Evangelicals in Switzerland recently sparked controversy when they successfully moved school authorities to include creationism alongside evolution in a science textbook.
Creationism was presented with evolution in the book as two ways of “explaining” the origin of the universe and life on earth, according to swissinfo, the e-zine by Swiss Radio International. But angry scientists and education experts soon forced the revision of the divisive passage, arguing that teaching creationism in science classes implies a controversy when there isn’t since evolution has been “proven beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Evolution teaches that all living organisms evolved through random genetic mutations and by the non-random process of natural selection from a single self-replicating molecule that existed by chemical chance some 3.5 billion years ago.
Meanwhile, creationism teaches the biblical idea that the universe and all living things, including man, were created by God.
The publication of the controversial textbook came just before the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe urged its members – including Switzerland – to “oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.”
The assembly warned that creationist ideas in the form of science – once almost exclusively restricted to the United States – has spread throughout Europe and could threaten human rights and democracy.
But proponents of creationism contend that most Swiss want creationism taught alongside evolution in biology class.
A survey commissioned by the Christian organization Pro Genesis earlier this year found 80 percent of Swiss want creationism taught in schools, according to swissinfo. Meanwhile, an international survey last year found 30 percent of Swiss reject evolution – one of the highest rates in Europe.
In America, the controversy takes on several different forms including a growing movement called intelligent design. Proponent of intelligent design contend that evidence from nature and the natural world suggests an “intelligent designer” is behind the creation of the universe, but resist from naming the designer or linking it directly to a religion.
However, Christians, especially evangelicals, have played a dominant role in promoting intelligent design and pressing school boards to teach it alongside evolution in science classes. As a whole, intelligent design has had some successes including growing numbers of supporters, but has also met setbacks with several defeats in courts.
Although America is a country that values freedom of expression and thought, professors who dare to challenge Darwin with intelligent design risk their jobs and network of scientific colleagues. A new film due out early next year, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” exposes the conspiracy among educators to “expel” professors who question Darwinism.
But not all Christians feel the need to defend creation against the attack of Darwin’s evolution. Christian scientists such as Francis Collins, one of America’s leading geneticists, crusades around the country teaching students and young scientists that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive but are compatible and together should actually help a person’s faith instead of destroy it. Continue >>
RSS
Why does everyone say that the Bible says that the earth is 6000 years old!!! it is a blatant lie from the dark ages, nobody says that except for atheists (okay and some really mixed up supposed Christians)? So why do people say the Bible says that? The Bible doesn't even say the age of the Earth anywhere. By the way, evolution as defined by the proponents of that theory is based upon the randomness of life coming together. If it has God just putting His hand in the method then it is no longer random. So no, atheistic evolution and God are not compatible. ifeelfine, it may be that God used evolution to create life (though I cannot see how we can honestly believe in the God of the Bible and the nature of man proposed by the Bible if evolution were so) but here is the thing, why should we believe in it if there is better evidence (via the fossil record, and various other tests) that evolution was not probable? For that matter why wouldn't Genesis just read, "And then God sparked the first living cell with random nonliving matter, and that little cell randomly went on over millions of years to become men and women, whom God finally created in His image, but only after they killed off their near relatives, the neanderthal men."? If it is true, then faith in God seems unnecessary at best. Here is something, either believe in God and the Bible, or don't. We don't have to adjust the Bible to atheist agendas.
So then Ifeelfine, are you saying that God created that "something from nothing" ?
And I'm glad you don't feel the need to defend theotrek, because if you will re-read my last post to him you will see that I alluded to "science", not him.
GMG - Sorry, its not an either or situation. He is there and His creation is true but not the literal creation story in the Bible.
You need to check your facts when questioning dating methods. Can you cite a legitmate source (not DI / ID supportive sites) on the faultiness of the scientific dating methods? And not just splitting hairs of a few hundred thousand years but a source that really says, the methods and accuracy are completely wrong. And that the earth could only be 6000 years old.
Not that I need to defend Theotek - but if you read his post, he makes it very clear that he is not leaving God out of the picture (and neither am I). God did create and take it to completion - what I am saying is he did it exactly the way evolution states it happened.
theotrek - science is the realm of man, attempting to explain God's creation...a most difficult job indeed when you are determined to leave God out of the picture.
