Replies

This has likely been stated on these Creationism threads many times, but at the risk of reinventing the wheel, I think the issue can be adddressed on two levels: the scientific and philosophical.

1) The scientific theory of speciation through evolution is simply fact. Species derive from other speices (micro-evolution) and this is contested by no one. The speculative part that suggest genus evolved from other genus (macro-evolution) is where most Creationists differ.

Most people I have met who believe in macro-evolution believe it purely because some proffessor told them so and havent really looked into the evidence or wrestled with any of the problems like how one gradually evolves from one gene-count to another since genes do not evolve in fractional ways, etc.

I personally believe that we all evolved from microbial life forms, while my wife, who has a masters in Vulcanology, does not and only accepts micro-evolution. I fail to see why rejecting macro-evolution should warrant removing anyones scientific credentials.

2) Creationism addresses two levels of thought. At one level is the conotative symbols used to convey a deeper message. Maybe there was an Adam and Eve, and a garden of Eden, maybe there was not, but this is like arguing whether the Anti-Christ will have ten heads or not; maybe he will but its beside the main point that he will have great power.

The deeper message of Creationism is that it asserts:
a. That God made the Universe for the purpose of housing those sentient beings that He created to worship Him.
b. That God created all life and it too has the purpose of sustaining His worshippers.
c. That God created mankind for the purpose of worshipping Him.

Beyond these three assertions, I personally think the details are merely that; details that should not get in the way of the deeper message written more than three mellinia ago.

You make very good points. And, while most would label me as a "fundamentalist" Christian, I can accept that many subjects of the Bible are open for interpretation. Or, maybe a better way to put it is that we shouldn't always accept what has been told to us regarding the Bible without first reading it and having an open enough mind to look deeper than the surface layer.

On another note . . . vulcanology? Impressive. : )

I like what you said : tried to explain it myself here : but a lot of creationists just don't listen.

Best,
Alkhin

I like your logic, but the problem is with believing that earth was created 6000 years ago. If so, the fossil record was falsified, either by God, or Satan. If you believe that, you really can't teach evolution like you mean it. You should teach something else, like math, English, history, music, computer science, physics, chemistry, etc., etc., etc.; the list of things you can teach without believing in evolution is quite lengthy.

That God created mankind for the purpose of worshipping Him.

In all honesty, that doesn't sound like much of a purpose. Why would the omniscient being desire me worshiping him?