Genesis 1 story does not take away an evolution

When looking at Genesis some Christians do want to take it literally, being one day of 24 hours, and as such forgetting that one day for God is as thousand years for man.

évolution humaine simplifiée
Simplified human evolution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Lots of Christians do not see that it is talking about swarming and creeping creatures and does not specify how they looked like. big problem of many conservative Christians is that they do want to see the 1° Adam and the 2° Adam to be copies of the Caucasian human being of today. They resist to accept that the first creature being called man was full of hair, running on his four limbs and not talking proper English but making audible noises not comparable to the languages we do know today. Such an ‘animal like’ human being is for them unacceptable, but  it is not a contradiction with the writings of the Bible.

Several conservative Christians by making the heart of Christian and/or Christadelphian  theology contingent on evolution being false is setting people who uncritically accept such wholesale rejection of most of modern science up for failure. When they discover that the Earth is indeed ancient, and that humans and apes do share a common ancestor, the tragedy is that they will think that this falsifies Christianity, and reject belief altogether.

John Thomas, the founding figure of the Christadelphian movement was somewhat inconsistent in his position on this subject, but in the article ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, he unambiguously states that both Adam and Eve would have eventually died in time:

‘Adam’s nature was animal. Very good of its kind, as was the nature of all the other creatures. These did not sin, yet they returned to dust whence they came. So probably would Adam, if he had been left to the ordinary course of things as they were. But he would not have returned to dust if he had continued obedient.

He would doubtless have been “changed in the twinkling of an eye” on eating of the Tree of Life. But, being disobedient, his sin determined his fate, and that of the creatures. It doomed them all to death according to law, and “nature” unchanged was permitted to take its course.’ {Thomas J. ‘The Bible Doctrine Concerning the Tempter Considered. No. II.’, The Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come (1852) 2:181}

Christians should look at the Bereshith as a book of Beginnings telling in a short way what happened in the past, not telling in detail what went on from day 1 to day 7 as 24 hours periods but as periods in the development of things, Having first chaos and darkness, than light. From dryness to humidity getting waters which started to depart and showing up dry land. Next having water creatures moving around looking for different ways and also finding dry land. Going on land changing form by time, we can see land-creatures coming into existence.

Such an evolution of those animals changing in form does not at all have to contradict what is written in the Holy Scriptures. Problem by lots of people is their superior thinking, not willing to accept that the human being would not be at once a very intellectual being, looking very nicely shaved and manicured, speaking a very complex language.

Human beings have received brains from God which they should use. God gave us His Word in the Book of books and provided evidence in nature to be found by research. We may not neglect such evidence, for the fact of evolution comes from many disciplines ranging from comparative anatomy to the biogeographical distribution of species.

An other mistake of many Christians when they here of a Christian who believes in a sort of evolution is that they think that that Christian agrees with the evolution theory of Darwin, which should not be the case. We can disagree with Darwin’s theories but accept a sort of evolution. We can not be blind that our ancestors looked totally different than we. Look for example at the length of the people in the 16th century, the length and constitution of the people around the two World Wars and the present generation of youngsters who are much greater than our world war and  boom generation. We can not deny man has changed a lot the last 50 years.

We also do have to accept we still do not know a lot about different sorts of animals, of which there are many still species discovered and undiscovered of which we did not know of their existence.

In the 154 years since Darwin published the first edition of The Origin of Species, the fossil evidence for evolution has increased considerably. In particular, we can demonstrate the evolution of tetrapods from lobe-finned fish, whales from terrestrial mammals, birds from dinosaurs, and humans from primates to a degree that would have astonished earlier palaeontologists. While the nature of speciation and the sheer improbabilities involved in dead animals being fossilised and then found mean that the fossil record will always be an imperfect record, what we have demonstrates the reality of large-scale evolutionary change beyond reasonable doubt.  {The Fossil Evidence for Common Descent 1: Missing Links and other Special Creationist Fallacies}
Despite this, special creationists still continue in their desperate attempts to wave away the evidence. Given that practically no special creationists (and certainly no Christadelphian science denialists) are palaeontologists, their arguments invariably hinge on quote mining mainstream scientists, peddling out-of-date arguments which betray a lack of familiarity with the contemporary scientific literature, or advancing ideas about ‘missing links’ that indicate a failure to recognise that evolution is a tree, not a ladder. {The Fossil Evidence for Common Descent 1: Missing Links and other Special Creationist Fallacies}
The fundamental special creationist misconception is the belief in evolution as a ladder, with single celled life at the bottom rung, with all other life arranged progressively on higher rungs from worms to fish to amphibians and so on with mammals on the top rungs and humans at the top. Coupled with their quote mining of Darwin’s remarks that as “innumerable transitional forms” are not found “embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth”, this forms the basis of the special creationist claim that evolution cannot be true because of the alleged lack of transitional fossils. {The Fossil Evidence for Common Descent 1: Missing Links and other Special Creationist Fallacies}

