I believe that Genesis is most likely a true story. However, I think we miss the point if we assume its literal history and leave it at that. I once spoke to a rabbi about Genesis and he illustrated to me that he believed that it was what he called an, “anointed myth”. He defined “myth” as being a fictitious tale written to illustrate an underlying moral point or truth. For example, the story of the little boy who cried wolf; this story is a fairytale, a “myth”, if you will. There never was a real little boy or a real wolf. However, the moral of the story is a truth for all time. Even today we know what it means to, “cry wolf”, and the implications of loosing one’s creditability. The rabbi explained to me that the Genesis story is a bit different though. Its “anointed” meaning that this story was inspired by the very Spirit of God. The rabbi continued by saying that he didn’t believe that there had to be a literal real week of creation or a literal or real Adam and Eve. He continued by illustrating that the point of Genesis is that God made all things. And the story of Adam and Eve teaches us more about ourselves as imperfect creatures than it does history. In Adam and Eve…we see ourselves. We’ve all been in a place where things were well and have given into temptation. We’ve all tempted others to partake also. We’ve all felt the sting of shame and we’ve all felt God’s rejection. However, we’ve also felt God’s grace and mercy in the wake of our sin’s consequences. In Adam and Eve perhaps we don’t so much as see history…we see ourselves.
The rabbi in question believes in evolution as taught by science and denies that Adam and Eve actually existed. But he believes that the Genesis story is from God and teaches us deep spiritual truths. I don’t know if I’d go that far. But I will say this…we miss a lot, perhaps the entire point of the story, if we focus on it’s literal truth and loose sight of what it’s actually teaching us about God and ourselves.
Good point ,Moses got the reevelation while on the mount and it says he saw the hinder parts of God,I think the hinder parts are History....ie what God did.Sort of like a reverse Revelation. John saw into the future and Moses saw into the past.Just my opinion or the way I see it.
__________________
DAVID A MAN AFTER GOD'S HEART.........
Just now. Poll wasn't there yet, when I posted, I think.
I picked 'other'. I believe evolution happens and it might be God's method of creating. So it's option 3 and a possible option 2, but not sure. No way of knowing, seems to me.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Good point ,Moses got the reevelation while on the mount and it says he saw the hinder parts of God,I think the hinder parts are History....ie what God did.Sort of like a reverse Revelation. John saw into the future and Moses saw into the past.Just my opinion or the way I see it.
For me the idea of "anointed myth" appears to water down the Scripture on the surface. However, it is also very powerful in that no matter what science claims, discovers, or proves... a divine myth would still teach absolute truths given by God.
I did a research paper on evolution and my professor gave me a perfect score. I dedicate this to each of you.
Of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of subjects, one of the most controversial subjects today involves the science of evolution and the science of creation. The subjects of evolution and creation have been a point of contention between secular and religious scientists for more than 80 years now. Evolution seems to have some valid arguments which support its claim; in light of this fact, one must consider how the arguments of creation could stack up against evolution itself. Maybe one should consider evolution a fallacy because there are no concrete arguments which support the theory of evolution.
The field of science only recognizes one, maybe two views of how everything came into existence; namely, evolution and perhaps some will accept creation as a viable answer. If there are any other scientific views then they are not widely known, but at least most people are aware of the view of “creation”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2008), the definition of “science” states: “A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain”. In accordance with this definition neither evolution nor creation can be considered science because they do not follow the rules of being observable; however, we can use logic coupled with critical thinking to determine which argument makes better sense.
