Science and the Sacred

Science and the Sacred


Evolution and the Imago Dei

posted by fcollins
bible_DNA.jpg

Genesis 1:26-27 reads: “Then God said, `Let us make man in our image,
in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the
birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all
the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created them.”

Immediately
after Darwin published “The Origin of Species” in 1859, the
consequences for human origins, biblical interpretation and people’s
relationship with God were apparent. The potential disparity between
this Genesis creation story and Darwin’s theory leads people to assume
the church at the time felt threatened and opposed evolution. But many
church leaders in the late 19th century actually embraced Darwin’s
theory as insight to the means by which God created the world. As just
one example, the conservative Christian theologian B. B. Warfield
wrote,”I am free to say, for myself, that I do not think that there is
any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of
creation, either as given in Gen. I & II or elsewhere alluded to,
that need be opposed to evolution.”

The
idea that humans might be related to the great apes was not universally
well received, however. The wife of the Bishop of Worcester, England, upon
hearing this news, reportedly responded with some alarm. “Descended
from the apes? My dear, let us hope that it is not true,” she said.
“But if it is, let us pray that it will not become widely known.”

Now
150 years later, we still seem to be fighting this battle. A recent
Gallup poll indicates that 44 percent of people in the United States
believe God created humans in their present form fewer than 10,000
years ago. The Washington Post
writer Kathleen Parker points out one of the serious consequences of
this situation in her recent column. “The problem of not believing in
evolution as one might not believe in, say, goblins or flying pigs has
repercussions beyond the obvious — that the United States will
continue to fall behind other nations in science education,” she writes.

The study of DNA — the hereditary material — has enabled the study of
human origins to achieve a level of detail Darwin never could have
imagined. The decoding of the entire DNA sequence of humans — the Human
Genome Project, which I had the privilege of leading — along with the
genomes of dozens of other vertebrates has been a rigorous test of
whether the data actually fits a model of evolution from a common
ancestor. And the evidence is overwhelming. Although some people might
still argue that DNA similarities do not prove common ancestry — after
all, God might have chosen to use the same DNA motifs for animals of
anatomic similarity — the details of the analysis make that conclusion
no longer tenable.

Most mammals, for example, do not need dietary sources of vitamin C
because they can make their own using an enzyme encoded in their
genomes. But primates, including humans, require vitamin C in their
diet, or they will suffer a disease called scurvy. What happened here?
Well, if you search through the human genome, you will find a
degenerated copy of the gene for this vitamin C synthesizing enzyme.
But it has sustained a knockout blow, losing more than half of its
coding sequence. A claim that the human genome was created by God
independently rather than being part of descent from a common ancestor
would mean God intentionally inserted a nonfunctioning piece of DNA
into our genomes to test our faith. Unless you are willing to
contemplate the idea of God as a deceiver, this is not a comfortable
explanation.

This past week I attended a meeting about the human genome at Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. I heard many astounding
presentations on comparisons of our own genome to that of other species
– all consistent in exquisite detail with an evolutionary explanation.
A particularly interesting paper described the latest findings on
Neanderthals, whose DNA sequence is being painstakingly pieced together
from several 30,000-year-old bones of different individuals. The DNA
similarity to Homo sapiens is striking; but the evidence is most consistent with a separation of humans and Neanderthals nearly 500,000 years ago.

One particular finding about genetic variation caught the audience’s
attention immediately. To explain this discovery, it’s first important
to know that we humans are a lot alike at the DNA level. But if you
compared your DNA sequence to mine, about one of every 1,000 letters of
the code would be different. Most of these differences are common in
the human population and fall in parts of the genome that tolerate
variation. Therefore, those differences don’t seem to have much effect.
But they are interesting reflections of our history. So here’s the new
information: about one-third of those exact same variations are also
found in Neanderthals. That means a precise location of the human
genome where some individuals have the letter A and others have the
letter G will often show that same exact variation in DNA from
Neanderthal bones. That does not imply there was interbreeding between
humans and Neanderthals in Europe 30,000 years ago — so far, there is
no DNA evidence to support that. Instead, this new discovery points
unequivocally to a population of common ancestors of both humans and
Neanderthals with these exact genetic variations living more than
500,000 years ago.

