A thought-project: Creation and Evolution (not versus) Day 1

[namuhhtrae]

 
As a postmodernist I believe in both spirituality and science. It was during my re-readings of Genesis and my re-observation of scientific studies that I thought I came across a similarity between the first chapter and modern scientific ideas of astronomical evolution.

I apologise first and foremost if some people are offended by this, as some

Comments

[eroholic]

Yes, it is possible to put science and the bible together. Then again you can try and prove a lot of fantasy novels with science too.

I used to find scientific reasons for my beliefs when I was a Christian, but that ruins the point of faith in my opinion. I had also come up with a complex explanation for the coexistence of creation and evolution.

(I'm an Atheist/Agnostic)

[priestofmemory]

I think it's important to realize that not all believers think that the creation story of Genesis should be taken literally, and that this view has been around since at least the first century.

[fringekitty]

That viewpoint goes back much further according to my Jewish friends and relatives, who never understood the way Christians took the Bible literally because they NEVER did. They were taught in Hebrew School that these moral tales were allegories. Furthermore, no one could remember a time when they weren't told the tales were allegories. (Except for Exodus, of course, which most take very literally.)

There are two different accounts of the Genesis myth in Genesis! Were Adam and Eve both created from clay, or did Eve spring forth from Adam's rib? A great number of Jewish tales surrounding Genesis were left out of the Bible, such as the stories about Lilith, the first woman, who turned down Adam, because she would have been forced to submit to him as less than equal. She became demonized in mythology for rejecting Adam and rebuffing the creator, but other tales (some Gnostic) redeemed her as the true bride of the creator, rewarded for standing up for herself

[priestofmemory]

That viewpoint goes back much further according to my Jewish friends and relatives, who never understood the way Christians took the Bible literally because they NEVER did.

I've often wondered if that wasn't the case. Good to hear confirmation; although, perhaps that is a modern-day revision. Anyhoo...

From what I've gathered, Christianity is partly based on first century Jewish pop-theology re: Satan and hell (Gehenna). Theologically-sophisticated Jews actually believe Satan is on God's side; that he's just the angel of temptation, to test the faithful. And "Gehenna" is the name of a valley used in that period as a garbage pit - hence the references to sulfur.

My point--there's simply too much contradiction, controversy and sheer fantasy to be able to take these stories literally, and definitely way too much to make judgments about others on the basis of such stories. At least, IMO. However, any good story has its teachable moments.Agreed. It seems to me that trouble really starts to arise when systems of narrative knowledge (to

[avekid]

First, you are not talking about evolution but about cosmology. Huge difference

[avekid]

*preemptive. I knew not spell-checking that would bite me in the ass. Sorry.

[lynn_p]

Couldn't have put it better myself

[jryson]

"... these scientists do not appeal to God as an explanatory principle in their professional work"

That is an important point--that God is not an explanation. To say "God did it" does not explain anything and does not pretend to. It's just a conversation damper.

I believe God did it, but I don't want to end it there; I want to know how God did it. For that I look to science, and God does not object. If God created us, (and let science try to unravel how) we came with facilities to figure out how God did it. That's just the way God made us.

The issue between religion and science is political fiction; not the work of scientists nor of the faithful. A person of faith and science can be the same person without conflict. The problem comes from politicians who see a personal advantage to keeping the general public ignorant.

[namuhhtrae]

pardon if i am focusing on just the idea of Genesis in the first chapter and not the other creation myths. I have read that many other creation myths from other different countries begin in similar fashions, usually in darkness, involving water or chaos and how the emergence of light and life began. Maybe it could be in relation to the experiences of the infant in the womb for all we know. What I more see is that there seems to be a lot of conflict in USAmerica due to the strong foundations of belief in Christianity but also the beliefs in scientific communities. I understand that my take on it is simplistic, and doesn't explain all aspects of spirituality. What I am however finding interesting is the similarity between the two 'grand narratives' or stories in the two particular points of view in USAmerica that is currently causing conflict, the idea of Christian creationism and the idea of scientific cosmology/evolution. Why I mention evolution is because I have been led to believe that scientists believe evolution to be simply an

[avekid]

This has at least clarified your motivations in this post (as the first of what I gather is to be a series of posts). What it doesn’t help with is understanding how you expect the identification of superfical similarities between one creation myth and cosmology to resolve the evolution/creationism controversy

[tormod]

I believe in the scientific story and the Biblical creation story, but they answer different questions... the cosmology/evolution story tells us how we got here, the creation story tells us why we are here. Neither is complete without the other. Science can't answer "why" questions and religion/philosophy can't answer "how" questions.

The value in pointing out similarities between the two stories is to protect people from politicians and Satanists who want us to believe that one can only be religious OR logical, but not both. The stories can not confirm each other, but at least if they match up one-for-one, they do not deny each other. If they did, then we would be forced to choose Science or Religion. As they do match rather nicely, we can conclude that "Science vs. Religion" is a false debate, full of straw man arguments.

[avekid]

Sure, I also think science and religion can go together and that no one need be "forced" to choose between the two (see my conversation with jryson, above, in which I've already said as much). That doesn't mean there's no debate to be had or that that debate is unimportant

[namuhhtrae]

hmmm, avekid in being a reader of science fiction, have you ever read the short story The Last Question, written in 1956 by Isaac Asimov?

[jryson]

"NOW THERE IS!"?

[namuhhtrae]

pardon? I don't understand

[jryson]

Old (as in the 1950's.) SF story. Some guys built this big honkin' computer.
They ask it, "Is there a God?"
The computer checks that its power supply is adequately protected, then answers, "NOW THERE IS!"