"The Great Debate: Genesis or Science"
3 Comments - Show Original Blog
Doug Dobney said...
I believe your thinking is correct about there being two different creations.
The proof for me is that after Genesis 2:4 the reference consistently is to "Lord God". In Chapter 1 it is simply "God".
It wouldn't be science if it wasn't. Just the facts, mam. Why must everything be black and white? You can't make a decent conclusion without first having a foundation of knowledge. Science, despite belief to the contrary, proves the existence of higher intelligence. Why this same old argument? Taught in schools. Hope so! How can independent thought exist in a vacuum? And would you exclude certain chapters of history? Many have in the process of re-writing it. And can we claim to know the mind of God? What if the creation was seven million years instead of seven days? What if it was written in metaphor to be assimilated by our still-evolving human brains?
Neat. Although firmly ensconced in the science camp, I also find blind 'faith' by scientists irritating - they should know - indeed they proclaim to know - better. For example, science proclaims that life arose (and arises) spontaneously without even knowing what life really is, other than by observation of the behaviors it causes. This is a FAR more important issue than evolution - which seems thoroughly understood and proven. For once life exists, the rest follows through mutation and growing complexity as a means of adaptation.
The other main point of misguided belief in scientific circles concerns consciousness and the crazy (but nevertheless fascinating and laudable) quest to create a 'strong' artificial intelligence that is in essence conscious. AT least there seems to be mathematical proof that this quest is futile - but hey - the research might throw some greater light on the matter and science should be encouraged to pursue it to bring us closer to the truth, whatever it may be. Religion can never do that.
Thanks for provoking my thoughts.