Genesis 1 & 2: Creation or Evolution?

Genesis Does Not Support Creationism

By Ray McIntyre, published Oct 31, 2006
Published Content: 3  Total Views: 825  Favorited By: 0 CPs
Rating: 3.0 of 5
As a Christian living today there are a number of voices who claim to be speaking for all of us, they assail science and insist that we must literally accept every word in the Bible as true. In doing so they fail both themselves and others for much in the Bible is parable or metaphor. When we, as Christians, insist that parable must be accepted as literally true we put a stumbling block of, well, biblical proportions in the way of earnest seekers.

It is for such seekers that I write this article.

Should you happen to visit the Answers in Genesis site you will find, among other things the following comment,

"... We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?

Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened..."

But are they right?

Modern science shows that the earth is billions of years in age, it comes to this conclusion in a number of ways and I recommend the following site for information even a non-scientist can understand, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html .

Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY.

Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world. Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which imparts to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son.

Takeaways
  • How is Genesis our story?
  • How should we approach Evolution?
  • Why does the author argue that Genesis 1 & 2 are parables
Did You Know?
There are more bacteria in the human stomach and gut than there are humans on earth.
Resources
  • I reccomend Alan Richardson's: Genesis: I-XI, SCM Press, 1953.
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
 
 
I agree completely. I've posted my own discussion on this subject. It is possible to understand Genesis as a symbolic representation of evolving creation that is entirely consistent with contemporary scientific understanding. Given that the Genesis tale emerged during a pre-scientific age, the narrative is really remarkable. http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/2006/10/the_genesis_acc_1.html

Posted on 12/06/2006 at 5:12:00 PM

 
Genesis does not support creationism . . . and science does not support macroevolution. Both are unproven (and unprovable?) philosophies. The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) is a far better source for the science of creation. They dish out their fair share of dogma, but the genuine scientists crank out even more hard science. Genuine seekers ready to change their opinions based on better information will be amazed at what these folks do!

Posted on 10/31/2006 at 9:10:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
 
Most Commented On