Ifeelfine - yes, of course God would never lie to us, He is incapable of lying. But man now, he is a different story. Our dating processes are flawed at best, so how can we use them to determine age for an actual fact? How many times have procedures been "refined", facts been "updated", mistaken information been "cleared up"? Much fraud has been perpetrated in the name of science in order to justify what amounts to an explanation for existence outside of God.
I have no doubt there are many serious, ethical, hardworking scientists out there laboriously working towards finding answers. But if you begin with flawed information and are working from that, is it not logical to assume that the answers produced are flawed as well?
Can the earth be more than 6000 years old? Sure. Can it be billions and billions of years old? Not even if evolution is a fact, because it would truly take something close to eternity to have random chance produce even one amoeba (if that were even possible, which I doubt), not to mention so many viable, intricate, and varied life forms. Not to mention that sticky question that keeps getting in the way, and that is, of course, how do you get something from nothing?
How do you begin a theory somewhere past that all-important beginning, and call it viable? And if you have God producing that beginning, then isn't He capable of creating to completion? We seem to come full circle back to God, the great "I AM". Either He's there and creation is true, or He's a fable and we're spitting in the wind.
GMG--I am not advocating that God did not create. Genesis just does not say how. God declared his will and it came to pass. We know it came about under his authority, just not the process. That is the realm of science to attempt to explain. I agree that it will be a difficult task to accomplish.
GMG - Why would God lie to us? His creation tells us that the earth is a certain age, that life evolved. I believe that having faith is reasonable - its not reasonable though to look at the facts, see what God has created, and then say that He played an elaborate hoax on us. The Earth tells us that it is millions of years old and that life evolved why would God lie about it? The answer is obviously he wouldn't.
theotek - If God told us how he created, would we understand any of it? Can we begin to understand how Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to so many people, was raised into heaven in front of their eyes; how angels came to be and can just appear and take different forms; and I could go through the Bible and list so VERY many incomprehensible things He does.
We attempt to reduce God to something our minds can begin to grasp, but if He is the God of the Bible than it is impossible to even begin to fathom who or what He is. And if He is the God of the Bible than creation is no problem for Him. Otherwise, He is no better than a false god, and the atheists are correct in telling us that we believe nothing more than a fable.
"Now we see in a mirror darkly, but then face to face..." I am so looking forward to the day when I can see His face, and all these mysteries will become so clear. And in the meantime, I will trust in His Word, when He says "I created", "I spoke", "I breathed", and "I am".
maranatha7593-- If you don't take all the Bible literally, but chose to read some passages from a different hermeneutic, you don't take all the Bible literally. That does not mean you don't believe it or accept it as God's revelation. That was my point. I interpret Genesis 1-11 as something other than a literal historiography and more akin to theological narratives, at times poetic in nature. The text has to be read in the terms in which it was intended, which requires interpretation. Unfortunately, we will not all agree as to the specific style and appropriate means to interpret a passage.
GMG--I agree that parable does not fit Genesis 1-11. That is too tight a designation for this style of literature. It is not, however, historiography, either. It also does not explain how God created, but tells us clearly that he did. I don't happen to have much of a concept of evolution. I was never taught the theory, as I went to a Christian school that were afraid to deal with the theory and give them any credit.
How do you deal with the disparity in creation's order between Genesis 1:1-2:4 and 2:5-3:24? In the second account, God creates heaven and earth, man, then plants, rivers, animals, and finally woman. The order is different, ever notice? This is not contradiction, so much as a different writing style with a different purpose (account 1-God does things in order; account 2-God's primary purpose in creation was to created humanity, the rest providing for our needs).
Note what I did and didn't say: I know that Jesus often taught in parables. And of course He did not mean to literally pluck out one's eye or sever one's limb. He was referring to getting sin out of one's life in that context in order to miss Hell and enter Heaven. The scripture in Mark 16 is explained in part in the account of Paul's shipwreck in the book of Acts. Note that scripture doesn't COMMAND anyone to do those things; the indication is, there is PROTECTION if someone does those things unwittingly.
