How can we account for the widespread violence (physical, emotional, and spiritual) over the past 2,000 years among the followers of Jesus—the greatest proponent of non-violence that the world has ever known?
I think it has to do with evolution. We are still evolving! And progress is not always linear—two steps forward, one step back.
The "worldly" behavior that the New Testament discourages (particularly violence) can be observed in chimps, gorillas, and other primates.
If we saw ourselves as apes with a frontal lobe with faulty wiring, maybe we would be more humble, make better choices, and have more inner peace and outer peace.
Is Evolution the Truth that sets us free?
"How can we account for the widespread violence (physical, emotional, and spiritual) over the past 2,000 years among the followers of Jesus—the greatest proponent of non-violence that the world has ever known?"
The atrocities of professing Christians over the years cannot be denied in my view. However, many instances, like the Crusades, could probably be viewed more accurately as political/economic atrocities than religous. I look forward to hearing other viewpoints on this…as I don’t claim to be a history expert.
It’s also likely that atrocities have more to do with the existence of evil in the world than our inability to acknowledge our unevolved condition. Oz Guiness speaks to this point in the first chapter of his new book Unspeakable.
This isn’t said to minimize the atrocities carried out in the name of Christ. An atrocity is an atrocity. And mankind is in desperate need of humility, better choices, and inner and outer peace. But, as Guiness states clearly, the humanist platform (which includes neo-darwinism) has only exacerbated the problem. Evolution doesn’t provide an answer that leads us beyond the problem of evil…or worldly behavior for that matter.
Evolution & Evil
Yes I agree that evolution does not deliver us from evil, and that secular humanism has not helped.
My thinking is that the knowledge of evolution and the spiritual wisdom of the Bible are both needed to move beyond fear and greed and their offspring, violence.
Evolution helps us to understand why we are so well-positioned to be conduits for evil. Every cell in our body is wired for worldly instincts and behavior that seem fine and dandy to apes and other animals—but not to us.
And this cognitive dissonance about what we know is right and what we do makes for confusion, guilt and spiritual insecurity that attracts evil the way water attracts lightning. So we sin because we are predisposed to do so, not by Adam & Eve’s "original sin" but by our evolution from animals.
No wonder Jesus preached the forgiveness of sins! God knows what a tough job we have in this world, between our instincts and the predatory nature of evil.
But why does evil exist? I guess because God refuses to force the rebel to conform, but patiently awaits the rebel’s willing return, like the father with the prodigal son.
And we are here to help transform evil into something good and return home.
what's the latest thinking about evolution?
As an undergrad physics major, I have a deep appreciation for the sciences. I can accept certain principles in Darwin’s theories and I don’t see that Genesis precludes evolution in any definitive way. However, I tend to reject the neo-darwinist approach to extending evolution theory into the social sciences, psychology, and theology.
I haven’t thought about whether animals - or cells - have the capacity toward evil in the sense that humans exhibit. Premeditation seems to be much more evil than instinct. But is instinct (when it results in violence) a form of situational sin found in a broken creation? It’s an intriguing thought. If so, does evolution adequately explain the sin problem? On the surface, the pieces fit together - but doesn’t it work against the themes of the Biblical story found in Genesis?
It’s my understanding that aspects of evolution theory are under critique from credible scientists such as Michael Behe who suggest, at a micro-biological level, evolution theory breaks down. If true, this would parallel the effect nuclear physics had on classical mechanics at the turn of the 20th century (not that the theories of classical physics were undone - but that they were shown to be wanting). Is there any more recent evidence supporting the classical evolutionary position? Is there more recent evidence disputing the classical theory of evolution?
While I am not a literal six-day creationist, I tend to take the Bible at its word. My reading of Genesis suggests that God created humans separate and distinct from the rest of creation, that God once enjoyed an intimate relationship with man in the garden, that man turned away from God, and that the remainder of the story tells (continues to tell) of God’s redemptive plan for mankind. From this perspective, Jesus came to reconcile mankind, that had turned away, back to God - not to simply fix a flaw in creation (which, in essence, is what a theology of sin as instinct implies).
As a scientist by trade, I certainly appreciate the ability of science to describe creation. But I am not yet convinced that science is equipped to answer the deepest why questions known to man. We’re still having alot of trouble answering the hows…
Not sure but do we need it?
Like what you are saying about both science and the Bible, and I largely agree with it.