Evolution is being taught in our public schools on the basis of fact; however, even according to Moehlenpah (1998) who holds a Doctorate in Science explains that “both evolution and creation are theories of science which cannot be proven by observation”. So the question remains; how does one know which of the two has occurred? We must realize whether we are proponents of evolution or proponents of creation that both of these views are a matter of faith. Therefore, we must ask ourselves which of the two makes more logical sense. In an article taken from his book Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools, Gish (1995) gives a logical explanation concerning the similarities of both scientific viewpoints of creation and evolution. He also explains that neither viewpoint can be observed, so the approach is that of faith. In addition, Gish further states that both events happened only once, so it is impossible to conclude from observation which of the two has occurred. Since observations of the two events are impossible to observe, we must base our “faith” on one of the two possibilities. One of the main arguments for teaching evolution only is based upon the idea that creation is too much of a religious view and as religion goes, there must be a separation of church and state. Let us take into account that it is God that evolutionists want to take out of school and not so much as religion itself. However, as was previously stated, evolution is just as much of a religious view as creation because one must believe without observation that evolution has taken place.
In his understanding of the evolutionary process, Moehlenpah (1998) states: “The twin pillars of evolutionary thought are time and chance”. He further states that “Mathematical probabilities practically, if not totally, destroy pillar number one; therefore, time must be the hero of the plot”. Moehlenpah argues that mathematically it is impossible for some kind of “spontaneous” event to happen without the handiwork of a creator. The chance of spontaneous life to form is one in 10 by the 40,000th power. By these probabilities, one would have a better chance to get 10 straight flushes with a poker hand in Vegas.
Another point to consider with the evolutionary pillars of “time and chance”, we must look into the dating methods of today to find out how old a geological or biological object may be. Carbon dating is what is used today to find the age of an animal or a plant that has died. Taking this carbon dating method into consideration, one “must” know how much carbon existed at the time an animal has died, or how much carbon existed when a fossil was formed. In understanding the basic concept of how much carbon was in the Earth’s atmosphere at the time of an animal’s existence, we must also ask ourselves, ‘How is it possible to know how much carbon was around several thousands of years ago?’ As was stated before, this is perhaps a disillusioned argument that cannot possibly be observed as a viable science when thousands of years have passed; however, carbon dating is viable within the time observed making it an acceptable use for science of today.
Understanding that carbon dating is used solely for the purpose of biology, let us look into how we date geological materials. Dating rocks and fossils is used mainly by the potassium-argon method. This method factors quantities of argon found within each rock that surrounds the fossil, and determines how the geological clock is set by the escaping element known as argon. This method of dating is based upon numerous assumptions. The main assumption is that evolutionary science already assumes the Earth (based upon unobservable science) is 4.55 billion years old. Who is going to argue against a society that has wholeheartedly embraced evolution and the assumption that the earth is billions of years old?
Getting more into the arguments that describe differences between evolution and creation, one could understand the weak existence of the evolutionary argument. One of those arguments involves the fossil records which show a change in the way that mammals have evolved over the period of millions of years. This argument involves a lack of proof in today’s world, especially when there is the lack of inter-existent animals between those that exist today. The evolutionists might argue that they were a process of elimination because they could not adapt in today’s world; however, the creationist will argue that the monkey should not be in existence today according to that same argument. A question comes to mind when considering why a simple chimpanzee is capable of living through the process of adaptation through natural selection when the Neanderthal is not. This kind of reasoning must be addressed in order for conclusive decisions to be made in favor of the evolutionary process.
According to Moehlenpah (1998), the following chart shows a population growth rate of less than ½ percent that doubles every 150 years from 2500 B.C.:
Times doubled since 2500 B.C.Population.
