Although it is difficult to place all believers into one category, concerning how one understands how all things began, we all believe God began the process. Having said that, if one doesn’t accept the Theory of Evolution as fact, these believers are labeled fundamentalists, who are dubbed irrational literalists by many atheists. However, I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist, but I do believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, and (excluding copy errors) is inerrant. Having admitted this, I’m sure many readers would label me an irrational literalist. However, I believe the Bible is written in many forms of speech, including hyperbole, poetry, metaphor and so forth. None of these literary forms could be taken literally. So, how should I be defined, or into which category should I be placed?
I don’t know, and I suspect neither does my critic, although he may want to try. I simply believe the Bible, and the words are there in our modern bibles and in our most ancient ones. Thus, I can’t change the words, but I can change my opinion about their meaning. For example, I used to believe Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 referred to the same point in time, but I changed my opinion about that, because I’ve come to realize that John 1:1 points to the new, spiritual creation, not the old physical one. The words are the same today in our modern Bibles, as they were in our most ancient works, but the meanings of those words and some phrases sometimes change with growth of understanding.
On the other hand, science changes what it believes to be true, and makes many claims it cannot prove. For example, the Theory of Evolution, as it is understood today is far different from what Darwin claimed it was. As scientists grew in understanding about biology, they changed words; they changed the time it would take for one thing to morph into another; they changed how old they thought the universe is, and many today suspect those billions of years will increase to more billions of years. No one in the field of biological science is locked into a book that has already been written (e.g. The Origen of the Species or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life; by Charles Darwin M.A.), concerning which they’re trying to come to a logical understanding. No one, today, believes Darwin was correct, but in his day, one was considered ignorant and unscientific, if one didn’t accept his theory as factual.
So, which is it? Does life proceed from the simple to the complex (scientific faith), or is the complexity needed from the very beginning (religious faith)? What is faith, by the way? According to the Bible, faith is the evidence of things not seen. Has anyone ever witnessed the scientific model? The answer is no. No one has ever seen one life form morphing into a different and perhaps higher lifeform. The evolutionary tree of all life forms is conjecture, or perhaps we may call it conviction among most scientists and their pupils. Many have no real opinion on the matter. Nevertheless, many religious folks fall into one of two categories, vis-à-vis either conjecture in favor of evolution or conviction that embraces the worldview that God is the Creator of it all.
Who is correct about our beginning and what proceeded from it, and where’s the evidence? In as much as I can tell, by using the scientific method, which is supposed to prove or disprove an hypothesis, science hasn’t proved its case, even though they’ve changed the words and the books, including their expectations about how things should work—everything has changed but their conviction that the original hypothesis is true. One has to wonder, if very little of what Darwin claimed to be true is still held in its original esteem, when will science admit to its error? When will its brilliant biological scientists be of a general consensus that only complex life forms produce similar complex life forms, and only simple life forms produce comparable simple life forms. On the other hand, creationists have the same book, the same words (different translations, but the same Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek wording). What has changed is the depth of our understanding of what we’ve always trusted to be true about God and what he has done.
Smoodock's Blog 
4 responses to “Science and Religion, What Has Changed?”
Greetings Eddie! I think once we stop trying to apply our concepts of time to a literal intrepretation of scripture the conflict relaxes in my opinion. For example, if we consider that the ‘day’ in Genesis 1 may not be literal, then we unbind ourselves from the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old, as I was taught as a child. I am confortable with the concept of the world being billions of years old, but I am also confident in God’s role in creation.
I’m confortable with the concept that the Genesis creation story is not to be taken literally, but paints a picture for us of God being in absolute control of the entire process. Just my 2 cents, which are not worth much in the scheme of things!
God Bless
Dave
Greetings Dave, thanks for your comment. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Lord bless you.
By the end of November, I will have begun posting my studies on Genesis. It will take nearly a year (approx. 9-10 months) to post at 6 studies per week. I take a different view than you do on creation, but that’s okay. Differences inspire discussion and discussion leads to truth, or at least a better understanding of the truth. Anyway, that’s the way it is supposed to work. Lately, however, I’ve been having discussions with family members about the recent election, and those discussions are going nowhere! :-)
I think of you often, when I’m involved in replying to others’ comments. I also think of the time you were in Pa. I wish I had more youthful energy, I would have liked to have made the trip to Penn State area (if memory serves) to meet you in person. The years have taken some of that energy and physical confidence away. Lord bless you, my friend.
Thanks Eddie. I did go your way and visited the Hershey AACA museum and even had a one on one personal tour. That was an experience!
I am looking forward to your studies on Genesis! As always I am grateful for the labor you invest in these studies even if we don’t always agree!
I don’t know why I thought it was out near Penn State University. Hershey is a lot closer, perhaps, half the distance. I should have gone to see you then. I don’t know why I was so afraid. I try to avoid long trips anymore, but Hershey doesn’t seem so far to me. Sorry I missed you.
On the subject of discussion, I love differences because I learn more. This idea of everything has to be the same is completely wrong, in my opinion. For me denominations represent a journey away from accepting brethren as they are. Folks are too afraid to differ, and are pressured into a mold made by (perhaps) sincere folk who don’t want to talk about the word of God. They want to preach it, but they don’t want to admit they could be wrong about something.
I’ve changed many of my studies over the years, because I learned I was wrong about something. If the study wasn’t salvageable, according to what I learned, I took it off the web. –Difference– is important for growth. –Sameness — is settling for half truths. Anyway, that is what experience has taught me. Maybe, I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before, even about important stuff. :-)
Lord bless you, Dave.