This is my response from a long conversation with my new friend Kevin about evolution, Genesis, and other questions. I’m just posting the end of the correspondence, without his questions and our talk about Muse and U2, but it’s enough to get the idea.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Concerning evolution, it’s about biology. It starts with life. Darwinism has nothing to do with the origin of life, our planet, or the universe. The Big Bang is a cosmological model that was developed long after Darwin and involves non-living things. If someone is a naturalist or materialist that denies God and the supernatural, they would accept a natural origin of the universe and life and then would also use evolution to explain the diversity of life. Evolution is a useful and effective tool, and seems well proven, so I think it’s available for Christians as well. We still affirm the supernatural and God as the first cause.
In Psalms, King David writes “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him?” He was gazing up at the stars, yet unaware of how large they really were and how incredibly far away, yet he still felt small. Now we have a better understanding of how vast and ancient our universe is, and we have seen God send his Son to die for us. We should be much more inspired than David! Whether we were made from dust or developed from other animals, we are humbled. We are not angels, we are not gods, yet the True God cares for us. I find that quite inspiring.
As for Genesis, I don’t think we can read it literally. For one, there are some very difficult internal contradictions if one assumes they are reading a straight-forward, historical account. To me, the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 stories are irreconcilable if taken completely literally (did God make man or vegetation first?) I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. I don’t believe that He revealed all the answers about how the universe works in the Bible. Really, in most fields of study we as humans are left to use our own tools to gain understanding. I don’t think that God handed us a history book, a biology book, or a medical guide. Thankfully, humans have learned how to carry out life-saving surgeries and developed vaccines that have eliminated terrible diseases. The revelations from God throughout history seem to have a different focus, and Jesus is the culmination. Even after sending His Son, God gave us a Comforter, the Holy Spirit. Some people want to believe that God also gave us the complete guide to parenting, an explanation of the universe and so on, but I believe that stretching the Bible to fill all of those roles is unwise and misses the point. We have to do our own work to learn about this universe we are in, the human body and mind and other things. God could have revealed the solar system, quantum mechanics, and the cure for cancer, but it appears that He never intended to do that. If someone puts the Bible up against a science book or medical journal, the Bible will lose not because it is inferior, but because it is being used improperly – and the defeat makes it appear as if God was wrong about the position of the sun and the shape of the earth when He in fact knows much more than any of us ever will about the nature of such things.
mod synthesis 
Darlene
May 8, 2010
Tony, the bible never has been historically wrong. I also think it tells us lots of things about our universe — but I think there is always deeper meaning in things that are written, like when the bible mentions the “four corners of the earth” I don’t think that it’s saying that the earth is flat — there’s a deeper meaning and point to it. It’s ok to explore and learn more about the universe — I think the bible may omit some details about things, things that we have to take by faith. But you’re right — it does sometimes leave several questions in mind, and not everyone thinks the same about what they have read. Think of how many are confused to whether one can lose their salvation or whether we were specifically chosen or make the choice ourselves to come to God. There are some things that “just don’t matter” as long as we get the message of the bible. My concern is that if you don’t think the bible is of much use for science, history, or parenting, why should we even use it as a resource at all??? Where is the “truth” in it? How do we know if there is any truth in it at all? Or, how does one determine which parts are ok if a bunch of humans sat down and wrote what “they” thought at the time? I believe that the bible has so much truth that it has to have been inspired by God. And in 2nd Timothy 3:16 it’s clear that the bible is inspired by God so that it is profitable for instruction in righteousness.” In other words, what is written there, we can trust is supposed to be there. I’m open to discussion and won’t close myself to new ideas, and I think there are a lot of things we can learn in addition to the bible, but it shouldn’t conflict with it. I’ve never had trouble discerning right from wrong, and what you’re saying just doesn’t seem “right”. In addition, you’ve mentioned that the bible isn’t a complete guide to parenting, but I believe it amazingly says “tons” in just a few verses, if people would pay attention to it (some don’t). The bible gives us lots of information about lots of things. Proverbs, for example, gives us tons of good sound advice about a lot of different things. Because of your view on evolution (which is NOT proven) it seems to have influenced your view of the bible — or maybe your view of the bible has influenced your thinking on science.
Artifice
October 17, 2012
Your making the claim that in your beliefs the bible is so true it must’ve been inspired by god. The old testament is nothing more than about a god who is a vile, jealous, insecure, childish, murderous brute who says its OK to stone disobedient children and sell your own daughters into slavery. And in Matthew 5:17 Jesus strongly approves of the law an of the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the old testament. In Mark 4:11-12; Jesus explains why he speaks in parables. To confuse people so they will go to hell. Those truths were put there because the people that wrote the bible had that mentality during the age it was written. The bible isnt a guide to anything. It is a barbaric, immoral, contradicting story with the occasional good verse. Not to mention the simple fact that absolutely 110% of that whole entire book is unproven.
modsynth
May 12, 2010
I, of course, pay close attention to the Bible, and I’ve been a life-long student. My questions didn’t just center on natural history, I had some serious philosophical and theological issues to look into also, as I said in my first blog and plan to explain more soon. Hopefully the next post gives you some idea of where I’m coming from on the canon of Scripture. According to all Christians before Luther, you do not read or believe the “whole” Bible, and Catholics and Orthodox Christians today would argue the same point. The “all or nothing” approach to accepting or rejecting the entire Bible may work for some, but to me “all” needs to be more clearly defined and I see no reason to switch over to “nothing” just because of some factual discrepancy between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles or a textual variant found between two manuscripts. I do not doubt God’s inspiration, but since the book of Timothy doesn’t contain a specific list and predates other New Testament writings it seems clear that the effort of textual criticism as practiced by the Church Fathers, the Councils, Martin Luther, and others is necessary. It’s a well-documented fact that they used their understanding of history, science, and logic to deem some works authentic or inauthentic. Because they rejected The Gospel of Thomas doesn’t mean they were then forced to reject all the other Gospels. Also, the Timothy verse lists many good uses for Scripture, but the examples I listed are nowhere to be found. Additionally, the idea of total factual inerrancy, though often assumed, is not claimed here, and the idea of verbal dictation of the texts seems to have never been held by early Christians or even the writers such as Luke and Paul as they explained their motivation without claiming a Divine mandate or irresistible force from the Holy Spirit.
When Peter testified to Christ’s resurrection throughout his life, he could have easily mixed up a fact or the sequence of events. This in no way makes the larger point untrue. I believe that the Gospel accounts are historically accurate in general. If you want to go beyond that and say they are perfectly precise to the letter, than you need to find out which letters to use among the various forms that have been discovered (none of which come within hundred of years of the long-lost originals) and then you have your work cut out for you to make Jesus say exactly the same things in every instance where we see minor, understandable differences in the retelling. Getting lost in that has damaged the faith of many when they discover these facts. I feel this is due to an unrealistic expectation of letter by letter perfection set up by fundamentalists in reaction to the attacks of those who have minimized Scripture in the last several centuries. I understand the appeal of closing the canon and accepting our pastor or denomination’s interpretation of every part in it, but some are restless like me and see these limitations as largely man made and lead to some contradictory conclusions. Maybe you feel that it’s a slippery slope, but it’s the risk our predecessors took and a process I take seriously enough to examine.
Artifice
October 17, 2012
The assumption that every event has a cause, although very common in life, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events (radioactive decay) suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses such as other dimensions of time and eternally oscillating universe that allow a universe without a first cause.
By definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe then “before” does not even apply to it and is logically impossible that the universe be caused. The claim raises the question of what caused God? If you are claiming that God needs no cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.