Here is a question. What is your response?

[p-freak]

Evolution is for fools who wish to deny God.

Now you've just identified yourself as one of those narrow-minded, legalistic evangelicals that slams other people for being unimpressed with evangelical propaganda and wanting to have the freedom to try to consider other options unbiased.

[CatNamedManny]

Evolution is for fools who wish to deny God.

Thanks for that well-considered, thoughtful, respectful post.

Regarding the Cambrian explosion, I'll point to BioLogos, which has a whole series of Q&A posts about evolution, creation, science and faith. As I said, I highly recommend it.

Anyway, I'll excerpt some things I find helpful from their post about whether the Cambrian Explosion poses a problem for evolutionary theory:

First, the "explosion" happened over millions of years, so it's not quite an overnight kind of deal. Second, the fossil record does show this explosion, but it also shows an evolutionary transition between pre- and post-explosion species.

The Cambrian Explosion is often posed as a challenge for evolution because the sudden burst of change in the fossil record appears to be inconsistent with the more typical gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, although different in certain ways, there are other times of very rapid evolutionary change recorded in the fossil record -- often following times of major extinction. ... This important period in the history of life extended over millions of years, plenty of time for the evolution of these new body plans (phyla) to occur. Furthermore, the fossil record provides numerous examples of organisms that appear transitional between living phyla and their common ancestors.

Third, Mike, you say, "Prior to it, you had simple single celled organisms and then suddenly you have the fully formed animal phyla that we see today." This appears to be not quite correct. In fact, the organisms produced by the Cambrian explosion were still far more primvitive than the animals we see today:

The major animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion did not include the appearance of modern animal groups such as: starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals. These animal groups all appeared at various times much later in the fossil record.3 The forms that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion were more primitive than these later groups, and many of them were soft-bodied organisms. However, they did include the basic features that define the major branches of the tree of life to which later life forms belong. For example, vertebrates are part of the Chordata group. The chordates are characterized by a nerve cord, gill pouches and a support rod called the notochord. In the Cambrian fauna, we first see fossils of soft-bodied creatures with these characteristics. However, the living groups of vertebrates appeared much later. It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms, although likely near the base of major branches of the tree of life, did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time.

The site goes on to acknowledge that scientists don't have any firm ideas for what caused the "explosion" itself; theories range from receding glaciers to atmospheric shifts to changes in the seafloor. But this seems like one of those cases where the label for an event – an "explosion" – implies something quite opposite from what actually happened.

Regarding the changing theories of science, it's worth mentioning the Bible also depicts the world in non-scientific, ahistorical terms. For example, the separation of the waters in Genesis 1 and the references in Psalms to the unmoving world situated on pillars. You might argue these are examples of hyperbole or metaphor; it's how I understood them. But, in fact, ancient Near Eastern cultures universally viewed the world this way – as immobile, fixed on pillars with the stars and moon floating on the waters covering the dome of heaven. It wasn't metaphor for them; it was their cosmology. Of course, it was completely inaccurate, but how could they know that?

Science tells us something different. The church has sometimes accepted, sometimes condemned scientific advances. At one point, Christians would have pulled a Brent and said, "Heliocentrism is for fools who wish to deny God." The Bible clearly talks about God making the sun stand still in the sky, after all, and in another place, he makes the sun move backward. Of course, now we have no problems marrying scientific discovery with the biblical texts that speak as if the sun orbits the earth.

So, yes, scientists once thought the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth, etc. But have they ever gone back, after observing evidence to the contrary, and said they got the evidence wrong? The comparison is faulty because in those cases where science has been wrong, it has been because evidence had not yet been discovered to overturn the traditional way of thinking. In the case of life's origins, that evidence has already been discovered. Creationism is the traditional way that was overturned, not evolution.

The question is what evidence has yet to be discovered that would completely disprove evolution? What would explain the numerous transitional fossils, the inactive genes for traits that would only have been useful for distant ancestors in the family tree, the fact that we can see light from stars that are millions and billions of light-years away, the fact that dinosaurs have been discovered that would dwarf the ark? Obviously, that's an unanswerable question, but holding to a literal six-day creation, 6,000-year-old earth and original first couple requires the dismissal of evidence to the contrary. My brain will not allow me to simply dismiss evidence revealed by God's own creation. I need a reason to reject it. A weakness, a flaw, a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation.

And if there are no reasons to reject it, is it possible that my traditional way of reading scripture is not the way scripture was intended to be read?

