Christians can't afford to oppose evolution [says evangelical-biologist]

The fuel driving this science education debate is easy to understand. Scientists are suspicious that Christians are trying to insert religious beliefs into science.

They recognize that science must be free, not subject to religious veto. On the other hand, many Christians fear that science is bent on removing God from the picture altogether, beginning in the science classroom--a direction unacceptable to them.

They recognize that when scientists make definitive pronouncements regarding ultimate causes, the legitimate boundaries of science have been exceeded. For these Christians, intelligent design seems to provide protection against a perceived assault from science.

But does it really lend protection? Or does it supply yet another reason to question Christian credibility?

The science education debate need not be so contentious. If the intelligent design movement was truly about keeping the legitimate plausibility of a creator in the scientific picture, the case would seem quite strong.

Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, the Dover version of intelligent design has a different objective: opposition to evolution. And that opposition is becoming an increasing liability for Christians.

The reason for this liability is simple: While a growing array of fossils shows evolution occurring over several billion years, information arising from a variety of other scientific fields is confirming and extending the evolutionary record in thoroughly compelling ways.

The conclusions are crystal clear: Earth is very old. All life is connected. Evolution is a physical and biological reality.

In spite of this information, many Christians remain skeptical, seemingly mired in a naive religious bog that sees evolution as merely a personal opinion, massive scientific ruse or atheistic philosophy.

On 11/28/2005 I wrote:
I've always imagined a conversation between the Lord and Moses going something like this:
The Lord: So, around fifteen billion years ago I got around to creating the universe. Within the first one billionth of a second, I had the fundamental forces established, such as nuclear forces, gravitation, and electro-magnetism.
Moses: O Lord, what is a billion?
The Lord: Ah, a billion is a one followed by nine zeroes.
Moses: O Lord, what then, is a zero?
The Lord: Hmm.

The Lord: In the beginning, I created the heavens and the earth...

To which you replied:
If thats the conversation you imagined then your lord is Gamow

I have no idea who that is. I can only assume you mean to say I am worshipping the devil. I have had favorable reactions to this in the past. The point I'm trying to illustrate through this little anecdote is the folly of trying to use scripture as a *scientific* text. I have tried to do so in a way which is respectful to science as well as faith. I am unsurpised, however, that you would characterize me as an idolator. Some people in this debate are so disagreeable, that they will try to see the worst in everything.

The bronze-age Hebrews did not have the technical language to express the same scientific concepts that we do today. I've always imagined the Lord communicating to Moses as He would a child. Why? Not because Moses was unintelligent, but because he would be expected to take things back to his people, who would in turn pass down oral history down through generations. Moses would never have been able to explain even Newton's laws, his people would never have been able to grasp the scientific concepts as we understand them today. When considering Genesis, we have to consider that the Lord was speaking with His audience in mind.

Furthermore, to belabor these minor detail misses the entire point. Genesis proclaims *that* the Lord made the universe, not *how* the Lord made the universe. For example, the famous British Orthodox Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz (1872-1946) wrote:

God the Creator and Lord of the Universe, which is the work of his goodness and wisdom; and Man, made in His image, who is to hallow his week-day labors by the blessedness of Sabbath-rest -- such are the teachings of the Creation chapter. It's purpose is to reveal these teachings to the children of man -- and not to serve as a text book of astronomy, geology, or anthropology. Its object is not to teach scientific facts; but to proclaim highest religious truths respecting God, Man, and the Universe. The "conflict" between the fundamental realities of Religion and the established facts of Science, is seen to be unreal as the soon as Religion and Science each recognizes the true border of its domain.

"...you either believe that God created the word in six twenty four hour days or you believe God is a liar..."

Or, you could just study up on the concepts of allegory and metaphor.

Pointing to allegory and metaphor in places where it is obviously intended in the Bible is not a valid reason for rejecting those parts of scripture that are clearly intended literally.

"Allegory and metaphor" is a common and overused excuse to deny the truth of scripture while still pretending to have respect for God's Word.

It's a phoney argument.

I believe Genesis is obviously not allegory and metaphor. It wouldn't make sense for it to be written as it is if that were the case.

Exactly. There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that the creation account was not meant literally. NOTHING.

And there is nothing that prevents those who truly believe in an omnipotent God from believing creation happened precisely as recorded in Genesis.

God doesn't play head games with people. He makes Himself clear enough to those who aren't stuck in rejection mode.

But you and I know what He is saying. That is a blessing. I think we have a lot to be thankful for this Christmas season.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.