This is what I DID say:
"I believe the whole Bible. I don't pick and choose what I believe; it is the Word of God from beginning to end. Also, Genesis does tell the "how" of Creation; it says, "God spoke, and it was so." You're correct in saying there is no conflict. True science and the Bible go hand in hand. Do you have any idea how many groundbreaking scientists and great minds who laid the foundation upon which Science rests today believed in God, in the Bible, and saw no conflict whatsoever?
It takes at least as much faith to believe something came from nothing as it does to believe that God created the universe and all that is in it."
There is no reason for us to take Genesis 1-2 as parable when it is written as an account of what actually happened. Jesus made it clear when He spoke in parables and when He didn't.
I know that Jesus often taught in parables. And of course He did not mean to literally pluck out one's eye or sever one's limb. He was referring to getting sin out of one's life in that context in order to miss Hell and enter Heaven.
theotrek - In Genesis we read "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." Gen2:1-3
The context here is completion. I do not know how anyone could go through the creation account and consider it a parable. The only grounds that I could conceive of to do so would be to make it fit your conception of evolution.
And Ifeelfine, the Bible is no good for a book of faith if you see it as a book of good stories. Faith is only as good as the person it is directed at, in this case God. What is your definition of God?
GMG -- I don't particularly think the "heavy work" of creation would wear God down, either. The Hebrew concept of rest is to sit back and enjoy (reap the benefits) of one's labor. To "enter into God's rest" did not mean to stop working, but to enjoy the blessings of God's provision. This is also the sense in Genesis 2. There is more to life than work. It is to be enjoyed.
maranatha7593 -- the problem with claiming to take the Bible literally is that not all of it is so intended. I had a student who once claimed that all of Jesus' parables were literal stories about real people. That completely misses the point Jesus was trying to communicate. Truth in the story of the Good Samaritan is not about whether the account actually happened. It was whether we will act accordingly.
Believing and following the Bible is not tied to taking every word literally. I know many who otherwise would be plucking out their eyes and severing their limbs. They claim literal interpretation, but do not follow through on the claim. Good interpretation requires respecting the kind of Biblical literature we are reading.
Actually youre wrong heh. They havent found ever single fossil in the world but if they did there would be more evidence for evolution than against. There has yet to be a fossil that has totally thrown Evolution on its head and there never will be one. Tell me what errors youve found on carbon dating, and what 'outright' errors youve found. Evolution is a sound proof theory and that fact is not going to change no matter how many Christians claim it isnt. Same with the theory of gravity. I throw that in there because people like to focus on the "Theory" part of The Theory of Evolution. Well Gravity is considered a theory in science, and if you dont believe in Gravity, youve no buisness dabbling in science.
Maranatha - I have a hard time believing that you take every word of the Bible literally. If so check out Mark 16:17-18. It gives new meaning to "pick your poison."
I have no problems with the Bible or science. The Bible is the greatest book about faith ever written. Unfortunately it isn't much of a science text book. I believe (like a lot of Christians) that the creation story in the Bible is more of a metaphor or parable than anything. The only propoganda is that being pawned off as "science" by the disco' 'tute.
IMHO, we could use more Christians who believe the Word of the One in Whom they claim to believe. Christians who have faith in Him and realize His wisdom is as far above our own as the heavens are above the earth.
TokenSP said, "A quote from the passage itself, evolution has been “proven beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Actually, this is not true. There are gaps, problems with carbon dating, and outright errors. Whoever said this is not being intellectually honest. It's simply propoganda.
theotrek said, "No one takes the Bible literally."
Speaking only for myself, I believe the whole Bible. I don't pick and choose what I believe; it is the Word of God from beginning to end. Also, Genesis does tell the "how" of Creation; it says, "God spoke, and it was so." You're correct in saying there is no conflict. True science and the Bible go hand in hand. Do you have any idea how many groundbreaking scientists and great minds who laid the foundation upon which Science rests today believed in God, in the Bible, and saw no conflict whatsoever?
It takes at least as much faith to believe something came from nothing as it does to believe that God created the universe and all that is in it.
