Re: Evolution's Imperative

Bodester (
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:43:06 -0500 (EST)

>The reason is very simple: though inspired, the Bible was not written by
>God, nor is it entirely literal history. It was written by men, who added
>far more than what was simply God's message of salvation. You are simply
>confusing the words of men for the Word of God (Christ Himself), because the
>words of men say what you want to believe.
In the interest of fairness, I'm going to comment on some of what Kevin
That it is or isn't a literal history is a matter of debate, and what or
how much was added is the same. By asserting this you are yourself making
some assumptions. These are assumptions YOU want to believe.

>Neither Christ nor the New Testament says anything that would "endanger" any
>committment to evolutionary science. As for the Old Testament, only the
>first eleven chapters of Genesis challenge evolutionary science, but these
>chapters do not add anything significant to the concept of salvation. In
>the final analysis, there simply is no conflict between the Bible and
>evolutionary science.
Just one question. How do the Fall and surrounding covenants with God NOT
have relevance on salvation?

>So I guess that when God says that the moon is a "light" like the sun, the
>moon must really be a miniature star. How can you possibly question this?
Why does that follow? Light gets to the earth via the moon does it not?

>So I guess that when God says He holds all things together, gravity, the
>strong nuclear force and electromagnetism must be false sciences. How can
>you possibly question this?
Why does that follow? Noone said God wasn't the force BEHIND other forces.

>So I guess that when God says He is the source for all illness and the
>source for all curing, the germ theory of disease and immunology must be
>false sciences as well. How can you possibly question this?
Same problem. Just because God is the SOURCE doesn't mean He doesn't allow
us to discover what the cures he has provided us with are.

>So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, insects must have only four legs
>and bats must be birds, since God said so. How can you possibly question
Where does this come from? Just curious.

>I can see no difference between you and Stear, except how each of you label
>yourselves. You both make the same mistakes, you both believe the same
>fanatical dogmatism, you both come to the same wrong conclusions. In fact,
>had I not known you were the Christian and he was the atheist, I would have
>not been able to guess who was what (either that or I would have assumed you
>were both atheists). You are both dead wrong; that's all there is to it.

So there is no chance YOU are the incorrect one? That appears to me to be
the exact reverse of the fanaticism you accuse them of. Be careful!


Jason Bode