There is absolutely no way to recocile Genesis- and by extension the Christian God- with the patently ridiculous theory of evolution, no matter anyone's wishful thinking.
"absolutely no way" "patently ridiculous theory of evolution"?
Richard Rubenstein, professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University, and author of `When Jesus Became God' (a Publishers Weekly Best Religion book) Harvard graduate, Oxford University, Rhodes scholar and Harvard law school--and thousands of other learned people--might question your imperative, categorical statement on an ontological, teleological or cosmological basis, as you wish.
From his latest book, "Aristotle's Children, Harcourt Inc., 2003, page 298:
"Reason could transform the earth, if only science and technology were inspired and guided by a new global morality. Faith would expand and mature, if only the world's religions addressed themselves to the long-term trends in society and nature, and helped create that global majority. And--since the split between faith and reason divides each of us against himself--we could become more loving and useful to each other and more satisfied with ourselves, if only we could integrate these fundamental aspects of our being."
I suppose as sentient beings with an understanding of right and wrong, we will still probably continue trading shots like: 'Intelligent Design' is a pseudo-science for crackpots, or that evolution--as far as it goes, hard science--is "wishful thinking", instead of attempting to advance cogently to our Maker our claim to return to the garden and eat from that other tree, the Tree of Life.
FRaternally, OK
One is that Mirecki has a personalized license plate that reads "MIRECKI" or the "EVILDRP," his online nom de guerre
Searching google for EVILDRP does not help his case at all.
Genesis says that God commanded the earth to bring forth grass, "And the earth brought forth grass." How can this be reconciled with Intelligent Design? This seems to be a clear statement of abiogenesis.
Even if true, the question specified "God", not "the God as specified by a literal interpretation of Genesis". The Deist God is perfectly compatible with evolution, for example.
Wow. An all powerful God, whoops, all powerful except that He cannot create evolution.
Pretty ballsy of you to have determined what God is and is not capable of.
There is certainly much I could learn about Christianity but I always thought humility was a significant factor in it. Personally I would never speak for the Creator nor limit His ways, choices or methods of creation.
In a world where babies die of cancer, I am content not to have the job of explaining G-d's ways to man.
Opinion (and that's all any interpretation of Scripture is) -- stated as fact -- is not necessarily factual. The same is true of any scientific theory -- without convincing evidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God, Who (I believe) created everything there is, left two records of His mighty works of creation:
1. A brief outline description in Scripture -- which is, first and foremost, a document about the spiritual. relationship between God and His creation (including humankind).
2. An extensive record of His marvelous works of creation in all the awesome physical evidence He left for us to study (with the brains He gave us).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am a born-again believer in God our Creator, in His Word, and in His Son, our Savior -- and I am a physical scientist who is thrilled and awed by continually discovering more about his "second book" -- the evidence of His creative genius.
And the more I study (and pray for understanding of) both -- the less possibility of disagreement I find between the two records. They are both His works. They cannot be in conflict!
IMO, anyone whose [mis]interpretation (of Scripture OR of science) causes them to deny the truth of either one of His "books" puts themselves in the dangerous position of calling Him a liar.
That pie chart stipulated the oxymoronic application of spiritual belief to scientific theory. Whoever formulated the questions sought to stimulate conflict. IMO, they tread on dangerous ground...