Shuck and Jive

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Evolution is Post-Creation

Ever vigilant, I keep you up to date on what the Letters to the Editor say about creation and evolution. Here is one to try to wrap your brain around:

Faith and rationalization

I am a Christian. I feel no hatred toward the self-avowed atheist who wrote supporting evolution. He is trying to understand things, and he is right about using our rational minds to figure out what is true or not. But ...

1. Rationally, evolution has nothing to do with creation. It is post-creation. Evolution is the development of what is from what was. It, therefore, requires something from which other things evolve.
That “something” was creation. There is only scientific speculation (faith?) as to the origin, or creation, of that something, but many scientists do think it was God.

2. Rationally, God’s existence cannot be proven scientifically — unless he wills it. That’s why it’s called faith. But it is rational to believe he created whatever we evolved from.

The alternative is that creation just somehow
happened; that there was nothing, and then there was something.

3. Rationally, the Bible may be “ ... a great work of reading fiction.” But “rational” is a human concept. The real concern is whether the Bible is fiction from its author’s point. It may appear fictional, or incomplete, because we don’t understand its message.

Rather than trying to understand what we’re being taught, we should study the Bible ourselves deeply, inquiringly, open-mindedly and prayerfully.

I pray neither our atheist friend nor I receive hateful comments. “Christian” and “hate” should not appear in the same sentence (except here). God loves even those who hate or disavow him. So should Christians — both rationally and in faith.



  1. Good to see a nice and well thought out letter!

    " The alternative is that creation just somehow happened; that there was nothing, and then there was something. "

    Theee is one alternative, that creation has always been here in some form. That both allows for some interpretations of Genesis that do not argue for a creation out of nothing and what more and more physicists are saying about a universe that endlessly expands and contracts. I am fully behind any interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 that does not support creation out of nothing. God was in the beginning and then God ordered the creation.

  2. Huh! I think I'm having "brain fog" this morning.

    What happened to the "big bang?"

  3. The "Big Bang" actually has nothing to do with evolution, per se.

    The Theory of Evolution, boiled down, simply describes the generational changes in biological species over time. It can be used in support of other theories (e.g. abiogenesis--the formation of life from lifelessness), but cannot be extended to them.

    Por ejemplo, the Theory of Gravity, as encapsulated in Newton's "Law of Universal Gravitation" (that the gravitational force between two points is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, or F = G x (M1xM2/r^2) can be used to support other theories, but does not necessarily logically extend to them. Einstein's Theory of Relativity (briefly, the idea that space is curved) explains gravitational attraction more precisely than Newton, but it cannot be logically deduced from Newton. On the other hand, while the Theory of Relativity provides highly precise and accurate measurements, it is complex, and the Theory of Universal Gravitation still provides reasonably accurate results.

    My apologies to any physics geeks in residence.

  4. Factual Genesis is Being Overlooked

    It would be much better if those that believe in a Creator, would make a call to learn the correct view of Genesis, rather than clinging to their current false beliefs of Genesis.

    Theistic evolution calls God a liar, when He specifically told Israel in Exodus 20:11, "For in six days, the Lord made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all there in them is...". He told them this after defining the work week, in Exodus 20:9. When God told Joshua to march around Jericho for seven days, did God mean something other than 168 hours? If so, Joshua (from the tribe of Ephraim) should be STILL marching around those walls.

    The doctrine of Creation Science, is also false, along with "ruin & restoration", progressive creation, Day/Age, gap theories, and theistic evolution. All are unsuccessfully trying to explain the first chapter of Genesis, which they do not understand.

    Creation Science begins with hypocrisy, declaring total belief in "literal interpretation" of the scriptures. That sounds nice, until you "put the Word" on their teachings. Where did the water come from on the first day? Did God create the birds on the fifth day before mankind, or after mankind on the sixth day? Did God create the land animals before mankind on the sixth day, or after Adam on the sixth day? On each of the previous questions, "young Earth" believers can't give an honest answer. They begin to "redefine" the scriptures in an attempt to make them fit their false beliefs. When cornered, their escape path is to say "God will explain it when we get to Heaven". That's living in a delusion. Agnostics, atheists, and evolutionists need it explained to them NOW, so that they can be part of the church BEFORE Jesus returns.

    The problem with young Earth believers is that they are brainwashed into thinking that accepting scientific reality of an "old earth" means denying the seven 24-hr days of the 168 hour Creation Week. Remember the "lack of knowledge" in Hosea 4:6?

    Misunderstanding of the Genesis text leads to foolishness when advocating that the mammoths, giant mammals, dinosaurs, and dimetrodons all died in Noah's flood, which was in 2611 BC. The foundations of a young Christian's faith is shaken when they are confronted with the reality of ancient geologic ages of Earth's history, and the 650+ million year fossil record (of death). Genesis does not teach, nor agrees with any "young Earth" doctrine. Biblical Reality conveys the correct view of Genesis, using "correct" literal interpretation, explaining what God was revealing to Moses (Observations of Moses).

    We can remain in denial, which is not getting us anywhere, or we can learn the truth of Genesis, to enable us to expose the false conclusions of secular science. Which is it going to be?

    Herman Cummings
    PO Box 1745
    Fortson GA 31808

    (Herman Cummings is the author of the book, "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!").