"Is evolution a battle that the church must fight, or is it a distraction from more essential truths?"

Lets start by making "evolution" what it truly is...an adverb, not a bloody noun...or at the very least an adjective.
Next, lets frame the subject in a way that will not make Christians look like pack of nitwits which is that it's not a cultural or "religious" issue but a scientific issue....and lastly, evolution doesn't conflict with the bible, and it certainly doesn't conflict with Genesis!

And lastly...

"And what do you think accounts for leaders like Rubio and Robertson avoiding the topic?"

Lets look at these tools for who and what they truly are...they are liars through and through, and their entire motivation is that they want something from you, you, and you...whether it's your money, or your vote these two, and many others like them will use religion, emotional manipulation, lies, half-truths, dissembling, and innuendo to get what they want from you because to them the ends justifies the means.

The best we can do is ignore them, and pray to G-d that they go away post haste.

Why go there?

Right or wrong, do we need to die on that hill?

We have bigger fish to fry. There are hurting and hopeless people out there who need to hear of the Hope that we have in Christ. That's the hill that we ought fight upon.

Thanks.

I don't see how one can correctly understand "the death" of Adam and "the life" of the new covenant without abandoning the literal view of the creation stories. Evolution can be seen as a gift of understanding to Christians.

The fact is that the majority of Americans do not accept Darwin's theory of evolution: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965223.html
As this is the case, it is hardly likely that the issue had any significance in the election results. The fact that Republican candidates supported Biblical creation means nothing as most Americans had no knowledge of their stand. Romney ran on none of the social issues dear to social conservatives, nor did he highlight the issue of creation. In fact, during the campaign, the liberal media stated that Romney had already moved to the center, abandoning the social conservatives. Had Romney won, the press would have cited this as proof that social conservatives were now politically irrelevant. The fact that Obama barely squeaked by indicates that superior political organization, not adherence to any social position caused Romney to lose. Also, Robertson's remarks indicated that he doubted the interpretation of Genesis that the earth is 6,000 years old, not that the Genesis account of creation was incorrect.

Should an article on this subject even be written by someone who is apparently unaware of the existence of old-earth creationism? Denying a young earth (as Robertson did) is not even close to denying creationism. But I guess taking cheap shots at Robertson plays well to the crowd, even when (as in this case) he gives a good answer. This kind of ham-handed treatment of biblical issues is what I would expect from the godless secular press. Frankly, it is what I am coming to expect from this source as well.

Of course creationism is an issue worth defending. In addition to the crucial importance of submission to the authority of holy Scripture, it is important to understanding the nature of man and the greatness of God as our sovereign Creator. God's people should not even be thinking about how that factors into voting patterns.

The adoption of evolution and the necessary reinterpretation of Genesis undermines biblical authority. If we can't believe the Bible in Genesis 1-11, then where can we believe it? Also, if there was no literal Adam & Eve, no literal fall, no literal First Adam, then that undermines the gospel message of redemption by the Last Adam that is based in that history. Jesus believed in a literal Adam & Eve, he taught from Genesis 1 & 2; he believed in the global flood and the miracles of the Old Testament. When we start compromising on those, then why should people believe the other things that Jesus said or claimed?

Evolution is not the problem; it is a symptom of the problem. Compromising on the authority and truth of God's Word is the problem and it is a slippery slope to the rejection of the rest of God's Word and the salvation message that it contains.

One problem, illustrated in many of these comments, is a failure to define "evolution." If, in a given context, that term excludes the idea of creation designed by a personal God, then it is incompatible with the Christian faith.

When other meanings are attached to the term, it might not be a problem. But that cannot be determined until an accurate definition is given.

I believe the post of Richard C Klueg is correct!
Amen brother!

The discussion between Science and Religion in less than two hundred words:

Science: The evolutionary process of a species is transparently obvious when one looks at the facts like bones, biochemical, and DNA...

Religion: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Science: Wait, there is more eviden...

Religion: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Science: What is the deal with you guys?

Religion: EVOLUTION IS THE DEVIL, SCIENCE IS THE DEVIL! THE DEVIL HATES G-D!

Science: What the...where did we say evolution explains away G-d? Science can't say squat about G-d! All we're saying is that the process of a species adaptation is through...

Religion: NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH, NAH, YOU'RE A SPOKESMAN FOR THE DEVIL!

Science: Right...have fun with that life of yours, but may we suggest you don't fly in airplanes, you don't drive cars, and oh, right, don't ever go to a doctor.

Religion: NAH...wait, what...don't go to a doctor?

Science: Yes, that's right, because along with computers, flying, and cars all that medicine you're being treated with is discovered based on or using the same processes that led us to the "theory" that you say is of the Devil.
Wouldn't want to contaminate yourselves with the "Devils" lies, now would you?
________________________________________________________

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965223.html

Thank you for the link John, now I have my answer for this...

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG12-03_CatchingUp.pdf

Sheerahkahn, I don't see how the link you provided serves as an answer to my comment. As the paper doesn't even mention creationism or evolution, it has no bearing on the issues of whether conservative evangelicals should emphasize creationism or whether creationism or any other conservative social position had an effect on the outcome of the election. I suppose by providing a link to a Harvard study on student test scores in math, reading, and science, you are attempting to make a connection between a population that mostly disbelieves in Darwinian evolution and low scores among American students. However, as the paper does not even mention the connection, it does not make the case for you. Also, I think you should consider this passage from page 13, first full paragraph: "Some regional concentration is evident. Five of the top-10 states were in the South, while no southern states were among the 18 with the slowest growth." Sheerahkahn, which region of the country would you expect to find the greatest concentration of believers in Biblical creation and disbelief in evolution? The South. According to this paper you linked to, Southern states are out performing other regions in terms of test scores. This paper cannot make the case that believing in Darwinism leads to a more educated work force.

The belief that the Genesis accounts of creation (there are two, with slightly different timelines if you look closely!) is meant as a scientific and historical record of the beginning of the cosmos--THIS is the reinterpretation. To say "either Genesis is a scientific account, or it isn't true" is buying into the post-Enlightment falacy that equates science with truth (and by extension, equates faith with wishful thinking). The most secure ground for Christians is not to fight science but to embrace that indeed, the heavens declare the glory of God.

"I suppose by providing a link to a Harvard study on student test scores in math, reading, and science, you are attempting to make a connection between a population that mostly disbelieves in Darwinian evolution and low scores among American students."

You provided a poll, I provided a study.

"I suppose by providing a link to a Harvard study on student test scores in math, reading, and science, you are attempting to make a connection between a population that mostly disbelieves in Darwinian evolution and low scores among American students."

You really don't see the connection via oblique reference of cause and effect?
It's right there...sitting in the middle of the room like White Elephant!

"However, as the paper does not even mention the connection, it does not make the case for you."

Wait...you seriously thought that this report would have evidentary proof that lack of belief in Darwinism is the root cause of the failure of the American education system?

When I was a child we were taught "the theory of evolution" in school. I have no problem with evolution being taught in school AS A THEORY - ie, an unproven idea that still needs to be investigated further before it can be proven or disproven. (PS we were also taught that dinosaurs all lived in swamps because they were too big to support their own weight - an idea that is now considered quaint - visit the world-class Field Museum in Chicago to see all their new displays discounting all the previous "facts" that we were taught in school and were displayed in their museum. The dinosaurs, the "evolution" of horses, the cavemen - all bogus displays from the past that were touted as "fact." I used to believe in Evolution (before scientists repeatedly lied and or misrepresented their findings) Now I believe in Adapation & Creation. That animals can change to suit their environments IS supported by the fossil evidence (Adaptation) but fish turning into cows is not. Saying they know early man looked like monkeys or whatever from a few bones is ridiculous - we currrently have short people, tall people, people with physical defects, people with long skinny skulls, people with short fat wide skulls, etc. Making a blanket statement that every person looked like a hobbit or whatever is just plain silly - and bad science. Facts often change depending on your understanding/interpretation of the evidence - the Truth does not. Intelligent design/creation is the unchanging Truth.

