Posted on 12/09/2008 2:39:05 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with scientific proof of evolution.
In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.
About creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" Bush said.
"It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life," he said. "All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."
"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"
Asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said: "I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been — I would have been a pretty selfish person."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
One of the naive people who believe in “moderate Muslims”. Ever read Daniel Pipes’ writings?
If I may provide another answer (since Cottshop did answer you already) the point is not that God lays out his methods in great detail in Genesis, or that the "important biblical truths" one is rejecting are in Genesis.
Sure, Genesis isn't a science textbook, and sure, it says (for instance) that God created birds, but it doesn't say exactly how other than to say He spoke about it. But that doesn't mean Genesis is an account of evolution. In Genesis, plants appear before the sun does, and birds before land animals. So, the idea that Genesis is the Bible's account of the planet's evolution and the error is in taking it as literal creation is simply impossible.
As for the literal truths...if Genesis is an allegory or fairy tale (because if God didn't create in six days it is NOT a true account of the planet's origins) then there are important parts of the Christian Gospel (most notably the Fall of Man) that are cited as fact by Biblical figures ranging from the author of Job to Paul the Apostle and even Christ Himself. Core Christian truths would then be based on a fairy story.
One does not have to choose between science and Christ, but one cannot have one's cake and eat it too with the Creation account.
I’m familiar with Pipes.
There are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam, just as there are Christians who embrace perversion, but there is no perversion in Christianity.
Read the book of Daniel. Worldwide thermonuclear war is described pretty accurately in there.
Likely so...The more mythological his religion becomes, the narrower that river gets...
Nor does it say that it is not. It says nothing about His exact methods.
And that's just the point. When one attempts to say that evolution goes counter to the "literal truth," as presented in the Bible ... one would be making a false claim.
Again: the Bible is silent on methods. There is no "literal truth" to fall back on, beyond "God was/is involved somehow." But even then, evolution is within the domain of how God's creative process works, even though it's not the only possible explanation.
As for the literal truths...if Genesis is an allegory or fairy tale (because if God didn't create in six days it is NOT a true account of the planet's origins)
That's an interesting area of inquiry -- are those six "days" required to be 24-hour light/dark cycles? Or is the word merely a convenient way to denote a passage of time? I side with the latter. After all, the OT -- and especially Genesis -- was written down from long-established oral traditions, and the exigencies of story-telling can't be ignored.
A reasonable person can understand "six days" in the same way Peter did: But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. There's just no reason to insist on six 24-hour periods.
then there are important parts of the Christian Gospel (most notably the Fall of Man) that are cited as fact by Biblical figures ranging from the author of Job to Paul the Apostle and even Christ Himself. Core Christian truths would then be based on a fairy story.
I don't think so. The Fall can be accepted as true even if the Garden story is not literally true. We recognize our imperfections in relation to what we know is right. Not to mention that we also have the Holy Spirit to convince us of the truth of the Fall and other things.
One does not have to choose between science and Christ, but one cannot have one's cake and eat it too with the Creation account.
One need not do so, if one is willing to accept that it's possible to discern and discover "truth" even when "literal truth" is not available.
For what it's worth, this is NOT a peripheral issue, especially these days. It has real and significant implications for evangelism -- seekers are very often repelled by the antics of those who insist on the completely untenable position that the Bible -- the entire Bible -- is "literally true."
In so doing they end up pitting Christianity against science; and rational people can see the efficacy of science on a daily basis. So what will the rational seeker do? Easy: he'll often run away from the evangelist as fast as he can go.
I have always found it interesting. Genesis. The creation of the earth is exactly as the Bible says. I don’t believe the 6 24-hour day thing but I believe time is nothing to God and it’s more a case of symbolism. There’s alot of symbolism about the number 7 which I won’t even bother to get into.
But let’s look at evolution and Genesis.
First the earth was formless and empty. Yes, it was gaseous therefore formless and devoid of life, therefore empty.
The gas settled, therefore allowing the sun to enter the environment, and God said it was good. It allowed the light to enter so it made day and night.
