So this is probably a question that all of you have either asked yourselves or been asked by others. I've had conversations multiple times about this subject since the first time that I came online.
I know of three versions of how Genesis can fit with evolution. GAP, Day-age, and allegorical.
GAP to me is a joke. It proposes that between the versus in genesis ( between 1:19 and 1:20 if I remember correctly) the bible leaves out millions ( or billions) of years. Besides the fact that this makes god out to be a deceiver, it also still doesn't explain why the rest of creation is out of order. Like why the earth and plants are created before the sun.
Day-age makes an attempt to explain things by turning day into some indistinguishable period of time. Mainly by using versus like 2 Peter 3:8.
Again we encounter the same problem as the first though. The arrangement of creation is out of order.
The last attempt is by saying that Genesis is allegorical. This is probably the best attempt at making things fit. Mainly that of making it so that it doesn't matter what order the Genesis account is in because that is not the point of the verse. They aren't suppose to be taken literally.
One problem with this, and this includes the above versions as well. On what basis are we determining that Genesis isn't meant to be taken literally. Why should we drop the one interpretation for the others?
The main answer that I've gotten for this is that if we want science to fit with Genesis then we need to change Genesis in order to make it fit with our understanding of science. An example of this can be found here.
So this leads me to ask. Should the bible determine reality or should reality determine the bible? Because if Genesis is taken as non-literal so that we can fit it with science, then does that not mean that we create a precedence when it comes to how we look at the world? Wouldn't that mean that when science determines whether an event/object is good or bad for us then the bible takes a back seat? And if the bible takes a back seat, wouldn't that undermine the idea that it is the inspired word of god? I say it does.
Between the moderate Christians and the fundamentalist I always go with the moderates. I would rather have people who are pro rather then anti science. Still, on this subject I have come to realize that I cannot agree with moderates. Not with what has been presented. I can no longer tell a fundie directly that I see no conflict with science and the bible.
What are your thoughts. Do you think that these two can reach some reasonable ( if not god written) consensus on the matter? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
As a side note, I really enjoy Robert Ingersoll's Some Mistakes of Moses.
Great read if you find the time.
I would say no. But they have tried in Texas to try to put Evolution and Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classes. So far it failed.
The best answer to the question will be found by asking if the "Genesis" answer has any more evidence favoring it than than the Hopi answer, or the Yoruba answer or the Xingu answer to the creation question.
In other words, which ancient tribal sky god story, if any, has the story right - or is even favored by the evidence?
If none offer any more verifiable, interesting evidence than the others (and I would posit that none do), then they're all equally and indistinguishably nonsensical. Hence, the explanation most reasonable to accept is simply the one for which there is verifiable, interesting evidence - i.e., the Darwinian explanation. The rest can safely be discarded by application of Occam's Razor.
So the short answer to the posited question is simply no, unless one is accepted simply as the mythology it is. If one accepts mythology as having value (and I would posit that under certain circumstances they can), then yes, they can exist side by side as mythology and scientifically validated explanation. But not on any other terms.
Absolutely not. If you're going to argue that The Genesis is to be taken figuratively, then the entire book should be taken figurative... that isn't practised. If Genesis is incorrect, then the Bible, being based off of Genesis, is incorrect.
It is ridiculous to believe that a all powerful, all knowing, ever-present entity could make the Earth out of nothing but be limited enough to need material to make man. The Bible tells us how the men of the stone-age thought and how uncreative they were in there fairy tale writing.
(I've never written a one-word post. I suppose I never will.)
haha -A one word answer will suffice in this case.
It is abundantly clear that Genesis is the mythology of an ancient tribe, and no more to be taken literally than the creation myths of any other tribe. Don't try to rewrite Genesis -- there is no point, any more than there is a point to rewriting Greek, Roman, Norse, Japanese or Native American myths. These people were trying to explain the origins of the world as best as they knew how -- it's not THEIR fault that they were prescientific.
The sad thing is that Fundies take this specific set of myths seriously, when they are no different from any other people's myths. Because the Fundies have no excuse such as being prescientific. :-(
Natalie A Sera: It is abundantly clear that Genesis is the mythology of an ancient tribe, and no more to be taken literally than the creation myths of any other tribe.
Indeed, in this context Richard Dawkins likes citing the tribe who believe that the world was created from the excrement of ants.
I favour, by contrast, the Melanesian belief about the divinity of the red-eyed tree frogs.
"...priests of all people, who have...absolutely no quality control on themselves...."
Thank you, Fil; this is as strong a rebuttal as any I've ever seen.
Not at all; especially when the Genesis interpretation of creation posits dual creation stories. You have the "j" (Jehova) document and the "E" (Elohist) documents; each convey different accounts of creationism.
The theologians would first have to rectify the inner turmoil of the biblical account before anything else is rendered.