@ David Hopkins...

I'm sorry but that's a very simplistic and to be honest, extremely childish response. It's like people 'blaming' Christians for the 'flat earth syndrome' when in fact the truth is (like the Pharisees) it was the Catholic religious authorities trying to surpress the truth. Christopher Columbus who went out unde the hand of the Holy Spirit (in his own words) was one of the first to discover the world was round. So he was a Christian making a scientifc discovery.

In fact you'll find many Christian scientists through the age of 'enlightenment' like Newton making very significant discoveries, led there by their faith in God. Many thousands of scientists are Christians. With the debate around science and the hand of a Creator, we find the debate is not of science vs science but of faith vs faith. The faith of those who believe in God and the Bible vs the faith of atheism which denies God and the Bible. It is not a debate of science vs religion at all, that's just a misuse by those who oppose the Christian worldview.

In terms of evolution, the 'science vs religion' debate is also not completely true. It's a debate between 'historical science' vs 'historical science' and not 'observational science' vs 'observational science'. Those who believe in creationism are not stupid but instead choose to believe the Biblical account as the Bible reads and not man's interpretation of history. Beyond this, you will find plenty of scientific evidence that counteracts evolution and science that questions some of the key claims of the theory of evolution and in fact undermines these key claims.

In terms of theistic evolution vs creationism, those who believe in creation would point to a number of Biblical texts that do not affirm theistic evolution. For example, evolution claims we evolved over millions of years through death and struggle. Genesis 1 says God created the world and said it was 'good'. How did God call a world of death 'good'. Death also came through the sin of man after the fall of Adam and Eve. Evolution necessitates death before this, which would undermine a Biblical account. Evolution also undermines the Biblical account of animals being vegetarian before the Flood as fossils of animals have been found eating other animals. Incidentally, this also suggests that these fossils were created through a single catastrophic event. A flood perhaps...

Like evolution vs. creationism should be a popularity contest!!!
Why not frame the question around science--and REAL science only appears to support evolutionism. There is simply not enough time for evolution to have taken place, even if we are EXTREMELY generous with when the Big Bang occurred. When HONEST scientists first admit this then we can have an intelligent debate.
Trouble is this has become a popularity contest with the media feeding sensational headlines to a largely gullible public - including a lot of influential people who really should know better - and therefore the perceptions about evolutionary theory have become "fact" in the general public's mind when the truth lies entirely elsewhere. If there were HONEST presentations of science in our schools creation would win hands down.

If the Bible can't be trusted in regards to how heaven, earth and their contents came into being then we cannot trust it to be accurate about how we can obtain peace with God and salvation from the penalty of our sins. Either the Bible is true, or it is not. The creation account is not in poetic language, nor is figurative language being used. It is presented as a historical account. If it is not accurate as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 then the Bible is not to be trusted.

No matter what anyone says the Bible tells the truth period.

And as a number of you are correct. Instead of worrying about the future of this earth, we need to be more concerned about the people living on it. The Spiritual life of billions of people are at stake. That should beMany will be dying without the truth of the Bible if Christians don't quit arguing and start witnessing as to what Christ has done for them.

The age of the earth is a moot point.

@Steve, I first thought Debbie54 had written your posting. Similarly, David Hopkins did not write that Science/Religion "dialog", but sheerahkahn. We both fell victim to unintuitive formatting of our comments.

@sheerahkahn, after reading through the report you posted, I have to agree with John H Guthrie. It says nothing about curricula. It provides no support for your argument.

You can paint a face on a pumpkin, but killing it does not make you a murderer. Employing the straw man argument says more about you than your topic. It took me 40 years to make that discovery. Good luck to you.

@Jim Church and @Mark, your comments illustrate why we even HAVE the "fiscal cliff" crisis. You are talking past each other.

I would heartily recommend that you both watch "Collision", a video documentary about the debates between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. I would hazard a guess that they would both say that you were both wrong.

I concur with Richard C. Klueg's comments too.

Kevin, thanks for the comment above. I'm glad you took the time to investigate. Sheerahkhan's link has no relevance to the Out of Ur post or my first comment. He asked me "Wait...you seriously thought that this report would have evidentary proof that lack of belief in Darwinism is the root cause of the failure of the American education system?" No, I didn't expect it. I read it knowing that it would make no such connection and that the report would have absolutely nothing to do with the original discussion. I read it so my comments would be informed and not based on my expectations, which turned out to be correct.

I agree 100% with gmv.

Comments that make evolution an adverb (really????), a non-issue, or a settled scientific fact merely illustrate the death of thought in our country and in the Church today. Commentators who think all creationists have on their mind is "forcing their religion on others" or "No,No, No" have apparently never spoken to a semi-literate creationist nor noticed that it is the evolutionist that censors thoughtful debate.

How did moses know what happened he was not there! genesis is good at saying God initiated and it was good. there is a plan. but it does not explain the elements and how we have them within our bodies. we are either made of star dust or nuclear waste! Faith in God does not rely on or need a literal Genesis story it needs a literal saviour.

I find it rather telling that this argument was not introduced in the church until the late 19th/early 20th century, as the foundations for the fundamentalist machine were being laid. It seems that this issue has more to do with the culture wars than whether or not the evidence (or lack thereof) for evolution genuinely affects historic Christianity. It is also worth noting that no less an authority than Augustine took for granted that the "days" in Genesis were not literal 24-hour periods. Something to chew on. Good debate, though, and relatively civil given the subject matter. Huzzah for level heads!

To clarify from my earlier comment, what I meant to say was that, until evolution was introduced and immediately coupled (unfairly) to secularist philosophy, the majority of Christians throughout Church history had no issue with and "Old earth."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein

Some people say 'forget the evolution/creation debate and focus on Jesus. But...
if we deny there was a literal Adam and Eve, the first humans made in the image of God and created perfect (instead of evolving from apes) who fell into sin with the result that sin and death enter the world then we need to come up with a new explanation for suffering and death as part of this world God made.
If there is no Fall and if sin didn't enter the world then there is no need for Jesus to reserve the effects of the Fall by dying and rising again and making possible a new creation, that is those in Christ.
If there was no literal Adam and Eve then both Jesus and Paul were wrong for they spoke as if Adam and Eve were real people.
If Jesus was wrong about Adam and Eve how could he be the Son of God?
Fact is, Jesus got it right, and those who deny Adam and Eve, Creation in the image of God and the Fall have got it wrong.
We don't need to reject science to believe this as science is revealing more and more evidence for a special creation.

I too did not notice the author is listed under the post. So I do not agree with Richard; but with the post of gmc. Sorry about the mix up.

For many people not believing that present life evolved from earlier life forms is like believing the earth is flat and not a sphere. It makes Christians and Evangelical Christians in particular look like kooks. If we make Christian politicians say they don't believe in evolution it makes them look like kooks. A Christian politician is only being prudent to avoid the issue and thus try to avoid offending anyone.

