|
REGARDING ‘Battling caricatures in science debate,’ in the January Island Insight:
Paul Teel’s position on “harmonizing” faith and science sounds conciliatory and convincing to the unwary, but he tips
his hand toward the end by asserting that Genesis is “not a treatise on natural science; its purpose is theological.”
Meaning that he regards the events reported therein as not having actually taken
place, historically.
However, grammatical analysis of the Hebrew text clearly indicates that these
documents are intended as history, not parables or allegory of any description.
I’m baffled as to what theological purpose could be served by God including a
collection of fake chronicles – i.e. packs of lies – in his scriptures.
Furthermore, the concept that “evolution is the best available explanation for the development of life on earth” utterly disregards God’s own account of his creative work in the first six days of the cosmos.
Clearly, Teel regards the Darwinist paradigm, advanced by fallible humans, as
more authoritative than the infallible word of God. How is that compatible with Christianity?
To regard the creation account as anything other than true history weakens the
very foundations of our faith.
If Adam was not a real person, then there was no original sin, and no basis for
God’s plan of redemption. If particles-to-people evolution took place, then long
ages of disease, suffering, and death were present before humans appeared.
Continue article >>
|
Yet God pronounced his creation “very good”; and scripture is clear that death is a result of Adam’s sin. If not, then there is no need for a Saviour. Not only that, but Jesus and
the apostles regarded Genesis as actual history. Were they lying, or mistaken?
I think not.
Some, recognizing these objections, have tried mightily to insert evolutionary
dogma into the Creation account, resulting in a contorted and preposterous
reinterpretation that fails to stand up to even a cursory scholarly
examination.
Don’t be deceived: the tenets of Darwinism are absolutely incompatible with the word
of God. Which one you choose to believe in, of course, is entirely up to you.
Ruth Bard, Nanaimo
February 2010
|