My take is that a number of Biblical figures, most notably David, Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul, saw the Creation as a spiritual teacher. Paul put it best:
For me, science tells us more about what God as made, when God made it, and how God made it, but not why God made it. And science cannot be taken as absolutely correct—look at how scientific ideas have evolved! It was only 100 years ago that ether was orthodox thinking in science. Then came Einstein!!Problem with evil is that the Bible doesn’t mention it in the OT, and it is spiritually described in the NT but we need to "see" it to believe it. But in several passages I think Jesus makes it clear: "evil" is all around us in the spirit of predation (such as the wolves and the sheep).
Don’t particles "prey" on each other in a way in their violent collisions? Don’t worry, I’m not trying to say particles have free will, but a spirit of violence and predation seem to be inherent in the universe from the get go—even self-violence. Our universe appears to be coming apart at the seams. Tumors kill themselves when they kill their hosts. Humans get depressed (by what?) and kill themselves. Civilizations become affluent and greedy and self-destruct. On and on.
So when I match up some of what I observe directly and learn from science with the Bible, it all seems to make sense. Both have a human filter on the truth, and only reflection, prayer, discernment and community can help us see it and find the saving grace and eternal truth of God. And Jesus seems to have left behind the best instructions for doing this—thank God for him.
Covenant and violence
One contributing factor to Christian violence, in my opinion, is a muddling of old and new covenants. The old covenant was in major respects national and physical. Covenant promises included such things as more territory, victory in battle, dominance over other nations, and wealth. When old covenant Scripture is taken as God’s word applicable to the Christian, then one can end up with Christian nation-states that justify territorial ambitions, political and economic dominance, and the Inquisition.
Covenant and Accountability
Yes this makes sense about muddling the covenants. But I guess the question is, why has this muddling gone on for so long? Was there a breakdown in the community’s ability to hold leaders accountable to the teachings of Jesus? How did "love your neighbor, be kind to your enemy" get turned into a crusade or war?
We seem to have this innate herd instinct to go along with leaders no matter what—yet Jesus did not. He protested against the religious leaders of his time. Anyone that uses the cross to oppress, hurt and kill is not worth following—no matter what.
Narrow path vs wide path
Surely, many abhorations have been perpetrated in the name of "Christianity". But just because someone claims Christ doesn’t mean they are His. Remember the verse where Christ speaks of a time when many will stand before God and say "I knew you" and he’ll say "Who the heck are you?" (paraphrasing, obviously).
The US is viewed by the world as a "Christian" nation, yet true believers who live here know that’s simply not the case. We’re a nation of people who CLAIM the moniker because they’re religion or family background demands it - not because they have given their lives to Him. When the US launches an unjustified war, will we lay that sin at the feet of the Church? During the Crusades, was it the love of God or the lust for power that motivated men? How can we pretend to know what was in their hearts? All we know is that the outcome was very painful for many people.
Jesus was simultaneously the most conservative and most liberal leader that ever lived. His ideas fly in the faces of both the democrat and the republican.
I don’t believe that Jesus was totally against war at all costs. The first gentile God revealed Himself to was a soldier. Jesus saw other centurions as well. Never did He command them to stop being a soldier. God Himself ordered his people to war. There is a time for war. The end of time will be marked by heavenly war.
If your kids are laying asleep in bead and someone breaks in wanting to rape and kill them, the time for war is upon you. I don’t think God expects you to pray for them as they go up the stairs. I don’t think God was pleased when the armies of the west to stand by idly while Hutus slaughtered Tutsis in Rwanda. When the enemies of God rise up, the Church of God must be there to meet them - to protect the innocent and the weak.
The current war in Iraq does not seem to possess the earmarks of a "righteous" war. I think that’s what bothers many - including myself. I agree that many conservative Christians aren’t critical enough of the motives of our leaders. There’s a certain amount of self-induced naivity that exists on the right. By the same token, I think the left has forgotten that there really are "enemies of God" in the world. I’m not justifying Iraq by any means, but I think that to say we never need to fight again for any reason is a recipe for disaster.
Enemies of God?
How do you know who the enemies of God are?
Abraham Lincoln once said something like this: let us not assume that God is on our side, but let’s pray that we are on God’s side.
I wonder if we confuse OUR adversaries for GOD’s enemies!
Civil War
The Civil War was an intresting study on Christianity in America…with both sides claiming to have God on their side. Lincoln’s genius was in seeing reality, somehow, and leading a country (at least half of it) with conviction. It’s my understanding that Churchill did the same thing for Britain during WWII. Their vision was incredible.