After all, perhaps our understanding is misguided. Perhaps Adam was an evolved homo sapiens who was breathed into by God's divine life and became a representative for all mankind. In any case it would seem counterproductive to insist that all Republican politicians assert that they don't believe in the theory of evolution just like they don't support any tax increase for any reason. Or is that also counterproductive?

Bless you all,
Rick

The idea that God used evolution to create is insulting to God and is destructive to trust in God as an able sovereign. I use evolution to make things because I often cannot get it right the first time.

I did not believe in the Bible because of evolution. I was born again at a Creation CMI International public address. http://www.Creation.com. That is the end of the argument. I am now a street evangelist of 27 years experience. Everyday I hear people reject Christ because of evolution and the age of the earth. May God bless the staff of CMI. If Genesis is not literally true, then we are not in our sin and Jesus died for nothing. I have never sinned poetically or symbolically, have you? So sin is Genesis is literal right? The nails in Jesus hands were real right?There is nowhere for the theistic evolutionist to run to, is there? Go to the website and think it through logically. Look up your postion. Just try for once if you can. These guys are clever and all Ph D scientists in all fields of science. Christians have to learn to think.

"No, I didn't expect it."

I'm glad.

The issue is that the American education system is failing not because of evolution, but because American's in general don't know/understand the subject of science, or more specifically, the science for evolutionary development.

The study, which I cited was presented as a singularity that explains "the why" people don't accept evolution as valid because the American education system failed to educated them properly about the subject of science.

Americans in general don't have the education to know or understand the answer for evolution....ergo, it's no surprise that they don't "believe" in evolution because they don't understand the underlying science behind it, and further, if explained to them, would just stare blankly at the answer and probably, rightly say, "I have no clue as to what you just said to me."

Hence, the reason the rest of the world is advancing in science is because their education systems insist on learning the basics of science, and hence, the reason why evolution is accepted as basic theory because the people are educated enough to understand the underlying science the explains evolution.

That is the connection in my initial post...it's not the direct linkage between evolution and the study. Rather the connection between "not-believing/accepting" a scientific subject, and being able to understand the basics of the subject matter in order to have an informed opinion in the first place.

there are two issues. 1, is evolution an issue for Christians and 2 is it an election issue. Having watched the US election with great interest from England, the deciding issues seemed to be entitlement spending abortion rights e.g. Todd Akin's crass comments on pregnancy after rape, and the reluctance of at least some Evangelicals and Catholics to vote for a Mormon.

May God guide you. The British church laccepted Darwinism and comprehensively lost our culture wars. Be warned by us.a

You cannot expect people to believe Jesus died for a myth of a story of sin. Either Genesis Chapters 1 to 11 are literally true in history or they are not. Dating methods have 14 assumptions the public never hear about. Carbon 14 has assumptions. Secular history stops at 3000 BC. Where is your millions of years? Evolutions says "Nothing made everything out of nothing for no reason at all and no one saw it happen" . When will the public wake up to the fact that evolution is an emporer with no clothes? Hitler and the communists used evolution as a basis for genocide killing 120 million people.

Hamm has miss use the Second law of Thermo badly when he announces that the Fall introduced it due to Adam's sin.

The second law is responsible forr th randomness of air molecules we use to communicate via vocal cords. Hence, no randomness, no real conversation between God an Adam aand Eve in the Garden.

KRF Arch-fundamentalist and scientist (PhD Chemistry, Un. of Ill. 1964)

I feel responsible, since the Good Shepherd's called me to shepherd one of His flocks - and the little lambs in my family, that they know the voice of their Good Shepherd and pay attention to it.

I encourage people to trust God's Word because it is His Word. This is a matter of the authority of Scripture first. We make God out to be a liar when we say He didn't really mean what He said.

I want people to trust the authority of Scripture so they won't mistrust what Scripture says about the Gospel of Jesus. Prophets and apostles, commissioned by God, wrote on His behalf and wrote with His authority. Defying their words defies God's lordship. We ought to trust Him as Lord, not defy Him, after all this is the Lord who became part of our race, lived life perfectly in our stead, gave up His life to erase our mistakes, took His life back up again to ensure that His followers can live with Him in spite of death. Really God's Word is a revelation of Himself to us - through the Bible's central teaching (the Gospel of Jesus). We ought to trust His Word because He was trustworthy: He promised He'd come back alive and He did. He is my our Savior, we should give Him the honor of being our Lord.

The whole creation v. evolution debate in our culture comes down to the authority of God's Word. I don't need my president to trust all of God's Word (honestly, I expect s/he probably will not - just as we all have parts we tend to argue against and defy). I hope s/he and my other leaders will pay attention to the Law written on their hearts. How pitiful we are / will be when led by people who pay no attention to the moral compass that ought to be obvious to everyone. So, in case that script etched on their hearts (God's Law) has been worn down so they can no longer recognize God communicating to them through their consciences, I hope my leaders will value God's Word at some level so they turn to it for something.

I hope my leaders will at least look to the Bible as a source of wisdom, law, and moral boundaries. Perhaps when they go to the source for that information they might also discover the Gospel too, which is really why we have the Bible. But at least they would have picked up on the value of loving one's neighbor (Commandments 4-10) by protecting her/his family structure, life/health, marriage, property, reputation, wealth, and workers.

At the very least I want my leader to consider God's Word authoritative enough to inform her/him about the rights and wrongs of how our nation and its citizens are responsible for loving our neighbors. We need leaders who will defend the weak by doing good for our neighbors, and punish people who do evil against their neighbors. Leaders will only do this if they have and obey a descent conscience (because the Law is written there too) or have and obey Christian Scripture.

Back to creation v. evolution... I teach the sheep in my care that God created everything out of nothing, by the power of His Word (Jesus), for His glory. I teach that He did this in a week less a day, because that's how He says He did it (and Jesus reiterates that in the New Testament too - the guy who died and rose for us said so, why won't we?). I teach that He created our race out of dust, because that's how He said He did it. I teach that He gave humanity life by breathing His breath into our first father's nostrils, because that's how He says He did it. I teach that God gave us charge over the creation to care for it and enjoy its benefits, because that's how He said He did it.

I'd love a leader who believes Genesis 2 is accurate history (and not mere myth), because that leader would lead the people in her/his care to do with creation what God intended us to do with it: care for it, keep it in control (as much as humanly possible), enjoy it, and share its benefits for the good of our neighbors.

I would be impressed with a leader who trusts God's Word and hopeful that s/he would lead well because s/he recognizes the authoritative voice of God: the Old and New Testaments. I'll settle for a leader who at least listens to conscience and looks to the Bible for some wisdom, but I would much prefer a leader who appreciates God's authority and takes orders from a higher power.

Peter Dodd,

1a) You don't need to take Genesis 1 and 2 as "literally" true (literally in quotation marks because the word literal has a slippery/inconsistent definition and application in Biblical hermeneutics) to acknowledge that sin exists.

1b) I will acknowledge that, as a Christian who buys into Old Earth Theistic Evolution, I struggle with theological interpretation of Original Sin outside of a literal Adam and Eve. The representative theory works somewhat for me, but I am not quite convinced. I would welcome any theological argumentation people have found which ties these notions together. It would be nice if these were historical resources, but I recognize that the history of evolutionary science means that they will not like be patristic resources. Anyway, onto the next point...

2) It would be nice if the term "myth" could be expanded beyond the contemporary definition of "untrue story." The best definition I heard of myth is from Carlos Fuentes, an essayist who recently (tragically passed), "Myth is a past with a future, exercising itself in the present." In a post-modern age which demonstrates mistrust of meta-narrative but finds energy and life around story (paradoxically), reclaiming the depth of myth would be a useful Christian enterprise.