The evolution of life is modelled not as a ladder, but as a tree, something that is obvious when we think of the pattern that develops when the process of descent with modification from an original ancestral population is mapped out. We start with an ancestral population that diverges into more than one group, with each successor group in turn likewise diverging, and so on:

The diagram of divergence of taxa presented by Charles Darwin in On the origin of species (1859)

{The Fossil Evidence for Common Descent 1: Missing Links and other Special Creationist Fallacies}

+
Preceding articles:

  1. Genesis – Story of creation 1 Genesis 1:1-25 Creation of things
  2. The very very beginning 1 Creating Gods
  3. The Origin of Life on Earth: Creation or Evolution?
  4. Science, 2013 word of the year, and Scepticism
  5. Science, belief, denial and visibility 1
  6. The mythical conflict of science and Scripture (1)
  7. Science and the Bible—Do They Really Contradict Each Other?
  8. Reconciling Science and Religion
  9. “Before” and “after” the Big Bang
  10. Nothingness
  11. Debating Darwin
  12. Living on the Edge
  13. Race, Skin color and differences
  14. The professor, God, Faith and the student
  15. Why Think There Is a God? (3): Why Is It Wrong?
  16. Book Review: Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe & Casey Luskin, Science & Human Origins. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2012.124pp.
  17. The Immeasurable Grace bestowed on humanity
  18. An anarchistic reading of the Bible—(1) Approaching the Bible
  19. An anarchistic reading of the Bible (2)—Creation and what follows

+++

  • Concept: Artificial Intelligence (gradypbrown.wordpress.com)
    Human beings, plants, and animals undeniably have souls, but whether or not a construct that was made by mortal hands has a soul is still an ongoing mystery.  Some of my characters in my upcoming third volume will be an example of this age-old puzzle.
  • Another Catholic defends the historicity of Adam and Eve (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
    When I was in Mississippi last week, I was once again given Catholicism as an example of a faith that has no problem with evolution. I politely disagreed, noting that the Church’s official doctrine accepts Adam and Eve as humanty’s literal ancestors, that Catholicism sees humans as evolutionarily special since God vouchsafed us a soul, and that the Church accepts the existence of demons afflicting us and has an Official Vatican Exorcist (and many other exorcists elsewhere) to expel them.  Further, even though the Church sort-of-accepts evolution, 27% of American Catholics are still young-Earth creationists. At the very least, one must describe the Church’s stand on evolution as “mixed.”

    And even reputable Catholic theologians take an anti-evolution stand. One of them is Dennis Bonnette, whose ludicrous essay “Did Adam and Eve really exist?” (answer: “YES!”) appeared in November’s Crisis magazine.

  • Where is Light (divinedirection.typepad.com)
    If God called down the presence of the glory of the Lord, then what happened since that time? Why isn’t it being manifested on the earth today? After all, if we are truly filled with the divine light of God, then wouldn’t we be like human, electric bug zappers? This isn’t just any light we’re talking about here; it’s the light of Almighty God! Think about it for a moment: If any darkness or any evil even gets close to the light of God, shouldn’t it supernaturally disintegrate, kind of like getting too close to the sun?
  • Adam and Eve are Ancient “Archetypes” (jacksonwu.org)
    “Adam” is not actually a proper name for a single individual. It is a collective noun, which refers to humanity. On rare occasions, it points to an individual, but people in the neighborhood wouldn’t have called him “Adam” if they wanted to invite him over for a steak and salad.

