May 11, 2006

Re: Part 2
Everett

Farlas, I think we're starting to go in circles, so unless there is some evidence of progress in your next couple of responses, I'll make this my last post on evolution. If you want to continue the conversation via e-mail, that's another possibility. If you're interested, my e-mail address is in my profile.

How does my reading of Genesis 1 and 2 necessarily imply that God created everything twice? A much more reasonable implication would be that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are separate accounts of the same series of events, each one included because it reveals a fundamental truth. Furthermore, the sequence of events in Genesis 2 contradicts the sequence of events in Genesis 1 (something you have said is not so but have failed to refute with any evidence). Therefore, they cannot both be accurate accounts of the actual unfolding of events, and at least one must be interpreted allegorically if they are both held to be true. Thus, strict Biblical literalism is undermined.

Strict Biblical literalism being undermined, it becomes reasonable to ask whether or not other passages of Scripture must be interpreted literally, and the reasonable conclusion is that it is legitimate to interpret any passage symbolically so long as exchanging the literal interpretation for the symbolic one does not undermine the truth of the passage or the truth of the rest of the Scripture. I submit to you that Genesis 1 passes this test. Furthermore, what we have learned about the history of the universe and of the history of life on earth, the truth of Genesis 1 seems to be undermined by a literal reading of it. Should evolution and our current understanding of the age of the universe and its development be undermined at some point in the future, a literal reading of Genesis 1 may be supportable, but at this point I don't see it happening.

I would go one step further and say that if Christianity cannot be reconciled with the order of the natural world, then Christianity is fatally undermined, and it would appear that you agree with this conclusion. However, our reactions to this truth. You react by dismissing the science out of hand. I look to what John Paul the Great said concerning evolution and scientific inquiry in general: Truth cannot contradict truth. Therefore, there must be some way to reconcile evolution with Christianity if both are true. If I need to alter my understanding of Christianity in order to reconcile the two, and the alteration does not undermine the coherence of my faith, so be it. If it does, then I come to a point of crisis where something has to give, but that has not arisen in this case, nor do I forsee it arising in any case down the road.

I can't help but suspect that nothing I've written or can write will have any effect in budging you from your position and that most of my words have been wasted. Ultimately, I can't convince you that evolution does not undermine Christianity, but I can suggest a way you might come to see that it is so. When you get a chance, read Genesis 1 and 2 with an eye toward interpreting them symbolically, and glean out the truths underlying the passage. Then, take a look at the essential truths of your faith and see if it holds together. I'll be willing to bet that the only alterations are will be at the edges, and that the fundamental core of your faith will remain intact. If this is the case, we can then get down to the science of the matter.

Needless to say, the Job passage strikes me as irrelevant to the discussion. For one, it is completely divorced from its original context of God rebuking Job's friends for trying to discern the reasons for God's actions without knowledge of His ways. The purpose of science is to discern the order of the world, how things are and how they unfolded, not why. I do not question the authority of God, nor do I doubt what He said. Rightly understood, science doesn't either. It is concerned with the order of the natural world and is silent on the the existence of God and His influence within creation. Furthermore, I'm not sure how evolution puts man more in control of his own affairs than Creationism. It's not like man has any control over evolution either. Besides, the only realistic alternative to religion is the nihilism of Nietzsche, and that offers man even less control than a universe ruled by God.