We can argue over the length of days in Genesis, the interpretation of the biblical record, we can even call each other names. But, at the end of the day our viewpoints hinge on one main factor.
A presupposition is a background belief. For example the justice system has to be very careful that juries do not have a background belief that someone is guilty before hearing the evidence. If you are approached by a police officer in a dark alley you will have a different presupposition to being approached a youngster in a hooded jacket. Why do we do that? Because we already have certain beliefs about people and situations and then process our experience through those beliefs.
The origins of man
Nowhere in the Bible is there the suggestion of the evolution of species, neither does it suggest that the earth’s age is measured in billions of years. So why would someone who believes in the God of the Bible think otherwise? Because they already believe that evolution is true because of other information they have received, they then filter the biblical account through their presupposition.
Educated or conditioned?
If we are not careful we can be conditioned to believe just about anything. That includes creation and evolution. It is vital that we start to think through what we say we believe; there is nothing to fear, because if the Bible is true it won’t be disproved and if evolution is the work of God it will agree with the Bible. Truth can stand up to the hard questions.
What can we prove?
The truth is that no one can prove evolution or creation. We have the same evidence, but no one alive today was an eye witness to the origins of man, and neither of the claims of the creationist and the evolutionist can be observed today. We can only study the result.
Why the different beliefs?
The reason we can have an eminent scientist state that the world is less than ten thousand years old whilst his colleague next door says the opposite is simply what they presuppose. One of them presupposes the Bible to be true and interprets his data accordingly, the other presupposes that evolution is true and interprets data through his evolutionary filter.
It’s all about faith.
Because the creationist cannot prove their point, the evolutionist thinks the creationist foolish and illogical because of his “unsubstantiated” beliefs. The problem is, he is actually guilty of the same thing. There is no empirical evidence for either standpoint. The big one for me though is why the creationist says what he believes is true; he interprets his surroundings through Scripture rather than the other way around.
How do we view the Bible?
This is where the rubber hits the road; is evolution and an old earth somehow taught in Scripture. Is Adam being a type, rather than a literal person a valid interpretation of the text? For me, the answer is a big no; to my mind that makes no theological or historical sense. What’s more, I have chosen to believe the Bible first (I understand this makes me a target for criticism), but am also satisfied that Science actually agrees with the biblical account.
I want to look at how our view of Genesis affects our society, and then an introduction to how science actually supports the story of Genesis.
Go well my friends 🙂