Science as we know it grew from pagan, occult, and biblical roots.
Christianity Today likes to emphasize the biblical sources. The story of creation, told in Genesis and elaborated in the New Testament, pictures a rational intelligence creating an orderly and predictable cosmos.
Without that predictability in the natural world, neither Newton nor Einstein would have been possible. There are times, however, when a careful reading of the natural world seems to conflict with our reading of Scripture....
I agree, Frank. Once you give ground to those who try to merge the Biblical account with humanistic reasoning, you've lost the discussion. Genesis 1 leaves no room for any gaps or day-age arguments.
Very good point, Frank, and as far as Evolution is concerned according to DNA there was an Eve, just not the one in the Bible.
Richard N. Ostling wrote: Foundational confessions of faith from the Protestant Reformation assume a historical Adam, and official Roman Catholicism defined this teaching at the 1546 Council of Trent, in the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII (who cautiously allowed leeway for humanity's bodily evolution), and in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church. The broader public is intrigued, more so than by many other biblical topics; a 2005 Gallup Poll found that 40 percent of Americans think the various competing concepts of human origins matter "a great deal."
I agree, if the human race didn't begin with a literal Adam and a literal Eve, then we don't have a gospel. In fact unlike many in the day age, theistic evolution or the gap theory camps, I will say that without the literal Adam and Eve beginning the human race, we don't even have any God breathed scriptures. And no, I won't say that good men can disagree on this issue.
1
There are a total of 3 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Jason Lisle | 6/1/2005
COMMENTS | 