0
1 doubling
2 doublings
3 doublings
4 doublings
5 doublings
6 doublings
7 doublings
8 doublings
9 doublings
10 doublings
11 doublings
12 doublings
13 doublings
14 doublings
15 doublings
16 doublings
17 doublings
18 doublings
19 doublings
20 doublings
21 doublings
22 doublings
23 doublings
24 doublings
25 doublings
26 doublings
27 doublings
28 doublings
29 doublings
30 doublings
Eight people
Sixteen people
Thirty two people
Sixty four people
One hundred twenty eight people
Two hundred fifty six people
Five hundred twelve people
One thousand twenty four people
Two thousand forty eight people
Four thousand ninety six people
Eight thousand one hundred ninety two people
16,384 people
32,768 people
65,536 people
131,072 people
262,144 people
524,288 people
1,048,576 people
2,097,152 people
4,194,304 people
8,388,608 people
16,777,216 people
33,554,432 people
67,108,864 people
134 million people
268 million people
536 million people
1.2 billion people
2.4 billion people
4.8 billion people
9.6 billion people
__________________
This is only an illustration which uses a modest population growth rate of ½ percent; however, the current growth rate is at 2%. Taking this chart into consideration, we are currently on the last doubling at the year 2000. Clearly, we do not have the population of 9.6 billion people but we are looking at a population of 6.5 billion. Could we imagine what kind of growth we would have if man started much earlier than 2500 B.C.? If the growth would continue at ½ percent and double at the same pace of 150 years, then at 60 doublings there would be approximately 10 billion billion people on the earth today. That means there would be no space to populate because logic would tell us that we would all be crushed under the weight of other people. We should also understand that there would not be any food to grow or animals to eat because of the lack of space to support these resources. The question again remains, ‘How could time and chance be the pillar of evolutionary thought when the logic of population growth will not support that pillar?’
In a statement concerning scientists, Ruse (2002) makes the information known that creationists have grown within the ranks of science and individuals of distinction; however, he points out that those biologists are not a part of the group of naysayers concerning the process or theory of evolution. Even Colby (1997) in his article “Introduction to Evolutionary Biology” declares that evolutionary biology is a theory. Colby also states that creationists have yet to offer any scientific evidences or testing to support their claims. Even though claims and evidences have been offered by evolutionists, those claims are easily refuted when one understands the weaknesses of those arguments. The fact that creationists do not seem to offer any substantial evidences could be easily described by the fact that humanity cannot duplicate what a creator can. A premise would be that humanity has to have an answer for everything and if enough information is not provided to fill in the blanks, humanity seems all too eager to make things up to fill in those proverbial blanks. Can humanity create a sun? Can humanity duplicate a vast solar system? This argument seems dishonest by those who are proponents of evolution to think that creationists can offer a scientific view other than creation itself.
One may ask whether creationist thinking is biased or not. For the most part, creation science is biased; however, we must understand that evolutionary science is just as biased. Biases aside, what matters most is which of the two biases is easier to believe in. At the very least, it is better to agree with a bias which supports a better argument based upon logic rather than theories alone. Would it be much simpler to have faith in a God that created the Earth? Or, would it be simpler to have faith in the notion that time and chance made a complex system full of life? How did the smallest particle known as an atom come into existence? Did the atom evolve from nothing? Or did an atom come into existence through a creator? These are questions we must honestly answer within ourselves.
In light of the arguments discussed above, it is clear that one must always make a decision based upon those facts. If we are honest and use logic and critical thinking skills, we can just as easily deduce the facts to point the way of creation as the only answer. However, as was already stated, creation also lacks observable science. The question we should ask ourselves is what we will do with these facts. An issue should be challenged within ourselves to find out whether we have been taught all that is factual, or is what we believe, information that is faith based one way or the other.
__________________
Oxford English Dictionary (2008) Definition of “Science”. Retrieved July 5, 2008 from the University Library.
Gish, Duane T. Ph.D. (1995) Scientific Creationism Should be Taught in Science Classrooms. Article excerpted from “Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools”. Retrieved June 1, 2008 from the University Library.
Ruse, Michael (2002) New Creationists and their Discredited Arguments. Article. Retrieved June 1, 2008 from the University Library.
Moehlenpah, Arlo E. D.Sc. (1998) Creation versus Evolution: Scientific and Religious Considerations.
Colby, Chris (1997) Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Article. Retrieved June 26, 2008 from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html
I realize that no one may actually listen but here is just one episode of a weekly podcast I listen too. It is nearly two hours long, but at least you can save it and listen to it at will.
Warning!
The above program represents a very intellectually honest viewpoint on Creationism and science and does not seek to fit every scientific discovery into a preset belief system.
Linear Mode
