I too used to flippantly dismiss the Christian Creation Theory, secure in my high school Biology-gained knowledge of evolution... but then I started thinking (and I know I can’t be alone in this) - why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? If you think of Genesis as a metaphor for human evolution, it’s strange how much the Bible got right...

Granted the evolutionary-proved progression of life from sea to fish to beast to man is fairly logical, and in no way exclusive to Christianity, but what gets me are the similarities between the concept of Adam and Eve, and modern human evolutionary knowledge:

1) We’re extremely genetically similar, especially when compared to chimps and other apes. It’s pretty recognised that we passed through a genetic bottleneck at some point, and this fits in rather tidily with the Biblical idea that all humans are descended from a small group.

2) The “Out of Africa” Theory suggests that the African-evolved H.sapiens dispersed through Europe and Asia, replacing established regional variants of H. erectus as they went. Not only has mitochondrial DNA linked modern humans back to a single group of African females (ie Eve again), but the whole idea of a dispersal from a single location through the rest of the world mirrors Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden.

I have some other ideas as well, but they get increasingly flaky so I’m going to leave it for now. I’m aware that I haven’t researched any of this to a high level, and haven’t even attempted to look at any original translations etc... but it’s just a few idle thoughts. Feel free to pick all this apart, add to it, fill in the gaping holes, compare to other religions, whatever.

They are mutauly exclusive because one says that God made the Universe and all life in it in pretty much the form it is now. And the other says that life is in the forms it is today because of random mutaions and natural variation controled by no-one with no goal in mind.

^ Then obviously theistic evolutionists are of a similar breed to purple muffler dragons...

Do you understand what “metaphorical” means? I mean obviously if you look at them both as literal theories they are completely different, but I’m talking about Christian Creationism as a prophetic, suprisingly accurate metaphor for what we now know about human evolution. Try to see the 7 days of creation as all time up to now, with maybe the resting day as the time period we're in currently.

Besides who says evolution isn’t being controlled...

As far as I know, evolution in its basic theories says dick about the existence of a God.

Forget about God - he doesn't even enter this, and obviously evolution doesn't involve a god. All I'm pointing out is that when you look at basic ideas, both the Bible and the "Out of Africa" Theory propose that the human race came from a very small group of individuals and dispersed from a single, resource-abundant location throughout the world. Which is rather remarkable when you consider those individuals who crafted Genesis had no idea about genetics, modern natural selection etc

Unless it's complete coincedence.

[This message has been edited by acquiescence (edited 11-26-2004).]

For evolution and creation to work together you need to believe that the Bible was written by bronze age men who could not properly describe how the universe was made if God himself exsplained it to them. And admit that God did not play as active a role on Earth as we have been led to believe. Not many people seem to like that.

QUOTE Originally posted by acquiescence:

Forget about God - he doesn't even enter this, and obviously evolution doesn't involve a god.

ok, you say metaphorically. How did this strange occurance of the two concepts happen? Without God to tell the writers what to write, how could creation "mirror" evolution? Who made the metaphor?

All I'm pointing out is that when you look at basic ideas, both the Bible and the "Out of Africa" Theory propose that the human race came from a very small group of individuals and dispersed from a single, resource-abundant location throughout the world.

What you have described has already been proposed by many scientists and lay-people. It is a variation of what is called 'Theistic Evolution'. In fact, there are (some)clergy members that think this way. I've met and spoke with one. I believe in special creation, by God, and i believe it happened about 6 thousand years ago.

The first (and probably, main) reason that i do not believe in evolution (theistic or otherwise) is that it puts death and destruction before the "fall of man", where the Bible says that death and destruction is the result of the "fall". When clergy tries to explain creation from the POV that God made things as a via evolution, they are not trusting in God, they are trusting in man and man's theories...which i think is utterly wrong if one's "employer" is The Supreme Being". And when clergy succumb to putting man's answers ahead of God's Word, what kind of message is that portraying to "us common folk"?

Which is rather remarkable when you consider those individuals who crafted Genesis had no idea about genetics, modern natural selection etc /QUOTE

Again, "How did this strange occurance of the two concepts happen? Without God to tell the writers what to write, how could creation "mirror" evolution? Who made the metaphor?"