[LivingRock]

I don't know why I'm jumping in here since I usually stay out of any disagreements, but I've got to admit, I do love a good Creation vs. Evolution debate . I won't respond to any points in particular, I'm just going to make some observations.

Firstly, Charles Darwin himself stated, “…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.”

Secondly, I would like to add that science does have its pitfalls regardless of how many great discoveries have been made. Scientists are a cautious group, and even the greatest among them have made embarrasing mistakes.

Thirdly, one of the pitfalls between science and the Bible is the fact that the Bible was written before science was invented. The Bible doesn't use scientific words, but rather common, ordinary ones. For example, a scientist explaining how rain is caused would say something like this: "Rain is caused by condensation of moisture from the aqueous vapor in the atmosphere. Gravity then causes the liquid drops to fall from the atmosphere to the earth." However the Bible says it like this: "All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers run, thither they return again." (Ecclesiates 1:7) Although the wording is not scientific, the Biblical description is certainly just as accurate! Usually, when the Bible talks about science, what it does say is correct. For instance, the book of Job says that the earth hangs upon nothing. (Job 26:7) At the time Job was written, people believed that earth was carried around on the back of a giant turtle. Even the well-educated Greeks thought that the earth was suspended from a crystalline sphere. So for many years, it appeared that the Bible was wrong, until scientists discover that earth actually is "Suspended from nothing!" The book of Isaiah and Job also decribe a spherical earth, while early scientists and philosophers still believed that the earth was flat right up until Christopher Columbus' day!

I don't have time to write more at the moment, but I look forward to joining the discussion!

[p-freak]

Firstly, Charles Darwin himself stated, “…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.”

If you read more 19th century science (or anything published earlier), you will find out that this does not mean that Darwin doubted his theory, but that it only was a literary topos for any publication in which the author is making a certain point. I'm sure that Darwin was quite convinced of this theory and since publication of On The Origin Of Species (has anyone actually read it???) many facts have come to the surface that are correcting the flaws and filling the holes instead of facts that undermine the sound parts. If you will read Darwin's actual publication, even 21st century modernist evangelical will have a hard time finding solid arguments against Darwin's very thoughtful piece of science.

First, the "explosion" happened over millions of years, so it's not quite an overnight kind of deal.

I think this is an argument that cannot be underestimated. This is also why it's very difficult to recreate evolution in a lab. Some people argue against evolution, saying that you can recreate it in a lab, so it should be dismissed as an unverifiable theory. Of course it can't be recreated in a lab. The theory itself even predicts that...

[brent]

Evolution is for fools who wish to deny God.

Now you've just identified yourself as one of those narrow-minded, legalistic evangelicals that slams other people for being unimpressed with evangelical propaganda and wanting to have the freedom to try to consider other options unbiased.

If narrow minded means letting the bible say what it says, the way it says it, with "one" meaning "one, and a "day" meaning "day", then...I guess so. It takes more balls to call the writers of the bible liars. Who was given divine revelation and instruction to write those words, you or them? I will take the ancient text over any "enlightened" modern day person, thousands of years removed from the writing and events covered in the writings.

I think people underestimate the effects of sin on all of creation. If God made creation an infant creation, sin has corrupted it to the point that it is aging and dying before it's time, just as we are. Personally, I believe God created everything with age and maturity.

[brent]

I think that people should get honest and look at Darwins history with religion and subsequent motives....his self admitted motives. Darwin thought that a cell was a purposeless blob of gelatin. We now know that a cell is a freaking multifaceted organism. It is very complex. Why do so many Christians hold a view developed by a man with exponentially less scientific knowledge than a modern advanced high school biology or chemistry student today? Why do so many people set out to prove something right, that cannot be proven, and never will be proven?

There is no transitionary evidence. Everything presented so far is fraudulent.

The real issue in the science community is GOD. I think the movie Expelled covered it. The scientists said it in their own words. Man does not want to be accountable for his actions to God.

[rexreed]

This thread turned out pretty much how I thought it would. The evolution debate was a pleasant surprise. As for the original question I look back at the previous three pages of solid discussion, excuses, and explanations to restate why I believe the Bible has some "leaks" in it. Note- I do not believe God has leaks, just the book that some flawed humans wrote and later translated(continuously) numerous times.

[brent]

I guess God is some stupid failure, unable to foresee the errors of his own creation, and therefore proved himself to be a liar. What else did God get wrong in his Word?

Man, if some of you are dumb enough to think the bible is wrong about creation, then what else is there? Science is not perfect. Science evolves and what was once thought to be fact, is often proven to be incorrect, or not the only possible explanation.