Why
do so many people find it difficult to accept these conclusions? First
of all, there is the general problem that evolution is somewhat
counterintuitive. Our own human experience does not easily accommodate
the vast intervals of time necessary for natural selection to produce
the marvelous diversity of living things we see all around us. For
believers, there is the additional problem of fitting together the
concept of the creator God and the imago Dei, or
image of God, with the words of Scripture and a process that seems so
random. But does this struggle need to exist? Suppose God chose to use
the mechanism of evolution to create animals like us, knowing this
process would lead to big-brained creatures with the capacity to think,
ask questions about our own origins, discover the truth about the
universe and discover pointers toward the One who provides meaning to
life. Who are we to say that’s not how we would have done it? If you
believe that God is the creator, how could the truths about nature we
discover through science be a threat to God? For many scientists who
believe in God — including me — it’s just the opposite. Everything we
learn about the natural world only increases our awe of the God the
creator.

Yet many evangelical churches continue to fear the whole fabric of
faith will be torn apart if the words of Genesis 1 and 2 are not taken
literally. It surprises many to learn this ultraliteral interpretation
was not considered necessary by many profoundly dedicated believers
long before Darwin arrived on the scene. In A.D. 400, St. Augustine
wrote no fewer than four books about the interpretation of Genesis,
ultimately concluding it was not possible to arrive at a confident view
of how creation occurred. In words that presciently warn against the
current conflict, he writes, “In matters that are so obscure and far
beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be
interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we
have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so
firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the
search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”

I
urge us all to step back from the conflict and look soberly at the
truth of both of God’s books: the book of God’s words and the book of
God’s works. As people dedicated to truth, let us resolve to move
beyond a theology of defensiveness to a theology that celebrates God’s
goodness and creative power.

For answers to the most frequently asked questions about science and
faith, see http://www.biologos.org.


Dr. Francis S. Collins is former director of the Human Genome Project
and founder and president of The BioLogos Foundation. 

Share
|





Advertisement
Comments read comments(18)
post a comment
DML

posted May 11, 2009 at 11:23 am


I agree that the a literal fundamentalist interpretation of scripture can not be defended. We have made so much progress in understanding human evolution and prehistoric history through a variety of sequencing efforts (HapMap, mtDNA and Y STR analysis).
The creation stories in Genesis need to be interpreted differently, that much is clear. It is not as simple as resorting to a figurative interpretation of this text though. We need to look at scripture though a scientific lens just as much as we let science guide or understanding of biology. The creation stories are best understood in light of their political intent in the history of Israel/Judah during the times of the Assyrian invasion. A scholarly approach such as that taken in Israel Finkelstein’s “The Bible Unearthed” is the best approach. We also shouldn’t put Christianity up on a pedestal in this approach also. Creation stories abound in other cultures that we should also examine if we want to be honest to the BioLogos effort.
Clearly, the creation and genealogical information in the Hebrew Bible is inaccurate, although it was fully intended to be read literally. Examination of mtDNA and Y STR/SNPs makes this very clear (the out of Africa hypothesis for instance, polyphyletic makeup of the Hebrews, etc.). So keeping the open mind of scientist in terms of biology and religion will be very important to get both sides of the religion/science story straight.
If we want to develop the idea of theistic evolution, perhaps we need to put Christianity aside to understand the nature of a Creator god that set up the universe, then perhaps stepped aside to let reality play out according to natural rules.



report abuse
 

Kathryn Applegate

posted May 11, 2009 at 11:41 am


I’m not familiar with Finkelstein’s approach, but I find Meredith Kline’s framework hypothesis to be very satisfactory. Here we have a literary framework of two triads of days, wherein days 1-3 establish the “kingdoms,” and days 4-6 the “kings” which fill them. This view, for example, nicely solves the problem of having light and dark on the first day without having a sun until the fourth, something that troubled early theologians who attempted a literal reading. It also takes into account certain socio-political issues like ancient near-Eastern worship of the sun, moon, and stars; Moses makes God the central player in Genesis 1 and mentions the creation of the heavenly bodies almost as an afterthought.
C.S. Lewis, like Warfield, also found theistic evolution to be consistent with Scripture. He wrote several brilliant pieces about evolution and the interpretation of Scripture, which indicate we should regard Genesis as a *true* myth. (Myth in this sense is an explanatory story of origins, not the opposite of fact, as it is commonly used today.)
Thanks for this great post today, Francis!



report abuse
 

DML

posted May 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm


Kathryn,
Israel Finkelstein’s approach (he is primarily an archeologist) develops the idea that the two stories of creation (and other repeated items in the Pentateuch/Torah) are reflected in the details of the Documentary Hypothesis. He argues that a political objective of the Deuteronomist and King Josiah (Moses did not write the Torah) was to merge the distinctive histories of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel together into a single unified story. Pushing together a pantheon of Gods (Elohim) and the single God YWHW into a single account was a way to accomodate the religious beliefs of the refugees from the north in Israel (while thoroughly discrediting their kings like Ahab and Omri) with those of the tribe of Judah in the south during the Assyrian assault on Israel.
As such, the creation stories provide very interesting political and historical information, but I don’t think that they have a prominent place in models for theistic evolution which I still think may hold some truth.



report abuse
 

Beaglelady

posted May 11, 2009 at 8:49 pm


Another great post– thanks very much.
For me, evolution is simply reality, and what kind of God would ask us to ignore reality? If God is deceiving us with a falsified natural world, it wouldn’t be worthwhile to study anything at all.
Also, if God was willing to humbled Himself and became a human, we should not arrogantly deny our humble animal ancestry.



report abuse
 

MH

posted May 11, 2009 at 9:40 pm


I think evolution is compatible with the concept of god, but it says something about the kind of god that would employ it. First it ramps up the problem of evil because suffering is inherent in how evolution creates new life. Second, many negative human traits are a consequence of our evolving in a world which was far from paradise. So they’re our evolutionary legacy rather than a consequence of human choice.



report abuse
 

Albert the Abstainer

posted May 11, 2009 at 11:42 pm


Why not think of God as the ground of being, that which is the central and virtual quality that binds all things together, and out of which the expression — the physical universe, is a natural extension.
Religious narrative can be compelling, beautiful and meaningful, just as art is. To take the power of religious narrative and contort it to fit a scientific narrative is a disservice to both religion and science. The inverse is equally true. If I analyze a Mahler symphony scientifically I may learn something of the affect of certain patterns of sound on people, but if I am played by that symphony, the states which I experience through it are powerful and profound.
Science can show correlation, and it can have an elegance and aesthetic. It is, however, no substitute for direct experience. No matter how elegant the explanation, a rational thesis on love is as straw to the experience of being in love.
Hence while religion and science can add to each other, there are provinces where neither is a substitute for the other. This is a valuable lesson.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 12, 2009 at 10:10 am


I have three comments to make in reaction to this excellent post and the thoughtful reflections based on it:
(1) I am thankful to be a graduate of a college where there was no conflict between the best that the Academy has to offer and the best that the Christian faith has to offer. It is clear from general observation that this concept is not embraced everywhere!
(2) I am also glad to be a part of a denominational family where a variety of scientific viewpoints on origins may be embraced by its membership, provided that God is acknowledged as the Creator and Sustainer of all–with full human freedom also accepted.
(3) I believe that it was Michael Polanyi who reminded us that all of our human attempts at understanding reality (however “objective” we may believe they are) are simply attempts at understanding and are thereby “mythic” in a general sense. This idea ought to keep all of us properly humble in our quest for truth.



report abuse
 

Scott Mapes

posted May 12, 2009 at 10:12 am


I am the writer of the post above. I did not intend to be anonymous!



report abuse
 

dopderbeck

posted May 12, 2009 at 12:54 pm


Dr. Collins,
Thank you for this post. I wonder, however, if you’re just a bit too sanguine about the theological implications of accepting this evidence for Evangelical theology. Given the apparent emphasis in Gen. 2 and in Romans 5 on the monogenetic origin of humanity, can traditional Evangelical views of scripture and of original sin and the “Fall” survive this evidence? I know that one of the BioLogos contributors, Dr. Giberson, says “no” in his book “Saving Darwin.” This is where, it seems to me, we desperately need Evangelical theologians to pay attention. Theologically, a historical “fall” of some sort, and the original sin of the first “human” couple, seems non-negotiable. Can you point to anyone who is trying to piece this together in a meaningful way?



report abuse
 

John Chase

posted May 12, 2009 at 4:17 pm


To add to dopderbeck’s post:
The problem I’ve heard with denying a literal Adam is that it may naturally lead to the denial of a literal Jesus, especially considering Romans 5, part of which reads, “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”
I just think your post, Dr. Collins, doesn’t address the Nonliteral Adam -> Nonliteral Jesus implication that’s as much at the heart of the debate as Imago Dei.
Please say more!



report abuse
 

SuzanneWA

posted May 15, 2009 at 9:33 am


I always go back to the DaVinci painting of God reaching down to touch the finger of Adam, thus imparting the “spirit” to Man, making him a sensient being. Before Adam, there were non-reasoning, “man-kind” sapians of all kinds, leading to homo sapians, which ultimately became the model for Adam and his ability to conjure up the realization that there was a God.
While I believe in both evolution AND Creation, I also believe that God “created” the Big Bang theory, whereby he created order out of chaos. God is BIGGER than our puny minds can imagine Him. The “Imago Dei” maintains that we are made in God’s image. Where does it say God has a body? Where does it say God is Spirit only?
Yes, there are, and always WILL be, questions about life on Earth, but isn’t the journey worth the destination?



report abuse
 

Sandra Schultz

posted May 15, 2009 at 2:58 pm


Faith is not faith unless it is subject to testing. If God were a certainty, there would be no need for faith. Why does God need faith? I assume it is because we are created in his image/likeness. Faith is a component of love. We need love. God needs love. Also, if the insertion of a non functioning piece of DNA is “deception”, then all of our world is “deception”, until God comes forward and reveals Himself in unmistakable terms to all of us.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 16, 2009 at 4:15 am


WHEN THE BIBLE DECLARES THAT JESUS WAS BORN BY THE VIRGIN MARY,HOW THEN COULD YOU CORRELLATE FAITH OUTSIDE THE DNA SCIENTIFIC STUDIES? BY FAITH,WE BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS SENT BY THE FATHER TO REDEEM MAN FROM THE SLAVERY OF SIN THAT BY HIS BLOOD WE ARE MADE CLEAN.WHEN IT COMES TO OUR SPIRITUAL WALK,I THINK THE DNA IS NO LONGER A SOLID GROUND TO BASE OUR CHRIST LIKE IMAGE.WHEN SCIENCE FAILS TO SATISFY AND FAIL TO GIVE US THE FULLEST KNOWLEDGE AND CONCLUSION OR GENERALIZATION OF AN UNKNOWN OR PHENOMENON,WE TEND TO FIND SOME ANSWERS BY THE DECLARATION OF AN OLD BOOK,THE BIBLE.SCIENCE AND BELIEFS ARE 2 SEPARATE SUBJECT,ONLY ONE TRUTH STANDS OUT AND THAT IS THERE IS A GOD WHO CREATED ALL THINGS,AND GOD IS TOTALLY IN CONTROL
AND RESPONSIBLE OF HIS CREATION,BESIDE THAT TRUTH,IT IS MAN’S ALL
IDEAS.



report abuse
 

Robert

posted May 16, 2009 at 8:19 am


Evangelical theology is suffering from its own limitations.
We are all witnessing its struggle to survive while holding to the ancient ideas of a “fall”, “original sin”, salvation, etc.
These handful of beliefs are the foundation of the church and the glue that holds them together and keeps Christians bound to those traditions.
As Suzanne pointed out – God can’t be understood with our “puny” minds. We’re dealing with the Infinite here right?
We humans have great difficulty seeing truth when we’re looking right at it as long as we’re holding on to our old beliefs.
The reason we have unanswered questions about God is because our belief system “box” isn’t large enough to contain the answers. Once those limitations are dissolved the answers will come – all of them.



report abuse
 

Robert Carstens Jr.

posted May 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm


Interesting article and comments. Perhaps the problem is not so much about “GOD creating Man in HIS own image” as it is that “Man is constantly trying to re-create GOD in the image of Man” limited to what Man can conceive of as possible and/or true.
In school I was taught that “Science is inquiry”. To “inquire” about someting you have to know of its existance; and enough about it to know what questions to ask. At the bottom of all Human knowledge are certain basic assumptions, ideas that are accepted ,on faith, as being “true” because they can be neither proved or disproved with present data — the validity of which, at some point, be taken on “faith”.
With the advance of technology, the means of collecting new data/types of data, many old assumptions are being changed or proven “false” in the light of new data. Our biggest assumption or “leap of faith” as it were, is that there are certain constants/unchanging laws governing our universe. This is the assumption that drives our technology and our search for knowledge and truth.
As a Christian I’ve been taught that GOD is omnipotent and omnicient, as the Creator of all,
existing both in and outside of all time, the Alpha and the Omega. Scientific and mathematical inquiry into the workings and history of the physical Universe, only increase my awe of the unfathomable Majesty of our LORD! Who is MAN that he should limit or judge the means of GODs creation? Who among all of humankind can grasp, in its absolute enerity, even one thing?
For those who would use “scientific” facts/proof against GOD, the LORD speaks in the book of Job chapter 38: 2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Whohath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone there of; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
The term ‘evoultion’ simply means change. All of life faces continuous change; seasons, climate, etc. Isn’t it marvelous that our Creator created a mechanism by which life can adapt to these changing conditions? Genesis as written by Moses was never intended to be a scientific tretesè or the creation of the world or man; how could it be? the language to do so didn’t/dosn’t even exist even if the necessary understanding did/does? language in and of itself is an imperfect means of communication (just read a good dictionary or thesarus and see!). Moses wrote what he did for the people and used the terms that they could understand and a history that would give them a community as a ‘people’ i.e. the ‘Hebrews’; there is no reason to believe that he tried to make it all inclusive; how could any man know, let alone write, every detail of all of history?
The Bible tells us about GOD. His love. His constancy. His forbearance. In it, we are given examples of these through early Jewish history as well as the life/death/ressurection of Jesus and of the early beginnings of the Christian church through the writings of the Apostles. To study the Bible can bring wisdom and understanding; if done with an open mind. In gospel of John 20:29 Jesus says …Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
In the end, there is no way that I can know the details of the Creation, I wasn’t there, and I wouldn’t have had the capacity needed for them, even if I was. As to what has happened since, there is no proof that can be made without first making some basic assumptions which themselves require a certain leap of faith. In the same way, nitpicking certain parts of the Bible, requiring absolute emperical evidence, may be interesting exercises in logic and stroke ones ego, but do little more than muddy the issue. As St Paul admonishes us in 1 Corinthians, the freedom to do a thing without sin, should not be done if in doing so it would cause someone else to come to harm.
I love science, and reading scientific speculation about how things work, what means GOD used in creating our universe and world. I love reading speculations (theories) about the history of our universe, planet, life on earth and evidence of life and human history that is dug out of the ground.
I am facinated by and led to wonder about many things that I can never know on this side of the grave. When I meet my LORD in the hereafter, perhaps I’ll ask.



report abuse
 

Robert Carstens Jr.

posted May 16, 2009 at 4:21 pm


My sincere apologies. After reviewing my previous Post I found that it contained several spelling and formatting errors that would make what I was trying to say unclear. I have discovered that “italics” don’t transfer, and the limited time allowed to type this “on line” has cost me my content several times. With these limitations in mind, I’ve re-written/formatted my original Post in an attempt to make my thoughts more clear.
Thank you for reading/considering my ideas.
Robert Carstens Jr.
———————————————————————————————
Interesting article and comments.
Perhaps the problem is not so much about “GOD creating Man in HIS own image”, as it is that “Man is constantly trying to re-create GOD in the image of Man” limited to what Man can conceive of as possible and/or true.
In school I was taught that “Science is inquiry”. To “inquire” about something you have to know of its existence; and enough about it to know what questions to ask.
At the bottom of all Human knowledge are certain basic assumptions, ideas that are accepted ,on faith, as being “true” because they can be neither proved or disproved with present data — the validity of which, at some point, be taken on “faith”.
With the advance of technology, the means of collecting new data/types of data, many old assumptions are being changed or proven “false” in the light of new data. Our biggest assumption or “leap of faith” as it were, is that there are certain constants/unchanging laws governing our universe. This is the assumption that drives our technology and our search for knowledge and truth. For example, electronics absolutely DEPENDS on this assumption.
As a Christian I’ve been taught that GOD is omnipotent and omniscient, the Creator of all;
existing both in and outside of all time, the Alpha and the Omega. Scientific and mathematical inquiry into the workings and history of the physical Universe, only increase my awe of the unfathomable Majesty of our LORD! Who is MAN that he should limit or judge the means of GOD or HIStircreation? Who among all of humankind can grasp, in its absolute entirety, even one thing or event?
For those who would use “scientific” facts/proof against GOD, the LORD speaks in the book of Job in chapter 38 vs 2, 4 thru 7: Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone there of; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
The term “evolution” simply means change. All of life faces continuous change; seasons, climate, etc. Isn’t it marvelous that our Creator created a mechanism by which life can adapt to these changing conditions?
Genesis, as written by Moses, was never intended to be a scientific treatise of the creation of the world; or of man. How could it be? the language to do so didn’t/doesn’t exist, even if the necessary understanding did/does? Language in and of itself, is an imperfect means of communication (just read a good dictionary or thesaurus and see!). Moses wrote what he did for the people, using terms that they could understand and a history that would give them a sense of community as a ‘people’ i.e. the ‘Hebrews’. There is no reason to believe that he tried to make it all inclusive; how could any man know, let alone write, every detail of all of history?
Does anyone know, at what point in his life that Moses wrote Genesis? Is the history from before his birth a compilation and editing of the oral histories of the Hebrews? Did it include things that he was taught as a prince of Egypt? Outside of a belief that Moses was inspired by GOD to write what he did, do we know anything about his sources?
The Bible teaches us about GOD. His love. His constancy. His forbearance. In it, we are given examples of these through early Jewish history as well as the life/death/resurrection of Jesus Christ; and of the early beginnings of the Christian church through the writings of the Apostles.
To study the Bible can bring wisdom and understanding; if done with an open mind. In gospel of John 20:29 Jesus says …Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
In the end, there is no way that I can know the details of the Creation, I wasn’t there, and I wouldn’t have had the capacity needed for them, even if I was. As to what has happened since, there is no proof that can be made without first making some basic assumptions which themselves require a certain leap of faith. In the same way, nitpicking certain parts of the Bible, requiring absolute empirical evidence, may be interesting exercises in logic and stroke ones ego, but do little more than muddy the issue. As St Paul admonishes us in 1 Corinthians, the freedom to do a thing without sin, should not be done, if in doing so it would cause someone else to come to harm.
I love science. Reading scientific speculation (theories) about how things work; possible means/ways GOD used in creating our universe and world. I love reading speculations (theories) about the history of our universe, planet, life on earth and the evidence of life and human history that is dug out of the ground. I also realize that theories are just that, speculation. Attempts to explain our existing data.
I am fascinated and led to wonder about many things that I can never know on this side of the grave. When I meet my LORD in the hereafter, perhaps I’ll ask.



report abuse
 

Robert Carstens Jr.

posted May 16, 2009 at 4:25 pm


I see I still haven’t figured out how to add “white space” between the lines that will transfer from WordPad!!
Robert Carstens Jr.



report abuse
 

John Gravel

posted May 18, 2009 at 7:37 am


I think it is important for us to understand the difference between understanding the real story behind the beginning of Genesis, and, alternatively, discounting any scriptures dealing with the miraculous, simply because we can not generate their repetition and we see them no where else today. The latter would be a serious error.
By this, I am not referring to the oft-adhered to confusion of epeleptics and those possessed by demons, but more greatly with miracles altogether. Was there a virgin birth? And would that virgin birth challenge the scientific mind as much as evolution might challenge the theological mind?
If we bow to science to explain all or scripture, we may make the same mistakes that the assumptions for the basis of this blog are trying to undo in those who will only look to their own understanding to assemble their world.
And we sadly may miss God trying to get our attention.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

We're Moving
Science & the Sacred is moving to our new home on The BioLogos Foundation's Web site. Be sure to visit and bookmark our new location to stay up to date with the latest blogs from Karl Giberson, Darrel Falk, Pete Enns, and our various guests in the science-religion dialogue. We're inaugurating ou

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 11, 2009 | read full post »

Shiny Scales, Silvery Skins, and Evolution
  Source: Physorg.comIridescence -- a key component of certain makeup, paints, coatings of mirrors and lenses -- is also an important feature in the natural world. Both fish and spiders make use of periodic photonic systems, which scatter or reflect the light that passes against their scales or

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 09, 2009 | read full post »

A Stellar Advent Calendar
Looking for a unique way to mark the days of the Advent season? The Web site Boston.com offers an Advent calendar composed of images from the Hubble Telescope, both old and new. Each day, from now until the celebration of the Nativity of Christ, the calendar will offer a beautiful image from the hea

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 09, 2009 | read full post »

Belief, Guidance, and Evolution
Recently BioLogos' Karl Giberson was interviewed by Marcio Campos for the Brazilian newspaper Gazeta do Povo's Tubo De Ensaio (i.e. "Test tube") section. What follows is a translated transcript of that interview, which we will be posting in three installments. Here is the first. Campos: Starting o

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 08, 2009 | read full post »

Let's Come at this From a Different Angle
Every Friday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week's guest entry was written by Peter Enns. Enns is an evangelical Christian scholar and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnatio

posted 8:00:00am Dec. 04, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.