There’s no doubt that we confuse our adversaries for God’s enemies. However, taken to the extreme, we can easily become people that turn away when Rwandans or Sudanese are slaughtered. One of the justifications for the war in Iraq was Sadam Husseins slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people…a good cause. But we stood by and watched genocide in other countries. My concern about the war is that its an extension of the American consumerist desire for cheap gas…more than it was a war to liberate. Only time will tell as there are signs that the entire middle east is being shaken by democracy - for good and bad.
I run across this type of question alot with my unchurched friends. It’s a difficult question - who are the enemies of God? How do we cultivate the clarity of vision to be able to recognize evil when we see it? It’s one thing to recognize that it’s hard to recognize…but I would say its destructive and unhelpful to suggest that we shouldn’t try because we’ve been wrong in the past.
We have seen the enemy...
Seems to me that that we spend an inordinate amount of time sniffing out the evil around us, rather than look within. Reminds me of when Jesus said, you hypocrite, take the mote out of your own eye befor you go after the speck in your brother’s eye!
Hating God, hating God’s creation—doesn’t each one of us do that when we get self-centered and egotistical, which most of us do every day?
Those that love God should havean inner peace that spreads to others, not the spirit of a predator.
Yes we should be trying to help to transform the evil around us. But HOW we do that is what defines us as Christians. And violence is off limits as a solution.
Knowing God's enemies
You make a good point. In most every war, God fights on both sides (if you listen to the powers that be). In reality, he probably is on neither - or in pieces of both. If God really is on your side, it’s very obvious (see Gideon, Joshua, etc).
As humans, we obviously confuse our enemies with God’s enemies. I don’t pretend to have a lithmus test to determine who are the enemies of God. The point is that there are people who hate God and His creation and work to destroy it. I would categorize anyone that wants to further his/her own situation in life by raping and murdering women and children an enemy of God.
But that’s kinda my thing. Kids are very precious to me. If I had any say about what the US did/didn’t do with their military, I would move kids to the top of the prioirty list. I would be in the face of terrorists who hide in or near schools and hospitals. I would make it my personal mission to target movements that put kids on the frontlines. I would also make the killing of children in our own country a thing of the past, but that’s another post altogether.
I am no fan of the Iraq war, but I also don’t think God intends for us to never fight. The teachings of Christ with regard to turning the other cheek are personal guidelines for an invisible Kingdom that resides in the hearts of people. I don’t believe he was talking to the larger social morality. When used in that context, I think people take it out of context.
By the way, I love Lincoln’s quote. It’s one of my favorite of all time. Just out of curiousity, do you think Lincoln’s decision to go to war with the south over slavery and the other issues of the day was righteous? Do you believe God was "in his corner" so to speak?
For the record, I don’t understand how President Bush or anyone else can claim that God is in our corner. We live in a nation that must be a huge diappointment to God. Our nation is selfish, greedy, rebellious, prideful, ignorant and contemptuous of other cultures, involved in all sorts of blatant sin, and the list goes on and on. Every time he says "God bless America", I wonder when America is going to begin to care again about blessing God and the rest of the world.
Turn the other cheek
Childrean are the true spiritual geniuses of our world. So wonderful that you have such a tender heart for them.
We look at war from the perspective of matter, where things can get murky. If you look at war from the perspective of spirit, it never makes sense. Our worldly (apelike) inclinations are behind war, not our spiritual inclinations.
It’s not just the other cheeck. There are numerous references to how violence should never be used.
When a town rejected Jesus’ teachings the disciples asked if they should pray to have fire destroy them, and Jesus reprimanded them, saying you don’t know what spirit you are of, because the son of man came to save people not destroy them. (Luke 9:54-56)
Love your enemies, be kind to those who harm you (Luke 6:27-31)
Even spiritual violence is a no no: Anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement (Matthew 5:21-22)
And Jesus didn’t OK violence and war to save his own life. When they came for him and one of his followers cut off the ear of someone, Jesus said put your sword back in place, for all who live by the sword will die by the sword. (Matthew 26:52).
So why are our causes so much more than Jesus’ cause? If violence and war didn’t work for him, why should they work for us?
So I find Jesus’ teachings on violence clear cut: NO violence for NO reason EVER!!
No, I do not think it was righteous for Lincoln to wage war. Just because good things can come from war doesn’t mean it’s OK. And I think the seeds of our current spiritual collapse can be traced to the violence of the World Wars.
