...I'll give an Amen to that, Gail,... creation isn't a history lesson, It's going on all the time and therein lies the magic, the mystery, and the terrible beauty.

Mark 10:6 ESV "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female."

Matt 19:4-6 ESV "He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Mat 24:37-39 ESV "As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

Well, whatdaya know - Jesus - in His own words - stood forthright for a literal creation, a literal belief in Adam and Eve, a literal belief in male/female marriage (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve) and a literal belief in Noah and the Ark.

And furthermore Jesus believed in a literal Jonah swallowed by a great fish:

Mat 12:39-40 ESV "But he answered them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

His words, not mine. Either you believe Jesus or you don’t! Plain and simple.

Now, that is more than a little bit smart!

Gail Marshall, you are not the only person who is bored by the Bible thumper vs open mind tug of war concerning how we came about to be.
Living a reasonably good Christian Life, I don't give a blooming fig whether I descend from Adam's spare rib or from an ape that was imprudent enough to evolute into me, a human being.
I go with swift. It's good to be alive as a human in this here and now. And how we live it is up to the human race. Good or bad---it has nothing to do with where we come from. And finding human artifacts that predate the Biblical date of creation is not,
cannot be explained by the
Creationists. It's me who is the unbeliever, the heretic in their eyes.

THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z's, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.

To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.

Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, "is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com

Darwin himself gives credit to creation. Look it up in Origin of the Species.

The Clergy Letter Project is right in line with how we learners of faith might find more ways to get along.
One of my favorite movie scenes is the closing of that great film "Inherit the Wind", also a classic play depicting the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925. This epic courtroom drama pitted agnostic lawyer Clarence Darrow against the populist William Jennings Bryan, who was a foe of Evolution and Charles Darwin if there ever was one.
The Darrow character, who lost the trial but triumphed in the war of ideas, packs his briefcase with a Bible side by side with a copy of "Origin of the Species", the Darwin book, as the curtain falls.
I like to think that we in this age can use that symbolism to keep in mind that the debate is a healthy one as long as we limit it to spirited discussion (forgive the pun) without anger and dismissive vituperation. I think that is what America is all about.

...out of curiosity, C. David, what are astrophysicists seeing when they look at the cosmos?...

All one needs to do to refute Intelligent Design is reflect on the last 7 years of George W. Bush. If that's Intelligent Design I'll crawl back into the primordial ooze where common sense and wisdom seem to be in much greater supply than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Astropysicists, probably perceive the cosmos to be an orderly, harmonious system. But of what value is it to know the why, when, where in the search to find out what we are?

God created man because he needed a creation that would eventually bring about Judgement Day. Since all other cretures are true to the natural order of things, things could never end.

I don't see any incompatibility between the two. Also, the quoting of the Bible to make a point is tiresome. Anything can be taken out from there to make a point. I don't take all that the Bible says literally.

Dr. David L. Cooper has eloquently stated a proper definition of the historical, grammatical, interpretive method (of the Bible) when he said, "When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise." (Dr. D.L. Cooper, The Messianic Series, parts 14, p. 3)

we already know what we are, Isabell, we are stardust...my question was; what do they see? if they are watching stars being born,(with some frequency, apparently) what is the time-frame? I mean, if a galaxy spins off a new planet, say, yesterday, earth-time, where will that be found in Genesis? I think Creation is what happens at the end of each out-breath.

Being stardust sounds nice. It has a fairy tale quality. Primordial slime is a downer, and being some guy's rib is positively absurd. Knowing to be a human being in the here and now is good enough for me. Seeing those computer images of what was and still is going on out there incomprehensibly many miles away and years ago is fascinating, but I must confess, it is irrelevant to my membership in the community; in human society.
When we (a classroom full of girls) were six years old and able to read, we joined the International
Youth Red Cross...its motto I SERVE! And that's what I have been doing since, besides having a full, interesting and eventful life.
Pax vobiscum my friends!

Very well put Bill.

It's a shame that some just put their hands over their ears and rock back and forth reciting Bible verses. It seems a bit stubborn as if there is no debate, but I suppose that's their prerogative.

The question was. Are there really people out there, learning the Bible by heart like an actor a role to be performed?

The plausible answer...CONCORDANCE, nade bells and whistles of comprehension go off.

The concordance is like a computer keyboard. Click on any given subject...and up jumps a heathen slayer.
Apparently there is one for every conceivable situation in life.

Dr. Cooper’s verbose quote in TC’s post sounds amazingly like relativism. In other words, the Bible is open to interpretation. Of course, the Biblical literalist insists their interpretation is the only correct one-- just like the radical Muslims. The Clergy Letter Project has the right idea.

