Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[Pelerin]

Percentage of what?

[Ken]

As an ex-atheist I had to come to terms with what "Science" actually is. True science has past three tests. It has to be observable, repeatable and testable in order to be accepted as fact.

When I realized that nothing about evolution meets the requirements of fact my world began to crumble. I realized that evolution is in fact only a theory. Theories take a level of faith to believe.

I think you are mis-stating the meaning of the term “scientific theory”. A scientific theory simply unites and provides a scientific explanation for seemingly unrelated facts or observations. Newton’s theory of universal gravitation provided a uniform explanation seemingly unrelated phenomenon such as why apples fall from the tree, why tides rise and fall, why we have four seasons, and why the moon orbits the earth and the earth orbits the sun. We still don’t know exactly how gravity works. But Newton’s theory holds great explanatory power.

Evolution is nothing more than an explanation for how change happens in the biological world. It explains, for example, why sharks, penguins, and dolphins all have similar shapes underwater even though they are unrelated species. It explains how more virulent strains of Covid such as the Delta Variant out-compete and replace other less virulent strains. It explains how we can create hundreds of varieties of dogs from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane from wolf ancestors, and how nature can create hundreds of varieties of beetles. As for being observable, testable, and repeatable? Evolution is all of those things as well. 19th Century biologists like Darwin had no knowledge of 21st Century genetics and constructed evolutionary relationships (cladograms) from the fossil record and morphological observations. 21st Century biologists are able to now test and verify all of those relationships using modern DNA sequencing. That a fox is more closely related to a coyote than it is to a ferret or prairie dog, for example.

Evolution is one of the most observed, tested, and repeated theories in all of science. And I’m always somewhat confused with people tell me they don’t believe in evolution. Do you disbelieve every bit of evolutionary science? Or only those parts that conflict with the Genesis narratives? Evolution is far more than just an explanation for the origin of life on earth. It is something that is constantly happening all around us in every niche and corner of the globe at every moment of the day.

[Ken]

Percentage of what?

The figure was linked back to the BioLogos site from a Slate article but apparently they restructured their site so it was a broken link and I couldn’t find the original survey to see what survey population was. Whether it was self-identified Christians, or just a random sampling of the general population. I suspect the latter but don’t know for certain. BioLogos has hundreds of articles on their site about evolution and creationism but I couldn’t find this exact opinion survey.

[Sudsy]

I haven't met anyone yet who takes everything that Jesus said literally. When challenged there is always some explanation of what literally was intended by what we literally read. For one example, did Jesus mean we literally must hate our family to be one of His followers ? Instead of literally taking what Jesus recorded as saying I believe we need to take seriously what Jesus said and attempt to get His point(s) when, for instance, He might have used hyperbole language.

In Mathew 6, when He said we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, some disciples turned away from continuing to follow Him.

Just thinking, we might want to discuss those texts where it may not appear realistic and/or could be wrong to take some of what Jesus said in a literal way and consider what He was getting at. Yes/No ?

[Pelerin]

Percentage of what?

The figure was linked back to the BioLogos site from a Slate article but apparently they restructured their site so it was a broken link and I couldn’t find the original survey to see what survey population was. Whether it was self-identified Christians, or just a random sampling of the general population. I suspect the latter but don’t know for certain. BioLogos has hundreds of articles on their site about evolution and creationism but I couldn’t find this exact opinion survey.

Some of the figures seemed pretty low for a survey of Christians, but some of the others would be surprisingly high for a survey of the general population.

Who are the 5% who believe humans came into existence within the last 10,000 years, but don’t believe the Bible is literally word-for-word true, I wonder? Muslims maybe?

[Soloist]

I haven't met anyone yet who takes everything that Jesus said literally. When challenged there is always some explanation of what literally was intended by what we literally read. For one example, did Jesus mean we literally must hate our family to be one of His followers ? Instead of literally taking what Jesus recorded as saying I believe we need to take seriously what Jesus said and attempt to get His point(s) when, for instance, He might have used hyperbole language.

