After what I wrote in my last blog, I think it’s pretty ironic that I got this topic to do this week. Thanks to Kevin I have to tackle this oh-so-touchy subject and get into arguments I don’t want to be in and try to prove something I don’t really know anything about. I was pretty close to actually manipulating my topic to be about Kevin, but that’s just because I wanted to title my blog “Kevolution”. The truth is, I don’t know what Kevolution is or where it came from. I know almost as much about evolution as I do about Kevolution, but since Kevin is such a nice guy, and almost a high school graduate, I will continue. I am just going to go ahead and throw this out there: I believe the theory of evolution.
There, I said it.
I have been trying to learn a little about evolution and let me just go ahead and say that it is an extremely complicated idea. You have to know a lot of biology like genetics and animal classification. It wouldn’t be possible for me to actually give a good argument on why evolution is true because I really don’t know much about it. Instead I’m just going to give my reasoning for why I’m open to the idea.
In the present day everyone knows that there is a big tension between science and Christianity. I have a hard time understanding this. A lot of Christians actually believe that most scientists are out to prove that there is no God and would go as far as to say that these scientists are full of crap. This is the main argument that I’ve heard in the creation vs. evolution debate. Scientists come to the table with this theory that changes the way people look at things, and since many Christians know very little about the theory the only way they can respond is by saying the scientists are full of crap – that somehow they must be wrong because the Bible says something that seems different.
It is a known fact that most scientists subscribe to the theory of evolution. I am actually a person who trusts science. In fact, as heretical as this may sound, a lot of times I trust the scientists’ interests in searching for truth more than the Christians who argue against them. For instance, Christians have the Bible, and based on their interpretation they already have a preconceived notion on what the truth is. If you believe in a literal creation story, then you have already accepted and nailed down your view of how the world was created. You believe that because the Bible says so. Science, on the other hand, comes to the table with no concrete assumptions. Science is open to anything as long as it can be proven and tested. If no evidence or data can be found on a subject, then scientists will simply say they don’t know.
The reason I like the scientific perspective better is because it is more open to new ideas and is unbiased in the conclusions it comes to. In the movie “The Sentinel” I remember a specific scene where Keifer Sutherland’s character goes to investigate a crime scene. He gets there and starts talking to a couple of cops who have been collecting evidence. They explain to him what they think happened in the crime and then show the evidence. Sutherland then says that if a person already has a theory of what happened, they will only find evidence that supports that theory and ignore evidence that goes against it. In the same way, many Christians who already have an idea of these things in their head will not even be open to evidence that may go against it. Science, on the other hand, gathers the proven facts and then tries to formulate the truth based on what they know.
Now I understand that this sounds almost like heresy, but I believe the reason that it may sound that way is because many Christians separate science and Christianity as two different and contradicting things. To me, this doesn’t make sense simply because God created the world and science is a method of trying to learn about the world. If scientists are actually out there to discover the truth of how the universe works then I don’t understand what Christians are afraid of. I mean, if we really believe that what the Bible says is true, then we shouldn’t be afraid of what scientists find. Learning more about God’s creation is only going to point us toward the creator anyways, right? And if God really did create the world, how can we be scared that scientists will find something that proves his word wrong?
I’ve said before that I don’t take the 6 day creation story as a literal, scientific account of how God created the world. In fact, I don’t even think the poem is about how God created the world. Because of this interpretation, my faith is not destroyed when scientists say the world is billions of years old instead of thousands. It’s not that I don’t have faith or anything, but it’s just more reasonable to me to believe this rather than say science is a bunch of garbage because their research and theories don’t confirm what our creation poem says. This is especially true because it doesn't contradict or diminish my faith in God at all.
As a person who really doesn’t know enough on the subject to make a good argument either way, I guess what it comes down to is who do I trust more to be telling the truth in this issue? My honest answer is I trust the scientists. In fact, I believe that some Christians out there distort the facts or simply make stuff up (stuff like Charles Darwin didn’t really believe the theory he came up with, and he renounced the whole thing on his deathbed) in order to come up with an argument against this stuff. Either that or they just have misconceptions about the whole idea. (For instance, many people forget that evolution is a biological theory meaning it explains what happens in living organisms. But for some reason creationists want to say that a flaw in evolution is that it doesn’t explain why soda cans exist.)