Remember balance
Your thoughts against violence at any time for any reason are very interesting. I’m not sure if you have kids, but I do. If someone breaks into my house and plans on raping and killing my wife and children, I should let them do it? I should not try to stop them by any means necessary up to and including killing them? Is that what you’re saying? Do you make any allowance for self-defense? When Hutus in Rwanda began going across the countryside killing little children, you would have sat by and watched?
Do you think that’s what God wants? Doesn’t God direct me to protect my family? Doesn’t scripture even lay out guidelines for war - from when it’s OK to declare it to how to act on the battlefield? And what of the centurion who asked Christ to heal his servant? Was he sent away by Jesus with chastisement to quit his occupation? (Certainly, being a centurion involved a little violence.) Wouldn’t Christ have corrected him like he did the woman at the well or the woman who was being stoned (go and sin no more)?
I also STRONGLY disagree that the world wars are the root of our current spiritual collapse. I think that our current spiritual state in the US is a result of the Church (capital "C") not being salt and light in our world and not being connected to God. We’ve become a joke, really. We are selfish and prideful and lazy and greedy. We build bigger and bigger churches with raquetball courts and laser shows while turning our back on those in need. We’re not interested in holiness anymore - only happiness and wealth. We justify our sin instead of calling it what it is and repenting of it. We rewrite or ignore the parts of the Bible we disagree with. We’ve throw out the idea that God calls us to any standard of living.
If you take a poll, something like 85% of Amercians say they’re "Christian". Do you honestly believe that? I think we’re lucky if that number is even in the teens! I’m convinced the Church in America is one of the biggest barriers to people truly knowing God and His ways. Yet we’re afraid to stand up and challenge people’s claims. We’re afraid to ruffle feathers. We’re so fearful that someone will look at us a little sideways. We’re afraid to say "You know I love you, but you’re wrong". First off, we really don’t love others, so we never earn the right to have input into others’ lives.
The Church is the problem. If we were connected to Christ and willing to receive His love and give it to others, I’m convinced that much of the pain in our society would be relieved. If WE cared for the sick and elderly and homeless and widowed and ophaned - if WE weren’t so concerned with new clothes and cars and houses and subjugated our own lifestyles to help our neighbor - if we "had all things in common" with other believers as the early church did. If every family who spends their lives picketting abortion clinics would adopt just one child…
If WE cry out to God and confess our sins and decide to follow Him, then we may have a chance. 2 Chron 7:14 outlines how to save a nation that has turned from God:
and my people, my God-defined people, respond by humbling themselves, praying, seeking my presence, and turning their backs on their wicked lives, I’ll be there ready for you: I’ll listen from heaven, forgive their sins, and restore their land to health.
Don’t blame the current state of affairs on the war or government or George Bush. The Church is the problem. I am the problem.
Getting to the Root
Re: the break in, how about the gal that was held captive recently and spoke to her captor in a way that helped him see the error of his ways? If you attack someone who breaks in, how about if you or one of your loved ones gets killed as a result? Does self-defense have to involve violence?
Re: the centurion, Jesus says he came to save the world, not to judge it.
Re: blaming war, gov’t. for the current spiritual collapse, couldn’t the church’s complicity in war for the past 1700 years be why it has been so susceptible to greed and exploitation? What if the worldwide church had all its members (in and out of Germany) standing up to Hitler, encouraging civil disobendience among German Christians?
Re: the Bible, war is encouraged in the Old Testament, not the new.
If you throw out Jesus’ inconvenient, challenging teachings on non-violence, you lose the true salt and light of Christianity.
Lincoln and Just War
Quote/ By the way, I love Lincoln’s quote. It’s one of my favorite of all time. Just out of curiousity, do you think Lincoln’s decision to go to war with the south over slavery and the other issues of the day was righteous? Do you believe God was “in his corner” so to speak? /End Quote
I am by no means an expert on what constitutes just war…but a war to free a boatload of slaves seems justified to me. Especially in hindsight - but it’s easier to judge from hindsight. Lincoln was a visionary and he had a heart for God. His speeches are some of the best and most inspiring in American history…limited as it is.
