Genesis and Evolution

I have been playing around with an idea, that a person can be religious, believe in a god that created all time and space, and even believe in Genesis, and still not reject evolution.
The point mostly revolves around the fact the it is not science that drums up the conflict between science and religion. It is religion that drums up this conflict. My many scientific texts do not address Creationism. They do not make a point to debate points against Creationism. They state facts. It is the "creation science" or "intelligent design" (same thing) texts that drum up a phoney conflict. This is nothing new, and hardly a revelation.
The theory of evolution is the consolidation of facts. Creationism/ID have no arguments on their own but only play on a field of which they poise themselves against evolution. They do not make an argument favor of anything, only an argument against something. Hardly a basis for a world view. Couple that with blatant misrepresentations of facts and lies, then well, you really do not have much to play with.

Now to the point of a thread. We will use the common premise of god, all powerful, all knowing, unrestrained by our physical laws, and capable of creating all time and space.

We will use a scale like this to represent time in this scenerio:

Beginning ----> Dinosuars (Pterosaur and Megelodon) ------> Ancient People -> Us

An all knowing being could start the universe in such a way and know how the universe would result. Just as you can bake a pie and know how it will turn out about adjusting the ingredients in the beginning, Genesis of the pie. God would know everything about and in the universe before instances would actually occur. God would know that humans would exist before they actually existed in what we perceive as reality (which is limited to the entropy of the universe, time). Just as we can mix ingredients and know it will become a pie.

Now to the time scale illustrated above. God created all space and time and knew how the universe and life would evolve. This includes the evolution of life, everything from the simplest life forms four billions years ago, to the progression of life to today. Meaning that evolution could have occurred and still be in line with Genesis.

Now how does evolution contradict Genesis?

The Book of Genesis was written during the time of Ancient People. In order to demonstrate something and illustrate something that these people could relate to, a god certainly would not cite prehistoric history. A verse starting let Pterosaurs fly above the earth or So God created the great Megolodons of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it would means very little.... or actually nothing to the Ancient People. they were unaware of such animals. Writing a verse let birds fly above the earth or So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it is something that the Ancient People could relate to.

In allowing certain conditions at the very beginning god would be responsible for all life, including the dinosaurs, and the animals that preceded them, and the animals that preceded them. Evolution is a fact and does not necessarily contradict Genesis. Such a point of view does not contradict observations and is indistinguishable from the universe that we see today.

There is no reason to draw up a phony war between science and religion. There is no reason to draw up a phony persecution complex. The Bible is not a scientific text book, there is no reason to use it as such. It is very vague, it does not give us an age of the universe, the distance to the sun, nor the mass of a proton. Science and religion can co-exist, it is simply a matter of religion allowing the two to do so.

In a secular sense, science to to understand the universe. In a religious sense, science is to understand creation.

Now, what is the difference between the two? There really in none.

 

Religion doesn't represent a threat, of itself, to science. Let me clarify that by stating that I'm referring to religion as a concept and not the wielders of religious power. However science, of itself, represents a threat to religion, or at least fundamentalist views of religion. The hostility comes from the fundamentalist religionists, not the reasonable ones and certainly not from science towards religion. Science is largely indifferent to religion but the fundamentalists don't understand that.

 

There is no hostility in sciecne against religion? Have you not read "The God Delusion"? Of course there is hostility against religion.

So long as you have both those of faith and those of science insist that the Bible and evolution are mutually exclusive, it will be a fight to the death.

As for myself, I rather enjoyed a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. For you see, he is part theologian and scientist. Although you may not agree with many of his conclusions, I think you will come away with a better respect for both science and religion. This respect is what is needed for both to cohabit peacefully. Without it, you can expect more "Creation Museums" in Kentucky and more poorly written critiques on theology like "The God Delusion".

 

Was Dawkins writing in his scientific field with The God Delusion? I think not. He is hostile to religion, yes, but that's a personal view, not a scientific one. He also wrote the Blind Watchmaker which is probably closer to a scientific critique. You referenced Schroeder - a scientist who is a theologian as well. Which came first? If science is hostile to religion rather than indifferent how can Schroeder be both?

I reiterate, the hostility is from religion to science, emphasis on fundamentalist religious views as these are threatened by science. Science is indifferent to religion. Individual scientists like Dawkins and Schroeder may have views but science as a discipline is not hostile to religion, it has no need of hostility, religion doesn't threaten its existence.

 

Um.... nope.

The God Delusion was not a scientific text.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

I had a thought.........The bible says that Adam lived for around 700 years.......But, if you can't die, you are not really alive.........

So, is it possible that Adam lived for 700 year, after being banished from the Garden and had actually existed for millions of years, which would allow evolution to take place outside of the garden in the real world?

 

I don't believe that Adam and Eve are literal.

If they were, then the entire human race came from either Cain or Able impregnating their own mother.

 

Methuselah lived 900 years
Methuselah lived 900 years
Who calls that livin' when no gal will give in
To no man that is 900 years?

 

In fact the Bible does give us an exact age of the earth. By calculating the age of all the men since creation, plus 5 days, the age of earth is 5,491 years. How can you believe Genesis and evolution when the Bible says creation took 5 days?
Also, the humans could relate to Dinosaurs. "Behold Thou, Behemoth, which I made with Thee.", and "Canst Thou draw out Leviathan with a hook?" Read the last few chapters of Job and tell me what those animals are.

