Creation vs. evolution?

Last Friday, I saw a license plate border that caught my attention: On the bottom was a "Darwin fish" with legs, but upside-down as though dead. (I wish I could find an image of it.) It read,

Fish Don't Walk
And Jesus Still Lives

Um.

I'm glad my faith does not depend on denying science. Doing so is a lose-lose proposition; it's bad for faith, and bad for science. Why is creation at odds with evolution? I recommend the blog of my boyhood friend Jim Kidder: Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist.

What do you think? Does your confidence in a creator prevent you from accepting evolution? Conversely, does your confidence in evolution prevent you from accepting a creator?

Comments

[Keith Seckel]

Neither -- and sadly, my weariness at the mean-spirited shots each "camp" takes at the other make me want to avoid the discussion altogether. My first reaction to seeing the title of your post was "Oh no -- not again..." =O(

[nstryker]

agreed with keith...this "debate" is a huge distraction away from Christ, and anything that keeps people you from Christ should be cut off.

as far as personal opinion: regardless of how things got started, evolution is how the world God created works presently. why argue about the past when all we have is the present?

[Carrie]

**sigh**

I agree completely about removing the focus from Christ...so many "discussions" like this one tend to do that...but how can a person deny the existence of evolution overall when it's so clearly evident? I certainly don't believe we as humans evolved from an ape...believing that would deny creation completely, but if you look at our animals and creatures now, they don't look much like those in Jesus' day I'm sure...except for the donkey...I think there's no where for him to evolve... :-)

As always Jon, great, thought-provoking blog!

[Jon Reid]

Keith, I don't mean to wear you out! You're sounding like a certain bowl of petunias…

[Jon Reid]

Nathan, I think my wife would echo your sentiment: "Well, here we are. So now what?" It's funny but if you google my name, you'll find a quotation of me (as if it were something famous) which you reminded me of:

Lord, remove every barrier the enemy has put in place, so that the only barrier which remains is the cross itself.

(I think it was something I wrote in an email forum, back before the Web exploded. It must have caught someone's attention, because there it is.)

[Jon Reid]

Carrie,
Gosh, I made you sigh too! Or was it the license plate border? I can't tell.

[Colin]

Ahh...the priceless evolution vs. creation debate.
I'll cut to the chase on my beliefs:
I'm one of those "The earth is 6,000 years old" guys. I really can't force myself to sit on the ever uncomfortable "God created evolution" fence.
Maybe my belief comes from upbringing, maybe from my church, who knows. All I know is that I believe there is a creator, he created man 6,000 years ago, and there's really not enough evidence to say otherwise.

Not to pick any fights, but the consensus from other comments on this post that I read seem to say "of course God created man." as well as "of course evolution exists." I think to say that is to say "God made man, stepped back and said 'have at it!'" which I really don't think is the case.

Just my two cents worth :)

Also- Jon, I'm already enjoying the blog! Feel free to give mine a pass-by if ya get the chance: http://groundshaking.blogspot.com

[frances]

i think the whole debate stems from a misunderstanding of the bible. you can't treat it like a text book. the creation story is a great example of hebrew poetry which is certainly not intended to be literal. like other types of poetry, hebrew poetry is emotive and symbolic.

one of my favorite examples is david saying God knit him together in his mother's womb (thank you, waltke). taken literally, he is saying that he was not formed in the old fashioned way. but it's not literal, he's indicating that more important than the science of birth is the fact that God is behind it. my reading of the creation account is the same: more important than the science behind it is the fact that God is creator and creation is good.

recently, i was reading christ and culture by neibuhr and he points out that denying modern science/technology could lead to all kinds of issues. for instance, if i'm a paramedic, does that mean i should only rub oil on an injured person's wounds, as is demonstrated in the parable of the good samaritan? no, it would be downright irresponsible.

i believe that the Bible can teach us a great deal about life, but it isn't intended to replace science or any other discipline. you're right, jon, that creates a lose-lose situation.

[Jon Reid]

Colin,
Whew, I'm afraid my response has turned into an entire post. In fact, I think I will post it separately. Check out what Frances writes above. And if you get some time, check out my friend's blog — like you have lots of time in high school, ha! :-) Anyway, thanks for coming by. Out of hundreds of posts, this is the first time I have gone into this topic. There's plenty of other stuff here, and hopefully you will find some of it useful, encouraging and challenging.

[Jon Reid]

Frances, thanks for bringing us your schoolin' — I appreciate it.
I find that science can actually inform my faith and my reading of the Bible. For example, I teach my kids "we are made of stars" along with everything else. So if, by origin and evolution, we are not so different from the rest of creation, what does that mean for our being given dominion over the world? Isn't it like the choosing of Israel, or the choosing of any individual or group: we are not chosen because we are special, but we are special because we are chosen. And we are chosen because we have been invited to partner in God's mission. Suddenly "dominion" has little to do with domination, and more to do with redemption.

[Colin]

Frances-
I acknowledge your position, and totally see how you reached that conclusion.
Unfortunately, I believe you are in error because of one assumption your argument fails to blatantly say:
God and Science don't belong together.
"i believe that the Bible can teach us a great deal about life, but it isn't intended to replace science or any other discipline."

In my experience, the Bible is to be taken literately. I know for a fact that Jesus died on the cross because of love. I know for a fact that all my sins are forgiven, and there's nothing I can do to step out of His love. I also know I want to reciprocate on the love he shows me, and I want to be a vessel for that love so it can overflow into others.
Key word: love.

To say the Bible is simply poetic imagery is to say that God's love is meaningless. It's to say that science explains our existence, and really life is only made of cold hard facts. And from what I know about science, cold hard facts are always shifting. My bedrock lies in Christ, and the grace he has displaid to me through the Bible.
To me, the Bible is not a textbook, but neither is it a massive extended metaphor or allegory. Rather, it's a book God gave to mankind in order so that he might show his passionate and never ending love for me. And for you.

That's where I'm at in my journey anyways :) Glad to see we're all thinking this through on here.

Jon- I really am enjoying your blog! Also, I find entertainment in your tweets throughout the day- keep it up!

[frances]

Hey Colin,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your thoughts and think we agree far more than disagree.

I didn't say that God and science don't belong together because I believe that as Creator, God put all scientific principles in place. This isn't to say that I see science as God (as many people do), but that I see God behind science. One profound experience for me was in reading a physiology textbook about the many reasons that human beings have the perfect body temperature. Even though it wasn't a Christian book, let alone the Bible, I could clearly see God's work and it led me to a place of worship. How people can study science and not see intelligent design is beyond me.

I totally agree with you about the purpose of the Bible. I see it as a means for God to communicate truth about himself, his love, and redemption. I also think that God chose to use a book to convey this truth. He could have used other means, but the Bible is a book. To say that poetic imagery renders God's love meaningless is like saying that a Shakespearean sonnet is less effective than bullet points about love. They are simply different. In fact, I would argue that the emotive nature of poetry can tap into a part of people that bullet points could not.

I do take the Bible literally when I think that was the intent. For instance, I would not look for hidden meaning in a direct command of Jesus. I think Christians would be hard pressed to take literally and apply directly the parts of the Bible that are poetic, narrative, or prophetic. It doesn't make them less true; it just means we have to dig deeper and pray harder about what God wants us to learn from them.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Jon Reid]

Well, I was going to take my response to Colin and make it a blog post in its own right. But I would rather not take the focus away from what Frances wrote. And Colin is going through something terribly hard right now. Pray for him and his family.