When it comes down to it I believe that God created the world and that evolution is a process that was set in motion by God to help his living creatures survive. I have no reason not to believe that.
Please note that when I say “Christians” here I am not referring to all Christians as a whole or to all Christian belief. Christian belief on these sorts of things is extremely varied and there are all sorts of Christians out there who believe all sorts of different things. Please take the term in context with the subject.
Posts
23 comments:
i hate talking about this
i think your right in saying that not ALL things in the Bible should be taken as literal fact, and I think that a lot of things are meant to be read poetically. BUT, the Creation story is one of those things I believe is a literal truth.
I'm not the kind of person who's going to throw out anything scientists say if its not in the Bible, but if it contradicts exactly what the Bible says(which in my opinion evolution does) then I don't believe it.
I think science together with the Bible is an amazing thing. I mean there has been science to "prove" the creation story. There has also been science to "prove" evolution. But science is proving and disproving itself all the time. For me, its hard to believe in something thats always changing when I have the Bible that stays the same everyday.
I don't think that God really wants us to know exactly how things happened. If he did, then it wouldn't be this hard. I guess your beliefs come just from how you interpret thing.
well there is my mini-blog on evolution.
I'm sorry Matt but I have to agree with Elizabeth. Then again, I don't care. Because Jesus still came, he still dies on the cross, and he is still my Saviour. So I don't care how I got here, just so I know WHY I am here. And that my friend, is to live my life for Jesus Christ.
I swear next week I am going to make Kevin blog about the meaning of the book of Revelation.
No I meant that as a joke.
i dont understand how the bible contradicts the theory of evolution at all. but meh. maybe i should re-read genesis again. ive only heard the story 3 billion times. i just think when moses wrote the creation poem that he had no other way to articulate the creation of the world than through terms we can understand. i mean, most of us are still wrestling with the fact that we exist. how we exist is a whole different ballgame. and, as someone who's gay enough to actually be interested in poetry, ive come to understand that a lot of it is completely metaphorical. poetry is quite abstract unless the poet says flat out "i was referring to..." or, "this is a metaphor for..." or whatever later on. poetry is just incredibly profound at times, and i cant imagine moses using poetry of all things to write the science of the universe. i just dont think he was interested in doing that. nor did he have the means (imagination/words). i mean, did God really literally breathe life into us? that sounds completely metaphorical. if he did, that means i once breathed the breath of God. and all i can say about that is wtf.
but i guess that's all been said plenty of times.
i obviously completely agree with you on this, and respect your boldness and openmindedness on the matter, even if you are a smelly, satan-loving douche.
So I say we all gang up on Kevin for giving Matt this topic on Wednesday night k? Just b/c he's a football player doesn't mean that we can't take him!
since when is the book of genesis a poem?
The whole book of Genesis is not a poem, only the 1st chapter and part of the 2nd.
so why if, the first and second chapters are poems, why aren't the other chapters also? what makes you think that the first and second chapter are?
Hey buddy, I just finished studying psychology at Jefferson State Community College and have spoken to my professor on this issue. Now take note, Mr. Boswell has taught for more than TWENTY years and has done research for more than THIRTY-FIVE years on issues such as this. So, I think he knows what he is talking about. There has indeed been substantial proof that Darwin DID, he DID renounce his theory of evolution just as for sure as your breathing at this very moment. Therefore, if the creator of evolution doesn’t even believe in his own work then that gives anybody a legit reason not to believe in it either. Also, I want to point out to you, that the Bible is infallible, that’s one huge reason we had the Reformation of 1517. So what the Bible says is what the Bible says and can’t be changed nor made up nor rewritten. God wrote the Bible using man as a tool just like God uses your friends, family and surroundings to shape you and your personality. So, if you claim that you do not believe in the word WRITTEN by God through man, that it is fiction or a poem or whatever, then you’re going to have a lot of trouble believe in God’s miracles. One reason why I am a Christian is because I have seen these miracles in action. I have seen the limp walk freely, I have seen the blind see, and I have seen people completely turn their lives around, all by the Grace of God. Therefore, one could easily say that the Creation Story is nothing shy of a miracle. But He is God, He has an unlimited and unimaginable amount of power that no human will EVER understand until we die and walk in His wake in Heaven, or the alternative. But to put it bluntly, if one can not believe in the Word of the Lord, one can not believe in the Power of the Lord. The two go side by side just like believing in the trinity plays a role in being a Christian, and Christ’s resurrection. And that’s another thing, if your so hiked up in having scientific proof of things, then I want you to proof to me that there IS a Holy Ghost. If you can not physically feel nor see a Spirit, then how do you know it exist? I know there is One cause of personal experiences and accounts that only my true friends will ever hear about, but the only way one is ever going to truly know that the Spirit IS there, one must first let it consume your HEART. From the way it appears in your article, you put more faith in science than in the Word of the Lord. That my friend, will get you into some serious trouble. There is so much more that I can say here but I’m running out of time to continue. So I’m, going to have to stop here. But trust me, evolution is nothing but a theory and only a theory.
