Is Creationism dead?
Is Creationism dead? Someone recently sent one of those endearing chain letter jobs with pictures of a gentleman who actually reconstructed the Ark "acc to the Bible". The one Dominee responded saying that this was proof of God's devotion and might, etc etc. The others all bashed him saying that the man wasted his time and money. The reason being the story of God starts with Abraham - the other 11 chapters or whatever is a mere myth.
Dr P Fourie wrote:
"It is actually quite faithless to build a replica of the Ark. It's as good as saying, "I'll believe it when I see it" Show me God, and I'll believe in him!" It's the equivalent of building a idol, because the story of the ark belongs to ancient history - in the time before there was a recorded history as we know it today.
The only true history the Bible records starts with Abraham (we don't have evidence that Abraham lived, but we have evidence of people who lived the way he lived). No Biblical story BEFORE teh time of Abraham has any historical footing - discoveries of pieces of wood from the Ark is total rubbish. It's like saying you've discovered the cage that Hansel and Gretel were locked in.
Gen 1-11 can be compared to the Tooth fairy - we tell it to our children to teach them about dental hygiene. The same way these stories were constructed to teach people something very complex in a simple way - e.g. the concept of sin."
And then he explains the clever construction, etc.
But I LIKE Gen 1-11. I'm open to the possibility that it happened. It's not a popular or sensible view - but I like it. Maybe I'm a romantic at heart, but I love the idea of believing in miracles. I mean - I get it. I believe in evolution (sort of - I've heard many arguments against it from wonderful biologists). I don't believe it all happened the way it's written there. But isn't there something to be said for believing that Jonah really sat in the belly of the whale? Or that God flooded the world? Or that the ancients tried to build a tower reaching to the Heavens?
I don't think the issue is central to salvation but it's faith being certain of something utterly unbelievable?
I mean, God becoming a human seems no less incredible than a man building a houseboat and filling it up with animals.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| sci.gif | 61.84 KB |
- Estelle's blog
- 510 reads
Stay updated
Who's been visiting?
Comments
a romantic literalist?
There is a big difference between having this romantic vision that these stories could be read literally, and the fundamentalist view that if it is not read literally, then you are not a Christian. The last one I have some very serious issues with.
But if a romantic, how does the meaning of the stories you mentioned change if read literally? To me it would seem that the message and the meaning would remain roundabout the same? Not true?
I would probably be able to have discuss these texts with you without any problem, since our understanding of the message might be quite similar? Only part with which I might think you'd wanna consider is that the romantic literalist might in the process deny the research and interpretation of some very important theologians in our history, and we should always watch out for this kind of individualism in our interpretation, not true?
Just some thoughts
[Paul - this comment got caught in the approval queue, I have changed its date forward 5 days so it can appear. Please log in to have comments appear immediately]
It seems to me that Dr Fourie (in the limited quotes we have here) is on the opposite end of the spectrum as the creationist and on an equally dangerous footing.
I remember a conversation with Behe (proponent of intelligent design theory) where he pointed out that his theological views- which allow for the possibility of the miraculous- lead to a more honest investigation into the evidence. For him if the evidence points to the miraculous then he's happy, if to some other conclusion then he's equally happy.
To equate the first 11 chapters of Genesis to tooth fairy type tales I think shows an unhelpful bias. For example there have been many noted theologians who have debated for a literal local flood discussing semantics in cultural context and so on. The link to the tooth fairy prejudices against such possibilities and so limits the investigation.
As far as similar conclusions being reached well ... that is the heart of the ongoing liberal vs. conservative debate that guys like Frei, Crites etcetera are trying to supersede. And off course this is a much larger topic than can be dealt with here. I think most of those involved in the emerging conversation would agree (hope I am not misrepresenting anyone here) that it is not that significant but in another more fundamentalist context its really a hot topic and as always open dialogue is the key to better theological understanding. Maybe for another time :-)
Creation vs evolution debates
I suspect that people who get excited about and involved in "creation vs evolution" debates are bogged down in modernity, and those of a more postmodern worldview just couldn't care less.
eternity, evolution and emergence
I posted something called eternity, evolution and emergence on emergentvillage. It is a look at the ideas of "Eternity" as being Greek and "Evolution" as Hebraic, and the relevance of this distinction to Emergence.
TV show on this subject
Hey guys,
I'll actually be on TV tomorrow night discussing this very subject for those that are interested and have DSTV. The show is called "The Late Debate" and it's on the One Gospel Channel at 21:00 tomorrow (25 Nov).
Myself and the professor on the show were the only guys who believe that the six-day creation doesn't have to be read literally. My point in the show was more around how the Scriptures should be read, and that the theory (science) of evolution isn't a threat to Christianity in any way and one can believe the Bible, God and evolution at the same time (intelligent design). It's the PHILOSOPHY of evolution (namely atheism, but all the stuff that comes with it too) that's the problem.
My other point was, although it didn't come out much in the show, that the topic itself is a little pointless. But this might be my view only because I don't see evolution as a problem. I did realise, however, that for many this is still an issue and I was somewhat surprised to see how much of an issue this is for young people; I thought that most young people were over it and it was left to the modernists. It turns out that a lot of young people are still modernists, I suppose, but that statement would need to be qualified (and it's off topic anyway...)
What IS on topic is that arguing about whether evolution is true or not doesn't get anyone to believe in Jesus Christ. No one comes to faith by losing an argument-- so, in that sense, I still see debating this subject as quite pointless.
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
Post new comment