That’s not the point of Genesis
I guess I’m not going to be a good parent. I’m not outraged that science teachers are teaching evolution, nor am I a huge fan of intelligent design. My views are not based on any particular research into either, rather my lack of interest in science. However, my dad is interested in science, and I share some of his opinions.
This is where I have a problem with both the fundamentalists and the evolutionists: The point of the creation account in Genesis is not HOW the world was created, rather WHO created it. And both sides get caught up in the HOW.
To atheist evolutionists: you’re a lot more religious then what you think. You worship science. Science is not a kind god. Furthermore, you insist your science says something it doesn’t. You insist science says there is no God. This is bad scientific theory.
To Christians: you are adding “and” to grace. Grace AND you must be young earth creationists. Once you add “and” to grace, you forget the most important work of God, the forgiveness of the sins of man through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, insistence of calling the entire matter “intelligent design” makes “intelligent” the creator and not God. And it does nothing to draw man to God.
Though I didn’t study science in college, I do remember a little about setting up a statistical experiment. Just so I don’t get into something of little interest, I’ll skip over the explanation of null and alternative hypothesis. But, basically, you have to have a goal in your experiment.
The goal of science is to learn “how the world is created,” not “who created it.” The goal of religion is to draw man near to God. This does not mean that the two should never mix. It means that we cannot let our personal religious biases affect the way we pursue knowledge.
As a concluding remark, Pat Robertson is not God’s prophet. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict man of sin, not Pat Robertson’s. And if he’s going to be so legalistic about the sins of others, did Jesus not say that even those who call their brother “fool” are guilty of murder? Pat Robertson desires the death, the cold blooded murder, of individuals. I’m just saying…
This is where I have a problem with both the fundamentalists and the evolutionists: The point of the creation account in Genesis is not HOW the world was created, rather WHO created it. And both sides get caught up in the HOW.
To atheist evolutionists: you’re a lot more religious then what you think. You worship science. Science is not a kind god. Furthermore, you insist your science says something it doesn’t. You insist science says there is no God. This is bad scientific theory.
To Christians: you are adding “and” to grace. Grace AND you must be young earth creationists. Once you add “and” to grace, you forget the most important work of God, the forgiveness of the sins of man through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, insistence of calling the entire matter “intelligent design” makes “intelligent” the creator and not God. And it does nothing to draw man to God.
Though I didn’t study science in college, I do remember a little about setting up a statistical experiment. Just so I don’t get into something of little interest, I’ll skip over the explanation of null and alternative hypothesis. But, basically, you have to have a goal in your experiment.
The goal of science is to learn “how the world is created,” not “who created it.” The goal of religion is to draw man near to God. This does not mean that the two should never mix. It means that we cannot let our personal religious biases affect the way we pursue knowledge.
As a concluding remark, Pat Robertson is not God’s prophet. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict man of sin, not Pat Robertson’s. And if he’s going to be so legalistic about the sins of others, did Jesus not say that even those who call their brother “fool” are guilty of murder? Pat Robertson desires the death, the cold blooded murder, of individuals. I’m just saying…
posted by Consecutive Odds @ 8:45 AM
2 Comments:
At 11:24 AM ,
Anonymous said...
A couple thoughts, as both a scientist and a Christian:
The work of an Intelligent Designer (not necessarily the Christian God) in the universe could be a very different "How" than blind, undirected chance, and maybe there are testable scientific hypotheses that can come out of that. So the "Who" question matters, even in science.
(Not that most scientists will admit it.)
Another one is why do we need redemption through Christ, if we can gloss over all that stuff in Genesis about Adam and Eve and the Fall? Why can't we just try to be better people? What claim does God have on me, if he hasn't done anything here since the Big Bang? So I think the "How", in the broad sense of "How has God interacted with humans, in nature", matters to religion too.
At 6:37 PM ,
Consecutive Odds said...
I am still not convinced, Anonymous, that reference in the form of a disclaimer is a "How" rather then a "who." One creationist view that is argued well is that of Jonathon Wells in "Icons of Evolution" linked here: http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=3012
I am not saying that the creation account in Genesis is not important. Rather, I am critical of Christians who try to convince someone of young earth creationism before they stress salvation from sin.
I, myself, in highschool would argue with athiest evolutionists regarding Creation. And I fear with all my heart that I lead people away from God because I may have imposed other acts or beliefs upon the basic act of repenting, which is wrong in any respect.
I certainly don't want to gloss over the Genesis account of creationism. Rather, Christians should not place any stipulations apart from repentance and belief in the saving power of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore, Christians should not tolerate the religious teaching of evolution in schools. It should be taught hand in hand with other therories.
Thanks though, for your thoughts. You have givin me something to chew on for a while, and I appreciate that you cared enough to point out some flaws in my arguement.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home