A Different Approach May Help Us

People have started looking at me differently since my last post. A few can’t help but think that I’ve denied the Gospel itself.  Let me make this clear: I’ve made this move because of several reasons.  One is because it does a better job affirming the gospel in our current culture.  I’ve heard many sermons at numerous churches rejecting evolutionary thought as a heresy that voids the Gospel altogether.

It reminds me of a conversation that I’ve had with a Bible professor a few years ago.  When I mentioned that people who believe in evolution feel blacklisted at church, he told me that he’d never heard that before and didn’t feel that was the case.  I didn’t respond because I didn’t have the hard evidence at my fingertips, but I can tell you that I have read several blogs in which the writer asked his/her audience a similar question.  A large number of the respondents agreed that they felt that they would be ostracized if they made their scientific views known to the leaders of the church.  I’ve also personally witnessed conversations where church membership depended on a literal view of Adam and Eve.  More than once people have whispered to me about their evolutionary thinking in church hallways, afraid that the wrong person might overhear.

These issues have frustrated me for a long time.  Even when I thought that

Portrait of Francis S. Collins.

Portrait of Francis S. Collins. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Adam and Eve were historical figures, it bothered me that even church membership depended on it in some cases.  How do these folks account for Francis Collins?Collins converted in part because of a personal experience he had with a patient in a hospital.  He believes in the evolutionary theory but also firmly trusts in Christ for his salvation.  We shouldn’t think that his conversion is worthless, should we?

So here’s my question.  Is belief in Adam required for salvation? Some say “yes!” But I’d like to challenge that idea.  When your pastor presents the Gospel in church, how many times does Adam come up? I’ll bet you that most of the time he doesn’t!  When someone presents the Gospel person to person, is Adam mentioned in the conversation?  Most times, he isn’t!  In fact, how many Gospel tracts have you seen that make a big deal about Adam at all?  This may be a trite point, but it has significant implications.  It is not my belief in a literal Adam that saves me and makes me right with God.  Rather, it is my hope and trust in Christ’s work on the cross and his resurrection that move me to repentance.  My hope in Christ is what drives my faith; my trust in Christ that is the foundation of my belief.  I still believe in a literal Christ, his literal death and resurrection.

Further, I affirm the Ecumenical Creeds of the Church.  And yet, Adam doesn’t appear in them either! Do you see what I’m getting at here?

At the beginning of this post, I mentioned that my revised thoughts on Adam do a better job affirming the gospel in our current environment.  And I think it really does.

Resurrection Window (Matthew 28:1-5)

Resurrection Window (Matthew 28:1-5) (Photo credit: jdwarrick)

Think about it with me for a minute.  How many kids go off to college rejecting evolutionary thinking and then graduate believing it.  As a consequence, some of them also reject their Christian faith.  Now, we may try to blame the professors for that, but for the most part, professors are just doing their job (though I have no doubt some are just hostile to religious ideas altogether).  I think much of the blame falls at the feet of Christian leaders who feel that the Church is at war with modern scientific ideas.  A number of them insist that if anyone begins to believe things like “evolution,” that person’s faith is in jeopardy, or even doomed.  Frankly, professors don’t have to attack Christianity.  Since certain religious leaders have drawn a large, imaginary line between evolution and Christianity when the Christian steps into the realm of evolution, he thinks he has just abandoned the Faith!  He can either try to cruise under the radar in church, hoping that no one brings up the “E” word, or he can accept what his pastor always taught him: If Adam never existed, then there is no need for Christ, the resurrection, or even Christianity!So why don’t we take a different approach?  Why not recognize different readings and approaches to Genesis 1-3?  Teach the people in our churches that the Gospel does not rise and fall on Adam; its foundation is the teachings, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  Folks need to know that there are people in the world like Francis Collins, who recognize evolution and believe in the resurrection of Christ.  One does not have to negate the other.

Advertisements
Categories: Creation, Evolution, Practical, Theology | 23 Comments

Post navigation

23 thoughts on “A Different Approach May Help Us

  1. Katie Becton

    Let me first say, Jason, that I have always liked you. I have never once doubted your belief in the Gospel or your relationship with Jesus. I have always thought you have great insight on the Bible and its meaning & interpretation. My concern is in this day and age when people are looking for any reason to not trust the Bible that presenting anything in the Bible as “untrue” opens the door for those that are looking for the excuse. After all, if that isn’t true, then how can we believe the rest? I am also curious about what you do with the lineage of Christ which (if I’m not mistaken) goes back to Seth who was the son of Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve weren’t actual people, then was Seth? And if he wasn’t, then where does the lineage of Christ lead here on Earth? If people can’t believe in the historical genealogy of Christ, how can they be brought to belief in Christ himself? I am not trying to “argue you down” on this issue, I am merely trying to understand where this all leads.