I am not a scientist. But I do know that science is driven by money and politics. Money and politics is not what I would use as a litmus test for authenticity and inerrancy of scripture.

I hate to be so bold, but in my little mind, if someone cannot trust what God had written down for us about creation, then that same someone should have a huge problem accepting that there was a Jesus Christ and that he raised from the dead and ascended to Heaven to prepare a place for us, etc. We SEE the universe. We SEE creation. We cannot see God.

[executioner]

I think it all comes down to having faith or in the case of this thread a lack there of. In this thread I see a lot of putting science above The Word of God and as a Christian it shows a lack of faith.
Brent is right on this and shows his compassion for the Truth.

[CatNamedManny]

I'd rather not get into a "whose faith is bigger" contest. Does it take more faith to believe in the words written in front of you, or in a God who allows humanity to make its own mistakes when speaking for him? I'd argue the latter, you'd argue the former, and we're right back where we began.

I can't stress highly enough that when I question the historical or scientific accuracy, or even the consistency, of scripture, it's not questioning God. It's questioning the methods we use to read scripture. Where does the Bible claim historical or scientific accuracy for itself? Where does it claim consistency? It does neither of these things because the theological library that makes up what we call the Bible was created over time, compiled over time and even disputed over time. After all, the majority of Christians don't even use the same canon you and I have.

To take concepts not claimed by the biblical text – literal interpretation, historical and scientific accuracy, internal consistency – and use them to argue for those very concepts is doing no more or less than what you argue others do: reading into scripture your own preset views and assumptions. Which is fine. We all do that. Part of having faith, in my opinion, is recognizing that we do that and trusting that God will work through our shortcomings to understand him anyway. But please don't argue that your assumptions and preconditions for biblical interpretation are "faithier" than someone else's. I have no doubt you think they're better – otherwise, why hold them? – but we would all benefit from the humility and introspection required to recognize our preferred method of interpretation might be the wrong one.

[CatNamedManny]

I guess God is some stupid failure, unable to foresee the errors of his own creation, and therefore proved himself to be a liar.

What if God foresaw the errors of his own creation and chose to work through them anyway?

Is there any context in which God has chosen humans to represent him in which he has overridden their shortcomings to make sure his will was perfectly carried out? There's the case of Jesus, of course, but that was God himself taking human form, not calling humanity to perform a task.

Any example? Look at the text of the Bible itself: Abraham? Moses? David? Solomon? Peter? Paul? Nope. They all made mistakes. How about the principal extrabiblical representation of God to the rest of the world – the church. No perfection there, by any means. How disastrous has the church been for the world? Warfare, sex abuse scandals, slavery, segregation, infidelity, divorce, hatred. The church has aligned herself, either through silence or action, with some of the worst tyrants and acts in history: the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. (Don't get me wrong. Atheists have, too, but that's the point; there's no evidence God has reached down and "inspired" any human to perfectly replicate his will on earth.)

Why do we expect a level of perfection from the Bible – one it doesn't even claim for itself – when God has never once overridden the imperfections of humanity in carrying out his will?

[brent]

Because Jesus Christ said that the Torah was true and the written Word of God. Those people, at that time, took at as it was written. There is no documentation of the early church thinking that a day was a thousand or million years. One was one and a day was a day. So, if the Torah is wrong, Jesus lied and God is not perfect.

[CatNamedManny]

Because Jesus Christ said that the Torah was true and the written Word of God. Those people, at that time, took at as it was written. There is no documentation of the early church thinking that a day was a thousand or million years. One was one and a day was a day. So, if the Torah is wrong, Jesus lied and God is not perfect.

Brent, you keep saying this, but I think you're going to need to provide a specific reference. Because if there's one thing Jesus did over and over again, it was overturn the traditional ways in which the religious leaders of his day interpreted Torah. He did this on Sabbath law, keeping the 10 Commandments, on the traditional precepts of eye-for-eye/tooth-for-tooth. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spends quite a bit of time contrasting traditional readings of Torah with his new, more complete teaching ("You have heard it said ... but I say to you ..."). It seems to me Jesus was opposed to the literalists of his day, not in league with them.

[Preacherman777]

Cat,

Jesus affirmed the OT scriptures on many occasions. (including creation) He rebuked the Pharisees for not knowing the scriptures or for putting their own traditions above the scriptures. http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/w ... -testament

2 Peter 1:20 says,
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Your views are a direct contradiction to this as well as 2 Tim. 3:16 which states, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

You claim that most Christians don't use the same Canon that we do. By and large what you would be talking about are Catholics who use the same Bible we do, but they add on the Apocrypha. This does not take anything away from the rest of their Bible which is completely consistent with the Bible used by Protestants. Honestly, the claims you have been making, make it sound like you don't have a very thorough knowledge of the Bible's history or concepts of textual criticism regarding ancient manuscripts and you also seen to have faulty concepts about translations, apparently buying into much of the folk beliefs about how the Bible was translated over the years.