3) Secular history does not stop at 3000 BC. The Bronze Age started before 3000 BC in the Ancient Near East.

4) Christians killed lots of people out of our beliefs as well. One cannot judge an entire group of people based on what some do with their belief systems. You says evolution leads to genocide, I rebut that Darwin closely linked his beliefs on evolution to his battle against slavery.

The fundamental issue rest whether man acknowledges that God is omnipotent Creator of all things. If we say He is the Creator, then He is able to create in whichever processes He wants to bring life into being. Life cannot begin from nothing. If it is so, then you don't have to believe in the Creator.

Sheerahkhan, you fail to address my point about the study concerning southern schools in the link you provided. I quote the study again: "Some regional concentration is evident. Five of the top-10 states were in the South, while no southern states were among the 18 with the slowest growth." As the South probably has a greater concentration of creationists than the rest of the U.S., this is evidence that there is no correlation between belief in Darwinism and the capacity to understand the basics of science. Further evidence is the academic achievement of those who are home schooled. According to the U.S. News and World Report, which I quote here: "More than 2 million U.S. students in grades K-12 were home-schooled in 2010, accounting for nearly 4 percent of all school-aged children, according to the National Home Education Research Institute. Studies suggest that those who go on to college will outperform their peers. Students coming from a home school graduated college at a higher rate than their peers­—66.7 percent compared to 57.5 percent—and earned higher grade point averages along the way, according to a study that compared students at one doctoral university from 2004-2009." The article relates the experience of a student who was home schooled: "the flexibility of home schooling allowed him to focus on his passions: math and science.As a junior, Orlowski convinced a physics professor at San Diego State University to let him sit in on an upper-level electrodynamics class. He later helped that professor with research projects." Since the majority of those who are home schooled are evangelical Christians who are creationists, this proves not only that creationism is no impediment to understanding the basics of science, but creationism does not in any way interfere with the ability to engage in advanced science. Here is a link to the U.S. News article: http://www.usnews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2012/06/01/home-schooled-teens-ripe-for-college . It appears that the averaged home schooled creationist could explain basic science better than you or I could. South Korea has one of the best education systems in the world, see here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4240668.stm It far surpasses the U.S. and other industrialized western nations. Yet the population contains a significant number of creationists. See here: http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773 . While this article bemoans creationist influence in that country, it still demonstrates that belief in creationism is no hindrance to educational excellence in science, reading and math.

In Matthew 19 when Jesus was talking about divorce He went in to Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 and quoted them literally. If you can't believe Jesus who can you believe? Jesus did not say let Me refer you to these camp fire storues did He? When will Christians learn to think logically. No wonder the world laughs at us. Richard Dawkins laughs at theistic evolutionists. Even he can see the contradiction. So can the rest of the world. I highly recommend you go to http://www.Creation.com and type your postion into the Search engine and see how inconsistent you are and how you have not even begun to think it through. I have been a subscriber to Creation Magazine for 27 years and know all the staff very well. The have an impeccable faith honesty and scientific qualifications.

Jesus did not refer to Genesis camp fire stories, but literal, historical truth. If Genesis is not literal not then how do you know your sins are forgiven and there is a place called heaven? You can't have it both ways can you?. If you can't trust Jesus Christ who can you trust? CMI Creation Ministries http://www.Creation.com staff all have impeccible faith, honesty and Ph D scientific qualifications in all, area of science, history, language and theology. It is a complete ministry to the church, underpinning God's Word.

"Sheerahkhan, you fail to address my point about the study concerning southern schools in the link you provided."

It wasn't a "failure" as I was deliberately not addressing it because I was being polite...but, since you insist, I have no choice...

Note:
This is the fulcrum of your argument:

"Some regional concentration is evident. Five of the top-10 states were in the South, while no southern states were among the 18 with the slowest growth."

Note:

This is the reality:

"In the United States, test-score performance has improved annually at a rate of about 1.6 percent of a standard deviation (std. dev.). Over the 14 years, gains are estimated to be about 22 percent of a std. dev. or the equivalent of about a year’s worth of learning. By comparison, students in three countries—Latvia, Chile, and Brazil—improved at an annual rate of 4 percent of a std. dev., and students in another eight countries—Portugal, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Colombia, and Lithuania—were making gains at twice the rate of students in the United States."

Further...

"Progress was far from uniform across the United States, however. Indeed, the variation across states was about as large as the variation among the countries of the world."

Let's clarify what they mean by progress...learning more...so...going back to the aforementioned paragraph...even though we, the United States, are making progress, we're still behind...and in some cases...getting worse.

"Yet when compared to gains made by students in other countries, the progress gains within the United States are shown to be middling, not stellar (see Figure 1 and Table B.1). While 24 countries trail the U.S. rate of improvement, another 24 countries appear to be improving at a faster rate. Nor is U.S. progress sufficiently rapid to allow it to catch up with the leaders of the industrialized world."

And lastly, on a personal note:

"It appears that the averaged home schooled creationist could explain basic science better than you or I could."

I do not know you or your qualifications, so, unlike you, I will assume nothing about your education or knowledge other than what you reveal in your writing here on this thread.

Mr. Dodd,
I went to the site you cited, and I found nothing that supports creationism other than rhetorical arguments against evolution.

Do you have another site that perhaps can provide quantifiable and empirical evidence for creationism written in scientific format and peer reviewed?

Genesis says God created and what God created was good and loved by God. From this some profound and important truths emerge. Matter that God created is good and it is what we then do with it and ourselves that causes evil (i.e. not God). God loves his creation and this links the creation story with the incarnation events. As human beings we are in Genesis called to care for creation and from the incarnation to love one another. When there is an attempt by some to take the Christian truth and make it a scientific one it is demeaning to the original truth and offensive to Christians. It also capitulates to the secular agenda (the only truth is science) and the fundamentalist agenda (more influenced by Mormonism and Islam than Christianity). For Christians we are follows of Christ and not a book. Our Holy Scriptures are not one revealed book as in Islam and Mormonism or a high school science text book. It is a collection of wonderful books but the most significant and important are the Gospels as they relate directly to our Saviour, Jesus Christ. His words have more importance and truth than any other words for He is The Word that we follow. That is why in some Christian traditions these words are in red and in some churches we stand for the Gospel reading. We are follows of The Word of God who was before all time and there at creation.

All the discussion and dispute about Genesis meant to be taken as literal scientific truth are counter productive and take us away from the deep theological and moral truths there and capitulate to a only scientific truth is the real truth agenda. It also seems they are part of a political and social agenda to demean the Gospels and promote a different faith to that of true Christianity but one that uses the words and scriptures of our faith. Is evolution a must win issue – for Christians it is not an issue.
Let us get on with living lives inspired by The Word who was there in the beginning and came to earth to live amongst us.

Amazing how people will not believe in the words of the One who was there in the beginning. You all believe in heaven and want to go there and never argue about that do you? Hypocrites.

Through one man Adam who was not literal sin came into the world? Is that how you read your bible? Amazing !! Are you getting the message?

Sheerahkahn, may I lovingly say, in Jesus Name, "put your glasses on".

Evolution is a story about life appearing without God. Why are Christians even believing in it let alone defending it? There are certainly some weird inconsistent Christians around these days. Why don't you just support the Devil as well? Actually you are by denying anything God says. Adam and Eve did not believe what God said did they? Satan said "did God say that? and is still saying it through you.