  2. dmwilliams83

    Jason, we’ve never met, but I think we’re tracking down similar paths. I’ll be with you in prayer as I know how relationally straining it can be to take these sorts of stands.
    Katie, take heart! This path leads to C.S. Lewis, John Polkinghorne, and Lesslie Newbigin and that’s not so bad!

    • Katie Becton

      Thank you… I am not personally confused in my own beliefs, but it has always been a side interest/hobby of mine to explore other belief systems and religions (yes, even within my own) to better understand the thinking behind them. I have always loved logical thinking and unraveling and following the chain to its ultimate conclusion. In this case, I am merely asking what you do with one thing without throwing out the other. 🙂

      • I gotta go to work, Katie, but the quick answer for now is this. You’ve learned Christianity based on a certain paradigm. Accepting evolution into your thinking will lead to a shift in that matrix. Thousands upon thousands have made that shift and it has strengthened, not weakended, their trust in Christ and the Bible.
        I’ll try to give you some more later.

    • Back atcha, David! It’s good to have company on the journey!

  3. Okay, Katie.
    Answering you could take quite a while. Reading my other posts might be a good place to start. Other than that let me address a few of your concerns
    -If people are looking for reasons not to believe, they will find it–reasonable or unreasonable. When people leave the church, most of the time it has to do with reasons other than the existence of Adam, the historicity of Genesis, or whether or not “Noah’s Flood” was local or worldwide. Instead, it has to do with people’s existential experience with God and personal relationships at church.
    -If one thing is not accurate at one place in the scriptures, doesn’t that make it all untrustworthy? The short answer is ‘no’. The funny thing is that no one ever really uses this arguement for other documents. But I digress. The main thing to remember is that the writings of the Old Testament are different than those of the New. Something considered ‘historical’ in the OT era is different from the ‘historical’ accounts in the NT.
    -Geneologies in the Bible are very loose. They don’t agree with each other, they have gaps, etc. Luke is the only one who builds that lineage to Adam. He built the geneology based on Jewish records; Old Testament writings…and the OT handles history differently than the NT does.
    -One more thing. Paul’s personal experience with Christ was much more than something he was taught by his Jewish teachers. When Paul talks about Adam, he was teaching things taught to him…things based on OT narrative. Paul’s experience with Christ was not taught to him…it was a personal experience with the resurrected Christ.

    • Katie Becton

      Ok, please take this as a whole. I am still trying to understand your viewpoint, however, your reply was somewhat dismissive in tone. You truly might not have meant it that way, but the way it came across was, “Unless you have studied and gone through seminary, you couldn’t begin to understand yet.” So, that being said, let me address (from my point of view only)the statements in your reply.

      First, I have read your other posts. It has taken me quite awhile to post anything and I did struggle with this because I do truly want to understand, not just debate apples and oranges.

      Second, You are correct that most people have had bad experiences with “church people” so they do use that as an excuse whether primary or secondary as to why they don’t believe. However, the Bible was meant from beginning to end to lead us to Christ. There were obviously other things going on in the world that aren’t mentioned anywhere in the Bible during the Biblical era, but they are not important to the message that was being conveyed so they were not included. That being said, if one part is “inaccurate”, then the Bible in its entirety gets questioned.

      Third, genealogies in general are full of gaps and don’t agree with each other, even within families. I don’t know anyone who researches their family who has a completely gap-free, iron-clad genealogy all the way back to the beginning. However, it does make sense that Luke would be the one to have a more detailed account of Christ’s genealogy as he was a physician by trade before he was a disciple and was therefore much more detail oriented. And, who are we to say that he didn’t get it from Christ himself? The fact is we just don’t know. know because we weren’t there and it is not noted anywhere how he got his information.

  4. Darrell Harvey

    I went through a similar process 10 years ago, and am therefore slightly further along in my journey than you, so let me be a voice of encouragement that, though you might experience varying degrees of ostracization at certain levels, you have to stay true to where you feel God is leading you and what you feel he is revealing to you through the study of both his special and general revelations.
    Bravo to you for your humility and honesty.
    Bravo also to Jim Aldridge for ironically confirming your point (points to be addressed below).