Brent, has been 100% right to say that if the Bible is not reliable in one area, we cannot rely on it to be reliable in any area, because their is no way to know which is which. Science has never proved any statement of fact that the Bible makes about science to be false. No, the Bible isn't a science book and was never meant to be, but it does make statements about history and science that have never been proven wrong. The only way you could even begin to make that assertion is if you take hyperbole as statements of fact. By and large, the problems or contradictions that people claim to come up with can be easily explained with a little bit of research.

You and others do seem to put far more trust in science than you do the Word of God and I'm not going to say you are bad Christians for that or that your faith is bad, but you are the product of what you choose to believe. I have already made the point that science is an ever changing thing, that in modern times makes far more assumptions than it does good investigative fact finding. Brent was also right to point out that transitional fossils have time and time again proven to be false. It's a fact there has been so much done to try and mislead the public in favor of evolution, that if more people knew about it, much of our modern science would become a laughing stock. How about all the millions of years you talk about? Well, I don't take a hard stance on the age of the earth, but one way or another, I believe what the Bible says is true. What Brent said about God creating the universe with the appearance of age is perfectly reasonable, but I don't know if that's in fact the case. Our dating methods are very unreliable and 80% of the results are tossed out because they provide dates that are not old enough to fit the assumptions. You see, it's when you get into these little annoying facts about our scientific methodologies, that someone like me has an awful hard time believing it over the Bible.

[p-freak]

Just as you don't read the yellow pages to find out who's the president of France, you don't read the proto-history of Genesis 1-10 to find scientific facts. Many people claim they believe what the Bible says, but they don't know anything about how to interpret the Bible. There are so many different types of writings in the Bible. Only a few of those are historical and none of them is scientific. All books of the Bible have been written with the intent of somehow showing how God works with people in history.

The first ten chapters of Genesis are NOT intended as a historical account of what happened before God called Abraham. They are meant to lay the basis of faith, namely that God created everything, that man first lived in direct communion with God, that this connection was severed by disobedience, that God has chosen not to destroy mankind, but re-entered fellowship with them. This proto-history is written in response to many ancient eastern stories about the history of the gods and man. The flood-story and the creation-story are not unique Biblical accounts (read the Gilgamesh epic in which he meet Ut-Napishtim, the proto-Noah of Mesopotamian literature). What happened is that the author of Genesis decided to take those stories and give them the right twist at the right moments to show that actually the God of Israel is the one who is in control and is the only one that should be worshiped. He never intended to give us a scientific account of creation.

The fact that this story is in the Bible does not mean that creation actually happened like this. If you look at all the literary devices that are used in Genesis 1 you will see that it is a carefully constructed story. On Day 1-3 the environments are created in which the creatures that are created on Day 4-6 find their place of living. This is done to show that God not only created all life on earth but also all our direct surroundings. There is only symbolical value to this story, but that does not diminish the worth of it. To me it's all the more dazzling that God has chosen to go the slow way of evolution and has planned everything so carefully. Through millions of years he's worked carefully towards where we are now. The scale of time and space is so humbling. I know of an astronomy department in a university where the whole staff became christian just because of their subject matter. This is where Psalm 19 is working the way it should be. God's glory is shown in nature and his word. Both are different and complementary ways of seeing who God is. And they are compatible because they speak about the same God. He doesn't change when we experience a scientific revolution.

In Old Testament world view the world rests on pillars in a gigantic ocean and is surrounded by a massive sphere of water. David makes frequent references to this in the Psalms. Of course we all know that we are not surrounded by a massive sphere of water. So you've decided to believe science there over what the Bible actually literally says??? Shame on you. You've made the Bible and God into a liar.

Everything in the Bible is written from a non-scientific worldview and throughout history we have seen that God's word has never lost out against science. Even after the Copernican revolution the Bible is still true (but what Joshua said - sun, stand still - is not true, it doesn't work like that, Joshua is lying, God is lying, the Bible is not true anymore!!!!). So even after a possible Darwinian revolution the Bible is still true. Using your mind and interpreting the Bible in a thoughtful and responsible way is what we are called to do. God shows himself through his word and his creation. And now you're telling me I can't believe his own story in creation, because you think his word says something different?