@David Read: The belief that Darwinism is true is both …

Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by krissmith777.

@David Read:

The belief that Darwinism is true is both a cause and an effect of a critical hermeneutic. Extraneous evidence from “science” is used to interpret Scripture, the early chapters of Genesis are interpreted in a non-literal way in order to accommodate Darwinism, and this reading of Scripture in turn encourages more people to believe Darwinism is true.

Old Earth Creationists as well as Theistic Evolutionists may have a different interpretation of the Bible, but reading Genesis in a non-literal way is by no means a reaction to scientific consensus,…well, at least not completely. After all, for the last 2,000 there were many Christians and Jews that interpreted the six days of creation is many diverse ways.

As some examples:

1. Philo of Alexandria, who was contemporary with Jesus Christ wrote: “When, therefore, Moses says, “God completed his works on the sixth day,” we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number.” (Treatise 1:2) Philo most certainly did not interpret the Creation week literally.

2. St. Cyprian of Carthage thought that each day in Creation week contained 1,000 years, as he wrote, “As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years” (Treatise 11: 11)

These are just two examples. Certainly some early Christians and Jews did read Genesis literally, but many others did not, as shown by the two examples given. What this tells me at least is that the interpretation of Genesis is really up for grabs, and it certainly is not for the only purpose of accommodating “Darwinism.”

I think theistic evolutionists have been sold a bill of goods, accepting the idea that there is strong evidence for the mega-evolution story, when in fact the case for Darwinism is based on philosophy. It is what you’re left with to explain the creation if you deny, a priori, the existence of God.

Even if Evolution were the default position one would take if he did not believe in God, that has no bearing on its truth or falsehood.

If you believe, as theistic evolutionists apparently do, that there is a God capable of guiding evolution, there is no reason to believe in the Darwinian origins myth in the first place.

I would be classified as a “Theistic Evolutionist” considering that I am a theist and accept evolution. However, I do not believe that God necessarily “guided” it. Personally, I do not believe God needs to “guide” anything in order to create; I think he had no need of that. Personally I would say I think that since God knows the future, then he could had simply started the entire creative process knowing full well what the results would be, and therefore allowing his natural laws which he estated himself take their course.

I’ll say it again: In order to create, God has no need to “guide.” Likewise, neither does God have any need to design.

krissmith777 Also Commented

SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@David Read:

No one says that the builders can “create with the word.” — God cannot be compared to builders.

Did God need a “power generator” to see what he was doing while he was creating the earth and the creatures in it before the forth day?– I would venture to say “no.”

Implying that God would probably need a power generator WOULD still work to demean…since it would set limitations on his creative ability.

Does God have limitations to his creative ability? No. Do human builders? Yes.

As I was reading this reply, I remembered one mocking comment that a skeptic of Genesis said. He said:

And God saw the light was good, because now he could see what he was doing.

Now I can see this with human builders… But I stand by my statement that it demeans God.


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Ken:

Let’s say we were in a room together and you were all teaching me the correct interpretation of Genesis. Let’s say each of your as teachers had a different, albeit slight, interpretation. Would it be wrong of me as a novice to ask if there was an empirical methodology to resolve the issue. Isn’t this what science does without the bias of faith or non faith?

It wouldn’t be wrong of you at all. In fact, I would encourage it.


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@BobRyan:

I didn’t say that that Revelation 21 said that the earth had no light; just that it cannot work with the first three Creation days having both “morning and evening” because Rev 21:25 clearly says that in God’s glory there is NO night, and therefore no evening.