    I minimally demonized “evolution” when I was younger, out of tradition and ignorance, and entered seminary with that mindset. However, like dmwilliams83, I became exposed to and came to embrace the higher critical claims regarding the scriptures.

    “Wait….Genesis Ch.1, Elohim, light, ocean, land/plants, Sun, fish, animals/man/woman…Ch.2, Yahweh, water, man, trees, animals, woman….wait, what??”; Satan’s names not Lucifer??, Gahenna’s an actual valley?? Kirk Cameron’s pulling stuff outta his own imagination and Daniel (as an aside, are you still a premillenialist, Mr. DTS?)??”

    Coming to a place where I started to differentiate what the scriptures explicitly stated from what millennia of tradition had implanted in my psyche, I realized that certain stale paradigms were better off discarded as God opened my eyes to new revelations into his purposes and nature.
    These realizations coupled with my studies as I segued into a career in science made it easy to embrace evolution as an amazing and God edifying explanation for many aspects of the living world I observed every day.

    Now, 10 years later my home library takes many by surprise as about 40% of it consists of theology books, and 40% of it science books. An entire shelf is dedicated to Creation in Genesis, from Henry Morris the father of modern young-Earth creationism, to William Dembski, ID proponent, to Francis Collins and other evangelicals that embrace the theory of evolution and incorporate it in varying ways into their belief system. My favorite book so far is “Creation or Evolution: Do We Have To Choose?” by Denis Alexander, which puts forth a spectrum of scenarios involving Adam and Eve, the Flood, timelines of creation, etc. that one might believe to varying degrees, and explains how they might be integrated into an inerrant view of scripture.

    I appreciate your deference to professional scientists, though find it unnecessary. Do you defer to astronauts in your belief in a round Earth, or to physicists in your belief in a non-geocentric view of the Universe? Likewise, it seems that you have a basic appreciation of the facts that evolution explains, but have grown enough as a theologian to allow yourself to believe what your God-given rational mind tells you to be true. (Ironically it took a PhD in theology to lead you to accept a high school Honors Biology understanding of the nature of life).

    Hopefully, your feelings of frustration at ignorant persecution will subside (though the persecution might not, depending on your church and geographic location), and you will feel mercy and sympathy for those who are slaves to tradition. More importantly, God can now use you to reach with the gospel those fellow sinners (red in tooth in claw, ;oP) for whom this is a stumbling block to knowing Christ.

    • I think you’re assuming too much sometimes, Darrell. I do defer to the scientific community in many things. The earth is round, and I’ve found enough evidence for me to believe that it is. If someone wants to debate with me on the technical science behind that, I have to admit that I’m not qualified for such a discussion. How is that an unnecessary move? It seems that it’s the most reasonable. I’m simply giving the professional the credit where credit is due. I’m not turning my brain off. I’m also not saying that I could never understand what the scientist knows. I’m just admitting that I’m not an expert in the field.

      Also, don’t be abusive or demeaning in your comments or they won’t get posted.

      • Darrell Harvey

        See below for profuse apology.

  5. Darrell Harvey

    Now to focus on some of the comments that your post on facebook and in your blog has begat, all being well intended, and most of what I see, all being from concerned believers with varying degrees of knowledge of the topic (caveat: the following represents my humble opinion as a scientist and theologian, regard or disregard with ease):

    First, the short, quaint, and/or misconception prone:

    Devlin, bravo on expanding your horizons and your healthy views on questioning. That being said, no biologist thinks humans came from monkeys. The theory of evolution espouses the principle of “common descent,” namely that humans and monkeys that are alive today have a common ancestor about 50 million years ago, possibly Plesiadapi. Also, no astrophysicist thinks the universe exploded from nothing. The term “Big Bang” is a misnomer made up by a non-scientist to make fun of the notion. The “Big Bang” Theory simply states that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate and everything used to be a whole lot closer 14 billion years ago. So close, in fact, that the laws of physics break down and we can’t talk about what existed before that without stepping outside the realm of Science into the realm of Metaphysics, or The Mystery mentioned by Benjamin. Plus, the nature of cosmic expansion doesn’t relate a whole lot to whether or not evolution takes place.

