Evolution or Intelligent Design again

Saw this post on Jeff‘s site. I really liked this part he quoted from this article.

Like many Christians, David Bush believes that the biblical account of creation is an ancient piece of poetry that was never meant to be a literal, scientific description of what happened as life appeared on the earth. Instead, it’s a faith-based explanation of why life exists, and how humans are to care for it. Science, on the other hand, has never answered the question of why life exists, even through endless proofs based on observation and replication by multiple sources. Science can tell us how things work, but it can never answer questions such as why the Big Bang occurred, or why the first bacterium appeared.

I wish more people were like this. If I reproach Christians, it’s the Christians that take the bible literally. I’ve always thought I wasn’t a Christian because of a lot of what the Bible says, but what if I didn’t take it literally? What if I accepted the Bible as “an ancient piece of poetry”, a work full of symbolizm and allegories?

Switching gears a little, here’s a guy who gives religious tours in not-so-religious places. Like dinosaur museums. “Tour leaders say they’re trying to point out flaws in the ‘so-called science’ of evolution, which contradicts their own understanding of Creation.” Does that episode of Friends pop into your head too, or is it just me?

0 thoughts on “Evolution or Intelligent Design again

  1. most mainstream protestants do not take the bible as literally as the more conservative christians. mainstream protestants beleive that the bible was written by faithful people who were trying to make sense of what was happening in the world at the time from a religous point of view – ie. the why of things.

    take the prophets of the old testament. they were trying to explain to the jewish people why they were in exile from jerusalem. the prophets took a secular event and tried to explain it from a religous point of view.

  2. I don’t have a problem with Christianity… or the bible. I’m glad that most people understand that it’s nothing more than an attempt to explain the (at the time) unexplainable.

    But, therein lies the problem – Christianity is based on that. If you accept that it is an attempt at that… isn’t that in direct conflict with Christianity?

    There’s still some big why questions… and of course there’s room for religion to explore the why questions that science (as far as we know) cannot explain… including the possibility of some higher power.. But I don’t see how Christianity fits into that anymore. It’s outlived itself.

  3. I don’t believe that Christianity has outlived itself (if I did, I wouldn’t be studing to be a minister). I believe that the purpose of Christianity is to spread the radical message of God’s love for all people. My belief is that Christians are called to create the Kingdom of God here on earth. How do we do that? By following the message that Jesus came to give us – a message of radical inclusivity. Jesus was a radical, he turned the world upside down on those who he met.

    Christians are called to a public ministry of radical social justice. We use the example that Jesus gave to guide us in our mission.

    As long as there is suffering in the world, Christianity will live on as Christians try to end suffering by working for the radical inclusion of all people.

    I think that religion – in general – is tasked with answering the why questions. Different religions go about that task differently.

    I also believe that part of everyone’s faith journey is to question their faith. If we don’t question our faith, how can we claim it as our own? How can we understand why we believe what we believe. Here I differ with my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ. A lot of fundemental/evangelical Christians teach that you have to accept what is told to you. I believe this is why a lot of people are turned off by Christianity – they see the more vocal Christians (who tend to be from the conservative sector) shoving their brand of Christianity down their throat.

    I spent most of my college years questioning my faith. It is through this questioning that I was able to discern what I believed and why I believe it. By authenticating my beliefs, I am able to articulate them and claim them as my own, all without trying to convince others to believe what I believe. I also continue to question and study. It is the only way I can grow in my faith.

    My job as a minister will be to equip the people entrusted to my care to ask the questions needed to discern their faith for themselves.

    It sounds like you have done some of that Asten. I commend you on that, and I encourage you to continue doing it. That way what ever your beliefs are, you can claim them as your own.

  4. “As long as there is suffering in the world, Christianity will live on as Christians try to end suffering by working for the radical inclusion of all people.”

    Is this the only way to end suffering?

    “By following the message that Jesus came to give us – a message of radical inclusivity.”

    Does this mean that everybody has to be a Christian?

  5. “Does this mean that everybody has to be a Christian?”

    absolutely not!

    but creating the kingdom of God on earth requires Christians to be accepting other faiths/religions/paths of salvation/insert your terms here. (something that biblical literialists tend not to do)

    my view on christianity as not the only path to God can be backed up by the bible too. in Genesis 17, when God promises to Abraham that his son Issac will father a great nation (Judisim and later Christianity), God also promises to Ishmael the same thing (Islam). Ishmael becomes an ancestor of the prophet mohammed.

    “Is this the only way to end suffering?”

    no, but lately it seems that only faith based groups are willing to tackle the hard issues like poverty, classism, the AIDS pandemic in africa, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *