Faith & Science.
It’s amazing what happens when you integrate the spiritual and rational.
I mean you do have to give up some literal interpretations. But you have to do that with Revelation, Job, Isaiah, Songs, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes, to name a few.
I’m not sure what the problem is with adding Genesis to the mix* for a non-literal reading.
* I do believe in a literal creation. And don’t think we’re descended from apes. Although I do believe in evolution. Think the Earth is way older than 6,000 years. Took more than 7 days to create. And am an avid believer in string theory.
mike
Thursday, 5. April 2007 um 12:54 am Uhr
i would be interested to hear how it is you think that we didn’t evolve from apes, but yet believe in evolution. advances in the studies of genetics kind of point in that direction. but i am not a scientist, or a theologian so i just kind of spoke out of turn.
personally i have no problem with us coming from apes. it just seems to fit you know?
it is weird to me that literal has to mean “wooden literal” i was taught that literal meant that we read it according to its literary genre. so poetry is poetry, narative is narative etc. if you take this approach (which i think you are here?) then there shouldn’t be a problem with reading gen. as epic-myth-narative (which includes lots of poetic and metaphorical stuff).
this isn’t a critique of your comments at all. i am just struck by how differently folks take that word.
anyway, like i said i would be interested to see how you believe in evolution but not the evolution of humans from apes. is it a scientific reason? – you don’t believe the science. or a essential reason? – the ramifications of believing we descended from apes.
John Page
Thursday, 5. April 2007 um 1:08 pm Uhr
Dr. Collins’ book on the Language of God is a fascinating read…and speaks to some of this discussion.
Nicholas
Thursday, 5. April 2007 um 2:26 pm Uhr
How do you mean that you believe in ‘Literal Creation”, but not 7 days?
Nicholas
Thursday, 5. April 2007 um 2:26 pm Uhr
And evolution, but not apes?
john Q
Thursday, 5. April 2007 um 5:14 pm Uhr
everybody assumes that by evolution it means men come from apes. not so. it is a very broad definition saying things change and adapt with time, as proven by several species of birds on different islands and such. interested to see where all you are going with this.
Nicholas
Friday, 6. April 2007 um 3:50 pm Uhr
Josh. . answers?
mike
Saturday, 7. April 2007 um 1:59 am Uhr
“everybody assumes that by evolution it means men come from apes. not so. it is a very broad definition saying things change and adapt with time”
hmm. when i studied anthropology this definition of evolution was laughed at.
i think the only folks who limit evolution in this way are christians.
David
Sunday, 8. April 2007 um 5:34 pm Uhr
The biggest problem that I have with evolution is the huge lack of evidence in the fossil record. Nothing found in the fossil record points to macro-evolution.
Faith & Science (part one) | iamjoshbrown.com
Thursday, 19. April 2007 um 8:00 am Uhr
[...] few weeks ago I referenced an article by a scientist discussing his relationship with God and the resolving of the tension between these seemingly [...]