As the gas condensed it made water; and God said it was good.
The water separated from the land. Also evolutionary correct.
Now here, according to evolution, the sea creatures came first, the plants and seeds later but the Bible goes through a series of events that God created the most base forms of life first and with each day more advanced creatures were created. That sounds like evolution.
Side note, birds were mentioned very early and dinosaurs have been discovered to actually be descendents of birds.
But as each “day” progresses, more advanced creatures are created up until the day of man, and that is the last creature created and nothing of higher was created after man.
I find it amazing that “primitive” people that put the Bible to paper would know all about evolution.
That tells me, it’s God.
I have always found it interesting. Genesis. The creation of the earth is exactly as the Bible says. I don’t believe the 6 24-hour day thing but I believe time is nothing to God and it’s more a case of symbolism. There’s alot of symbolism about the number 7 which I won’t even bother to get into.
But let’s look at evolution and Genesis.
First the earth was formless and empty. Yes, it was gaseous therefore formless and devoid of life, therefore empty.
The gas settled, therefore allowing the sun to enter the environment, and God said it was good. It allowed the light to enter so it made day and night.
As the gas condensed it made water; and God said it was good.
The water separated from the land. Also evolutionary correct.
Now here, according to evolution, the sea creatures came first, the plants and seeds later but the Bible goes through a series of events that God created the most base forms of life first and with each day more advanced creatures were created. That sounds like evolution.
Side note, birds were mentioned very early and dinosaurs have been discovered to actually be descendents of birds.
But as each “day” progresses, more advanced creatures are created up until the day of man, and that is the last creature created and nothing of higher was created after man.
I find it amazing that “primitive” people that put the Bible to paper would know all about evolution.
That tells me, it’s God.
Works for me!
Sure, and a woman ‘clothed with the sun’ is mentioned in the Revelation. You really expect there will be a woman to be clothed with an immense ball of exploding hydrogen?
It’s literature. It’s poetry. It’s supernatural and divine. God is the greatest of all artists.
RINO.
I’m not convinced that President bush is wishy washy.
Global warming comes to mind as does the homosexual marriage amendment.
God's message has ALWAYS been corrupted by men. So has Allah's message, Budda's message, Yaweh's message, etc, etc etc.
I was referring to him running for an office that’s on a much bigger stage - President
Repentence, along with other actions which God directs us to make, comes in with my previous statement about believing God.
Not endorsing an amendment that might be unnecessary and arguably a violation of state’s rights is hardly the same as being wishy washy on gay marriage.
As for global warming, though it may be a crock, there’s nothing in Christian doctrine that says it’s impossible for humans to warm the Earth, so that doesn’t fit with your premise that the President is uncommitted to Christian doctrine.
If it works for you, you are either unclear on current scientific theory or unclear on what's actually in the book of Genesis.
Here's the sequence, which Ozarkgirl got wrong:
Day 1: Light
Day 2: Water and sky are separated
Day 3: Land and plants
Day 4: Sun, moon and stars
Day 5: Fish and birds
Day 6: Land animals and Man
According to any current cosmological or evolutionary timeline, there is no way that there was light and plants on planet Earth before there were stars, and there's no way birds came before dinosaurs. Evolutionary timelines show birds evolving from dinosaurs, not the other way around.
So Genesis can't be describing a Big Bang followed by macroevolution scenario, and that's before we get to the "womankind was created through orthopedic surgery" verses.
How do you know this has happened in the case of Christianity?
[[Great post...just keep in mind that some of them believe that not because they think God’s a liar, but just because they haven’t thought through the implications.]]
Yeah, I understand that- I look at the consistency of erronious beliefs though and innacurate statements, and I’m seeing a shift away from folks believign hte bible is the inspired word of God to one that they think is just a ‘good book’ written by fallible man without divine dictation. Recent reports indicate that a great many young people are abandoning God, yet still claimign to be His, and I think Pres. Bush’s statements kinda reflect what I’m seeing as a departure in favor of a ‘secularist rendition’ of God’s word
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.