In Mathew 6, when He said we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, some disciples turned away from continuing to follow Him.

Just thinking, we might want to discuss those texts where it may not appear realistic and/or could be wrong to take some of what Jesus said in a literal way and consider what He was getting at. Yes/No ?

The passage you reference, Jesus explains to His followers what He was meaning.

I like this article, written by a Christian scientist to open the doors for talking to other scientists about Jesus:

Is Jesus Greater Than Anti-Evolutionism?

Nothing there is a science based, that argument is emotional, perhaps slightly logical based but not scientific.
This is specifically against anti-evolution and really has nothing to do with witnessing about Jesus from science.

Here, the gospel’s prophetic voice in science is most clear. Our world sees
science as the most trusted source of truth. In this scientific world, scientific
arguments are esteemed above all others. But what can science say about the
Resurrection? What can science say about God? What can science say of the
darkness in this world? What can science say of our destiny? No experiment
can guide us here. Science is silent on these most important questions. All
my scientific training is meaningless. All my scientific arguments are
shifting. All my scientific evidence is fading. All my wise and persuasive
words are inadequate. Thus, at the cross, my idolatry of science comes to die.
As science fades away, I am left with an effortless, proper confidence. I am
brought back to the same gospel that my mother shared with me as a toddler.
I see Jesus, and He silences my doubt.

I liked this though.


I think that deism is far more wide spread then perhaps some of you would be willing to admit. His argument is perfectly compatible with it.

[Wayne in Maine]

I haven't met anyone yet who takes everything that Jesus said literally. When challenged there is always some explanation of what literally was intended by what we literally read. For one example, did Jesus mean we literally must hate our family to be one of His followers ? Instead of literally taking what Jesus recorded as saying I believe we need to take seriously what Jesus said and attempt to get His point(s) when, for instance, He might have used hyperbole language.

In Mathew 6, when He said we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood, some disciples turned away from continuing to follow Him.

Just thinking, we might want to discuss those texts where it may not appear realistic and/or could be wrong to take some of what Jesus said in a literal way and consider what He was getting at. Yes/No ?

The passage you reference, Jesus explains to His followers what He was meaning.

I like this article, written by a Christian scientist to open the doors for talking to other scientists about Jesus:

Is Jesus Greater Than Anti-Evolutionism?

Nothing there is a science based, that argument is emotional, perhaps slightly logical based but not scientific.
This is specifically against anti-evolution and really has nothing to do with witnessing about Jesus from science.

Here, the gospel’s prophetic voice in science is most clear. Our world sees
science as the most trusted source of truth. In this scientific world, scientific
arguments are esteemed above all others. But what can science say about the
Resurrection? What can science say about God? What can science say of the
darkness in this world? What can science say of our destiny? No experiment
can guide us here. Science is silent on these most important questions. All
my scientific training is meaningless. All my scientific arguments are
shifting. All my scientific evidence is fading. All my wise and persuasive
words are inadequate. Thus, at the cross, my idolatry of science comes to die.
As science fades away, I am left with an effortless, proper confidence. I am
brought back to the same gospel that my mother shared with me as a toddler.
I see Jesus, and He silences my doubt.

I liked this though.


I think that deism is far more wide spread then perhaps some of you would be willing to admit. His argument is perfectly compatible with it.

“Scientific Creationists” such as Ken Ham try to prove scientifically that the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are scientifically accurate, including the dates when these were supposed to occur. They do this to validate the scientific accuracy and thus the veracity of the “literal” Bible and thus of Jesus and their “Gospel” (which doesn’t take the words of Jesus literally).

I appreciate the perspective of spreading the Good News of the Kingdom by first letting God’s historic evidence of the resurrection establish the veracity of the Word of God made
Flesh, then letting the theological dilemmas of the Old Testament be sorted out as the new follower of Jesus grows.

