I don't know who's still reading this thing, but I have a problem that I thought I'd address here (as fewer people know about this site). At one of my places of employment, someone has set up a chapel on the topic of Creation, actually it's called "Creation/Evolution: What's it all about" or something like that. Seeing something like that, my back goes immeadiately up. I get nervous and I have visions of sweaty, oily-haired men calling science "mumbo-jumbo" and making ridiculous claims about atheistic conspiracies.
I looked a little closer at the poster and, to my deep embarrassment, I have the distinct impression that that's what this is going to be. The speaker is from an agency called Creation something or other. Already that's a problem in my books. Only one speaker means only one point of view presented. That's irresponsible in my opinion and strikes me as anti-intellectual. In Christian circles the idea of a literal 7 day creation is not universally held. I think such an event makes our Christian institutions look closed minded and reactionary - like those who continued, after the Copernican revolution, to insist that the sun revolved around the earth. Yes, there are problems with the theory of evolution. Yes, those problems should be pointed out. But are there any fewer problems with the idea of a God making everything in 6 24 hour days (despite the sun not being created until day 3 or 4) and then taking a nap?
Probably my main problems with such presentations is, firstly, that they misappropriate the book of Genesis and try to make it something it's not meant to be: a science textbook or a modern history. You might as well try to diagnose heart failure using a romance novel. Genesis was written to give a group of illiterate farmers and sheepherders security that there was a God who thought about them, who cared for them, that they mattered. It was never intended to be a blow-by-blow chronicle or a documentary on the exact way the earth came into being; it was a story to make sense of the world to those people.
My second problem is the underlying (sometimes not so underlying) assertion that evolution is the reason for fewer people believing in God. Actually, I think that Christians insisting that their version of reality is correct, despite the face of scientific evidence and continual reworking needed to make that story make sense might have something to do with it. I don't think convincing people of 7 day creation is akin to sharing the gospel and sharing the love of Christ.
I looked a little closer at the poster and, to my deep embarrassment, I have the distinct impression that that's what this is going to be. The speaker is from an agency called Creation something or other. Already that's a problem in my books. Only one speaker means only one point of view presented. That's irresponsible in my opinion and strikes me as anti-intellectual. In Christian circles the idea of a literal 7 day creation is not universally held. I think such an event makes our Christian institutions look closed minded and reactionary - like those who continued, after the Copernican revolution, to insist that the sun revolved around the earth. Yes, there are problems with the theory of evolution. Yes, those problems should be pointed out. But are there any fewer problems with the idea of a God making everything in 6 24 hour days (despite the sun not being created until day 3 or 4) and then taking a nap?
Probably my main problems with such presentations is, firstly, that they misappropriate the book of Genesis and try to make it something it's not meant to be: a science textbook or a modern history. You might as well try to diagnose heart failure using a romance novel. Genesis was written to give a group of illiterate farmers and sheepherders security that there was a God who thought about them, who cared for them, that they mattered. It was never intended to be a blow-by-blow chronicle or a documentary on the exact way the earth came into being; it was a story to make sense of the world to those people.
My second problem is the underlying (sometimes not so underlying) assertion that evolution is the reason for fewer people believing in God. Actually, I think that Christians insisting that their version of reality is correct, despite the face of scientific evidence and continual reworking needed to make that story make sense might have something to do with it. I don't think convincing people of 7 day creation is akin to sharing the gospel and sharing the love of Christ.
posted by Michael | 8:29 p.m.
5 Comments:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
No sun and moon, no, but somehow there was light and morning and evening making up 'a day', so 24 hours could be argued from that perspective.
Secondly. I think that Genesis isn't only to let the world make sense to 'those people.' It's important for us, too.
You yourself are saying that scientific evidence isn't the reason people would disbelieve in God. Given that (and I agree it is at least generally true), it seems that 'a story to make sense of the world' would not at all be an important enough thing to write a book of the Bible about. This implies a deeper meaning which I think we would all probably agree is there.
However these are rhetorical arguments, basically I agree with you.
