am I the only person who doesn't really see a conflict between creationism and the theory of evolution? most days it seems so.
I don't have much of a problem with the theory of evolution. not the part where people step outside the theory of evolution and speculate on a random spark creating the first life and back to the 'big-bang', but the real theory. I haven't read up on it much since high school but I don't recall Darwin taking it all the way back past first life and incorporating it into the big bang theory. maybe I missed that part or maybe people have added on to his theory.
as I remember it though it basically says mutations occur, if they are viable they survive and if not they die out. this basic fitness for survival guiding what traits die out and which become common in a given species or, if you follow it through the logical progression, new species.
this is mostly common sense. anyone who's ever owned or worked a ranch or farm, or raised any type of animal has no problem getting this. you just replace the rancher culling the herd with chance, fate, environment, the hand of God, or whatever label you are most comfortable sticking on.
but lets hit the high-points -I'll focus mainly on creation. mostly because I know it better and I won't have to read up on any of Darwin's work (this is helpful because, besides him being a very weird dude, I find his writing boring and very tedious, so I'll avoid it because I can)
creation (very para-phrased)-
1. God created the heaven and the earth. the earth was without form and covered with water.
2. "let there be light"
3. God divided the light and the dark (night and day)
4. land rises from the sea
5. plants
6. sun, moon, stars, orbit, and rate of rotation stabilize becoming predictable to make the heavens (or 'space' for those who can't take any word with religious connections)
7. first animal life brought forth in the seas
8. birds and marine mammals appear and become abundant
9. land animals appear
10. God creates man
isn't that pretty much the same order that evolution lays down as to how things progressed? as I recall, the Bible doesn't say exactly how God created man (or anything else), it just says he did. I've read no schematics, or how-to manuals laying out exactly how the nerves and organs were connected.
maybe he had a magic hat, or maybe he created us by setting up the situation. maybe he actually created us through the use of evolution. or he might have used a process that nobody on this planet is yet to define, in the absence of further word from God defining the process, I'll keep my mind open. if there ever comes a time were it is critical or even relevant to the salvation of my soul I'm quite sure God will clear up any confusion. I find it likely that further detail isn't given is that God didn't find it important or relevant enough (or maybe at the time the Bible was given to us we didn't have the capacity to understand the info if he did) to write down ( he didn't see the exact details as important enough to provide more than the high-points. considering this I find it difficult to believe that he would find it important enough to justify the amount of effort spent on arguing it so far.)
as I see it evolution confirms creation more than it conflicts. we've got a workable scientific theory that backs up what the Bible has been telling us for thousands of years.
the only true conflict I see is the time-line.
OK, if you take it absolutely literally it's a bit of a problem. it would likely take more than a few days from the time we stabilize in orbit until we've evolved to mans first day.
for me it's not a problem.
I do believe the Bible is absolute truth. but when you consider that I haven't read any of the books of the Bible in their original language, it would seem fairly silly of me to expect to know what the exact word God used to get his point across. also, some books appeared to the authors as visions, it was left to the author to find the words. these things can present some real hurdles when trying to focus on literal loop-holes and exact quotations to further your own agenda, instead of focusing on the message.
I do believe the Bible is somehow protected from major change, but I can go to the local Christian book store and find many different versions that choose different wordings for most verses. some of these alternate wordings were changed to intentionally produce a different meaning on various points of argument.
then you take these basic translation/editing problems and you throw in words with multiple meanings, and many words to choose from for the same meaning and you are going to have subtle changes.
so here's one multi-meaning word- the word "day"
1. it can mean the time from when the sun rises until it sets
2. it can mean the time from 12:01 until midnight
3. it can mean any 24 hour period
4. when a company tells me they will send my check in 5 days they only count the ones from Monday to Friday, exclusive of national holidays.
5. it can mean any length of time that happens in one of the "days" described in the first example ("I spent all day welding" it just means the time I was at work. so sometimes a day can be just 8 hours or so)
but this is the one I find interesting (and luckily enough relevant)-
6. it can also mean "an age", "a period", "a stage or era in the progression of time"
for example- when your dad says "you don't know how good you got it. In my day we didn't have no fancy damn school bus. we walked 14 miles, up-hill, in 3' of snow and we liked it"
what day was "his day"?
is it marked on a calender somewhere?
does anyone remember the exact date?
or was "his day" a bit more abstract?
I always took it to mean a period in time (and in his life) were he was living with his parents, doing chores, and going to school. an 'age' that was relevant to the subject at hand.
I had no problem understanding that "his day" was quite a bit more than 24 hours.
if I had had some trouble understanding "his day", he would have likely (after looking at me as if I was a moron) re-phrased it to something like "in my age...", "when I was dealing with this crap", or "at that point in time", and it would have meant the same thing.
so how much of a reach is it to think of the use of the word 'day' in Genesis, and use the definition that is closer to "age" instead of the one that means 24-hours.
so in the first age God created the heavens and the earth.
in the second age the firmament divides the water.
all the way to the seventh age where he finishes up his work and takes a break. I don't see where that effects Gods message in any significant way.
I find this argument tired and over done. there is so much for both sides to agree on with this subject, but do we ever talk about that?
NO, instead we have years and years of argument, law, court orders, and in extreme cases violence over an issue that has no effect on the message the Bible presents and would likely have been avoided if some pencil pusher had chosen a different word while translating a text.
just my 2 cents (OK, looking back at that wall of text, it's more like a buck-50)