@Anonymous: Naturalistic evolution is a story about life appearing without God. You are not arguing with naturalists on this board. You are arguing with Christians who believe in the same God you do but believe that God worked in a different way than you do. It does not further your point one bit to call your brothers and sisters in Christ "Satan" when no one here is trying to draw people away from faithful union with Christ.

"Sheerahkahn, may I lovingly say, in Jesus Name, "put your glasses on"

I guess that means no, you don't have any other sites for me to peruse.

Thank you for responding.

Anonymous...I have no idea what you are trying to get at, but I can assure you that I give G-d credit for being a consistent design engineer...and as I see it...if G-d spent 4.99 billion years to get a planet ready for us...I'd say it would behoove us to show some respect to his effort.

But, that's just me.

btw, moderator...I have a post awaiting your perusal. I think the links to the NIH triggered your "must be reviewed" clause.

Is it possible to accept that evolution is supported by scientific fact, while at the same time recognizing that science is inherently limited by our ability to perceive, which is not infallible? The history of science demonstrates that just when we think we're on the right track, something will change which will cause us to see things differently, and thus lead to scientific revolution. I have no problem saying that current scientific evidence supports evolution. I also have no problem saying that there are assumptions regarding evolution that are mutually exclusive to certain basic teachings of the Scripture (e.g. death is a direct result of human sin). I recognize that in this world we see through a glass, darkly; and I trust that when God's kingdom has come to earth, we will be able to see just how clueless ALL of us have been!

Sheerahkhan it means you are blind. Ken Ham in America is having great effect with his creation museum. http://www.AnswersInGenesis.Org You will need spiritual glasses, be boen again and accept Jesus as Lord and not be such a smart arse. If Adam is not real then neither is Jesus because there is a geneology in Luke 3:23 showining the main persons in a direct line. I love liberal theologians as you can tie them in knots so easily.

Some of you who are submitting comments are not playing nicely. Please take a few deep breaths & behave in a more civilized manner. The waiting world is watching. ~Rosemari Simmons .

Sheerahkhan, you still fail to address the issue concerning what the report reveals concerning the Southern states. Yes, the U.S. is behind other countries in science, reading, and math and its progress towards improvement has been slow. That is the point of the study. But by your logic, if belief in creationism is an impediment to understanding the basics of science, then the five Southern states mentioned in the report would not have been in the top ten states in terms of improvement. As you do not address this, you fail to deal with my point concerning the study. The comments you posted concerning the study have no connection to my comments on the study. The study does not address any connection between belief in Darwinism and the the greater mastery of the subjects of science, reading, and math in by students in other countries. By not responding to the links from secular sources which I provided which demonstrate that belief in creationism need not be an impediment to understanding the basics of science or engaging in advanced science, you still fail to address the issue in any constructive manner.
You wrote to Peter Dodd: "Do you have another site that perhaps can provide quantifiable and empirical evidence for creationism written in scientific format and peer reviewed?" Here is a link to over 80 peer reviewed articles concerning Intelligent Design from the Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 . Not all advocates of Intelligent Design are creationists, some who support a young earth are vocal opponents of it. But a number of ID advocates are creationists and some are represented in the list of peer reviewed articles.

It's funny they are using the election to try to change people's minds on evolution. "Evolution-Creation Fatigue" has been going strong already for a few years.

During the late '90s to early 2000s, intelligent design surged, but so did creationism. What happened? Why did things start to fall apart and Christians began defaulting to theistic evolution?

Part of it was the false choice presented by YECS, their way or no way. Ironically, this article quotes the emotional Ken Ham and his terrible approach. People couldn't take his bad science or bad theology. Design folks hoped he would go away: Mistake #1. They were so bent on cutting any creationist associations, yet refused to take YECism head-on and eliminate it. Their "big tent" was too big. Either you're science or not. Not all theories can be allowed to survive.

While ID showed why ID can be detected and could be science, they were weak on the model. Going into the Dover fiasco, this was a fatal mistake. They were also so afraid of religious connections, they didn't explain how ID and Genesis could go hand in hand (again, this goes back to deconstructing YECism).

Now ID must re-establish itself, and Ken Ham and Co. still run wild, dividing Christians with their terrible scholarship.

Also, as ID was slowing down, the big athiest attacks came out full-force. So the Christian response was to "try to get along" and take an easier route and remove evolution as part of the debate.

There is an option that doesn't require the theologically/scientificly bankrupt young-earthism or evolution. It's called old-earth creationism. For years Ken Ham and friends have misled people about any other option other than their own. Old-earthism is the most accurate interpretation of Genesis.

You want to stop people from going to bad science of evolution? Then stop the bad science and theology of Ken Ham once and for all.

I too like the pun "ham-handed" used by R. Klueg (which means "clever" in German). Check out today's (8th Dec.) NYTimes article by Charles Blow. He is preaching to the choir in busting on "Creationism". The discussion brings out the non-religious in full force. I would say that when looking at school performance there are many other punching bags besides Ken Ham's Kentucky Creation Museum. In the same way that children appear to benefit from being bi-lingual, they can hold in their minds a multiplicity of ideas about how our world began, or, for that matter when personhood begins. Scientists such as Francis Collins compartmentalize. (It is something Catholics do well). There is Intelligent Design, there is Old Earth. I think by now those raising children according to James Dobson and not Spock have realized that brainwashing is not possible!! even if it were desirable.

"Reasons To Believe spokespersons do not attack ideas but rather aim to present research and start a conversation—because people deserve respect and a safe forum for discussing their views."

RT
This statement is from the website attached to your initials. If you claim to believe it, I think you just made a hypocrite of yourself when you said
"There is an option that doesn't require the theologically/scientificly bankrupt young-earthism or evolution. It's called old-earth creationism. For years Ken Ham and friends have misled people about any other option other than their own. Old-earthism is the most accurate interpretation of Genesis.

There are 14 assumptions to radiometric dating methods so there is no way to date the earth except Genesis. Sorry chaps. Take it up with God if you meet Him. http://www.Creation.com

John,

I want you to know I have reviewed my comments, and yours in this thread.

I "assumed" that the answer to your question was obvious a priori, but it would seem that my assumption was frustratingly incorrect...and, even with a thorough explanation...you still say I failed.

Very well, rather than exacerbate this situation any more, I will own this failure, and cease trying to explain myself to you.

btw, thank you for the link.

"Old-earthism is the most accurate interpretation of Genesis."

I found Professor John Walton's book, The Lost World of Genesis One, a very good explanation of Genesis, and the "creation" account.

The scripture says that dinosaurs were on the earth. The so called scholars that spout this junk are going to answer. Ken Ham of answers in genesis should be contacted before people run their mouths. Here is the bottom line: Jesus says that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. The free gift of God is eternal life. Need more. It does not matter whether it is 6000 years or 60 trillion, the scripture is the same.

Two great website from born again Christians with degrees as high as three earned doctorates in advanced science (Dr A E Wider-Smith) will answer every question for those who just want to believe the Bible as it reads naturally and obviously. http://www.Creation.com http://www.AnswersInGenesis.Org There are men also are in the fields of Language History and Theology etc not just science. Some are ex-evolutionists and athiests born agin through creation evidence. Like Adam and Eve some people just don't want to believe what God plainly says. It is called sin.

http://creation.com/6000-years
will show you where the Bible teaches 6000 years very easily. Remember the Bible tells us what is true not the other way around. As God said to Job "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?" Sheerahkahn should read God's Book not men's books.

