The answer, of course, is both.
The BioLogos forum has a most interesting discussion of that question, which relates to origins. It’s well worth reading. This relates to the writings of Ian Barbour on possible relationships between Christianity and science.
Read the BioLogos Forum.
Musings on science, the Bible, and fantastic literature (and sometimes basketball and other stuff).
God speaks to us through the Bible and the findings of science, and we should listen to both types of revelation.
The title is from Psalm 84:11.
The Wikipedia is usually a pretty good reference. I mostly use the World English Bible (WEB), because it is public domain. I am grateful.
License
I have written an e-book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, which is free to anyone. To download that book, in several formats, go here.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
2 comments:
I see two issues with the topic as discussed on BioLogos …
It doesn't REALLY address or give an answer to the question.
I understand the perspective of the website/forum is to be as neutral as possible in respect to science, but the definitive Christian answer I would think is … both with an explanation.
The explanation, I suppose, is that God breathed the breathe of life not only into the living creatures and plants, but into the earth's soil, sea, and air. His "hands" touched it and formed it from a void. Being that we have yet to find a planet like this (not necessarily precluding another one) we can conclude that the description given to us about this Earth and about this particular solar system, is accurate and unique as told in Genesis, and was a special intervention.
I saw a recent PBS special about how the Himalayan and Andes mountain ranges may have far greater impact on precipitation, weather, and temperatures than scientists have assigned condensation, evaporation, and even pollution, global warming, and altered landscapes. The show, in several instances, said of the weather patterns over these mountain ranges, "seem to be living systems".
The forum post also says young earth creationism is a few decades old.
It's actually the other way around.
Modern geology and scientific theory brought the "millions and billions" into the mix.
I've read old textbooks from the 1800's and they taught the earth was only a few thousand years old … possibly up to 10,000 years old. In fact, older textbooks even teach the creation story and mix it with geology - much like creationism today.
Although a very weak argument, the song Amazing Grace (published in 1779) even has the line, "When we've been here, 10,000 years …"
Thank you for linking to the topic … it was an interesting discussion.
Both, with an explanation, pretty much tells it the way it is.
Thanks.
Post a Comment