tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3988218252384954785.post3462136238235963695..comments2023-09-27T04:43:56.663-05:00Comments on Loving Church: Confusing Conversations 2. "Creation vs. Evolution" is not a conversationMike Gilbart-Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01769957028641055416noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3988218252384954785.post-82907672478402158102009-09-21T11:55:29.020-05:002009-09-21T11:55:29.020-05:00Thanks Mike. I can't take credit for the compa...Thanks Mike. I can't take credit for the comparison of 2000 B.C. and 2000 A.D. though. That came from a book edited by Ashley Montagu from the early 1980s called Science and Creationism.<br /><br />I have a great problem with those fundamentalists who insist that if Genesis isn't literally true, then the sacrifice of Christ means nothing. A LONG time ago Augustine warned of the folly of taking Genesis literally, that it makes Christians and Christianity look foolish if they insist on interpretations that are falsified by the evidence of the physical world. <br /><br />IF Genesis must be interpreted as literally true, then I absolutely can NOT be considered a Christian, because I don't believe God would lie to us by planting so MUCH false evidence of so MANY different types that shows the earth is billions of years old and life evolves.<br /><br />God bless you and yours. TBGThe Bicycling Guitaristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12917479360824091059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3988218252384954785.post-54241046887784074502009-09-21T03:51:35.175-05:002009-09-21T03:51:35.175-05:00Hi Bicycling Guitarist,
Yes, I think "scienc...Hi Bicycling Guitarist,<br /><br />Yes, I think "science vs. religion" is a very similar confusion of conversation to "creation vs. evolution", though "science vs. religion" is more general. <br />I like your comment about the science of 2000AD vs 2000BC, though if Genesis 1 is not trying to be a scientific account at all, then it is a hypothetical conflict.Mike Gilbart-Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01769957028641055416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3988218252384954785.post-49287006410908090382009-09-20T03:53:58.815-05:002009-09-20T03:53:58.815-05:00A common misconception is to frame this controvers...A common misconception is to frame this controversy as science versus religion. That's wrong in two ways. First, these don't necessarily overlap. Science deals with what we can observe and measure (such as evolution). You can't cram God into a test tube (although He's there of course). Secondly, the real conflict is between the science of 2000 A.D. versus the science of 2000 B.C. I for one no longer believe in a flat earth as the writers of the Bible did.The Bicycling Guitaristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12917479360824091059noreply@blogger.com