Replies

The whole point of scientific investigation is to evolve human knowledge. We can never "know" everything exactly as it is but we can have a clearer and clearer image as we progress. For example, Newtonian physics provided a good model for physical phenomena. When Einstein revised it, Newtonian physics wasn't "wrong" per se, it was simply not complete. When Genesis was written, the theory of our origins was that humans were created from the soil of the earth. Darwin revised this to say that humans evolved from lower order animals, which in turn evolved from single-celled organisms, which came from the organic material of the soil of the earth. And there is still room for discovery in filling in the further details of the exact dates of particular changes, or the shape of the evolutionary tree, etc.

Darwin revised this to say that humans evolved from lower order animals, which in turn evolved from single-celled organisms, which came from the organic material of the soil of the earth. And there is still room for discovery in filling in the further details of the exact dates of particular changes, or the shape of the evolutionary tree, etc.

Nonsense. The theory is wrong. Organisms were intelligently designed. This is proven by their tremendous complexity and even more by total interrelatedness of all the systems of an organism. Without the deep interaction of the varied systems in an organism life would be totally impossible.

I would take it even further than that. Assume that the current models which we have for the origin of the universe and man are true. Assume also that the book of Genesis is inspired from God. Now imagine
God attempting to communicate this to the author(authors) of the work. I know all things are possible with God, but wouldn't this one prove a might bit difficult to explain i.e. the Big Bang, natural selection. I think the author would respond, "yeah God, you're pulling my leg right?" Literalist interpretation of Scripture is hard to support if one is to be both objective and open-minded. Why do it anyway it isn't like God demands it. Let's see, there's two creation stories in Genesis. Now my literalist friends would tell me no problem--one of them represents the overall view and the other one is the more detailed view. And I think, okay then why in the first story does it imply that man and woman were created and equal at the same time. Why when one reads the text in the original Hebrew does one whose familiar with semitic creation stories come away with the feeling that hey this is sure a lot like the Babylonian one I'm familiar with. One could go through the Hebrew Scriptures in more detail then this and come away questioning whether one should read this stuff as literally true. Moses describes his own death in Deuteronomy. No evidence that Joshua killed all the Canaanites as ordered. And the Sun standing still. I believe in miracles and it could've happened but it does seem to be a little much. We could progress to the New Testament and the literalist can explain to me why 2 different geneologies of the Lord. Why two different Nativity stories. Why two different days of the week in terms of the crucifixion (i.e. the Gospel of John versus the other Synoptic Gospels). For an literalist to say there are no contradictions in the Bible borders on ludicrous.