The Vatican is planning a conference in 2009 to honor the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species. Cardinal Paul Poupard, former president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, says Darwinian evolution and the book of Genesis are "perfectly compatible" so long as one reads the Bible correctly, also stating, "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," and that the true meaning of the Genesis account was in fact quite simply that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator."Are the Bible and Darwinian evolution compatible? Let's examine the facts...
1. According to the Bible, man brought death into the world through his sin. According to evolution, death brought man into the world through natural selection.
2. According to the Bible, the oceans were created before the dry land. According to evolution, the dry land came first, then the oceans.
3. According to the Bible, light was created before the sun. According to evolution, the sun came first, then the light.
4. According to the Bible, plants were created before the sun. According to evolution, the sun came first, then the plants.
5. According to the Bible, birds were created before reptiles. According to evolution, reptiles came before birds.
Does that sound compatible to you? Somewhere along the line, some brilliant genius came up with the idea of "Theistic Evolution," easily one of the most absurd theories ever introduced. In an attempt to please everyone by saying that God created the universe over billions of years through evolution and the Big Bang, ultimately no one is pleased as it leaves evolutionists having to believe in God and Christians completely throwing out the Genesis account of creation.
Let me leave you with one last chilling thought: The Bible says man was created in God's image. If you say man evolved from apes and that he was created in God's image, then what are you saying about God? This is a dangerous theory to try and reconcile your faith with...
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
11 comments:
Maybe the bible is wrong.
At least you can see that the two accounts are not compatible. One of the two is wrong, I'll give you that.
A third option that you didn't mention is that the Bible wasn't supposed to be taken literally (which is the upshot of the Catholic explanation).
But yeah, I see how they are incompatible, (assuming a literal interpretation of the Bible.)
You seem like a smart person for being in High School. What do you want to study in college?
-steve
Thanks you! I appreciate the compliment (much needed encouragement often comes from unexpected places).
I'm planning on attending a seminary, and I'll probably put a pretty strong emphasis on apologetics and apprehending a better understanding of world religions. I'm also wanting to study Hebrew and Greek.
I used to have a strong interest in science until one-too-many science teachers snubbed me for my beliefs.
As to the 'third option' I have a difficult time with not taking the Genesis account literally when I consider the genealogies provided in the Bible, which provide a complete lineage from Adam to Jesus (suggesting an intended authenticity to the genealogies provided in Genesis).
If I felt there was any room to say that evolution and the Bible were compatible, I'd prob'ly be pretty excited about it (one less thing for us to argue over on Ray's blog), but I'm afraid there's simply no way to reconcile the two.
You're welcome. Although I think your arguments are flawed, I will give you points for clarity and synthesis.
I'm not one to argue for belief in the bible, so it is difficult for me to argue for you to believe in both, as some scientists, such as Ken Miller, do.
On the other hand, if you were to apply the same standard of evidence you have for the rest of the sciences, to the bible, I'm sure you wouldn't be so confident in your assertion about the lineages explained in the bible.
Take for example Jesus. The star of the show. There is no evidence, outside of the bible, that he existed. What if an evolutionist were to give you a fossil with that type of data? Would you reject it? Of course.
Likewise, many of the other people, (characters if-you-will) have the same evidence. So it is a matter of applying different standards to different subject. Apples and Oranges.
Actually, I'm afraid you've pressed your luck there. You see, I happen to own the complete works of Josephus.
The Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongstu us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Josephus Flavius was a Jewish historian (and Pharisee) alive during the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Good,
I thought you would mention Josephus, since he is the closest person to Jesus that modern Christians use.
I know what it says in the Flavianum. Unfortunately, it was written 60-100 years after Jesus supposedly died, so it is not contemporary. Contemporary evidence means first hand. So Josephus was commenting on what he read, not what he saw.
Another point is that it is considered a forgery. You can research that for yourself.
You trust forgeries?
Correction, SOME consider it a forgery. Every ancient document which mentions Jesus is considered a forgery by one group or another... surely you know better than to trust everything you hear? And no, I don't trust forgeries, and (on a side-note) I'm not sure I trust you anymore. First you would have had me think you weren't aware of any evidence Jesus existed, then when I mentioned an example you said "I thought you would mention Josephus." You've severely damaged your credibility with me, you deliberately misled me. (And yes, I know you can technically get away with it based on your wording, but your intention isn't hard to see). It would appear that you're willing to say anything to win an argument, which forces me to take everything you say with an ounce more care than usual from now on. I'm not impressed, Steve, I really thought you were more honest than that.
While Josephus did not see the events unfold first-hand, many of those who did would still have been alive (so, more than likely, he knew of Jesus by word-of-mouth, not by "what he read" - this also means that if what he wrote was not true, it would have easily been pointed out by those who were there).
And let's not forget the other reference by Josephus to Jesus, in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1. Contrary to your earlier implication, there is no textual evidence against the authenticity of either of these passages, as both are found in every copy of the Antiquities we have in our possession.
Question: Do you sincerely believe that Jesus did not exist, or is this argument a distraction from the legitimate questions? (I'm asking because I don't want to waste too much time proving something that you may already believe anyway - I've had that done to me before).
Sorry about the rudeness in the last post, I was a little upset. I hope you can overlook by over-emotional-teenage-moment... ;)
You don't need to appologize.
I didn't include what I knew because;
1) I don't consider Josephus to be evidence.
2) For brevity, I can't include all I know about everything (which isn't a lot!).
Sorry, nonetheless. I don't ask for you to "trust" me either. Anyone that asks you to believe every word they say is lying to you. It's good that you have a critical eye and call me on my mistakes.
The historicity of Jesus plays into the validity of what the Bible says. You claim it is literal, as apposed to what the Catholics believe.
Whether someone existed plays into what was attributed to them (lineages) and the book that was written about them (the Bible). If it is questionable that a person X existed,
then a book explaining the lineage of person X is questionable. If the only evidence for Harry Potter was a second hand (possibly forged) account, 60 some years after his death, we would have to be critical of the Umpteen books that were written about him. Likewise, Josephus heard, or read, about Jesus via second hand accounts. He didn't see him, didn't touch him, didn't know what he looked like etc.
Like me, Josephus can't be trusted! haha.
Anyway,
Take it easy. I'm working on that other question of yours.
Post a Comment