In science, you don’t observe the theory. Theories explain the observations. It would seem to me that you don’t have any scientific reason for rejecting the theory of evolution, and no scientific reason for rejecting the evidence that supports it:
Well, you would be wrong. Since evolution cannot be tested and that there is no evidence to support it. Both scientifically and theologically. Evolution is a belief driven by a presupposition.
That’s exactly what AiG’s version of creationism is, a human tradition. It is perfectly analogous to Geocentrism.
A human tradition based on scriptural authority. This is not “AIG” version. This is any Christian who put scriptural authority above all else. Not to you, it may be human but it is the safest guard we have in interpreting scripture as opposed to any other human tradition i.e. evolution
Galileo’s crime was for insisting that Heliocentrism was real which contradicted the church’s authority.
I know that, but the person I responded made it out to be science vs the church. It was science vs science in the beginning. No different when we see scientists butt heads over their findings. Theology did not enter the arena until Galileo brought it in. Galileo was firstto spout scripture to support his discovery.
That is yet another opinion that many Christians do not share. If you go to the Biologos.org homepage you will find tons of articles on these topics which you may find of interest.
Many Christians are only fooling themselves that they can deep six Genesis and still hold on to the rest of the bible. If Genesis is myth then so is the rest of the bible, and Christianity is a faus. That’s not to say, we don’t have a creator. It’s just that the creator would not be God, because this creator cannot be trusted in anything he says or promises. My camp relies on scripture. Without it, then we might as well eat and drink for tomorrow we die.