and never seen anything of the sort, but, I allow the possibility that you have a more thorough command of the pertinent literaure than do I. Thus, if you could specify where such a formula as that, which you offered above, is advanced as an underlying facet of evolutionary theory, I would be most appreciative. Furthermore, I was wondering exactly what you meant by “everything” as the end product of your evolutionary formula. Last I knew, the goals of evolutionary biology (i.e., that which it seeks to model) were fairly limited and quite explicitly restricted to the diversity of life and the origin of morphological novelties. Is this formula a function? If so, would it be too much to ask you to graph it as such and elaborate which type of function it is?
Secondly, while the occurrence of mutation during meiotic recombination *is *random, there are strict impositions on which mutations are favorably selected for against the environment in which the population lives. Thus, “mere, random chance” is scarcely an adequate description of evolutionary biology and one can only conclude that it was made in error, or disingenuously.
Vindex Urvogel
E
edrazz
Guest
Charles, Evolution is an attempt to explain our existence through random material cause and effects, i.e. strict naturalism. This is why evolutionists proposed material mechanisms like time, chance and mutations rather than supernatural or intelligently guided forces beyond nature to explain the origin of life. The design and complexity of the natural world - has the “appearance” of design (intelligently planned construction) but this is an illusion according to them. Evolution theory is an attempt to explain nature’s design without a designer (i.e. God). The bottom line is that you can’t mix the two. I recommend Philip Johnsons book, “Defeating Darwin by Opening Minds.” It a great introduction to this topic. ftrbooks.net/science/darwin/defeating_darwinism.htm
V
Vindex_Urvogel
Guest
We just went through this in the post immediately prior to your own. I refer you back to there.
Time is materialistic? How exactly? Moreover, science has not dismissed a priori the existence of any intelligent design to the universe, but merely pointed out that while possible, there is no evidence for any such intelligent design. You make in this post much reference to the “intelligent design” of nature, and yet you never explicitly define the criteria by which one diagnoses what an intelligent design is. You also overlook multiple, often glaring, examples of poor and/or bizarre design that seem difficult to reconcile with the principle you have elaborated in the post to which mine is addressed. For example, might you care to provide a coherent ID explanation for diastataxy? The distribution of organisms capable of synthesizing cellulase vis-a-vis the distribution of celluose? The “wiring” of the pectoral musculature in Aves? The aerobic capacity of reptilian lungs in relation to their size? The retention of alulas in Rhea? The retention of a vestigial right oviduct in most neornithine birds? Autapomorphic autopodioum morphogenesis in some lepidosaurs and Theropoda? The retention of vestigial common carotid arteries in *Bucorvus *and Rhopodytes? The vestigial distal head of M. extensor longus digiti majoris in *Cladorhynchus *and Phoenicopteridae? The presence of a vestigial M. flexor hallucis brevis in birds in which the hallux is greatly reduced or absent (e.g., Phoenicopteridae and Cladorhynchus, of the above example)? And so on, and so forth. Can you present a coherent ID explanation for so much as one of these discordant data?
Vindex Urvogel
J
Jillian
Guest
This is not why “evolutionists” (who are really just scientists) propose onlly material causes for evolutionary theory. It’s just that only material causes can be adequately defined, explained, and explored via the scientific method. This is the realm in which science operates. Accusing science of having some sort of “material bias” makes as much sense as accusing religion of having a “spiritiual bias”.
P
petra
Guest
What?! You must not have read my posts.
Darwin’s evolutionary theory is as you state, but there is another option which is compatible with a literal reading of Genesis, plus the record of science. So please do not characterize ALL evolutionary theory as you have above.
P
petra
Guest
And to a young-earth creationist, the natural world has the “appearance” of geological history and evolving life forms, but this is an illusion according to them.
But this implies God has built deception into a mode of communicating a salvific gospel message. (Romans 1:20) God is not a liar, and He definitely would not build deception into a medium in which Scripture says He reveals Himself.
