Theologians of all stripes have agreed for thousands of years that beginning of Genesis provides a foundation for our faith. It is not "just a faith account," but the primary purpose is to communicate a message of faith.

As a scientific account that describes the present state of our universe, Genesis is not a very good description. One could easily get the impression that planet Earth is at the center of the solar system. Morning and evening happen for three days without benefit of the sun. The firmament sounds like a big blue dome above the atmosphere, or at least a firm demarcation between man's zone and God's realm. In several places rain seems to come from windows in the sky that are opened to let pour out the water that is held up there. You would think that the words "sphere" or "round" would appear somewhere. We are already interpreting Scripture in the light of science.

Remember that in delivering Genesis by means of fallible humans, God had to thread the account through thousands of years of well-meaning scribes who would be tempted to excise nonsense about the earth orbiting around the sun. Also recall that it took great effort to produce a Bible until Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1454. In Genesis God had some very important things to communicate to us, and there was no good reason to include pages of details about the physical layout of the cosmos that He knew we would figure out soon enough anyway.

I believe that the same is true for the natural history contained in Genesis. Genesis is not wrong, it is not simply a myth, it is not just a compelling story with no real basis in history. Genesis happened! All of it! But to try to match up each verse with a scientific finding is to ignore the Author's main purpose in giving this account to us. Genesis 1-2 must be read through the eyes of faith, and that is its most important message. If we concentrate too much on the scientific details or mire these chapters in controversy, we will miss the faith message there.

What I Think About the Soundness of the Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution sounds pretty good as science, especially the enhancements that were made after Darwin, and are still being made based on continuing research and discoveries. The geological and fossil record shows change over a long period of time. We have a long history of changing life forms. Bugs adapt to poison. Moth populations change color. People get taller. Dogs breed into forms that look much different than the original. In general, the theory sounds pretty reasonable. We can observe evolution happening during our own time in small amounts.

Note that much of the evolutionary action does not involve entirely new structures. New structures are hard to develop. We would all like to see a horse develop wings and fly, but that's unlikely to happen. Plenty of evolutionary mileage can be obtained by modifying and changing the existing structures. For example, most of the mammals have the same basic body plan. Giraffes and humans have the same number of vertebrae in their necks (seven). We have the same bones, but the sizes and shapes are different. The large differences that we see in the animal kingdom can be achieved through small, incremental, useful change.

The term microevolution is used to refer to change at the species level or lower. Macroevolution refers to higher-order changes that cause one species to split into two, or morph into an entirely new species. I do not accept the creationist argument that the small changes we see in microevolution cannot add up to macroevolution under the right conditions. This argument is not even logically reasonable unless a "change barrier" is proposed around every species, and I have heard of no such proposal. Indeed, it is true that microevolution does not prove macroevolution, but it certainly supports it.

However, it is still a evolutionary puzzle how microevolution relates to macroevolution. When do we get stasis, and when do we get change? The old Darwinian idea, that microevolution can be simply be extrapolated to macroevolution over long periods of time, is probably not correct because it is too simple:
microevolution + time = macroevolution (too simple)
More recent research indicates that macroevolution involves additional factors, including the ones present in microevolution (natural selection, mutation). So we can update our equation to express the modern understanding:

microevolution + time + isolation + selection pressure + changing environment = macroevolution

These ideas were discussed at the 1980 Chicago Conference on Macroevolution. For more information, please see the Roger Lewin reprint for the entire text of his Science article "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire."

Transitional Fossils

We have transitional fossils, despite the creationist claim that "there are no transitional fossils". We have transitional fossils for humans, too, in spite of the claim that "there are no ape-men." (see Time magazine, August 23, 1999; "How Man Evolved", by Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, pp. 54-55). The References section of this essay contains links to transitional fossils, including some with pictures.

It is puzzling that transitional fossils are more rare than we would expect. I think that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is on the right track with his theory of evolution through Punctuated Equilibrium. This theory states that major changes occur locally in an isolated population, so that fossils are more rare than would be expected by the slow, stately progress of change predicted by Charles Darwin. Punctuated Equilibrium is not just an excuse for finding no transitional fossils, because many such fossils have been found. Transitional forms are found locally for certain animals, and outside the "evolution zone" the transition looks quite abrupt because of migration of the new species and displacement of the original species.

TBRich

You have many original thoughts on the topic at hand, which is good, it shows that you are of an open mind and choose to think for yourself. I applaud you for this.