That's actually a damn good point. It has to be more than coincedence that the dominant Western religion mirrors dominant human evolutionary theory... unless all the top evolutionary scientists are both Christians and unscrupulous, which is possible but unlikely.

I'm not so pedantic that I can't consider the existence of God, but how can you completely dismiss evolution? Surely God working through evolution is more plausible than God creating the world, as is, in 7 days. There's way too much evidence on the evolutionary side of things. Unless God is sick of having masses of needy followers and is trying to throw you all off track...

quote:Originally posted by acquiescence:

That's actually a damn good point. It has to be more than coincedence that the dominant Western religion mirrors dominant human evolutionary theory... unless all the top evolutionary scientists are both Christians and unscrupulous, which is possible but unlikely.

I'm not so pedantic that I can't consider the existence of God, but how can you completely dismiss evolution? Surely God working through evolution is more plausible than God creating the world, as is, in 7 days. There's way too much evidence on the evolutionary side of things. Unless God is sick of having masses of needy followers and is trying to throw you all off track...



I myself see nothing wrong with evolution for Christianity. Whats to say that God doesn't change his ideas for each species? There you have it, evolution. God created man in his own image, but he can be whatever the hell he wants to be. To say that God is and will always be human in image or even devoted to humans is presumptous.

QUOTE Originally posted by acquiescence:

I'm not so pedantic that I can't consider the existence of God, but how can you completely dismiss evolution?

I dont completly dismiss it. Evolution as the source of life is what i disagree with.

Surely God working through evolution is more plausible than God creating the world, as is, in 7 days.

Only if one starts from the belief that the Word of God is wrong.

I think that most people START from the view that evolution is right.

There's way too much evidence on the evolutionary side of things. /QUOTE

I'm going to guess that the evidence that you mean, is the fossil record. The way that i understand it, the fossils are/were primarily dated by where they were found in the geologic column. And that was mainly guessed at (dated) by the assumption that "dirt" takes lots-o-time to make the strata, based on currently/recently observed rates of strata build up. But i have read that there have been modern (recent) observations that show that strata can be layed down rather rapidly. Granted, i know that the books i am reading are bias (and so am i) toward God and His Word. But they do show decent answers supporting the bias.

The Revised & Expanded Answers Book Ken Ham * Jonathan Sarfati * Carl Wieland

the LIE: Evolution ken ham

Refuting Evolution jonathan sarfati

are the most recent that i've read. The last one i am currently reading, and would like to quote one paragraph from the forward, written by ken ham:

"I challenge professors, teachers, and students to not only read this book and consider the claims Dr. Sarfati has made, but to check out the documentation for themselves. If they do this, I believe they too may become "angry" at the way information (about evolution) is being presented to the public in such a lopsided manner."

This statement alone, seems to me, that they are not trying to twist the info.

There is another book by this author (Sarfati) that is more up to date, but i havent gotten to it yet.

"The Answers" book covers quite a few topics, but in my eyes, gives many good explainations. In some cases, i think even better explainations than current secular thought.

I read "the LIE" first. While touching on quite a few topics against evolution, it mostly shows the reasons for belief in the Bible as a starting point for an outlook of what the secular world says. Of these 3 books, this one i think is most geared toward Christians.

If a non-believer were to ask me, i would recommend reading in the reverse order that i did. To a Christian it would depend on the person asking. But that's just my 2cents.

it doesnt seem like they are trying to turn it into a cash cow... in fact, i think you might be able to download the lie and refuting evolution for free, but im not sure, maybe it was something else. Anyway, two of them are $12 each and the other two are $11 each, so as far as books go, that isnt too bad.

of course evolutionary theory and creationism are similar. they are both origin myths born of the same question.

instead of asking 'how did these ideas originate and which is correct?' why not ask, 'from where does the human desire to understand the past originate?' it is the same question, only straight to the heart of the matter.

and from where does it originate? my answer: it explodes from the desire to understand the present moment. it defines the majority of us, and yet it is based on a fundamentally flawed premise - that there is a present moment.

there is nothing to understand other than our own emotional quandary, and once that's understood, then what?

xtreem5150ahm, it can be proven that the earth is more than 6,000 years old---distant starlight. If we can see something one million light years away then the earth is at least that old (unless God created false information). And we can view objects billions of light years away. xtreem5150ahm, I was raised as a young earth creationist so it was very hard for me to give up those views, but I have come to the conclusion after objective research that creationism is "the big lie". Just keep in mind when reading those books you recommended that you will find mostly straw-man arguments and quote mining, and yes I have read all of those books.