Another important point - do you believe that the Holy Spirit can be vitally active in changing a believers’ heart even if the do not accept the Genesis account?

[Soloist]

[
“Scientific Creationists” such as Ken Ham try to prove scientifically that the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood are scientifically accurate, including the dates when these were supposed to occur. They do this to validate the scientific accuracy and thus the veracity of the “literal” Bible and thus of Jesus and their “Gospel” (which doesn’t take the words of Jesus literally).

I appreciate the perspective of spreading the Good News of the Kingdom by first letting God’s historic evidence of the resurrection establish the veracity of the Word of God made
Flesh, then letting the theological dilemmas of the Old Testament be sorted out as the new follower of Jesus grows.

I see no reason to worry about proving it, but some of their data is useful. Generally speaking, I find the "acts and facts" magazine they send out to be awful. Most of it is heavily skewed and I question some of their findings being as significant as they claim.

Historical evidence? what evidence? There is the Bible obviously, there were two or three Roman writers who mentioned Jesus, a Jewish writer, and then nothing other then a group of crazy people who claimed the God who was killed, also rose from the grave. How is this actually historical evidence?

There is no proof of the resurrection actually occurring. I clearly believe it did, but the proof of a global flood is stronger from historical standpoint.

Another important point - do you believe that the Holy Spirit can be vitally active in changing a believers’ heart even if the do not accept the Genesis account?

Sure I do, just like I believe a Mormon could be saved and a Muslim could be saved. Neither of them can remain as they are and still be in the Kingdom of God. The new Christian or old who rejects Genesis is at risk of rejecting more as they already are picking and choosing what to believe.

A prime example, Why is the book of Enoch not cannon? What about the Maccabee's? Tobit? If the Scripture doesn't mean what it says, then you can interpret it as you please. What if Jesus's words were meant only for the Jews? What if the stories of raising people from the dead were just meant to inspire? Some Christian books I've read clearly exaggerate some stuff. Why not the Bible? it already has stories that aren't true or were simplified for our uneducated ancestors and we know better.

[MaxPC]

Percentage of what?

The figure was linked back to the BioLogos site from a Slate article but apparently they restructured their site so it was a broken link and I couldn’t find the original survey to see what survey population was. Whether it was self-identified Christians, or just a random sampling of the general population. I suspect the latter but don’t know for certain. BioLogos has hundreds of articles on their site about evolution and creationism but I couldn’t find this exact opinion survey.

Some of the figures seemed pretty low for a survey of Christians, but some of the others would be surprisingly high for a survey of the general population.

Who are the 5% who believe humans came into existence within the last 10,000 years, but don’t believe the Bible is literally word-for-word true, I wonder? Muslims maybe?

Good points, Pelerin. Graphs posted without a link to the original document ends up being a straw man (straw poll?). It is required in scholastic circles that if a graph or quote is cited on electronic media, the original source must be cited per academic guidelines, in this case a link to the original study. This permits others in the discussion to examine the original conditions under which the data was collected. Otherwise the graph or quote is considered invalid. With the number of highly educated people on this forum, it would seem that this requirement would be second nature to avoid fraudulent claims during an informed discussion.

[JimFoxvog]

What argument would be raised in support of Christianity from science? How would you convince someone that the resurrection of the dead is true? The coming judgement, and why Christianity is right in contrast to any other religion, and not just another philosophy? Seems to me that using secular science as a litmus test for the Bible won't go well, as the very foundation of Christianity is based on something scientifically impossible (the resurrection of Christ).

Is it scientifically impossible? Or is it simply not something that current science has the capacity to explain or understand? There is a difference. My iPhone would have seemed utterly miraculous 2000 years ago.

Miracles are things that are scientifically impossible without some being acting, or possibly some sort of inanimate outside force. Maybe they don't prove a god, but could be acts of some scientifically advanced aliens instead. Science says what happens in a closed system, not what happens when there are other unknown factors. Anomalies point to the need to search for that unknown factor.