Replies

This mischaracterises the position of creationists. We believe in such observable processes as natural selection, but take issue with the billions of years for the age of the earth. The Bible says God created creatures to reproduce according to their "kinds". This means that we believe God created animals of a kind (i.e. an ancestral wolf/dog) that gave rise through genetic imperfections to all the species of the kind (i.e. all wolves and domestic canines) that we see today. Natural selection has shaped this process ever since death and decay became part of the world. Much of the difficulty in "reconciling" the Bible to the evidence we see arises from preconceived notions about what the Bible says. The evidence fits with a literal interpretation of the Bible's history.

"The evidence fits with a literal interpretation of the Bible's history." ~ DinosaurKnight

Item of possible interest. Check out this web site when you get time:

Science in Christian Perspective http://www.asa3.org/ The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

Also take a peek at the book that one of the long-time ASA members wrote, and see what you think.

At Amazon.com:

The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate (Paperback) by Dick Fischer
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556731884/002-8261228-7635245?v=glance&n=283155

This mischaracterises the position of creationists. We believe in such observable processes as natural selection, but take issue with the billions of years for the age of the earth.

The Bishop's characterization of creationists is odd. No creationist that I know of holds to the belief that the Earth is 7,500 and not 7,600 years old--or 10,000 for that matter, yet people still cite Ussher's chronology. It is clear that this is written from an Orthodox perspective.

The Bible says God created creatures to reproduce according to their "kinds".

Another point that seemed absent, didn't it? (Even the plants reproduce according to their own kind in Genesis.) It is one thing to acknowledge that the Lord knit me in the womb, but quite another to say that biological reproduction had nothing to do with it! While I am aware that some Christians distort, incorrectly apply, or ignore Scripture for a narrow agenda--Tim LaHaye, The Word of Faith movement, Christian Identity, and so on--the latter is not usually the case with regard to the point.

The terms 'literal' and 'literalism' are so often inappropriate. For example, Psalm 18, verse 2:

The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

(Psalm 18:2, NIV)

No one reads that to mean that King David had a rock named "God" nor is there a fortress, shield, or horn by the same name.