JT
PS, in reference to steph’s comment, yes, God did breath life into you and you are STILL breathing the breath of God, Who do you think created air?
Or maybe it was a bunch of atoms and molecules that were in there right spot at the right time and BOOM, there was man (or ape). That’s IS a load of crap
In a quick response to the above me, I had Mr. Boswell.. He is a creepy old man that is obsessed with sex.
Anyways.
I totally agree with you. I don't see how, or why, we would completely throw out the idea of evolution because none of us were there. Why couldn't God use that method? He's God. He can use whatever method he wants. It is said that the 1st chapter and some of the 2nd in Genesis are written as poetry. That is what nearly every Old Testament Religion Professor will teach you.
I agree... by the way I got one of these silly things.
i know that the topic has added another post, but i wanted to respond to "anonymous."
i think that you missed the point about truth and what scripture says and means. first of all, it is impossible to just take the bible and believe what it says. all readings of scripture, all interpretation, all translations are colored by the author. so, for example, when a pastor preaches "what the bible says about heaven" what he is really preaching is "what i believe the bible says about heaven." this is unavoidable. so you have to read the bible in the genre and context it was written in. we have forced a specifically literal reading on scripture only after the enlightenment. ironically, this is due to a desire to read it scientifically and make it answer scientific questions, which it does not necessarily do.
i hope that makes sense. really, i just wanted to defend my friend, because you seem quick to suggest that his faith or belief is not what it should be. i know him and he is more like christ than almost any one i know. that is what matters, not whether he (or we) agree with you and your professor.
i pray that our discussions of ideas central to our faith will produce more light than heat. for far too long it has been the opposite.
I have always believed that you should take the Bible very literally. There are some gray areas though, such as a verse in Psalm, that I can't think of the exact chapter or verse right now. It says something along the lines of, in man's eyes is one day, and in God's eyes is 1000 years.
The Bible cannot contradict itself. I don't believe that God said He created the earth in 6 days to confuse us. I believe he said it, because it's true.
I don't know anything about Evolution, honestly. I just don't think I could ever believe something so strongly over God's word. Not that I'm saying Evolution is wrong, because, like I said I don't know.
If God wants us to have a relationship with him. Why would he try to confuse us by writing "poetry". Again, just my opinion.
I hate this topic.
the argument isnt over whether it's poetry or not. that's a fact, not an opinion.
and if God made the decision not to confuse us, then he's got a really weird way of doing things. there are plenty of things in the bible that confuse me, for instance, Job, and obviously Revelation, and a plethora of other things. sometimes i think more things confuse me in the bible than they make sense. i'm not implying he's going out of his way to confuse us, but i certainly dont think he wanted to make things easy on us.
I never said he DIDN'T confuse us. I just said I don't see why he WOULD.
I HATE THIS TOPIC
"Science, on the other hand, gathers the proven facts and then tries to formulate the truth based on what they know. Science is open to anything as long as it can be proven and tested. If no evidence or data can be found on a subject, then scientists will simply say they don’t know."
Your first mistake is that you have bought into the myth of neutrality. Science would have you believe it's neutral, that it simply looks at the facts objectively, but every scientist has just as many presuppositions as every theologian does. No one is neutral. It's a myth of modernism that neutrality is even possible.
You said that science says nothing when there is no data on a subject. Did you know that there is no evidence that one species has ever evolved into another? It's pure theory.