    Carol, I think Jason is saying we ARE animals, albeit special ones made in the image of God, and that animals evolved from multicellular organisms, and that THOSE evolved from unicellular organisms, and that those evolved via semi-biotic processes from organic molecules that organized via abiotic processes.

    Secondly, the ironic (considering Jason’s post), the cliché, and the misguided:

    Jim, thank you for being the poster child for the very argumentation style of ad hominem, quote-mining, erroneous categorizing, and genetic fallacies of irrelevance, that perpetuates evangelical misunderstandings of God’s creation and makes Christiandom unappealing to people whose careers are spent discovering what you dismiss so readily using the just mentioned rhetoric. It makes it a lot easier for people to see the back flips that traditionalists have to engage in to maintain a 150 year old understanding of the world around them.

    In such a short space, one can only graze your points. I advise anyone sincerely interested to get a (current, non-Kentucky) high school Biology textbook and use that as a springboard for your own research into the matter.

    However to briefly address some points:

    For those of you mislead and are misled, there is no scientific distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. It’s a categorical phantasm made up by non-scientists. There is only evolution of populations (not individuals) over time that leads to speciation. Similar species descended from the some original ancestor species are part of the same genus, same process, back in time, up to same family, etc. to kingdoms and domains. If you must, “macroevolution” is an accumulation of “microevolutions” over time to the point of speciation. Your limited fruit fly speciation (by design) example is a falsehood (traditionalists should be more responsible with the literature they read as I think falsehoods, though not intentional here I’m sure, are bad).

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    There’s about 50+ examples of observed evolution leading to speciation.

    A lot of them are in a lab. There goes your false categorical fallacious argument towards “Hard Science” only. Then there’s my favorite, Peter and Rosemary Grant, that spent 36 years in the field and observed evolution leading to speciation actually take place in a population of finches due to natural selection…Google them for an interesting study.

    All these experiments are pretty empirical.

    Ignorance about or rejection of the above empirically observed and repeatable results is more likely the reason evolutionary biologists treat you like you just said the Earth is flat, because they just showed you something that everyone can use their senses to verify and you just said it doesn’t exist.

    Hmmm…what else…quote mining Steven J. Gould’s personal metaphysical philosophies to disprove scientists’ abilities to make empirically based assertions about evolution? Dubious.

    And finally my personal favorite traditionalist argument…the classy, “Hey, why do YOU get to decide what the definition of “Science” is Mr. Scientist??” Ummm…maybe because they’re the Sci-en-tists….? Now that the intelligent design and irreducible complexity movements have gone by the wayside, I’ve found this epistemological argument of irrelevance to be more and more pervasive among traditionalists, specifically among apologists and philosophers. I actually discovered it while listening to William Dembski speak about the possibilities that should be taught in Science classes when it dawned on me… “Oh. He wants to change how Science is defined!”

    Connivingly genius. Or annoying. “Hey you biologists with your evolutionary paradigms looking for cures to genetic diseases by manipulating genomes based on your knowledge of mutational mechanisms driven by natural selection!! Can we philosophers harangue your empirical methods while you’re making real contributions to society so we don’t feel obsolete?!?” No wonder there’s professional bias among scientists…they’ve slipped into self-preservation mode due to ideological attack from outside…can you blame them?

    And if it is an epistemological debate, what’s wrong with strict empiricism? It’s helped us form every technological, medical, and engineering feat of the last 300 years. And if empiricism is an acceptable approach to Science, and evolutionary biology is empirically based, what’s the problem? Your great-great-great-great- grandfather’s Anabaptist preacher’s reformed seminary systematic professor’s interpretation of a commentary on the King James Bible’s treatment of a group of 50+ disparate scholar’s translation of a slew of primary sources of a 2000-400 B.C. written/redacted inspired Word to a bronze age group of Elect people says that God created Adam from the dust of the Earth, breathed life into his nostrils, and put him into the Garden of Eden means that God didn’t use biological evolution to accomplish this though 99.9+% of people that currently devote their life studies to this field observe that it is so and can provide you with evidence you can see and touch to support the notion?

    What epistemological system do you subscribe to that allows you to do this?

    (Please don’t revert to evolution as a historical science, as I don’t have the space or energy to explain the empirical sciences of geological and biological dating methods, paleontology, astrobiology, and molecular biology involved that buttress the Theory of Evolution, as it’s not every scientists job to plug the ignorances in every argument from ignorance, ie. your ad hoc argument accusation)

    Bravo once again Jason for breaking those chains and focusing on the Gospel message as the central tenet of time and scripture. Beware those that fallaciously caution your perceived fall down a “slippery slope” as it’s a tribute to their arrogance and adherence to tradition that they assume they are on top of the slope.

