quote:
Man once understood the Bible to mean that the earth was at the center of the universe. Whether the Bible actually says such a thing or not is beside the point, men had wrongly understood the Bible to mean such a thing. Scientific findings produced an opposite conclusion, and ended up being correct. Thus man's interpretation of the Bible changed.
The same thing seems to be happening for evolution. Some time not too long ago, creationists believed that all of evolution was wrong, including speciation and natural selection. They believed that this assertion was supported by the Bible. Now creationists believe that speciation and natural selection do occur, probably in light of convincing scientific evidence and common sense. This thread points to some Biblical passages that can be interpreted to support such an assertion.
Creationists still do not accept "macroevolution," as if it is some unique concept. Dr. Roughgarden voices the opinion in her book that nothing in the Bible actually contradicts the scientific meaning of evolution, and that a few passages even support elements of evolution. Or in other words, there are ways in which the Bible can be UNDERSTOOD which are not in conflict with evolution. In other words, science does not argue against the Bible, its simply calls for a new interpretation of the Bible, as have other scientific theories in the past.
First of all, I don't think Old Creationist have problem with true science. In fact, many of us believe that the Bible or Genesis can be reconcilled with any discovery or proven science.
Therefore, Creationist has no problems accepting the adaptations and micro-evolution which we consider to be Biblical and proven science - observable and repeatable.
On the other hand, it's this BLIND LEAP in logic that says MACRO is just an extrapolation of MICRO that we don't accept because 1) there is no evidence for it and 2) there are irrefutable evidence against such a notion particularly in modern genetics -- thus it is not Biblical.
But maybe you've never heard of the General Theory of Evolution (a.k.a. macro-evolution)...
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution " [note: micro-evolution] and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments.
On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" [note: macro-evolution] and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (Kerkut G.A., "Implications of Evolution," in Kerkut G.A., ed. "International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Division: Zoology," Volume 4, Pergamon Press: New York NY, 1960, p.157).
Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