There is no doubt in my mind that creationism is not literal truth. It takes a very strong, blinkered faith to mentally discard all the reams of evidence supporting evolution and proving the Bible wrong.

What I'm trying to do is get people to step back, be a little less anal-retentive, and instead of arguing a) "Evolution is wrong! God created the world in 7 days, honest!" and b) "That's so wrong, how could that be? Lies!", treat Genesis as I think it should be treated, as more of a folk tale/myth than a factual account. And when you do treat it as just a metaphor/story/early attempt to explain the world, it has an astonishing amount in common with modern, carbon-dated/fossil-record etc supported human evolutionary theories.

What I'm trying to work out is what are the chances of this happening by coincedence? Is it just logical? Lucky chance? More? Any faith of mine has to be based in science, and at the moment this is one of the only points I've found in favour of the existence of the Christian God.

The things you were mentioning are not a specific part of Christianity, acquiescence. They are a part of the Old Testament and also of the Jewish Torah and only because of this have been included in the belief system of the Catholic Church.

The creation story, the exodus from Egypt, the Ten Commandments...etc, etc, all are specific for Judaism and the Old Testament.

quote:Originally posted by bloody_hands:

xtreem5150ahm, it can be proven that the earth is more than 6,000 years old---distant starlight. If we can see something one million light years away then the earth is at least that old (unless God created false information).

Actually, it doesn't prove anything about earth. It only proves that that star is at least a million years old - not earth. Even if earth would have been here only since yesterday, we would be able to see that million years old starlight, because all we need is that light impinging upon us - not a million years old earth.

If this is not obvious, picture yourself in a spaceship which was just built the day before, out in space. Would or would you not see the light from the stars ? You would, of course, although your spaceship is only one day old.

quote:Originally posted by acquiescence:

What I'm trying to do is get people to step back, be a little less anal-retentive, and instead of arguing a) "Evolution is wrong! God created the world in 7 days, honest!" and b) "That's so wrong, how could that be? Lies!", treat Genesis as I think it should be treated, as more of a folk tale/myth than a factual account.

Overall I agree with your viewpoint and I think it is very sensible, but I think Genesis (and other biblical data) should not be seen as just a folk tale or a myth. Even if metaphorical in nature, it can still be factual. Talking in metaphors doesn't imply telling lies or fantasies.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

Actually, it doesn't prove anything about earth. It only proves that that star is at least a million years old - not earth. Even if earth would have been here only since yesterday, we would be able to see that million years old starlight, because all we need is that light impinging upon us - not a million years old earth.

If this is not obvious, picture yourself in a spaceship which was just built the day before, out in space. Would or would you not see the light from the stars ? You would, of course, although your spaceship is only one day old.



The whole premise of the theory of the earth being 6,000 years old is based on a strict literalist interpretation of Genesis. And according to that literalist theory touted by aig and the other sources being used by xtreem, the heavens where created only a day or so before the earth. Therefore my point still stands.

And there's all the radiometric dating techniques based on isotope decay (Carbon-14, K to Ar etc) if we're trying to prove/disprove a literal Genesis.

Perhaps the world would be a more sane place if the proponents of monotheism saw their respective texts as metaphoric rather than didactic.

That's exactly what I'm trying to get across. I mean, if you look at tribal creation myths like those of the Maori and Boshongo - the majority accept that myths are exactly what they are, and treat them as such. Just because a creation story is in written rather than oral form, doesn't make it any less of a story.

I'll just leave you with a Bill Hicks Quote: "If it was the exact word of god it'd be real clear and easy to understand. God's got a way with words, being the creator of language and all."