Quote/ For the record, I don’t understand how President Bush or anyone else can claim that God is in our corner. We live in a nation that must be a huge diappointment to God. Our nation is selfish, greedy, rebellious, prideful, ignorant and contemptuous of other cultures, involved in all sorts of blatant sin, and the list goes on and on. Every time he says “God bless America”, I wonder when America is going to begin to care again about blessing God and the rest of the world. /End Quote
I pray that our motives were just…and that it wasn’t about oil. When innocents get killed and maimed - it’s hard to stomach in any circumstance. I asked a mentor of mine about just war vs. the teachings of Jesus. He said that, from his perspective, nations and individuals work a little differently. While, as individuals, we are to turn the other cheek - as nations, our leaders have a responsibility to protect their people. I am relatively comfortable with this…although I wouldn’t say that my thinking is in concrete. While war may be inevitable - the best we could hope for is that our backs are against the wall and we have no alternative but to fight to protect our loved ones. I’m not sure that was the case…I can only hope that God will redeem even bad decisions somehow.
Evolution and the Bible
The following is found at http://onealclan0.tripod.com/evolution.htm:
"No conflict exists between proven science and biblical text. The Creator is the supreme practitioner of the ultimate science." The Webmaster 2002. The Theory (by definition) of Evolution is not a proven science. Their explanation concerning evolution is found therein and backed by scientific data not difficult to read.
The concept that no conflict exists between proven science and biblical writings is evidently the principal mission for the website’s (free) bi-monthly newsletter. The website includes data at http://onealclan0.tripod.com/dinosaur_megalodon.htm that explains the confusion that resulted from the King James translation of the "six days" of creation, resulting in many people concluding that the universe is only 6,000 years old.
Robert Walker O’Neal Ph.D., as has Michael Behe Ph.D. in his theses, report that the Hebrew word, pronounced "yom," they say was most often used by the Hebrew to mean "day." But "yom" is also used more than 60 times in the Bible to mean "a long, indefinite period of time."
Other topics covered therein concern serveral of the most amazing biblical miracles (parting of the Red Sea, Ezekiel’s confrontation with the flaming object that sounds likes a modern version of a UFO, etc.) and provides archaeological and other scientific evidence of the occurrences.
How long is a day?
Yes, I have heard it put this way: before the sun was created, the length of a day was an uncertain amount of time.
Why do we need to subject the Bible to literalism, when its true value is in the spiritual wisdom, not the "scientific" knowledge? They didn’t give a hoot about science as we know it.
Literalism
Literalism is probably an unhelpful perspective…however, I think the Word consists of more than simply spiritual wisdom. Many traditions present spiritually wise ideas… but Jesus is the Word that spoke creation into being…so he’s more than spiritually wise.
My thinking on this hasn’t congealed…but my sense is that relegating the Bible to stories of wisdom somehow misses the point. I agree that Genesis doesn’t provide us with a total explanation of creation, but it’s also more than a story somehow.
I expect that someday we’ll find that the Biblical Creation story jives with the science of the origins of the universe…perhaps in a way we don’t expect…but it will fit perfectly.
This, in my view, is why the truth in the story needs to be maintained, albeit with humility, in the face of scientific criticism. It’s interesting that the more that scientists discover, the more questions they uncover. And the harder these new questions are to answer…
Spirit drives matter
For me, spiritual reality drives physical reality. The human authors of the Bible were more concerned with spiritual reality, and we are focused on physical reality, so I think we need to use the strong suits of each and find how they come together.
I agree that faith should not require scientific evidence, but it should also not require scientific ignorance.
What is wrong with "Literalism?"
I agree completely, Phyllis. Many who toil in fields of science often reject biblical writings because they view the two to be in conflict. The reason for this is simple.
Anyone who intensely studies any field of inquiry tends to be blind to other searches for truth. I have been guilty.
No one can challenge an expert in any disicipline without having some knowledge of the expert’s field of inquiry. A professor at the University of Georgia recently polled senior scientists in many scientitific fields and learned that a majority are atheists or agnostics (Mathematics was the exception, the area in which scientists were most likely to believe in God.)
Scientists who place as much effort into understanding the Bible will find that there is no conflict between science and the writings in the Bible. If we can research the conflicts, meaning "miracles" for the most part, we are in a better position to point this out. (
And perhaps I should have pointed out that if one has no contact with scientific researchers, he or she probably has no need to familiarize themselves with what is to most a boring subject. Clearly, to me, neither science nor theology are boring.
If I were a scientist...
Amen about specialists not pursuing other avenues of truth!
Just last night I gave a talk entitled "The Good News of Evolution: Listening to the Bible and Science."