"Sheerahkahn should read God's Book not men's books."

Mr. Dodd,
I see...well, I have to admit I had my suspicions about you at first, but now I can safely say that all doubt has been removed.

Thank you for your exhortation, and fare you well Mr. Dodd.

First off I want to affirm that I believe in Creation, the literal 6 days, a literal Adam and Eve, and Adaptation or micro-evolution. I do not believe that every life came from a lower forms, going all the way back to random proteins and amino acids.
An atheist will often state that science and religion are at odds with each other. Science reveals God’s working in the creation, how it was made. Science and religion do not have to be separate and are not incompatable with each other, properly understood. We are at best, reverse engineering what God made via His Word. All of the sciences are provable and testable with generally predictable results. The exception so far is with particle physics being that it is a very new science and there is not an all encompassing explanation for it yet. The Standard model tends to be close but some findings coming from the large hadron collider seem to confuse or contradict things in the model. The fact that there is this underlying order to everything or there would be nothing. The laws, the constants, the mathematics, all point to a Creator. Atheists firmly assert “No it doesn’t” or “Why does it have to?” while only offering the explanation of chance, randomness, or purposelessness.
After many, many years of truly objective research and critical thinking I have come to several conclusions about the whole Creationism/Evolution debate. I want to make clear at this point that I am only discussing the debates and evaluating them on their soundness alone. This is not a discussion about truths, that will come later.
There is no “winner” to any of these debates, all end in a stalemate because of the implacability of either sides belief systems. Creationists will not accept macroevolution and evolutionists will not accept Creation. Everything else is just fine details. I have looked very hard at both sides, and being objective and agendaless as I can, I honestly have to say that many of the arguments on both sides can be disputed. There are some Creationist claims that are not backed up by solid evidence, just as there is evolutionary claims that are not backed up. By in large the main flaw with these debates is the starting point. If you believe in Creation, then the evidence shows positive for Creation. If you believe in evolution, the same is true. Creationism, regardless of what you may have heard is 100% scientifically supportable and is not the babble of the uneducated superstitious fanatics. In the same way evolution is not necessarily the tool of atheists to bring down Christianity. There are those on both sides who do believe these claims and largely they are the loudest voices, so they are the ones that get the attention. However, they are not fair representatives. The average working biological researcher isn’t concerned with macroevolution. They are focused on their specific work and probably would prefer to not speak on philosophical matters.
I have read much of this site recently (http://talkorigins.org/), as it seemed to be an agendaless approach to evolution. But I found that not to be the case exactly. My thinking that I was going to get something fresh out of this was overly optimistic. The opening article described the theory of common descent, which the author admitted that it does not explain origins, but only explains the interrelatedness of all biological forms. Fair enough. Creationist can say that this is due to God designing everything in a unified manner, and evolutionists can claim it is due to everything coming from the primordial ooze. While the author claimed the article had no atheistic tendencies, several contributors to the proposed evidence did come from heavily agenda’ed people such as Steven Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. After reading through much of the info on the site, including the FAQ on how to respond to Creationist claims, I only saw the same debates raging on with largely the same stalemated responses. You can read “Australopithecus was a human.” “Australopithecus was an ape” only so many times before the numbing sensation sets in. J
Each side has equally supportable evidence when looking at them objectively. That is why there has been no definable “win” on either side. Creation is not wholesale accepted and neither is evolution. The main problem is that this is not an objective debate, it is a matter of belief. The Creationists say the evolutionists want to destroy their faith with lies, and evolutionists say that Christians are trying to do away with science. Neither side is correct about their respective claims, but that is the perception put forth by the loud minority. The truth is the same evidence exists for both sides. There is only the fossils. What is said about the fossils is what is different. That is the only distinction. Every last debate is exactly the same, and there is no way for either side to triumph over the other.
Just because I absolutely, without any iota of doubt, accept the complete inerrancy and truth of the Bible and take it to be a literal look at history, truth, faith and teaching, does not make me a superstitious moron believing in an outdated moralistic system of hocus pocus. Nor does my belief interfere with my love of science and nature. Science is not the tool of the Devil, it is our discovery of how God made the world and how He designed it to work. When you take a look at the big picture of the Bible’s teaching, you can see the absolute connectedness and unity of everything He has made and why it is the way that it is. The teachings and truth of Christ as the only means of salvation is made clear throughout the Bible. As C.S. Lewis put it, you can only look at Jesus in three ways: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. If you accept that Christ was who He said he was, then everything he taught was absolute, definable truth. And He taught Creation. That’s plenty good enough for me.

I am an evangelical Christian, a firm believer in a high view of scripture, the historic creeds of the church, and the necessity of new life in Christ. And I am a scientist and a college professor, and I want to stress that this issue is indeed very important. We must allow the science to be science (and on this score it is truly abundantly clear--we live on a planet billions of years old, in an even older universe, and evolutionary processes are what have led to the diversity of species we have. This case is closed, and the attempts of junk creation science are not just embarrassing, they are harming the kingdom of God. It is shocking the number of outright lies and misrepresentations of science that come out of the YEC camp). We are losing huge numbers of young people out of the church because of the bad thinking that leads to the false dichotomy that one can either accept evolutionary explanations OR one can be a Christian. This is harmful, and I beg my brothers and sisters to examine this issue more clearly. The evangelical church will indeed become a silly little idiosyncratic cult if the absurdities of YEC aren't abandoned soon. Our young people recognize this and are voting with their feet. I'm not saying the church will fall--there will always be a church. It just won't be the fundamentalist American church that denies what God is showing us so wonderfully in creation.

Laird
"It is shocking the number of outright lies and misrepresentations of science that come out of the YEC camp)."

You didn't put even one lie on the table to be examined. Do you expect folks to believe you with merely an accusation? There are hundreds of thousands of strong believers in Christ, with big degrees, who are duped on many different issues of faith.

"This case is closed, and the attempts of junk creation science ... of the bad thinking that leads to the false dichotomy..."

Are you not creating your own dichotomy that all scientifically intelligent truthers agree with you and everyone else is misled or lying?

I will ask a question:
You say you have a "high view of scripture". You claim that having a billion+ year old earth and universe is a determinative belief for believers.

What is in the scriptures that is determinative in all of us coming to this view?

"What is in the scriptures that is determinative in all of us coming to this view?"

I actually like this question, Tim because it forces all of us to stop and think about why is the issue of evolution such a thorny topic for the Church in general.

Unlike Laird, I'm not a P.h.D, I'm just a bench monkey who's has been in the biotech/pharmaceutical field for the past eighteen years, but I have had to field this question to many of my co-workers when the topic of faith and science comes up.

"How can you be a Christian and a Scientist at the same time? What about evolution?"

Now remember, this discussion is happening in a lab, not in some guys house with tea and crumpets and pile of literature acting as a sole-source for the topic.

I'm in the middle of the arena and the perception is one of "You know what the truth here is [Sheer] how can you be one of them?"

And I tell them, "evolution is not a matter of faith, nor is faith in G-d tied to evolution. Genesis 1-3 is quite vague in terms of the 'how' but quite clear as to the 'why' of all that we see around us."

This world and all we see in it is a G-d's signature to the Universe...to all of the realms of G-d's kingdom which extend beyond our here and now, we, on this pale blue dot, in an insignificant corner of the Milky Way galaxy, spinning in a remote part of this universe...we are that exceptional, glorious testament to G-d's love, mercy, and forgiveness.
We, on this piece of rock, made by billions-of-years old star-dust, formed so that we can attest to G-d's greatness, and mercy...we are pathetically small, insignificant, and yet because of G-d...we're astoundingly important.