    (p.s. No vitriol intended Jim, just trying to protect my boy Jason…he’s very emotionally fragile right now at this tender stage of his development….; )

    • I appreciate the comments, Darrell, but take it easy buddy! These are my friends, and Jim is one of my closest! Insulting him would offend me, and I don’t think I can take that in my ‘very emotionally fragile’ state right now! Any rougher and Allyson will find me in the corner curled up in the fetal position muttering incoherently about Darwin, Calvin, and Jesus! Remember that how a person shares their point of view can be just as important as the view itself.

      • Darrell Harvey

        You mean a guy can’t be condescending and mocking and then just say “In Chist’s love” at the end and make it all better?? Sheeesh. My PROFUSE apologies to you and your friends! I thought people were attacking and misleading an old friend of mine and was therefore trying to stick up for him. Again, apologies if you felt personally attacked or your opinions belittled Devlin, Carol, and especially Jim!

  6. Katie Becton

    Finally, no matter our personal beliefs (and to address what the other commenter dismissed as ignorance), we have to have faith. Nobody was there to observe the earth’s or man’s beginnings. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, either one takes faith. It does not matter what has been observed since, what we are talking about was not observed by anyone, therefore it has to be taken on faith.

    • Katie, you know that I’m not trying to be dismissive. You’re asking me to argue a point that took me many years to construct. It will take more than a response post in a blog to do that. Your question assumes a lot of other premises. I’m presuming a little here but this is an example:
      1. All of the Bible must be historically true or none of it is theologically true.
      My answer is ‘no,’ because what is considered historically accurate accounts *today* is not the same standard that then ancients cared about. And I would further aruge that *all* history is biased…and that is not a bad thing. Everybody has their own perspective on what happened when. I believe in objective truth, but from a human point of view, we just cannot arrive at *absolute* objective truth. That’s a deeper philosophical debate that I’m not willing to have right now.
      2. All of the Bible is about Christ.
      I think so, but Jewish scholars do not. How can I prove I’m right? The same way the Jewish scholar proves he’s right…we argue from the text! Ultimately, it is our own experience with the biblical text that leads us to such a conclusion. The Holy Spirit convinces us of this, but does not draw others into such a view. Why not? I dunno. I’ll let God be God on that.
      3. Luke didn’t say where he got his info.
      Not exactly. Scholarly consensus is that Luke did systematic research as a historian to present his facts. Luke 1:1-4 leads us to believe that. Also, the way he writes parrots the style of historians of his day.
      4. Faith is involved in any decision, spiritual or scientific.
      Yes, but that has nothing to do with discussions over faith and science, and it’s really a sign of weakness when the Christian brings it up. Most folks use some form of emperical evidence to arrive to their conclusions. When people become convinced of some argument, they have ‘faith’ in that system that got them there. Telling the atheist scientist that he has the same kind of faith that a Christian has is really not right. If you say, “we both have faith,” well then, we are no different than the folks who say “might makes right” or those folks who believe stealing is the best way to make money, or the folks who think that domestic violence is okay. All of these folks have faith in their reasoning system. Are they like us? Is their faith like ours. Certainly not.

      • Katie Becton

        I will grant you your point of view as you have graciously granted mine. I do have one more pertinent question for you. You say that Luke is the only one who made the connection back to Seth for the lineage of Christ and that the biblical genealogies are not necessarily accurate.

        My question sis this: Do you consider that Luke Ch. 2 is the best portrayal/telling of the birth of Christ?

        This relates since form what I gather, you are taking the New Testament a bit more literally than the Old Testament. However, by saying that Luke Ch. 1 is not necessarily accurate and if you then say that Luke ch. 2 is accurate, it causes confusion even within the New Testament when trying to to explain to new or unbelievers.

  7. Katie Becton

    And, may I also say that I never said that it was the same kind of faith that we as Christians have. By definition, Faith is “complete trust or confidence in someone or something.” Biblical explanation of Faith is “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (NIV) So, technically, since nobody “saw” the origin of Earth or man, it does take some kind of faith to believe whatever each person believes.