I told them that if I were a scientist wanting to make new discoveries about the physical world (e.g. a unified theory), I would study the Bible! All of the most important scientific insights from the past 150 years were foreshadowed in the Bible.
For example, Genesis’ Adam and Eve story says human beings are defined by their relationships with God, self, others, and Nature—more than 2,500 years before Einstein saying matter is defined by its relationships!!
On and on. Physical reality reflects spiritual reality, and long ago they were much more spiritually wise than we are today—but we understand physical reality far better than they did.
No conflict?
Perhaps no truer statement was made than the one by derertphyllis:
"…faith should not require scientific evidence, but it should also not require scientific ignorance."
Yet, either "scientific ignorance" or biblical ignorance is just what we see when we try to squeeze our faith into the theory of evolution. I would pose four questions, and I will answer them in reverse order: Do we need evolution? Is evolution even really science? Is it true that "No conflict exists between proven science and biblical text."? What about the claim that, "Many who toil in fields of science often reject biblical writings because they view the two to be in conflict."?
I agree with one thing, the two are in conflict and greatly so, and it is true that about 65% of Americans with postgraduate education believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory well supported by the evidence, but then it’s difficult to believe that anybody doesn’t when it’s taught as such. Yet despite all of this only 38% of Americans believe that man evolved with God’s guidance, 13% believe that man evolved atheisticly, and 45% believe that God created man in his present form. (November 2004 Gallup poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14107&pg=1)
I would agree that there is a great deal of ignorance for one to believe that the bible in its literal sense and the theory of evolution can jive. For example, evolution requires that the sun and the stars be formed billions of years before the earth. Yet, according to the Bible, God created the earth on the first day, then three days later he created the sun, moon, and stars, and all of this after he created the land, sky, and even plants. Besides this, the reason we as Christians should outright reject evolution is that it claims that death came before Adams sin, if indeed it includes Adam at all. Romans 5:17 claims that, "…by the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man…". Read it, you’ll see I’m not taking it out of context. If you believe that evolution is true than you must believe that there was death before Adam’s sin. This does not jive with the Bible’s clear teaching that death is a result of Adam’s sin.
I asked, is evolution really science? Well if your defenition of science is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena", than you have a problem on your hands because when you enter the field of origins, much is no longer observed, but simply believed. We observe diversity within the kinds of animals. That happens. That’s science. We can believe that a rabbit was produced from a non-rabbit, or we can believe that a rabbit always has and always will produce only rabbits. Neither of them can truely be scientificly proven, only believed. Both evolution and creation are religion. Which one jives more with the evidence? I’ll leave that up to your judgement.
I asked, "Do we need evolution?" My brothers and sisters, the church is not in a state of retreat when you enter the realm of science. Satan is a liar and the father of lies. Would you rather believe that rock layers interconnected by petrified trees represent eras or layers created at the same time by the flood? If you don’t know what I mean, just type "polystrate fossils" into your search engine and you’ll see what I mean. Evolution is littered with lies and, quite frankly, is unnecessary. We don’t need to try to squeeze the Bible into the theory of evolution because there is plenty of evidence to support its claims. A lot more, I would dare say, than theory of evolution.
In conclusion, I agree, desertphyllis. Scientific evidence should not be required for faith, but it sure helps to strengthen it. And scientific ignorance seems to be required more to believe that atheistic evolution is the origin of mankind and, I’m sorry to say, even moreso to believe in theistic, or "God-guided" evolution.
One more attempt
Again, I’ll quote - or at least paraphrase - Dr. Robert W. O’Neal from http://onealclan0.tripod.com/index.htm (www.onealclan.com) and Dr. Michael Behe (paleontology):
Concerning the seven "days" of creation: Genesis is not in conflict with scientific knowledge concerning the creation of the universe. When the Torah was translated to English, the translaters chose to use the word "day" when translating from Hebrew. The Hebrew letters are pronounced "yom." Yom is most often used in Hebrew for a day, but the same word is used more than 60 times in the Bible to mean a long, indefinite period of time.
As to the order of creation (earth before stars), we know that Earth’s atmosphere has completely changed three times during its formation from creation through modern times. When the planet first was filled with flammable gases and volcanic eruptions, the sky was darkened with smoke. When this inferno cooled and the atmosphere became livable for plants and animals, stars were visible. From any view point on the Earth, the stars may be said to have come later, although of course they existed beyond view.
