Where do we get the information about what is actually science regarding the beginning of life? From scientific text books, of course, and information given by scientists, most of whom scoff at the idea of Creation by an Omnipotent God.
Is the Carbon14 system of dating accurate? Only back about 2,000 years, and then not consistently (there have been living mollusks dated at over 2000 years!). Scientists also use the geological strata to date archeological evidence, and archeological evidence to date the geological strata. They also make assumptions based on their pre-disposed ideas to date their finds. Lucy is a prime example of that kind of dating......they said it just 'looked like' it was that old.
Does anyone in the scientific community admit that many 'scientific discoveries' to support evolution, such as the Piltdown man are hoaxes?
Some members of the scientific community recognize that what is being taught in schools as 'fact' is bunk, but have you heard them admit it publicly? Are you aware that an evolutionary scientist admitted in writing, that evolution was impossible, based on geological and scientific reality, but to acknowledge any other explanation for the beginning of life would mean he would have to acknowledge the existence of God.....and he refused to do that.
The growth of widespread acceptance of theory of evolution was perpetuated by atheists in the 19th century, whose purpose was to declare God 'dead.' I submit, that believing what (atheistic) scientists declare as 'fact' regarding evolution is comparable to believing what the media declare as 'fact' regarding politics. They have a vested interest in the outcome.
I firmly believe that the evil of abortion is a direct and logical extension of the belief in evolution. Where is the value of human life if we are no more than algae evolved?
On the flip side. If we believe that the story of Creation is 'just a story,' then where does it stop? Is the story of Noah just a story? Jonah and the big fish? Daniel in the Lion's Den? Jesus on the cross? If we take out the foundational truth of God's creation, where does that leave us?
This is not to say that there is not allegory in the Creation story. There is no way to prove a literal Adam (though Paul in Romans 5 certainly makes him sound like he is a real individual), or a literal Eve, but if we begin believing the scientists at the expense of the truth of Scripture, we are removing, IMO, something very critical to our basis of our faith.
Wow! End of sermon! Sorry!!
As you know, my original degree was in geology. Most scientific hoaxes were not discovered by theologians, but rather by other scientists.
While I believe that evolution is not proven (i.e. it is a THEORY) it is also not wise to discount it simply by saying it is unbiblical.
I would not presume to understand the methods that God uses to create life.
Carbon-14 dating has its limits. It only works backwards for a couple of thousand millenia. With a half-life of 11,000 years (I believe that's what it is), after 10 decay generations (a bit more than 1,000,000 years), only 0.1% of the material remains, and it gets exponentially smaller after that.
People are pretty comfortable with strata dating as well - at least at the big picture level. What occurs within those layers is and will be for some time to come the subject of a lot of research.
But back to the main point - I think if we look at the Bible as the Word of the Lord, then the whole notion of a "day" in God's eye's becomes extraordinarily relevant. It may not be up to us to figure out what a day in the life of God is, but to accept it as a given.
And if we accept that a Day of the Lord may be very, very long indeed, then what science is finding out, in reality, what happens during the morning, noon, and night of each of these days.
That seems to fit pretty well; darn well, actually.