The mechanism of Darwin’s theory is an attempt to explain nature’s design without God. This mechanism is purely random mutations and then subsequent natural selection. Many scientists find this a convenient way of explaining the world without God. But it is the mechanism that is faulty in the popular theory, not the fact that species evolved.
Another mechanism is quite feasible, and which is harmonious with Scripture and scientific data and is God-glorifying. See post #48.
The issue is not whether opposing theories are being mixed. You can’t find Truth by just blending 2 different viewpoints. It is a gross oversimplification to suggest that Christians that believe that species evolved are doing just that.
We are obligated to believe that God is the Creator of everything. We are not here by accident. But we are also obligated (if we believe the Bible) to regard the evidence of nature as real evidence—evidence leading to Truth. The 2 can be reconciled, not by sticking them in a blender and pressing the high speed button, but by being patient and being open to learning. Please read The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.
O
Oolon_Colluphid
Guest
No, it is not.
There are two components to the mechanism that Darwin and Wallace proposed (and which has been expanded in the light of genetics into ‘neo-Darwinism’). One is random: mutations.
But the other, natural selection (more accurately, natural filtering) is the absolute opposite of random.
I’ll repeat that, since the previous thread suggested people don’t listen the first time.
The other part of the mechanism, natural selection, is the absolute opposite of random.
The environment acts like a sieve at each generation, allowing only those things (of those available) that are best adapted to the niche to get their genes to the next generation.
This is repeated algorithmically over and over, which means that the mechanism works cumulatively. The environment through time is a long series of survival-and-reproduction sieves.
After many generations, it is no surprise to find that things that are good at getting through ‘sieves’: things that are well adapted to their niche.
Note that sieves are not random. What gets through them is a totally non-random subset of all the things that go in it.
Similarly, not every living thing leaves descendants. They are caught by predators, fail to catch prey, have their seed or themselves blown out to sea, are poor at fending off parasites, and so on. Those that survive and reproduce are a non-random subset of all the members of the species at that point in time. They are the ones best able to cope in that niche.
Mutation – which is random (more or less) – provides the raw material. ‘Natural filtration’ keeps only the best adapted of these raw materials.
So this principal mechanism of evolution is not random.
I should also note that this is not armchair theorising either. Natural selection is an observed phenomenon.
Hopefully that’s that one knocked on the head. Next?
TTFN, Oolon
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Finally, some other people are latching on to the fact that natural selection is NOT RANDOM.
I would go so far as to say, from God’s perspective THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RANDOM CHANCE.
What is random chance?
The first mechanism of evolution - we define as random because we can’t see any order to it. But put yourself in God’s shoes. You know and have power over every stinking atom in the universe.
Do you think that when a flying beta particle strikes the nuclear DNA of a cell, God says “WHOA, I didn’t expect that!”???
I would go so far as to say, from God’s perspective THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RANDOM CHANCE.
What is random chance?
The first mechanism of evolution - we define as random because we can’t see any order to it. But put yourself in God’s shoes. You know and have power over every stinking atom in the universe.
Do you think that when a flying beta particle strikes the nuclear DNA of a cell, God says “WHOA, I didn’t expect that!”???
G
GoodME
Guest
I beleive in inerrant Scripture. But “inerrant” does not mean literal word-for-word translation, if the author’s style and purpose were allegorical or literary.
Therefore, I do not accept the interpretations of Genesis that some “literal” intepreters accept. I believe within the proper interpretation of the creation story, there is room for something like evolution, just like there is room for the earth to circle the sun and other findings about God’s creation that the disciplines of scientific investigation have allowed us to understand over time.
Therefore, I can have my Faith, and my science too.
Therefore, I do not accept the interpretations of Genesis that some “literal” intepreters accept. I believe within the proper interpretation of the creation story, there is room for something like evolution, just like there is room for the earth to circle the sun and other findings about God’s creation that the disciplines of scientific investigation have allowed us to understand over time.
Therefore, I can have my Faith, and my science too.
B
buffalo
Guest
Who should be the interpreter - the Magisterium or us personally?
- Status