 

Behemoth? That is so vague it is meaningless.

And no, the age of the earth is a bit more than 5,491 years. You are essentially saying that the domestication of the dog is older than the age of the earth.

 

Nothing in the Bible is meaningless. What I was trying to say before you decided not to discuss the point was that Job obviously knew what Behemoth was.

So you say you can believe in Genesis and evolution, but throw out the days of creation. Something there didn't click.

 

Which the description of the behemoth is very vague.

No where in the post did I suggest that I thought the flintstones was an accurate description of reality.

 

What does the existence of God look like without the arena of time and space? Would that be a whole lot of timeless nothingness?
Let us be reminded that Genesis declares that God created light after 'he' created the earth and the heavens, so it was also nothing more than a formless dark void.

So, silly me with those bizarre questions..... If time did not exist before God decided in that single moment to create it, by what means did God have in order to create it? If there is no time, there is no moment by which 'he' could create it! Hence, for time to exist, it had to have always existed!!!!

Now on to space..... Because time can only be if it has existed for eternity, what was God doing for the eternity before he in a single moment decided to create space?

Science unequivocally conflicts with Genesis, it is religion that tries to tie up all the loose ends and attach it to science.

It's not about the concept of being unrestrained or capable, it's about the highly logical and very poignant conclusion of eternal nothingness.
The only way the concept of God works, is if space and time is the eternal reflection of God..... Genesis and what it describes is a contradiction to the only sensible way God could exist!

Evolution does not need to contradict Genesis, Genesis alone does a bang up job of contradicting itself.

Genesis was not written in order to relate to the primitive mind, it comes from the primitive mind that did not have the capacity to understand base reasoning.

I'm OK with believing in a divine presence; we must however understand that the mind itself could create a much more brilliant representation of it beyond all the absurdities going on arguing over who is following the 'true' God! BTW, I'm pretty sure my dad could beat up your dad!

Religion is all about the differentiation: heaven/hell, good/evil, worthy/unworthy, righteous/unrighteous..... Religion fails to see that we are all a part of the same body of humanity and all capable of the same acts within it. Absurdities of the mind exist simply because we have yet to extend beyond them in order to envision an existence where every body and mind is fulfilled.

 

Yet Job knew what it was. Perhaps words like megolodon and Pterosaur meant nothing to ancient man, but behemoth and leviathan were used to mean those things.

 

I thought the same thing about the "mega-singularity" which supposedly birthed the big bang. Before the big bang happened, there was no universe, hence no time. So how could there be a "moment" for the bang bang to happen in? Replace the word "God" with "singularity" and you have the same paradox.

 

The big bang references our physical and observable universe alone, anyone who believes the universe just poof appeared out of nothingness has not explored too deeply in thought.... Eternal nothingness with a single occurrence is an absurdity to the mind!
The universe in it's entirety is a continuum in some form or another, there is no other way to view it!

 

So you are saying that existance must necessarily contain more than just our physical, observable universe? Such as a spiritual realm?

 

No, no!!!!
I'm saying that you can't apply a specific physical form to infinity, nor can you observe it's scope!

Our observable universe supplies information in the form of expansion..... Mathematically, we can trace it back to a single point which becomes an infinitely diminutive 'void' in the expanse of the infinitely 'expandable' mass in it's 'entirety'.

 

REPUTATION! REPUTATION FOR ALL!!!!

Sorry. Got a little out of hand.... *deep breath*

I have been taught since I was young that Genesis and Evolution don't contradict each other (I went to a Catholic school all my life). We were to draw our own conclusions from Scientific fact and Religious belief, neither having more importance than the other that I could tell.

So thanks for this post.

 

It would seem that the existance of the planck length excludes the possibility of "infinitely diminutive". Things can only get so small, so we cannot conclude that everything has been expanding throughout all eternity. Rather, there had to be a starting point.

 

There is no starting point in the infinite expanse of time, nor is there an end; now, insert mass within the same expanse........ The only reason for there to be a starting point is to coddle the minds incomprehension!

What many are unable to grasp is space where void is an impossibility within scope...... The void itself (singular point) is not becoming infinitely diminutive; but as a singular point in the scope of infinitely 'expanding' space, it is also infinitely diminutive...... This is the problem with the system of language and equation; we are unable to grasp the scope of infinite space within the eternal model...... There is no language or equation for infinity, there is no defining point (single moment) by which we could wrap our minds around it.

Here's the thing, if there is a God; such a model is infinitely more brilliant than a simplistic and moronic story book where God said "let there light" and poof out of the eternal void and darkness..... there it is!

The infinite expanse within contemplation has always been profoundly brilliant to my mind; you always have to come back to the observable mind and it's voice of expression...... Look around you, who are you within all of these absurdities of the mind surrounding you?
We are the ones to create our point of focus, it's unfortunate that many project that focus upon foolish stories.

 

There is absolutely no evidense to suggest that the Flintstones is an accurate description of reality.

A single verse from Job.... how convincing.

 

Um.... I am not making an argument that Genesis is correct. My point is that Genesis does not to be used to polarize religion and science, but that the two can play together depending on how religion decides to handle reality.

As for your definition of religion, you have a very narrow definition.

 

The whole bible is meaningless....just another fiction book.