    Adam bears this representative status as the “image of God” (language found in other ancient documents besides the Bible). This imagery indicates that Adam has royal authority to govern over God’s creation.
    +

    Adam and Eve are “archetypes.” For Walton, this means Adam was “a representative of a group in whom all others in the group are embodied” (240). A person is an archetype if what is true of the one is also true for all those who are represented by in him. Adam and Eve are historical, not fictitious. In some sense, Christ, Abraham, and Melchizedek are also archetypes.

    By the way, Walton suggests that Genesis 2 is a “sequel” of Gen 1. Chapter two does not go back and elaborate further on Day Six (from Gen 1). So, we shouldn’t confuse the “Adam” (or “man”) in Gen 1:26–28 with the “Adam” of Gen 2–3.

  • An anarchistic reading of the Bible (2) – Creation and what follows (thinkingpacifism.net)
    The very beginning of the Bible provides much important information about the Bible as a whole, about the cosmology of the whole, about the character of the God seen to be central to the entire story, and about the relationships between humankind and this God.

    Though the creation account in Genesis one portrays God as the power behind what is, the actual exercise of that power is muted. God speaks and what is is made. The dynamic is quite peaceable—in contrast to some other ancient creation myths (especially the Babylonian) that portray violence at the heart of things.

    Remarkably, this creator God speaks of human beings (male and female) being created in God’s own image. There humanity is commissioned to care for the rest of creation as God’s stewards. This picture connects with both of our key anarchistic factors. The relationship between God and humanity is not one of domination, command-and-obedience. It is rather a relationship of like with like. God is not Other; rather, humans are created to be like God. And, perhaps even more importantly, the picture here is that all humanity shares in this divine image—kingly, perhaps, but in a strongly egalitarian sense. As well, human beings are given power and responsibility.

  • An anarchistic reading of the Bible (1) – Creation and what follows (thinkingpacifism.net)
    On the one hand, the Christian Bible is a collection of widely disparate writings—spanning close to 1,000 years from the earliest to the latest books, numerous social and political settings, various genres of literature, and two main languages. It is clearly a human book, its separate pieces written as occasional statements that address specific issues and settings.

    On the other hand, the Bible as a collection of writings is the master story for Christians. It is assumed to have, on some level, a meaningful coherence that allows it to be used as sacred scripture. Some parts are seen as more clear and definitive than others, but as a rule Christians think of the authority of the Bible involving all of its parts.

    How the Bible works as an authority is a complicated and contested issue. One general approach, that stands in profound tension with an anarchistic sensibility, it to approach the Bible as the source of absolute truths that simply need to be heard and followed (“the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it”). In this view, though, the Bible never actually stands alone as an authority. Theologian Edward Farley has developed a critique of what he calls “the house of authority” which requires three authoritative presences: the Bible as the revealed truth from God, official doctrinal statements (creeds, confessions, etc.) that provide definitive interpretations of the Bible, and institutions of authority that enforce the official interpretations (See his book Ecclesial Reflections. In light of this analysis, we can see why biblical authority is a problem for an anarchistic sensibility—it is tied in with centralized human authority (often centralized human authoritarianism).

  • A Unification of Creation and Evolution (robertjrgraham.com)
    When people say that “god created the heavans and the earth in six days and on the seventh he rested”, who can say how long one of god’s days is. Why are we so egotistical as to believe that his day is the same as our’s. We don’t know god (Most of us who believe in god do so because we want to not because we have proof.) but if there is a god why can’t his, her or it’s day be a thousand or a million or even several billion of our years.

    Chapter 2, verse 7 of the book of Genises states “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” It does not state how long this took or what form the being we call man originally took. God’s image can be many things. We have no way of knowing. Additionally, although the bible is supposed to be the word of god, it was written by humans and therefore subject to human interpretation.

  • Big Brother has a lot to offer (georgehach.wordpress.com)
    We all have a big brother who would like to help us have a better quality of life.  His name is Jesus.  He inspired 4 books in the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  They will give you great insight into how to live better.
Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Genesis 1 story does not take away an evolution

Do you have any comments: Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s