No one takes the Bible as the literal truth no matter how much they may profess it. The most ardent believer cannot overcome the internal inconsistencies, and parts of it are simply ignored. Take the current flap over homosexuality, for instance. It's a sin, right? Leviticus and Galatians, and therefore God, tell us so. But what is God's remedy for this sin in Leviticus? Oops...death by stoning. Now since nobody is doing that, it means that the literalists are not so literal after all. It is fun, however, to watch the mental gymnastics literalists go through to explain away such embarassments.

James
Good point. TC, a self-professed literalist, who is adamantly against gay marriage (because it says so in the Bible), has been avoiding the following Biblical questions for weeks: do you eat pork or shellfish; should farmers be killed for planting different crops side by side; is the selling of slaves permissible; do you cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard? My guess is he has probably shaved and cut his hair at some time in his life and has eaten shellfish at one time or another, although this is explicitly forbidden in the Bible. I’m sure he uses one Biblical quote to justify not following another. Or, if you don’t have a good answer to the questions and don’t know why, there’s always the overused logical fallacy: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him." Proverbs (26:4)

Isn’t it telling that you never hear the literalist Christians use quotes such as, “If you want to avoid judgment, stop passing judgment.” (Matthew 7:1) or “Treat others the way you would have them treat you: this sums up the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)?

no izzie, you're confusing it with 'fairy-dust', no physicist would argue against us, (all of us)being 'stardust'...but that there fairy-dust,...isn't that a gay thang?

Just got word that Michael Zimmerman has checked in on this lively discussion and he sent me a little bit more information on his work.

Here it is:

Even though we are now well into the 21st century, too many of us seem unable to reconcile a scientific world view with a religious perspective. This non-productive battle usually focuses on the theory of evolution. There are two points that should help us get beyond the name calling that is so common when this issue arises.

First, from a scientific perspective, evolution is as well established and non-controversial a topic as any. Second, from a religious perspective, evolution has also been roundly endorsed by thousands upon thousands of religious leaders. Let me elaborate.

The scientific support for evolution is overwhelming and far too voluminous to discuss in this setting. What’s worth pointing out, however, is that virtually every major, professional scientific organization in the world has endorsed the teaching of evolution. Consider the following statement:

“The Oklahoma Academy of Science strongly supports thorough teaching of evolution in biology classes. Evolution is one of the most important principles of science. A high school graduate who does not understand evolution is not prepared for college or for life in a technologically advanced world, in which the role of biology and biotechnology will continue to grow.”

Additionally, the world’s most prestigious scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences, recently released a book entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism that presents, for the general reader, the data supporting evolution and the case for teaching it in our public schools.

But scientists are not alone in promoting the position that evolution must be a significant part of any high quality science education. They have been joined by clergy members across the country and around the world. Indeed, the organization that I’ve founded, The Clergy Letter Project, has brought together more than 11,400 Christian clergy members to sign a letter making exactly this point.

What could be clearer than these sentences from The Clergy Letter? “Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts….We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.”

There are those among us who have regularly attempted to portray the teaching of evolution as a being in conflict with religion. The religious leaders who have signed The Clergy Letter, men and women from large cities and small towns, representing all portions of the political spectrum, a host of ethnic groups and every decade with people in their 20s to others in their 90s, proudly demonstrate that religion and science need not be in conflict.

Additionally, at its recent General Conference, the United Methodist Church formally endorsed The Clergy Letter Project as well as a resolution saying that neither creationism nor intelligent design should be taught in public school science classrooms and laboratories. And the United Church of Christ’s “Not Mutually Exclusive” initiative largely does the same thing. In fact, most major religious denominations have weighed in similarly.

With so many religious leaders and scientists spreading the same message, that evolution and religion can be compatible – it’s a shame that a very loud minority has been attempting to control the discussion about this topic. In fact, however, rather than control the discussion, they are attempting to limit discourse, making it all but impossible for thoughtful conversations to take place.

Consider the fact that Ron Francey, the minister at Bethel Church of Christ in Waterford, Mich., was fired for preaching that evolution and the Bible can comfortably coexist. Christine Comer, Texas's director of science curriculum, lost her job after forwarding an e-mail announcing a speech by a noted scholar promoting evolution and questioning intelligent design.

Even in this hostile climate, however, religious leaders are stepping forward and demanding to be heard. The Clergy Letter Project recently sponsored its third annual Evolution Weekend, an event that encouraged congregations around the world to carve out time to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. The response was amazing! More than 800 congregations representing every state and nine countries participated in this event. Arrangements are now being made for Evolution Weekend 2009 (13-15 February 2009) to coincide with the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species.

All of these activities should conclusively demonstrate that the battle over evolution that seems not to go away is not a battle between religion and science. Rather it is largely a fight between those who have a very narrow view of religion and religious leaders who think a good deal more broadly. When fundamentalism trumps science, all of us lose.

Michael Zimmerman, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and professor of biology at Butler University in Indianapolis, is the founder of The Clergy Letter Project.