Allow me a moment to explain this..just...allow your mind to wander, and then later, reflect on this thought...then you can decide if I'm full of crap or not.
________________________________________________________
Imagine G-d guiding the development of life on this planet, imagine that all of the universe is watching, wondering, what is he about?
G-d has a plan in his head, and the universe watches as he fashions the solar system, and the third planet, adding things from space, directing the necessary materials that he knew he needed long before they popped into existence.
And then...something strange, something wonderful...life. A small, insignificant, simple life form begins swimming in a soup that most would take a mop too to clean up.
And there, in that moment, G-d smiles as he sees his plan unfold.
The Universe is still watching, still wondering, "what is he going to do?"
And voila, the life is now teaming in vast seas, and on land...spreading, changing, developing, growing, and expanding.

And the whole while, G-d is right there, in the midst of it all, like a conductor in all his glory during the grandest moment of the symphony G-d is in the center of it all.

And voila...an life form, bi-pedal, more ape-like than anything the Universe would consider worth paying attention to other than to keep an eye on it so it does under-hand throw a pile of poop at it, and G-d singles out that life-form.

The universe is watching.

G-d whispers, "Watch this!"

The amazing thing about all this is that the Universe watched G-d conduct life to it's present form, but more importantly, and quite shockingly...became one of us.

It's as if you can hear the universe collectively say in one gasp, "What is he doing?"

This is how I see it...Satan hates humanity, yes?
Satan cannot stand the sight of humanity because we carry the reflection of G-d. We reflect the one thing Satan wanted more than anything else...to be G-d.
So, if Satan can't be G-d, why not corrupt his reflection to think it can be G-d.
Because as Satan see's us, we're nothing but apes. We belong in a zoo, we are contemptible in his eyes, and unworthy of notice.

And yet G-d decided to be born, to live like us, to look like us, to smell like us, to eat like us, to defecate like us, to cough, to be sick, to be sad, to be hungry, to be human in all it's painful and wonderful state.

Think about this...G-d became like one of us even though Satan see's us nothing more than rabid apes that need to be put down.

So, when I read about Creationist who pander their hypothesis with nothing more than Genesis 1 as their proof, and rhetorical arguments I can't help but think that they are denying G-d's work in all this...because they are afraid that Satan maybe right...we're nothing but apes, and there is no G-d.

That, in my opinion, is the lie Satan is promoting in touting Creationism...because if there is one thing Satan wants to convince us of it's that G-d doesn't care, he's far away, we're forsaken, give it up, live for today. It's the clock-maker Deist argument in another form.

But because of evolution...this "other" way...says, no, G-d is right here, still in the middle of it all, still in control, and still very much active in his world, his signature to the realms of heaven.
________________________________________________________

Thank you for spending time to reading the above...because that is how I've read the scriptures, and why Mr. Walton convinced me that even I was reading Genesis 1-3 wrong...Genesis isn't talking about "Materials and methods" it's talking about G-d taking his place in his temple. The why of it all is answered. The how of it all is left for us to discover.

Sheerahkahn, I appreciate the time you took to explain your reading of Genesis 1-3. It's obvious you've put some serious thought into it. I agree with you that the "why" and the "how" are two different questions, and that intention of Genesis 1-3 is not to give us a detailed explanation for "how" the world was created.

Having said that, I think we must also recognize that while the "why" and the "how" are two *different* questions, they are not two *unrelated* questions. In other words, the "how" must be consistent with the "why", not only in Genesis 1-3, but in all of Scripture.

Scientific evidence must be interpreted on its own terms. I think you and I would agree on that, and that is why earlier in this thread I wrote that I accept that current scientific evidence supports evolutionary theory. When one is studying science, it is not fair to impose one's theological understanding into the evidence, because science and theology ask different questions and examine truth from different perspectives.

But for that same reason, Scripture must also be interpreted on its own terms. In other words, when studying Scripture, it is not fair to impose one's scientific understanding into the text. When one reads Genesis 1, one should not be asking, "Does this interpretation agree/disagree with what science teaches?" Unfortunately, that is the mistake often made by people on both sides of the "Creation vs. Evolution" debate. When studying Scripture, the primary question to ask is, "Does this interpretation reflect what the author intended to communicate, regardless of whether or not it agrees with contemporary scientific understanding?"

Please don't misunderstand. I am in no way implying that either you or Mr. Walton are unfairly imposing evolution into your interpretation of Genesis 1. I'm not even saying that I disagree with your interpretation. I'm not familiar enough with that interpretation or its biblical support to be able to disagree. I do thank you for the book recommendation and for your summary, as it has given me some things to think about; and I'm interested in looking more into it as time allows me.

What I *am* trying to say, is that the interpretation you gave contains, at least on the surface, one inconsistency with Scripture, the way I've understood it. Since you have obviously put some serious thought into it, I'd like to know if you have wrestled with this issue and, if so, what conclusions have you reached. If you could share that with me, it would be a great help for me.

Here's the inconsistency that I see. You wrote, "And voila, the life is now teaming in vast seas, and on land...spreading, changing, developing, growing, and expanding." But this process of life spreading, changing, developing, growing, and expanding--as understood by evolution--also includes *dying*. And yet, Scripture seems to communicate the idea that death is the direct result of human sin. No matter how eloquently I have heard people try to portray evolution as compatible with--or at least not opposed to--biblical teaching, I have yet to encounter someone with a satisfying response to that apparent inconsistency.

Is this something you have wrestled with? The interpretation you gave seems very well thought out, and if you could help me with this one issue, I would greatly appreciate it.

"Is this something you have wrestled with? The interpretation you gave seems very well thought out, and if you could help me with this one issue, I would greatly appreciate it."

I take it you're referring the Roman's passage...forget the exact one...but the wording goes like, "As Adam brought sin into the world..."
And of course, the G-d's direct command to Adam in the garden, "eat of any tree, but of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you must not eat for if you eat of it, you will surely die."

Now, herein is where I started asking questions.

Okay, Adam is given free rein to eat of any tree in the garden...so, okay, lets look at the digestion process.
In order for the nutrients to be excised out from that apple it first has to be hydrolyzed and broken down into "digestible" parts...which then hits the intestines and would probably just fly on through without so much as a "Oh hey, look where I'm at!" if it weren't for the flora and fauna that is crawling around inside all our guts...and there is "consumption" of material, and that material is wasted out from the flora and fauna which is then absorbed by the filia that act as catchers for the all the good nutrients the flora and fauna were kind of enough to break down for us.
So, just to live, things "die" and Adam eating any and all fruit in the garden means something is to "die."

Which then raises the question..."okay, if ain't a physical death, what kind of death is G-d talking about?"

And so...this is where I get stuck...it's difficult to make this leap because it begs so many questions that I feel, intellectually, that I'm really stepping out into space off a cliff of stability:

When Adam ate the apple, did he die?
Physically, obviously not, but something went terribly wrong, so what was it?
What up-ended us?

How did Adam "die"?

So I'm left with spiritual death, and then I think what are the consequences of a dead spirit?

And that...is where I am at...what are the consequences of a dead spirit...how does it manifest itself? What is it's physical expressions?

