The Bible In A Beaker

I attended a lecture at Pitt yesterday, where Bob Enick (who wrote the book Evolving in Eden) spoke about the compatibility of science's claim of The Theory of Evolution and a creationism viewpoint.

It's a claim I've thought about since my very intelligent friend Seth showed certainty of evolution (despite that he's a strong Christian) and said it could be the most beautiful means of creating. Ever since I have not had a strong foundation on whether I believe in both or with the more traditional creationist version.

It's largely a question of intention within the Bible; especially in the Genesis 1 accounts. Is the purpose to give a factual representation of the happenings and their order, or merely to show truths about how things are and that they ultimately were formed by God?

Enick explained how most evidence shows that the Earth is right around 4.5 million years old and there are signs the univers is somewhere around 16 billion years old. I have very little issue with this, believing the seven days to be most likely figuretive, rather than literal. However, when Enick began to talk about the evolution of man, I felt like something was wrong. His interpretation is that the creation of "Man in God's image" means the point of receiving a spiritual side. Before which humankind was merely another animal brought forth from evolution. I must confront myself in asking do I disagree with this just because I don't like it, or because it matters.

A few months ago I had a conversation with a parent of some of my campus life kids, who said he sees God's "breathing into the dust" as a very straightforward indication of evolution from primal elements. To believe in the evolution of man, and God graciously bestowing a spirit on him may not be too different, but at the same time I do feel like it reduces the specialness of man in relation to God's heart.

Overall it was a decent lecture. I learned a bit, but had heard a lot of the material before. I may skim through the free copy of Evolving in Eden that I received.

Then, this morning while browsing through Facebook, I saw a comment my buddy Jonathan had about a little kid with super-strength that was mentioned on the Early Show. It sounded interesting so I looked up some info on it.

Once I heard this story I immediately thought of Samson from the Bible. His agility and strength seem to resemble what could possibly come of this disorder. Was that the case? God placed a genetic disorder on Samson so he could be super-strong. It then raises the question of why would Samson's strength leave him when his hair is cut?

Interestingly enough, Samson seems a little slow, in the fact that he doesn't realize this chick, Delilah, has already tried to subdue him several times based on what he tells her his weakness is. Scientists have concerns about mental development in people with this disorder, due to the lack of fat from a high metabolism, which the brain needs for development. So maybe Samson wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed for that reason.

Even if Samson had this defect, would it give him the strength to collapse an entire temple with a push of his arms? Maybe, we don't know much aboutt his temple, but it must have been big. So is this a genetic thing or a supernatural thing? Is it a mix of both? My guess is a mix.

I have no problem with science, and I certainly have no problem with God using science. Heck, He created science. Why shouldn't he have created it to meet his purposes? There is no direct attack on the legitimacy of God in relation to science. The potential risk, is the trustworthiness of the Bible. It's a fact of Christianity to believe the Bible to be a spiritually inspired book. It's common for said Christians to believe it to be very or entirely historically accurate. There are some, but not as many who consider it to be a book of both faith and science.

I remember hearing about Newton's belief that God had written two great books, the Bible and science. He believed that the Bible wasn't a book of science (even if it contained some) and that science didn't, on its own, give a spiritual look at existence.

I'm not a scholar who has dedicated his life to deciphering between allegoric poetry and literal intent. In fact, I don't believe anyone has mastered this art/science. I think it's healthy for Christians to accept their way of reading the Bible may have been a little off, as knowledge increases, but at the same time we cannot explain away the validity of the Bible in containing Truth, especially in the areas of most important Truth.

I think with time the truth will become more evident in some ways, and completely lost in others. The bottom line is that we cannot fully know what happened before we have records for, we can merely look at evidence and come to conclusions or take by faith a book written by the Author of Life... or both.