K.P. the beast

Stephan Anagnostaras stephan at nospam.ucla.edu
Fri Nov 13 04:50:18 EST 1998


In article <364B5C6D.75E14B08 at indiana.edu>, qmorrisREMOVE at indiana.edu wrote:

> I just recently started subscribing to this group. It's amazing how,
> no matter where you go in newsgroup cyberspace, this conversation
> persists. Will someone go back, read genesis, and tell us WHERE
> the account of creation PROHIBITS the possibility of evolution?
> 
> Otherwise, shut up. :)
> 
> Shaft

Basically, it does.  The story of Genesis clearly states the abrupt
appearance of humans in complex form. Plus, God created man in his image.
It doesn't say he created the animals and then hoped that one day millions
of years later man might turn out in his image. It clearly indicates that
man was created abruptly in God's image. So this precludes the possibility
of evolution, at least for man.

The account of Adam and Eve is even more difficult to reconcile, because
of the appearance of the male sex before the female sex.  Plus, in this
account humans are apparently created BEFORE simpler animals and
vegetation (this is the opposite order however of the first creation
story... of course, we know the historical sources of these two stories
are different). This account is more problematic, but in either case, both
accounts agree on the abrupt appearance of man in complex form. 

This aside, I don't think people should make their careers out of testing
things in the Bible as scientific questions, this is a silly practice. 
Any particular Bible has been translated too many times to have this level
of technical accuracy and the creation stories (of which there are two)
have independent sources and disagree on some key issues, relevant to the
debate, so what is the point?

Cheers,
Stephan



More information about the Microbio mailing list