So, I think "death" has always been with the world...Tyrannosaurus Rex, Allosaurus, Velociraptors, and the hundreds, if not thousands of dinosaurs all armed with teeth and claw...meat eaters, and not just the meat eaters, the plant eaters also ate plants which is death, so...yeah...when you start thinking about what exactly death entails the subject really becomes quite expansive.

So...I'm stuck at spiritual death, but alas, that is where I stopped...perhaps someone with far more insight can explain spiritual death better than I can.

Hey Sheerahkahn,
That verse is Romans 5:12.

Without going into insane amounts of detail, "life" was regarded a little differently that we regard it today. Plants, though life, were not considered to be at the same level as animal life.
Adam when he ate to fruit (the apple is a later interpretation, Genesis is not clear as to what the fruit was), he brought sin and death into the world. The death he brought was physical and spiritual. If Adam had not eaten of the fruit, then he would have access to the tree of life and been immortal. Though it is not clear, I believe that the tree of life was not a "one time" thing, meaning that it's fruit was more of a sustainer of life, as opposed to a "one bite and live forever" sort of thing. Adam and Eve could have regularly consumed from the tree of life to live forever, and God gave them permission to do so because He only singled out the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So by God cutting off their access to the tree of life, then death was an eventuality. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not "poisoned" per se, but was forbidden by God. God could not allow Adam access to the tree of life due to the suffering Adam was under due to sin. Many see Adam's banishment as punishment from God and maybe a little severe, but this is not so. Think about it this way. God loves us and does not want the taint of sin on us. God did not want Adam suffering under sin for eternity, so that is why he denied him the tree of life. It is clear that Adam lived from many years after the banishment, but eventually did die. Adam brought sin into the world and the entirety of Creation was affected by this. With the cherubim guarding the tree of life, no one (including animals) can be immortal, so everything now dies. If Adam had not sinned, theoretically, he would still be alive today, as would any animal or person that ate of the tree of life. The spiritual death is related in the idea that we must be redeemed from sin to enter heaven. The reason for this is God is holy and cannot be in the prescience of sin. Also, like Adam, God does not want us to suffer an eternity under sin, so before we begin our eternal life in heaven, our sins must be removed. And that is what Christ did for us.

Don B. and Sheer, thank you for your courteous dialogue. It's helpful as I wrestle with the meaning of the Adam story in the midst of evolutionary history.

One element I had not seen before reading Don B's recent post was that death is actually a gracious response from God, given the theological framework provided. The options post-Genesis 3 were either "live in eternal suffering" or "die." Obviously, the plan of God culminating in Christ is a third option- "live eternally having been made whole once more." In funeral services, we thank God that for the deceased "death is past, pain is ended." While physical death retains its tragedy, the temporary peace and permanent resurrection gives hope.

Thus I turn back to Sheer's explanation of spiritual death and concur- physical death cannot be the only explanation. And so I look elsewhere in the Pentateuch, and come to the closing chapters. Specifically, Deuteronomy 30 gives this definition of life and death:

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In this passage, I read that death and life are inextricably connected to a connection with God. And isn't that what evangelicalism has defined as hell- disconnection from God? Could that be the death, Biblically-defined, that Adam and Eve experienced right then and there? The symptom was immediately felt- shame and the desire to hide from God. Adam and Eve set physical and spiritual boundaries between them and God. Christ tore those down in His body on the cross.

One side note: I don't agree with Don B that God cant be in the presence of sin. God allowed lying spirits in the throne room of heaven (Job and 1 Kings 22). Jesus lived in the presence of sin for decades. I would revise to say that God can't be in the presence of sin without something changing, and thank God it is that when God draws near, sin is taken away.

Don,
I'm going to have to yield and say that what you have brought up contains, in my opinion, so many nuanced tangents that anything I write beyond what I have written already would be speculative, and stretching credulity to it's limits.

As I said, I'm still investigating this which is the reconciliation of physical evidence to prime source historical evidence with regards to scriptural statements.

In short, and at least in my opinion, it would have been considerate of G-d to have included a materials and methods, along with results, and a discussion of the results in the bible.
Alas, I'm afraid all we got was the abbreviated abstract so I'm stuck investigating with what is written; And furthermore, what exactly do some of the terms actually mean as far as how we understand the world today?

Unfortunately for me...some of this is just so mind-boggling odd that it begs further review, and so I dig further into the literature (read: Science papers, Archeological papers, and historical papers)...and after all that...I start to worry...have I missed seeing the forest for the trees?

Which is why I am stopping at this juncture...I have so many questions, few answers, and those few answers beg so many more questions that I just want to ground what I have first before I go any further.

I guess this is me saying I have reached my limit of what I can safely discuss with the confidence of competency.

Anonymous,

With regard to Jesus referring to Genesis "literally," I suggest this doesn't necessarily imply what you think it does. Consider this example: in teaching a child the value of persistence even if he was slow, could I not point to Aesop's fable of the Rabbit and the Tortoise and ask the child, "What did the tortoise do? Which animal won the race?" I would be treating the text literally in a way, but no one would understand me as teaching that the story referred to historically true events. I am using real true elements in the story--rabbits and tortoises exist and have the characteristics of speed and slowness respectively--but nevertheless everyone understands this is a "fable" to make a point. Nevertheless, the moral of the story is true and is the real point of the entire narrative.

I'm not suggesting Jesus was necessarily using Genesis as a fable in this Aesop's sense, but neither does his use of this text in a literal way necessarily mean that all of its elements (e.g., 24-hour "days") are to be considered literally historically true in the modern scientific sense. The key is how did the community in which Genesis was written understand it? How did Jesus and the NT Christians and early Fathers integrate the meaning of the text with what they understood from the science of their day? This discussion really does revolve around the interpretation of Scripture. I think it is disrespectful and untrue ultimately to accuse someone who has a different interpretation of Scripture than I do of not believing the truth of what the Scripture teaches.

My own experience is that even when as a child I unquestioningly accepted evolution as the "how" of the development of species, etc., I never questioned that God created and was the Designer and Power behind it all. Now as an adult Christian, I certainly don't accept the premise of the philosophy of Naturalism that underlies the Theory of Evolution, but I do give serious weight to the understanding of believing scientists like Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God, who sees clear evidence in human DNA for evolutionary change such as is described by the Theory. I don't find that folks like Ken Hamm and the folks at the Creation Research Institute engage credibly with such Christians, who are scientists. Rather, I find Hamm to be a little too much like the caricature portrayed in one of Sheerahkhan's earlier comments and, in the final analysis, to generate a lot more heat than light on the subject.

It seems to me the length of this thread means that this issue isn't going to be resolved anytime soon, though. I think that will be true as long as modern Christians remain under the impression that the only way to approach the Scriptures is from a modern historical-critical interpretive method and as long as they tend to remain ignorant of much of the traditional understanding and interpretation of Scripture bequeathed to us by the same Fathers of the Church who bequeathed us the canon of the Scriptures itself.

In that respect, I appreciate the contributor above who alluded to Augustine's non-literal understanding of the "days" in the Genesis account. If we had more respect for and understanding of the interpretive methods of our esteemed forebears in the faith, I don't think we'd be in this apparent standoff between "science" and "faith" in the first place. Rather, this false dichotomy is the distinct inheritance of the mindset and presuppositions about the nature of truth and of the truth of the Scriptures that have developed only in very recent times.

You have to realize that Darwin became a Christian and renounced his own theory! God created all things even dinosaurs, read....ever seen leviathan mentioned in Job? Here's your sign!

evolution is the adaptation of animals, fish, etc to their surroundings, they have to adapt in a new environment when it's hostile.