    • -Luke has more content and details on the birth of Christ, but that doesn’t make him more accurate. This is important: it is his recounting of the event based on all the evidence he had available to him. That’s what historians do. Many modern historians understand that a purely objective recounting of history is itself a myth. It does not exist. BUT, historical perspectives can be correct or incorrect. I believe that all of the gospel accounts are correct, though they are all different perspectives. They are all inspired, so God is driving all of them. Further, each gospel has its own axe to grind, its own point to make. Each point is the human author’s point; each point is God’s point. The idea that history is either right or wrong, good or bad, oversimplifies the issue. This won’t drive away the seeker who understands how history works.
      -I have several problems with your ‘faith’ response. First of all, you’re ‘prooftexting’–taking a verse out of context and using it to answer a massive question. Heb. 11:1 may support the fact that God created everything (v.3), but it says nothing that tells us how he did it…the question a scientist might be able to uncover.
      Also you said “I never said that it was the same kind of faith that we as Christians have.” Well why did you say this: “Whether you believe in evolution or creation, either one takes faith”? It sure looks like they are the same to me! Why else would you make such a comparison?

    • Darrell Harvey

      Katie, sorry if you were offended by the term “ignorance” I used above. I used it mostly in the context of the “argument from ignorance” logical fallicy, which is that particular fallacy’s official name. It is equitable with what is called the “God in the gaps” assertions of some people that plug “God did it” in gaps in our current understanding of the universe just as prehistoric people did with lightning and other phenomenon they couldn’t explain.

      To address the faith issue you bring up, I too use the faith definition of Hebrews 11, faith as “assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” This is outside the realm of empirical Science, so any scientist that is making statements that fall under this umbrella (eg., atheism) is making personal philosophical statements that are beyond the scope of Science. Biological evolution, however, is not based on things unseen, but is an explanation for things that we observe.

      True, therre was no life to observe life before life was life, but just like a murder mystery, we can use forensic science to give reasonable tangible proof for what actually occured. If two people are found dead by gunshot wounds in a house and one is observed to have a gun in their hand with a single bullet hole in their head caused by that gun, there are certain possibilities that can be given more weight than others as to what happened. Admittedly, any number of things could have led to our current observations, causing this to be on accident, or on purpose, or premeditated, or set up. For instance, a doctor could find the gun holder with lungs full of water suggesting a drowning followed by a cover up. The point is, it happened ONE way, and the more clues you find, the more supported or rejected your original hypothesis becomes, and this is all based, not on faith, but what you observe, though none were their to witness the crime.

      Likewise, when a hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor is made to explain physiological similarities, and the a “clue” in their DNA is found to support this (google: “humans chimpanzees chromosome 2 fusion”, the hypothesis is supported without having to refer to things unseen, but rather evidence you can hold in your hand (or microscope).

  8. Katie Becton

    This is the last comment I will make regarding any of this, I promise. 🙂 I could argue that like chromosomes or similarities can be attributed to a single Creator. In like fashion, a computer programmer uses like or similar code in greatly different programs because they know that certain functions will be necessary to make it work. I do have an issue with the statement made earlier that “…we are animals, but were made in the image of God. Animals evolved from multi-cellular organisms….” To me, that is mutually exclusive. If we evolved from the same thing that other animals evolved from, there is nothing special about the human race. If were “made,” then that speaks to creation, not to evolution.

    We can agree to disagree on this topic since I know I am not making any points that either of you have not argued before, & I know that there is nothing you have said thus far to convince me that evolution is a factual event. Personally, until I have been presented with undeniable evidence of evolution of a species, not adaptation within a species, then I will continue to place my faith in the Bible as God’s word and the ultimate authoriity.

    • Yes, we agree to disagree; but it seems you still don’t get our basic argument. Just because we interpret Genesis differently, doesn’t mean that we doubt the scriptures. Our interpretation is different, our trust in the Bible is not. The scriptures do exactly what God wants them to do: reveal divine truth. If general revelation means anything to us, then we are obliged to use science to inform us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

goodbye religion

So long to institutional thinking...

jeff gissing

- faith | theology | culture | publishing -

Dunelm Road

Dunelm is Latin for Durham (England)

Next Theology

Just another WordPress.com site

Semitica

An Academic Blog

100worddash

Just another WordPress.com site

maskil leDawid

meditations, supplications, lamentations, disputations

Naturalis Historia

Exploring the Intersection of Science and Faith in the Spirit of John Ray

%d bloggers like this: