Tuesday, January 25, 2005
A little Pregnant
The Seattle Times article "Finding common ground between God and evolution" (HT: RCP) argues that the Bible's creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. In fact the article states that "Most theologians these days will argue that the biology book and the Good Book are reading from the same page."
Really? If, from what the author is suggesting, "biology" means evolution then I guess I missed that meme. In what chapter is the garden of Eden, tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Eve being made from the rib of Adam, found in evolutionary science? And what bible verse is it that records the magical transformation of one organism into another and another, and another etc., over billions of years?
What ever the page they are both reading from is, isn't in the bible. These "theologians" have de-evolved the the first sections of Genesis into nothing but a good story and have bought into the "goo to you" religion. The facts are, after all, overwhelming, where as God-well he's just so unfactual. After all, how dare God not be subject to the scientific method! We humans have processes, proper channels, and developmental strategies for everything. How can God ask us to believe in life being brought about by his word, what load mumbo-jumbo.
The article then states this:
"None of the six creative verses (in Genesis) describe an out-of-nothing, puff-of-smoke creation," he says. "All of them amount to a command by the creator for the earth, the soil and the water of this planet to bring forth life. And that's exactly what natural history tells us happened." (Miller has written a book on the subject: "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.")
On the surface this sounds plausible. The "days" of the creation could mean any amount of time and not the literal 24 hours. Also, God could have brought about life through the evolutionary process instead of by "puff-of-smoke creation". However, to accept the first part of this one has to accept the rest of it. The rest of it is if life evolved then there was no Adam, Eve, garden of Eden and most importantly, no fall of man. If there was no fall of man then Christ died for nothing and the very foundation of Christianity crumbles to dust.
So one pinch of yeast puffs-up the whole loaf or, as the saying goes today, you can't be a little pregnant.
|
Really? If, from what the author is suggesting, "biology" means evolution then I guess I missed that meme. In what chapter is the garden of Eden, tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Eve being made from the rib of Adam, found in evolutionary science? And what bible verse is it that records the magical transformation of one organism into another and another, and another etc., over billions of years?
What ever the page they are both reading from is, isn't in the bible. These "theologians" have de-evolved the the first sections of Genesis into nothing but a good story and have bought into the "goo to you" religion. The facts are, after all, overwhelming, where as God-well he's just so unfactual. After all, how dare God not be subject to the scientific method! We humans have processes, proper channels, and developmental strategies for everything. How can God ask us to believe in life being brought about by his word, what load mumbo-jumbo.
The article then states this:
"None of the six creative verses (in Genesis) describe an out-of-nothing, puff-of-smoke creation," he says. "All of them amount to a command by the creator for the earth, the soil and the water of this planet to bring forth life. And that's exactly what natural history tells us happened." (Miller has written a book on the subject: "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.")
On the surface this sounds plausible. The "days" of the creation could mean any amount of time and not the literal 24 hours. Also, God could have brought about life through the evolutionary process instead of by "puff-of-smoke creation". However, to accept the first part of this one has to accept the rest of it. The rest of it is if life evolved then there was no Adam, Eve, garden of Eden and most importantly, no fall of man. If there was no fall of man then Christ died for nothing and the very foundation of Christianity crumbles to dust.
So one pinch of yeast puffs-up the whole loaf or, as the saying goes today, you can't be a little pregnant.
# posted by Joe Florida @ 5:12 AM 
