Prior to this Sunday's sermon (May 6), what would you have said was your understanding of how the world was really created? Would you say that you believed in...
Spontaneous Macroevolution (i.e. life arose from nothing [God was not involved] into a single-celled organism and then evolved into every form of life as we know it);
Theistic Evolution (i.e. God created the first life [a single-celled organism] from which life evolved into every form of life;
Creation Science (i.e. the world was created in 7, 24-hour periods); or
Intelligent Design (i.e. God created each species of life - similarities in certain species are a result of a Common Designer, not a Common Ancestor)?
Have your beliefs been changed or stretched in any way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe that the Intelligent Design "theory" is the most logical and true to the Bible. However, I don't have a problem with the notion that God could actually create the world in 6 days, resting on the 7th. He's God, right? He can do anything. He could have created the earth and everything in it in an instant. I value what the Bible says about God creating the world and don't think we have to throw it out or simply see it as only poetry and a beautiful narrative. God is almighty and we are so blessed to have his word. He reveals himself to us through his word. What an awesome and powerful creator he is!
In my last post, I used the phrase "true to the Bible" and don't want anyone to think that if something is not specifically explained in the Bible, that it is not true. I think God's word is truth and I think it's also ok for us to examine the world through science. Science was fathered by great Christians who saw it as a way to learn more about this complex and amazing world that God has created. Science isn't automatically contrary to the Bible, but I think we should value what the Bible says about science or things related to it, like the creation of our world.
When a person talks about something that took "a day", you can be a little unsure what they mean, but they clearly do not mean more than one hundred million years. When a person talks about "one twenty-four hour day", they mean exactly 24 hours. When the author takes the time to write "there was one day, which contained one evening and one morning", that seems clear. I do not speak Hebrew, but these words are consistently translated as if the author was using extra words to clarify each day mentioned was exactly 24 hours long. My understanding of the science involved in the age of the Earth is that the debate is still ongoing. We know from history that a former Pope forced Galileo to recant his position that the Earth was round because all of creditble scientists of the time were convinced it was flat.
Post a Comment