:). People truly intrigue me. They are the single question that never suffices with one answer. A quote from the passage itself, evolution has been “proven beyond all reasonable doubt.” And yet we still bicker over the evidence of it all.... Experts tell you that there is no doubt and then you find one person who says otherwise and through all else out the window. Anyone can say anything, no man is incapable of corruption, in fact I would say you would be hard pressed to find a man who wasnt a tiny bit corrupted. i wont go over the implications of that statement, but basically what im trying to say is that Evolution is backed by torrents and torrents of science and data, while intelligent design has nothing. Creationism has the Bible, and thats not a heaping load of evidence. Evolution has been backed by science thousands upon thousands of times. Dare we say millions? Events as separate as can possibly be have led to the same conclusion of Evolution. But people still dispute it... its upsetting because I have to agree that I am scared of living in a world where we go back to organical medication to solve our diseases or things such as divine healing...
I love it when man changes God's Word to fit mans "causes"... He who is in you is greater then he who is in the world...
Ifeelfine and theotrek,
OK, let's assume that God didn't "create", "speak", "breath" life into those things He didn't create, but rather just came up with the first few molecules (that "something from nothing"), set them spinning in such a manner that they would create a type of BANG, and then sat back and watched the process of evolution that He started. It surely didn't take 6 "days" to come up with a few molecules and set them going, so what on earth was He "resting" from on day 7?
theotrek - Another great post. Please keep coming back - we could use more Christians like you. God bless.
ifeelfine72 -- I have found that logical argumentation is rarely convincing. Those ideas we cling to the hardest we back with emotional dialog, not with logic. This is more so when we are grasping for rationale for what we believe. We love them and rely on God's grace to work in all our lives. Faith is not whether I have all the answers. It is relying on God to be sufficient.
enochchristianpost-- No one takes the Bible literally. They may take portions literally, but only the ones they chose to so take. Remember that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 have different orders for creation. In Gen 2, God forms man out of dust and then scrambles to plant a garden and prepare a place for him. Then he creates animals, and finally completes creation by finishing the creation of humanity with woman. Neither is a scientific account of process. They are both poetic accounts that speak of the identity and character of God as Creator. We just don't need to know how, just Who.
I have an idea. To reach more people for the bible, we could just say: if you can explain the bible, we take it literally, if we can´t explain it, or are not able to reproduce things we say it´s just a metaphore? I really don´t think that god is bigger than men, how could he???
Oh oh.
There´s is so few evidence for evolution and so many witness for God being alive and powerfull enough to create this earth in 6 days. No scientist will ever proof anything against the bible. If he things he finally found a proof, then someone else comes around to proof just the other way around.
Men are so stupid to think they are so wise.
Theotrek - I DISagree with you ... but unfortunately some folks here seem to think they take the Bible literally (even though we all know they don't) and their "6-thousand-years days" don't jibe with creationism. Plus they feel that the world is 6 billion years old. How do we reach out to those folks?
Theotrek - I agree with you 100% but unfortunately some folks here seem to think they take the Bible literally (even though we all know they don't) and their 6 days doesn't jibe with evolution. Plus they feel that the world is only 6000 years old. How do we reach out to those folks?
We seem to overlook that Genesis does not deal with the "how" of creation, but the "who" and "why". Let science explain the process as best it can, even if it cannot point to divine agency. It may be that current process theories are changed and discarded in later years. The role of the church is to point to God and God's will, including why we have been created. The role of science is to explain matters of concern to the world in which we live (process, time, principles by which the world functions). There is no real conflict here. Science and Religion work in separate scopes of inquiry. They can walk hand in hand.
The church used to believe the Bible taught the stars revolved around the earth. We tried to make the Bible a science text, rather than a record of God seeking relationship with humanity.
Creationism vs Evolution
http://polemos.net/Creationism.html
"The assembly warned that creationist ideas in the form of science – once almost exclusively restricted to the United States – has spread throughout Europe and could threaten human rights and democracy."
Oh, please. This is utterly ridiculous. I can't believe anyone expects us to take this statement seriously.
It's about time someone allowed for equal time, allowed for true academic freedom. Evolution is, after all, just a theory, and it requires faith to believe that something came from nothing.
Hey,...I got an idea,...lets make something that seems pretty absolute (my opinion) from the "Holy Bible" very simple, depending on how one wants to interpet there in,..into "rocket science".....PLEASE.... I personally don`t think it was meant to be this difficult,.....help me out with this one,...anyone.......