Beyond that, the order of creation as outlined in Genesis and as understood by modern science is precisely the same.
Finally, Dr. Behe points out - and Dr. O’Neal concurs - that as researchers go back in time through geo-layers, it is clear that 500,000 years ago all life seemed to have exploded into being at once. It was almost as if it was planted here.
Neither denies the estimated age of the earth as some 3 and a half billion years. Yet both conclude that advanced Darwinian theory (positing that all life originated from a single celled entity to ultimately become plants, animal and marine life forms) is clearly in conflict with modern paleontology findings and modern logic. Such a change would have required many millions of years for that to occur, and such a period has not been found within the geo-layers.
This is a major reason why many scientists are retreating from the 1800’s conclusions, as recently reported in National Geographic. The brilliant logic of Charles Darwin made sense from the 1800’s through much of the 1900’s, but the fact is that the latest scientific knowledge cannot support the theory. Scientists have long recognized that outdated theories remain the public consciousness long after science has rejected the theories because the general public is unaware of the most current science. The clearest example of this phenomenon is that of "global warming." Science has determined beyond any doubt that the warming in some parts of the world is not occurring worldwide. Most countries, like all cities within the contiguous U.S., have experienced not climate change whatsoever in the past 100 years. Yet, the public at large continues to hang on to the outdated theories of the 1970’s. (The "regional warming" and "regional cooling" has been determined to be a result of continuing change that has occurred on the planet for millions of years.)
Both men have noted that not a single transitional fossil from ancient to modern fossils has been found anywhere on earth and that paleontologists and geologists are excellent at what they do. The failure to find such fossils certainly hasn’t been from any lack of efforts.
Finally, Dr. Francis Crick, agnostic recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work in DNA, says that although he may not admit that the Creator placed life here, presented a theory 30 years ago that life was planted here by aliens. The "alien" argument is often used by people who reject the whole of Darwinism and was used by athiest and NY Times/Wall St. Journal reporter Michael Drosnin who says he believes in the Bible Code (hidden encodings in the Torah) but doesn’t believe in God.
I don’t want to pound this into the ground, but the latest postings seemed to require a response. I frankly don’t know how to make this any clearer.
Darwin-both right and wrong
I think you mean life on Earth is about 3.5 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Seems to me that Darwin was right on with his concept of natural selection. But there was great ignorance of geology during his times. An understanding of plate techtonics arrived more than 100 years after "The Origin of Species" was first published.
As a result, Darwin didn’t take into account terrestrial catastrophes. He considered these to be bibical fantasies!! Now it is clear that in the past 500 million years, life on Earth has endured 5 major extinction events (6 including the current one) and several minor ones, all of which have had a significant effect on the evolution of life on Earth.
We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water with the Bible or Darwin. Darwin introduced a brillant theory which has evolved!
But if you want to know why humans were created and what your purpose in life is, read the Bible, not Darwin.
Test your EV-Q (Evolution Quotient) and ME-Q (Mother Earth Quotient) on my website: www.desertspirituality.com
Physical reality ain't where it's at!
Well this is a civilized enjoyable discourse, but I’m not sure of where you are coming from on the Bible vs. evolution issue.
Why would you take the Bible as a roadmap for physical reality, when it was written to be used as a roadmap for spiritual reality?
When it comes to learning the age of the rocks on the mountain behind my house, I seek out a geologist.
When it comes to understanding the will of God for my life, I read the Bible and seek out a spiritual community.
For many centuries, the Bible was used to explain both physical and spiritual reality by a very worldly, power-hungry church. It’s time to accept that science has better insights into physical reality than the Bible—but the Bible has better insights into spiritual reality than science.
And spiritual reality is where it’s at! That’s where we are truly alive, and present with God.
Remembering all the while that anything involving human beings (including both science and religion) is limited, fallible, and full of worldly ambitious people.
As Isaiah put it, "My ways are not your ways" says the Lord.
No argument here
Okay, so I wrote that in haste. I have no argument with the last two postings. As to "where I’m coming from":
My background is in science and mathematics, and I attempt keeping up to date with many disciplines out of my field. However, I am one of those fundamentalists that drive so many in these forums nuts and believe in the Bible as essentially a series of documents written for the understanding of those alive at the time of the writings.
I do not believe anything written therein - and I have read the original Hebrew - is in error. And I do not view the Bible as being in conflict with proven science, as opposed to theory fashions that come and go in scientitific circles.
