Evolution

  • Posted by marcus
  • November 22, 2005

While walking across campus today there were a couple of guys at the public speaking platform with a poster offering a $250, 000 reward for proof of evolution. I was tempted to stop and make them a counter offer of $1 million, for any evidence whatsoever that creation happened as described in Genesis. The problem with the offer these gentlemen were making is that no evidence you could ever provide would be “proof” of evolution. My father was a microbiologist, he once told me that he knew evolution existed and occured, because he had seen it in a lab. He had seen, what to him was conclusive proof of the process of evolution, but my father was also a man of faith and devoutly religious. Having proof of evolution did not hinder his faith. He believed in both Creation and evolution and saw no discord between the two beliefs.

I find it ironic that while Christ taught in parables so many fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible should be taken as absolute literal truth. How many of the things that Christ taught would be utterly meaningless in a modern context if interpreted absolutely literally? His parables lose all meaning if interpreted solely within the context in which they were taught. Christ even taught that he was speaking in parables to disguise the truth from non-believers. If this is the case, does it not follow that there may be other places in the Bible where a parable or allegory might be used to explain complex concepts?

I believe parables have been used from the beginning to explain things in a way that everyone can understand. At a basic level it is enough to accept that god created the Universe, but as with any parable there are multiple layers of meaning and individual understanding. In a way I feel sorry for the men making their offer on campus today, because as they cling to their strict interpretation of the Bible, they are no better off than the Pharisees and Sadducees who could not see past the literal interpretation of Christ’s teachings.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
November 22nd, 2005
10 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories and Tags
religion

Other Posts

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
Canisunis
Posted on:
January 17, 2006 at 12:07 pm

…and who is to say that the “Method” with which God created this planet and it’s inhabitnats was not simmilar to what the scientific community calls Evolution? I am sure the Master of all could have set things in motion and watched as they elements He commanded bended to His will in the same pattern as the Evolutionists lay out. The time alotted for each biblical “day” could be more earth time, or God may have actually sped up the evolutionary happenings to complete the tasks in a earthly 24hour “day”. Neither of which prove or disprove either point of view, but rather show that they are not mutually exclusive.

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Peregrine
Posted on:
January 17, 2006 at 1:33 pm

Scientists have learned to accept that light is both a particle and a wave. They accept that neither theory is 100% but that together thay can make a lot more sense of the world than if they dogmaticially hold to just one theory or the other. With this in mind why do so many people have such a problem with creationism and evolution?
I take a more Buddhist approach to finding this balance. Evolution and creation are like thunder and lightning. They are simply different manifestations of the same universal truth. Like thunder speaks to our ears creationism speaks to our hearts. Like lightning shows our eyes evolution shows our mind.

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
cory
Posted on:
March 29, 2007 at 4:32 am

i do not see how evolution and creation could be the same thing. one says we just appeared and the world was populated from adam and eve and the other states that we came from a lower life form to what we are today so while it is possible for you to believe in both you would be contradicting yourself by doing so

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
marcus
Posted on:
March 29, 2007 at 9:51 am

cory, I think you’re making the mistake of assuming a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. If you consider the story a metaphor for what god did without addressing how he did it then there’s no contradiction.

Comment Number:
5
Written by:
cory
Posted on:
March 30, 2007 at 12:44 am

marcus if you look at the bible in this way then it would pretty much be up to the person reading it to decipher what the meaning is which would mean that there would be millions of different translations for one story perhaps these stories were supposed to be taken literaly as they were writen by mankind in a time when rational thought did not abound.it is not impossible that they are the same but then why would the majority of christians be so against the scientific version.

Comment Number:
6
Written by:
marcus
Posted on:
March 30, 2007 at 8:50 am

The Bible is full of stories that don’t make much sense if you interpret them literally, but teach valuable lessons when regarded as metaphor. During Christ’s mortal ministry, he taught in parables so that people who were in tune with him would understand his message and those who weren’t didn’t. Are we to assume that even though Christ taught allegorically while on Earth, everything else he revealed to man was absolute literal fact?

Comment Number:
7
Written by:
cory
Posted on:
March 31, 2007 at 5:37 am

marcus,here’s the problem the bible was not written by jesus nor was it written in the time of jesus,it was written by supposedly divinely inspired men after jesus was gone.also why would the son of god who is supposed to be the world’s savior not teach in a way that all could understand as he was not put here to save a few.

i.e. i looked a little closer at your first response to me and i was wondering how you make the connection between creation and evolution that is to say how do interpret the story of genesis as it applies to evolution?

Comment Number:
8
Written by:
marcus
Posted on:
March 31, 2007 at 11:26 pm

The Bible was compiled hundreds of years after Christ, but the Books of the Bible were written over thousands of years, some before and some after Christ. If your point is that the Bible, or more specifically the New Testament was a less than accurate account of Christ’s life, then you’ll find no argument here. I personally believe that the Gospel as Christ taught it had to be restored because it had deviated so far from the truth. But that’s another discussion.

Christ came to save everyone, but not everyone appreciated his message. It’s evident from the way the Gospel stories end, that there were people who feared Christ’s teachings and would stop at nothing to destroy him. Speaking plainly would have allowed these people to kill him before he could complete his earthly mission. It stands to reason that if Christ was the divine inspiration for the books of the Old Testament that the Prophets he inspired would have used similar figurative language if the message might bring them harm.

If you read the first two comments above you’ll gain a little bit better understanding of my belief. Basically, I believe the creation story teaches us that there is a god, that he is the creator of the universe and everything in it, that man was created in god’s image. and that we as humans have dominion over the plants and animals.

What I don’t think Genesis does, or even attempts to do, is explain the manner in which all of this was done. It says things like, “let the dry land appear, and it was so.” Which I believe means, god set up the laws of tectonic movement which allowed dry land to rise out of the water. Or when god “created every living creature that moveth” he set in motion the laws of evolution, letting loose the components necessary to create life to evolve into each of the different species.

Really, the biggest sticking point I see is the use of the word “day” to describe the periods of time in which god did all of this creating. I can see two possible explanations, one is that god set the plan in motion, then sped up the process so it could all happen in a day. The other, more likely explanayion, is that the term day was meant to mean a 24 hour period, but simply some period of time.

Comment Number:
9
Written by:
cory
Posted on:
April 3, 2007 at 1:12 am

marcus i appreciate the enlightenment of your theory,but why believe in the old testement then?If the new testament could possibly be (partially)ficticious then could the old testament be tainted in lies as well? this would make the theory you put forth even though it is a good one,irrelevent wouldn’t it?

Comment Number:
10
Written by:
marcus
Posted on:
April 3, 2007 at 9:23 am

Even if I accepted that the Bible was complete fiction, it still teaches valuable lessons about the relationship between man and god, as well as man’s relationship with his fellow man. Is it necessary for something to be 100% literal fact in order for it to contain truth? I believe that whether fact or fiction, truth can be found in every story. Stories often contain levels of meaning far greater than even those intended by the author. Because I believe the Bible to be written by authors who were inspired by god, I believe that the levels of meaning are far greater than most books, so I continue to study it, searching for deeper meaning and higher truth.