After all, at least one thing is clearly less important than having 'a story to make sense of the world', and that is, having 'a scientific explanation for human existence'. It might be useful information in theory, but the Bible, as a timeless resource for all human epochs in which it has existed, has vastly more important things to teach. Reading through some portions of Leviticus or Numbers might make it hard to believe, but it's definitely true. The Bible doesn't describe bacteria, but it contains laws to prevent the spread of disease.
Intentionally, the Bible does not itemize the scientific reasoning behind every lesson it imparts, even for the things we humans can achieve - how much more true must this be of the forces behind God's creation of the universe and human life itself! The Bible tells us what we can know with the scientific knowledge of Moses' day, and it's more than enough - but it's not the whole story, nor should it be.
I don't KNOW how long the seven days of creation were, nor do I CARE... AT ALL. Actually, the biblical seven-day account is almost a proponent of evolution - after all, on the seventh day, 'God rested.' Doesn't that imply that he remained inactive for a time? That creation, after a certain point, was left to run its course in order to reach the state of affairs in Eden's time? Certainly for human beings the concept of rest means to take our influence away from the world for a time. 'Let the world turn without us,' for awhile. The other effect of human rest, that is, the recovery of strength, obviously could never apply to God. So really, isn't that the only explanation? Makes you think...
...actually not that much. I don't feel any great need to know how it happened, nor to believe that my understanding of God's mind is absolutely correct and all others flawed...
Good points asd always, Tom. Let us not forget: hours and days are human inventions. No day is completely 24 hours, hence the 29th of Feb every four years.
It's true, Genesis has importance to us today, but its original intention was to give the Isrealites a sense of place, importance, power, whatever. And yes, it's meant to tell a much larger story than I indicated: God created the world and has a plan.
My thoughts are nicely summed up in your statement, "I don't KNOW how long the seven days of creation were, nor do I CARE... AT ALL." I do care about this being used as a chapel time in a college.
yeah, I agree with you guys. and I don't understand why it's such a hot button issue for so many christians.
At CMU they have had occasional classes/chapels/public debates on the topic. I think they've tried to do them in a scientific manner, but I know that some of the students were overly up in arms against evolution and such.
now, you two have probably never had to take biology, but in first year, we learned all about evolution. so for a while, it was something that I had to examine, (ironically, I got my highest marks in the evolution section) but ultimately I realized that I knew the Bible to be true, even if it was not 300% literal all the time.
now that I'm doing more english of course evolution has ceased to matter to me even that much.
I always check this eventually, if you give me enough time!
here are my thoughts...
Genesis was given from God to Moses to help the Israelites understand their history and God. Genesis 1-3 or the creation account specifically was designed to do that. I think that the rest of Genesis, whatever you think of the creation account, is true, because it's difficult to say stories with Joseph in them, and even the Tower of Babel are up for interpretion, as if they were just a made up story to teach something.
I'm with you guys on not caring about 7 day literal thing, but i would like to think, even though it's "story-based" in its writing that the Adam and Eve account after the creation account is true. It answers some pretty major questions for us, just like it did for the Israelites. I like to think that whatever happened in those seven days, however long they were, we ended up with the Garden of Eden, and humans were "homo-erectus" at that point. I'm definately not saying that I'm right, and I'm definately not saying that I care when it all comes down to it, but everybody has a thought about this kind of thing, and this is mine.
If we didn't have Genesis 1-3, we wouldn't have Christianity.
Mike, those kinds of seminars scare me too. Especially when there are so many more important things to think about when it comes to Christianity.
It's like the other day when I was watching the "Hour" and they had Tony Campolo on, and on the other channel "It's a New Day" was on, and Pastor Leon Fontaine from Springs was on. It was like night and day. Tony Campolo was talking about the poor and the oppressed, and what true Christianity is, and Leon Fontaine was talking about how to be a better you. What's that about?!? I'm just glad that Tony Campolo was on a show everybody watches, and Leon Fontaine was on a show nobody watches.
I firmly believe that God gave us intelligence and reason. If new facts are presented that cannot be accounted for in our understanding of the Genesis story, does it make more sense to consider that our understanding is wrong or to try to cram the new facts into the existing understanding? New facts doesn't necesarrily mean the account is wrong, but it does mean that, maybe, just maybe, our interpretation of the account is wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home