"Your first mistake is that you have bought into the myth of neutrality. Science would have you believe it's neutral, that it simply looks at the facts objectively, but every scientist has just as many presuppositions as every theologian does."
...or otherwise known as a hypothesis?
An interesting read, and you more or less arranged your thoughts well. I'm glad to see that you are willing to give your thoughts even when they go against the norm of your readers.
However I do disagree with many of your points, and find flaws in your arguments.
For one, you talked about how Christians seperate science and religion, but you seemed to do the very thing. "Science is neutral...Christians are usually biased...science this while Christians that...I trust scientists more than many theologians...etc."
For two, I would not go as far as to say that most every scientist fully accepts evolution. Perhaps the majority you see in the government schools and government universities generally agree with evolution, but that is not all scientists. The six-day-creationists scientists are often kicked out of schools or the public because they are seen as bias. But really, who is the biased one's here?
Your argument seems to be this:
Scientists are less biased than Christains, so I trust them in science more.
Scientists support evolution.
Therefore I believe in evolution.
More or less valid, but the premises are very flemsy. For one, scientists are not always trustworthy, and for two, not all scientisists even believe in evolution. For three, not all scientists are fully open-minded. Really, they all have their biases.
Really we are all bias, because as one comment said, there is no real neutrality. I'm not taking away open-mindedness, so don't get me wrong. But we do bring or own bias thoughts to the table. I posted a video on my blog (that does not play now because it was taken off of youtube), that was sort of a documentery, that had scientists looking for evidence of evolution. They hit a brick wall and said, "well the only answe would be this..." So they looked for the "this" and supposedly found it.
And I think you misuse the Christian idea of being bias. It is not as if Christians just go make up sappy stuff to help them in hard times that they can be biased about. Christians have been given the irresistable knowledge of the grace of God, and of how He reveals Himself in the Bible (along with personal experience, creation, etc.). Therefore this "bias" is not really wrong, and from what I can see in Scripture, it seems quite the best thing to believe in six-day creation. If science seems to show something different, and I see how it fits in line with Scripture, then maybe I could consider changing my mind. But for now I am nowhere near that point when it comes to creation. Without God, where do we obtain knowledge? How do we even have any knowledge without the true Triune God? I believe that the non-Christian would have to on his own make up his ideas for knowledge, making him the one who is most biased. I would trust someone who has been given knowledge by God, rather than one who finds knowledge with no real backing for it.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge (or wisdome or understanding, depending on the translation)." -Proverbs 1:7
And btw, I would argue there is a difference between a presupposition and a hypothysis. A hypothesis has some natural evidence on a particular case, and one then tests the hypothosis. A presupposition is one's worldview, how he perceives everything from the start.
Still, I give you props for making your points on a contraversial issue. And I do not doubt your faith in it at all. I do disagree, but I'm willing to hear you out, and hear how you can put it from your perspective, though still Christian.
Sorry for any typos. I wrote this fast and off the top of my head, so sorry for getting long-winded, and sorry if you do not understand what I am saying. Feel free to write back.
Ryan, thanks for the comment. I actually felt good after reading that, even though you disagreed and I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue and not make it personal or anything.
You say that not all scientists are trustworthy and I absolutely agree with you there. Scientists can be biased just like anybody else can. They can be corrupt just like anyone else can. But one thing I am going on here is the scientific method - forming a hypothesis, experimenting, and coming to a conclusion based on the results. Evolution is a theory, but it is not something that some dude just invented out of nowhere. It is a theory that is based on factual evidence, and thousands of scientists say it's true. Now HOW true they say it is, I don't know. Maybe it is completely true, maybe there are parts you can take from it that are true. I don't know enough about it to say either way, but a whole lot of scientists (and even Christian scientists) believe it. I personally think the theory has a lot of credibility and since I don't think it goes against the Bible, I'm fine with believing it.
Now you can turn this point around and make it true to Christians too. Christians can be corrupt, biased, misled, etc. Not every Christian is a saint, you know. Take slavery, the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition for instance. I wish I had a more specific term to use, rather than simply "Christian" because that covers a lot of people who believe a lot of different things. There are many Christians who buy into evolution, for instance.
