Completely true, if also completely off point.
Authorship and intent sometimes require superhuman ability, when one tries to connect them. This is most certainly true when the assessor asserts superior right to that.
Just over 100 New Testament passages reference Genesis, usually via direct quote. Many of them are Stephen in front of the Sanhedrin documenting his direct knowledge of Genesis to prove his bona fides as a devout Jew. The rest (from Jesus, Paul, John, and a few from Peter) are there to substantiate a theological teaching.
Genesis is definitely theology. Attempts to force it into being factual fail almost at once.
Verses 1 and 3 look like a bread-crumb to the Age of Science, thus: “I Am invented time, space, matter, and energy (light.) And as an aside to the age of science, ‘You will give my act of Creation this name: The Big Bang,’”
This is the real science within Genesis. Creation includes Planet Earth orbiting the nearest star at a distance of ~93 million miles. Yet Day Four places the rest of the visible universe within the expanse of the sky, thus beneath the waters put above it on Day Two.
God speaks to us in many ways. An exaggerated piety that requires accepting Genesis as science manages to miss the point badly. Placing the real facts into a work of theology would have done terrible harm to people whose instinct has been trained from birth to accept verse 2 as fact (the initial state of the universe is vast water.) Genesis was, is, and continues to be divine theology.
1 Like
Hey, I said it was mystical!
Let me say it again. I revel to see your verbal prowess.
I trace it back to you.
I don’t see the breadcrumb trail, even with cataract surgery and IOL implants last year. My authorship, such as it is, is usually intentional, except for when it’s accidental or for what I write when I’m asleep. 
So the intent should be able to be deduced by readers?
20-20 hindsight works for me. We Children have reached astonishing levels of understanding of the cosmos, and the Big Bang is strongly inferred. Realizing that the opening verses of Scripture echo the opening moment of Creation is a profound “Aha!” Precision like that lends further weight.
1 Like
I still don’t get the “I trace it back to you” part, but I suppose I could take it as a compliment? 
Evolution is important to teach, but not as an “answer to everything”, because it is actually poorly understood in my opinion. Particularly, it is often thought that evolution can account for the existence of DNA and consciousness, when there is no laboratory evidence - particularly evolution experiments in computers or in chemistry do not produce marvelous new creations such as these. It has not been shown in a laboratory for example, that autocatalytic RNA (self replicating RNA) can be created (naturally or not) and will lead to either a cell or a biosphere of organisms.
It’s always been my understanding that evolution starts once there’s already DNA. I know some are trying to push back farther but so far unless you already have a cell it’s all hypothetical.
2 Likes
That is definitely the case when we talk about evolution being founded upon a vast amount of evidence.
But it is also true that we have extended the word “evolution” to account for the existence of DNA as part of the phrase “prebiotic evolution.” However in that case there is very little evidence and perhaps the most we can really hope for is a demonstration that this prebiotic evolution is possible.
If you’re saying it’s a fact that the history of life on earth is the result of known biological mechanisms … er … no, that is not a fact; that is a theory.
Here’s a fact: The process that produced the history of life on earth cannot ever be known and will remain a mystery forever.
Here’s another fact: A strongly-held belief is not necessarily a fact.
1 Like
That isn’t the insult that you might be imagining it is. You are right that a theory is not “a fact”. It’s actually much more than a fact or even some “collection of facts”. It’s a whole system of understanding about the interconnections and relatedness of many observed facts.
Very true, that!
3 Likes
" Unless TOE is shown to include God, that is that it is the means that God used to create us, then teaching it is harmful.
TOE claims that humanity is the product of a cosmic fluke (Not my words)"
The claim that the humanity is merely the product of a cosmic fluke is indeed harmful. And such claims are not hard to find in many sources that claim to be teaching evolution… But “merely” and “fluke” are not something that can properly be inferred from science. Consider Ecclesiastes 3:21 - “who knows if the spirit of man rises upward?” Both Job and Ecclesiastes strongly emphasize that just looking at the physical doesn’t get you useful information about God. If I am telling how to produce a certain result in the lab, it is likely to be an unhelpful distraction if I conclude every sentence with “because that is the way that God runs that aspect of the universe.” It is certainly important to point that out at some point in the context of a class-length discussion, and I do point it out in my classes.
Genesis 1 tells us that all things are part of God’s creation. Thus, we should not expect to find God in evolution or gravity or other scientific models; rather, we should find the scientific models in God. The atheists and ID advocates who assert that God is a hypothesis are wrong; that imagines Him as a superhuman within the framework of the universe, rather than sovereign over the whole… If we recognize God’s sovereignty over all things, we can recognize his wisdom and power behind whatever we discover scientifically. For example, the universe is big, and most of it is not suited for biological life. That’s all that science itself can say. We can observe that and praise God for His creativity and power; we can claim that it shows a hostile universe; we can claim that it shows that we are mere specks. Each is interpreting the scientific data in terms of a particular worldview; the worldview is not based on the science. There is nothing about the process of biological evolution that says that God could not use it as a means of creating new kinds of organisms. But that’s as far as the science can get us; science is incompetent when it comes to asking “Did God do it?”
Evolution by natural selection is strongly supported by the scientific evidence and should be taught as our best understanding of how biology works. But teaching without the foundational context of wisdom, in the biblical sense, is of little value. How do we make good use of any scientific information? What is “good”, anyway? How do we manage in a pluralistic society to treat various viewpoints fairly without giving in to the error that they are all equally factually valid?