Reply to "One More Attempt"
Interested researcher, you said that you’ve read the original Hebrew. Good, than I have a question for you. In your previous post you quoted the following:
As to the order of creation (earth before stars), we know that Earth’s atmosphere has completely changed three times during its formation from creation through modern times. When the planet first was filled with flammable gases and volcanic eruptions, the sky was darkened with smoke. When this inferno cooled and the atmosphere became livable for plants and animals, stars were visible. From any view point on the Earth, the stars may be said to have come later, although of course they existed beyond view.
Since you know, would the original Hebrew give any indication that God "revealed" the Sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day rather than "created" or "made" them? Now, you may say, "The writer is trying to demonstrate what happened in a way the audience at the time would understand." Perhaps, but let’s not assume that they are any dumber than we are, I think they would know the difference between God "revealing" the Sun, moon, and stars and God "creating" or "making" them. Besides, I think we have reason to believe that the audience at the time was quite smart. Adam named all the animals and got married on the same day. Have you seen the pyramids? The Hanging Gardens? People in the past weren’t all that dumb. If God had intended to say that he "revealed" the Sun, moon, and stars, I’m sure he could have found a word in Hebrew to use that they would understand. "Galah" would have been a good one. They already knew that the earth was unformed and unfilled. It would be a short step in logic to assume that it was cloudy if God had said that he "revealed" the Sun, moon, and stars. But He didn’t.
Secondly, were the clouds let up just enough for the plants to evolve? Was it cloudy for a billion or so years while the early organisms learned to utilize the suns energy, and even have time to evolve into seed and fruit bearing plants (we’re talking a long time now), and then, once they did, suddenly the sun was revealed? Is this what happened that caused God to say that he created the Sun, moon, and stars after the plants?
The fact is, we don’t need to try to squeeze the book of Genesis into this dumb evolution theory. There is little or no evidence to support its rediculous claims and an overabundance to disprove it. The earth is crying out "CREATION!", and I’m sure that’s the way God had intended it. We were made special apart from plants and animals, not mutated into existence over billions of years.
Reply to Soldier
You misunderstood my point, Soldier, and I re-read my remarks, I can understand why.
I am not defending Darwinism. Scientists by the multitudes are retreating from Darwinism. I am an old earth Creationist. The point of life having seemed to have been planted here was to point to the argument for intelligent design.
I was simply pointing out, again, that the proven science is not in conflict with religion. I’m not seeking a fight. This is an open forum, within limits.
Fight the "isms". Love the "ists".
Well, brother, as long as we have a common ground in the Lord Jesus Christ, there’s no reason why a friendly fight shouldn’t be an enjoyable experience. I don’t take my science personally, only Christ, and I think that science should and will bring Christ glory, and it is for that reason that I find it all the more enjoyable. I personally believe that the inspired word of God is literally true and scientifically acurate. I think that the earth will show signs of the six day creation and the global flood exactly as the Bible portrays it. Each observable peice of evidence, when viewed in full detail by an unbiased observer (good luck finding one of those), at the very least, does not disprove this six day creation and global flood… at the very least. In fact, such things as mass graveyards and polystrata fossils, are only explained by a catastrophic flood, perhaps the one in Genesis. Especially since there are so darn many of them!
I’ll admit, I enjoy picking fights, but I’m not picking a fight with old-earth creationists, or Darwinists, or Humanists, or any of those "ists". I don’t really care what a person’s label is. I just don’t want them to go to Hell because of the lies that they’re being told by these people who claim that we evolved from a rock. If someone’s going to go to Hell, I want it to be for no reason at all. The evidence is clear that there is a God. This God left us a book on how to be at peace with Him. My goal is that each person be left with the choice to either outright reject the empiracle evidence or embrace the God whom it glorifies, just as it says in Romans 1:25, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie…" I’m out to pick a fight with such lies, so the decision will be an easy one to make. So that’s my mission statement. To pick a fight with the lies, but love the liars.
Where is your faith?
"The evidence is clear that there is a God. This God left us a book on how to be at peace with Him."
How can you say the evidence is clear? That means that your faith is grounded in evidence, rather than trust. And if it is clear to you, that does not mean it is clear to others.
God didn’t leave us a book. Humans trying to understand God left us a book. That means the book is filtered through human minds.
You are looking for an easy way out. God didn’t make it easy for us, by giving us the real deal in black and white. God wants us to struggle with the words and truth of the Bible the way Jacob struggled with the angel to recieve a blessing.