I respect your opinions, and agree with several of them(feral has already countered the ones I don't agree with) but I would like to state that with an open mind one can make evolution fit while taking Genesis literally.

I must first state that, as I am sure you know, some people have literal views of the Bible and its accounts while others have figurative views.
I don't claim to know which is the correct view but I personally am in the center between taking the Bible figuratively and literally. I believe that understanding individual scriptures mandates that a person chose wisely as to which view to employ.

I find it interesting that several others involved in this thread have stated that the Bible's account of man being formed from dust is irrational. No matter which scientific theory one believes to be true, all of these theories state that all lifeforms have evolved from minerals. Whether God's hand created this lifeform or a countless number years mixed with natural selection is responsible, both accounts protray life beginning from dust. Now for arguments sake:

The most beautiful and impressive statue that exists started as a rock. The statue shares the same base ingredient as the rock but obviously appears to be something all together different.

As in Genesis it states that God created Woman from Man, he could have created Man from another living being already designed(chimp), the Bible, in my opinion, as yours, should be looked at figuratively here when it states man was formed from dust. A piece of plywood is formed from a tree and one can build a shelter with plywood; would it be incorrect to state that the shelter in this example were formed from a tree, instead of plywood? No, the explanation basically left out the obvious as it should be ascertained by the reader.

Genesis states that the animals were created first, then man. So even logically(not spiritually) one could theorize why we share such a high percentage of DNA with Chimps and make evolution compatible with the Bible.

Time periods in the Bible are relatively difficult to define with any certainty in some scriptures. It says in the Bible that a 1,000 days on earth is like 1 day in Heaven. Is this to be taken literally or figuratively? I believe both. This means to me, that time is not as relative in Heaven as it is here on earth(literally) but I do not believe that it was meant to be taken so literally that we should use an exact 1,000 to 1 ratio in understanding this.

My point here is that the first few chapters of Genesis could be speaking in terms of Heavenly time versus earthly time. That would mean that the 7 days of creation described in Genesis could literally be millions or even trillions of years of earth time. What is a few trillion years to God? He is the Alpha and the Omega.

I would not expect a skeptical mind(not meaning you here) to accept much less try to understand my view on this(the Bible states that God will trap the wise in their own cleverness), I am merely stating my opinion in case a Babe in Christ stumbles upon this thread and is confused over the issue. Any seed of doubt in the minds of one of these Babes could be destructive. The Bible calls me to attempt to save these from being lost. In Pauls letter to Jude he says:

Jude 1:17-19 "But remember, my friends, what you were told in the past by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, 'When the last days come, people will appear who will make fun of you, people who follow their own godless desires. These are the people who cause divisions, who are controlled by their natural desires, who do not have the Spirit."

Jude 1:22-23 "Show mercy toward those who have doubts; save others by snatching them out of the fire; and to others show mercy mixed with fear, but hate their very clothes, stained by their sinful lusts."

Someone will most certainly twist the last scripture and claim that it preaches a message of hate. It is hatred for sin, plain and simple.

TBRich it is obvious that you have a strong measure of Faith and are unwavering in your beliefs, God bless you.

Oh, and you are not correct in believing there was no light until the forth day, as feral has stated above.

Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

I love that! Very funny.

The female sure started wearing lipstick in the early stages of evolution.

Voil

God is light and he is creating all that is.....you think his light alone wasn't enough......If it could blind us to look upon it...Imagine when he was creating.

So did the sun need to come in at all while God was creating?

There are many days where the sun isn't around...so what exactly is the point here....We have places that don't see the sun for months...so again what is the point of this argument

GREAT!!!

So this thread's a wrap,


... 'feral' FINALLY EMBRACES EVOLUTION, MICRO, MACRO AND HALLO.

As the animation shows, which helped 'feral' get it, micro-macro is one big continuum,
... Not much different than 'MARIO BRO', SOME STAY STUCK AT A LEVEL OF THE GAME, AND OTHERS MOVE ON!!!

So while the primitive APE I am can't, maybe Jeanniebean could welcome 'feral' in the MACRO EVOLUTED CLUB.

P.S.: Who said that an APE couldn't type full sentences on a keyboard?!??!

You are joking right.......







and if you believe this I have a bridge to sell ya





Now this one I by










this is what I think of the whole lot of you who believe you came from anything but God.