Criticism of evolution is overwhelmingly scientifically bad. The evidence that evolution can describe how certain organisms developed the ability to grow a limb or a wing is quite good. Evolution does not describe how to change a gill into a lung because lungs are not modified gills. Lungs are pockets, independent of gills. Many organisms have both and many manage without either. In the specific case of vertebrates, many early fish have lungs, as a handy way of getting extra oxygen, as do the modern lungfish. Oxygen can also be obtained through any moist surface exposed to the air such as the skin or the ends of the lining of the digestive tract. Many amphibians have both gills and lungs; some have one or the other; and millions of tadpoles make the change from gills to lungs each year. Also, many amphibians have neither gills nor lungs, getting enough oxygen through their skin and mouth lining to survive. Being ectotherms, they don’t need nearly as much oxygen as we do, so a rather modest system is good enough. Paralleling that, land snails use their mantle cavity as a lung whereas in aquatic snails the space would be filled with water and would often have the gills in it. The details of changing an ectothermic system into an endothermic system are a little elusive, simply because body temperature does not fossilize as readily as anatomy. (Stable isotopes and various distinctive anatomical features and ecological patterns can give some clues in fossils, but details remain debated.) But the fundamental error here, and in many other cases, is imagining that evolution must somehow immediately jump from a fully ectothermal system to a fully endothermal one. In reality, there is a wide range of possible intermediate systems, and many animals have some capacity to switch between them (e.g., hibernation). Monotremes are less endothermic than placental mammals, for example. Behavioral homothermy - using the sunshine or muscle activity to warm up and thus enable faster activity - is commonplace. On a cool day, you may have seen a moth scooting along while vigorously flapping its wings - it’s getting its muscles warm enough to actually take off. Developing metabolic permanent endothermy, as in birds and mammals, can happen gradually quite easily. Remember that, for endothermy to be useful to a mammal-like reptile, it only has to be enough to give the animal a bit of an edge relative to the neighbors, rather then competing directly with something that already has advanced endothermy. A slightly higher metabolism requires a little more food but may pay off in enabling an earlier start in the morning and slightly higher stamina. It is possible to trace evidence of developing improved breathing in mammal-like reptiles (reducing gastric ribs probably reflects more development of a diaphragm) and in archosaurs (hollows in bones for the air sac system), prior to the true mammals and birds. [Yes, I know that cladists don’t like the name “mammal-like reptiles”, but it conveys the idea to the public better than alternatives.]
6 Likes
Your own words make the case against you. Stating, for instance, that biological mechanisms are merely theory, results from prior belief not from knowledge.
Evolution, as fact, is foundational for all current areas of life science.
Creating a universe, GOD created a perfect mechanical / chemical arrangement of subatomic parts, and time, and energy. Reflect back on Genesis 1:1 and 1:3 - these are a clear breadcrumb left of the age of science to look back and see that GOD is saying in effect, “I AM invented time, space, mass, and energy (light).”
Genesis 1:2 sits between these mighty arms to anchor Genesis to the cosmologicals of that day: the universe beginning as vast featureless water, a firmament with an inexhaustible supply of rainwater above it, and earth arising from beneath the water. GOD apparently chose not to confuse the issue by asserting fact. That would have filled thousands of pages to be consistent and accurate, while blotting out the real matter, God’s great self-reveal, i.e. theology.
Evolution does not rest on “a mountain of fact.” Rather, numerous arms of science are like interlocking mountain chains providing mutually corroborating fact.
The argument for “never” includes “no one alive today was there to see it” which means that one should never ever read a murder mystery - you the reader were not there to see it, and neither was Ngaio Marsh.
4 Likes
(post deleted by author)
It is you who is contradicting yourself.
God is not a part of TOE which is how evolution is taught. You may believe that God formed the Universe but TOE says that Nature created itself. You may think that God is the author if evolution but TOE makes no such claim. You may think that God invented time and space but TOE says that He sat back and watched it develop on its own.
The idea that God might be “curious” as t what might happen is ludicrous. Omnisciently that curiosity would not even last a microsecond. The idea that God would not worry about the end result because it is less work is even more ludicrous (I was told this elsewhere, but not by you)
Theologically there is no good reason for God to “Light the blue touchpaper and retire immediately” Whether that is the “Big Bang” or setting off Evolution on its merry way. It goes against the whole concept of God. OK so God is not bound by our concepts but our concepts are part of our creation.
The Christian idea of God is different from virtually every other concept of God inasmuch as there is interaction and positive care from God. Instead of us trying to please or appease He approaches and Offers a glimpse (which we can ignore or not even see) but Evolution is cold. There is no love or care in evolution (TOE) It is callous and cruel and built on might and self interest. Evolution (TOE) without God denies his influence even at the start.
To claim evolution is fact is to deny God had any interest other than to set things in motion.
If, as Paul claims, the whole nature of God is revealed in His creation then TOE claims God is cold and heartless.
Is also an exaggeration because none of the corroborating “facts” have any more certainty than the overall claim. It is still one gigantic theory not a fact.
Richard
Let us part friends. Too many of your assertions don’t register on my radar.
May God bless you life and your worship.
1 Like
It’s a question of Genre. People have to put out fires of their own making because they think they are reading history written from God’s viewpoint. There is no pure history in the Bible in the way that we understand the word. There are a few ancient historical writings but even then they did not frown upon blending theology or even myth with history like we would. They have standards very different from our own. Sometimes the point of scripture is giving a message of hope or comfort to a persecuted or doubting community. There may be historical events or kernels behind a lot of the stories narrated but the Exodus narrative should not be read like a historical narrative because it is not one. The point of the ten plagues is God easily defeating different gods of Egypt. That is what the passage teaches. God is greater than all the other gods and is our liberator. Whatever exactly happened between Egypt and a mass of exiting slaves is completely lost to us.
1 Like