SoulofaGremlin
Typing...
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 8,799
- Likes received
- 23,978
Hello everyone. So, this these thoughts have been on my mind for a while now, but I think I'm in a good headspace now to voice them. This is just a timid probing for answers so sorry ahead of time if anyone is upset by this.
So, some information about me:
I'm a firm believer in God. After all these years, and all my spiritual ups and downs, that has not changed. And in the intersection of faith and science that's the easiest to coincide - just say he jump started the Big Bang, sat back and watched the Law of Physics and life start and evolve and BOOM. Clockmaker God. It's a valid theory.
But one I didn't hold.
I have always been Christian. My family is Roman Catholic, and I went to a private Christian school.
That's where I first came across this dichotomy between science and the Bible.
See, the school was Fundamentalist - they took the Bible literally, word for word (it's "Infallible" is the word, literally written Truth). Therefore, everything was through that lens. Our Biology class was all about refuting Evolution and "defend your faith" (they assumed science/evidence would always be against you. Same in Geology class, though there we did learn about Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism!
Yeah, I got lucky (blessed) that I ended up as well adjusted as I did.
Now, enough about me, to the crux of the matter. A common misconception is for people to think this contention is true for the entirety of organized religion. This isn't true. While there are likely many arguments I'm unaware of, I am very familiar with one: the Gap Theory.
This theory holds that there is a "gap" between the first and second verses. A gap of billions of years (I know this already feels like a hilariously unlikely work around for some of you, but hold on). It holds that God created the universe in the first verse, then stars, planets, both rocky and gaseous, and liquid water formed as in science, then life started and evolved as in the fossil record, and then the earth became a water world, covered in a murky darkness that prevented any light to emit from the sun, stars and moon, and God then recreated life. in verse two. Everything then continues on literally.
From my point of view, this has several problems (not just the basic premise). First off, the order is all wrong. The stars, sun, moon, and outside galaxies already existed, but they are only "created" on the fourth day. The argument here is that from the viewpoint of stone age man (which Abraham was) they would appear to be created on the fourth day, but they were already there. I find this flimsy. Which leads to my second point, billions of years passed between the first and second verse, but there's no mention of it at all? Not even in vague, metaphorical terms? I call bullshit.
And the third point.
This undercuts the whole argument of a sin nature, doesn't it? That Jesus had to die for. In this reading death and sin had existed billions of years before Eve ate the apple of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent (Satan) didn't tempt her to bring sin into the world - it already was. Personally, this is a point I rather like, as natures and sweeping generalities always rubbed me the wrong way. But yeah, it does make a Christian reading of the Gap Theory untenable.
So yeah, what are peoples' thoughts on this? Is there a better way to alleviate the tensions between science and Christianity other than the Gap Theory? Hand wave it all away as just metaphor, symbolism, and allegory? Or should I just chuck my Christian faith (not my faith in God; that I won't budge on - no way I'm going atheist) out with the bath water?
So, some information about me:
I'm a firm believer in God. After all these years, and all my spiritual ups and downs, that has not changed. And in the intersection of faith and science that's the easiest to coincide - just say he jump started the Big Bang, sat back and watched the Law of Physics and life start and evolve and BOOM. Clockmaker God. It's a valid theory.
But one I didn't hold.
I have always been Christian. My family is Roman Catholic, and I went to a private Christian school.
That's where I first came across this dichotomy between science and the Bible.
See, the school was Fundamentalist - they took the Bible literally, word for word (it's "Infallible" is the word, literally written Truth). Therefore, everything was through that lens. Our Biology class was all about refuting Evolution and "defend your faith" (they assumed science/evidence would always be against you. Same in Geology class, though there we did learn about Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism!
Yeah, I got lucky (blessed) that I ended up as well adjusted as I did.
Now, enough about me, to the crux of the matter. A common misconception is for people to think this contention is true for the entirety of organized religion. This isn't true. While there are likely many arguments I'm unaware of, I am very familiar with one: the Gap Theory.
This theory holds that there is a "gap" between the first and second verses. A gap of billions of years (I know this already feels like a hilariously unlikely work around for some of you, but hold on). It holds that God created the universe in the first verse, then stars, planets, both rocky and gaseous, and liquid water formed as in science, then life started and evolved as in the fossil record, and then the earth became a water world, covered in a murky darkness that prevented any light to emit from the sun, stars and moon, and God then recreated life. in verse two. Everything then continues on literally.
From my point of view, this has several problems (not just the basic premise). First off, the order is all wrong. The stars, sun, moon, and outside galaxies already existed, but they are only "created" on the fourth day. The argument here is that from the viewpoint of stone age man (which Abraham was) they would appear to be created on the fourth day, but they were already there. I find this flimsy. Which leads to my second point, billions of years passed between the first and second verse, but there's no mention of it at all? Not even in vague, metaphorical terms? I call bullshit.
And the third point.
This undercuts the whole argument of a sin nature, doesn't it? That Jesus had to die for. In this reading death and sin had existed billions of years before Eve ate the apple of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent (Satan) didn't tempt her to bring sin into the world - it already was. Personally, this is a point I rather like, as natures and sweeping generalities always rubbed me the wrong way. But yeah, it does make a Christian reading of the Gap Theory untenable.
So yeah, what are peoples' thoughts on this? Is there a better way to alleviate the tensions between science and Christianity other than the Gap Theory? Hand wave it all away as just metaphor, symbolism, and allegory? Or should I just chuck my Christian faith (not my faith in God; that I won't budge on - no way I'm going atheist) out with the bath water?