Am I saying that all Christians who are creationists are bad, stupid people? Absolutely not. Most of the people who have disagreed with me I know and they are truly incredible people, friends that I see Christ in all the time. I'm just saying that it's possible that Christians can be just as corrupt in their motives as anybody else in this world.
You know, I would argue that creation science is technically not really science in definition. The reason I say this is because creation science already has the conclusion before it searches for the evidence. Creation science is about having an end and finding the means. Science is about using evidence gathered to reach a previously unknown conclusion. So a regular scientist would be asking the question "Is 6-day creation true?", forming a hypothesis, and then testing to reach a conclusion (or theory). A creation scientist would be saying "6-day creation is true, let's find evidence to prove it."
So do you see what I mean by saying Christians can be biased? I know that God can work in His people and that knowledge comes from Him. But if He is giving knowledge to all Christians then why don't we all believe the same way? Is He giving knowledge to a certain group and not the rest? Or is He giving certain knowledge to certain people and giving other knowledge to others?
Anyways, I hope I explained myself clearly enough. Thanks again for the comment and the insight, and feel free to add some more.
let's ask mr. boswell, the psychologist [anyone questioning the relevancy as much as i am?].
im only kidding. everyone has made rather intelligent observations here. i'm glad people have commented and disagreed. it sheds more light than people continually agreeing does. it's mentally stimulating, to say the least. nothing mindboggling, though, cause i still agree with you.
i think it's the argument of an unwise person to make the assumption that you are some sort of nonbelieving son-of-a-whatever due to your openmindedness toward evolution. i looked evolution vs. religion up online and youre not alone in your beliefs and reasoning for thus said beliefs. here's something i found:
Within Protestant evangelical circles, evolutionary creation is held by a small but growing number of individuals educated in both science and Scripture. In particular, a majority of these Christians trained in the biological sciences accept this position. The leading evangelical evolutionary creationist today is Howard Van Till. He spent most of his career at Calvin College, an institution considered to be the leading evangelical college in the United States supporting this view of origins. Van Till claims that God created the world 'fully-gifted' from its inception so that all the universe and life would evolve without subsequent Divine interventions. Evolutionary creation best describes the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, though it is often referred to in this tradition as 'theistic evolution.' In 1996 Pope John Paul II made international headlines by claiming that "new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."
when Darwin died, the message that he renounced his theory was delivered by a catholic priest. The one assigned to give him his last rights. A great deal of people believe that this priest lied, no one will ever know because it wasn't heard from Darwin's mouth. Besides Darwin never wrote or said anything along the lines of "Man evolved from monkeys and chimps".
Wow, so much more I could say....too little time. Oh, well....
The question is this...."What does the Bible actually teach about the creation of the world?" The question is not "What form is the creation story itself written in? (prose, poetry, whatever, and that automatically dictates a meaning)" The question is "On the whole, what does the infallible word of God teach about the creation of the world?" Any science that contradicts that is bad science. Period. God's Word is infallible. Science is not.
If the Bible actually teaches either a) nothing specific about creation or b) that God used some other method - e.g. evolution - then to at least on some level believe the evolutionists would be ok. I don't think any believes b) though - that the Bible actually teaches evolution. Instead many (Matt?) seem to say that the bible actually teaches us nothing about the actual creation of the world - a very weird view of things in my opinion.
The only sizable group of people who deny that the Bible teaches six day recent creation are modern conservative christians )like Matt?). The historic church has always almost universally believed the Bible teaches recent six day creation. Until the 1900s about theonly doubters were early church theologians Origin - who on other issues as well is of doubtful orthodoxy and Augustine. However, Augustine believed in instantaneous creation, not evolutionary gajillions of years creation.
Traditional conservatives (like myself) agree with the historic church. Liberals actually believe the Bible teaches this as well. They just don't believe it to be true. To them, the bible is not the authoritative, infallible word of God. It is just a made up book anyway, but obviously this made up book teaches six day creation.
However, modern, non-traditionalists conservative Christians (Matt?) are scared silly by the science du joir and therefore develop theories stating that the Bible does not teach such creation. It's poetry. It's metaphor. It's allegory. It's symbolism.
However, all of traditional Christian theology falls apart when traditional creationism is denied. when you pull out the foundation, the whole building crumbles.
Post a Comment