To : Davey Jones Subj: CREATION SCIENCE DJ I would agree that acceptance of evolutionism i

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Jeff Doles 16 Sep 94 11:40 To : Davey Jones Subj: CREATION SCIENCE DJ> I would agree that acceptance of evolutionism is anathema DJ> to Christianity. (I.e., Matt. 19:4), but is rejection of DJ> evolutionism a rejection of science? I don't think it would DJ> be. As a Christian who accepts evolution as valid science (and who does not accept Creationism -as science-) I say that evolution is NOT anathema to Christianity. No doubt, evolution does not agree with the -literal interpretation- of Genesis creation, but literal interpretation of Genesis creation does not necessarily equate with Christianity. Indeed, there have been and are many good and faithful Christians who accept the possibility of evolution and who do not find it to be a contradiction of the Bible. These Christians I have in mind are neither "modernists" nor liberal in their theology. Indeed, a couple of them even wrote articles for -The Fundamentals-, a publication which presented the basis for the fundamentalists movement. Evolutionism as an "ism" I reject, as do many others here. But evolution as an observed phenomena and the theory of evolution which seeks to explain this phenomena I accept as valid science. I do not accept it as ultimate truth. By faith, I understand that the ultimate truth is that the God of the Bible is the Creator of heaven and earth. And I find nothing in the Bible that precludes evolution as one of God's creative means. Matt 19.4 does not preclude evolution. It merely teaches that God created made male and female (two individual persons) but that in marriage the two become a union. It does not say -how- God did this, therefore it does not preclude evolution as a mechanism. Nor does it say -when- God did this. The "He which made them at the beginning made them male and female" of Matt 19.4 might better be understood as "He that made them made them from the beginning male and female" (so says Jameison, Faussett and Brown, conservative Bible scholars and theologians). IOW, the point is not about the timing of the event, nor it the primary point even about Who made them -- the point at hand is about the distinctness of male and female, and yet they are made one in marriage. Therefore, Matt 19.4 does not preclude the idea of an ancient earth in which humanity does not appear until relatively recently. But this is off topic. If you wish to pursue these biblical aspects with me, I would be happy to discuss them with you over on Fidonet Open Bible. Lane Lester has been participating there and I have invited Arthur Biele to come over, too. Is the rejection of evolution necessarily the rejection of science? The theory of evolution was developed according to the principles and methods of science. If one wishes to reject the theory without rejecting science then one must either show how the theory violates the scientific method or else present evidence that falsifies the theory. Peace be with you.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank