First let me say that this post deals with evolution, a subject that I have not really determined a stance on yet, but one that interests me greatly.
It is common knowledge that the Bible tells us that we were created "in the image of God." How then, do you explain the varying skin tones, hair colors, eye colors, heights, and weights? Even prognathicism (amount that the lower face juts out from the rest of the skull) can be seen in varying degrees. Not to imply anything or be racist in any way, but I noticed this in a black girl that walked past me just a moment ago. Another trait that one can see is varying degrees of brow heaviness. Perhaps, if one believes evolutionary theory, this is a trait leftover from neanderthals. The purpose of this post is not to be derogatory to any race or say that some person is "less evolved" than another because they have features found in fossils of ancient hominids, but rather to point out the possibility of us being misled by the image of God statement. Maybe it does not actually refer to us looking like God. Maybe image is something that actually means that we have God-like intellectual qualities, or some kind of way of dealing with religion that would set us apart from apes or other animals.
I feel like I'm sticking my neck out here, because I have not actually looked into Genesis recently enough to remember if it specifies that it does indeed mean that we look like God, but if it does, that statement confuses me even more. The evidence backing our evolution from chimpanzees is almost irrefutable. We have
pretty clear fossil records of changes through millions of years of archaeological records which would seem to completely contradict the Bible. The thing that troubles me most is that if we cannot find a way to reconcile the Bible with science or science with the Bible, how are we ever going to convince scientists that the rest of the Bible is accurate? If it is the Word of God and is 100% true, there should be no error, but how do we explain that Genesis is true despite the fact that they're holding Australopithecus Afarensis fossils that completely deny it?
Troy
Comments (9)
First of all, I don't see why belief in evolution would be contradictory to belief in creation...after all, God could do it in any way/at any pace he wanted. That said, I don't really believe in Darwinian evolution, for other reasons. One is that Darwin himself eventually said it was just a stupid theory he had in his foolish youth, that people took and turned into a religion. He later came to believe in the Bible. Another reason is lack of a fossil record...there are a lot of supposed fossils that have been found, then later proved to be something else (such as the famous "Lucy" who still appears in text books, even though she was proven to be a not-that-old skeleton of an elderly person with arthritis, or some such).
Just keep up the research. It's interesting. You'll figure out what you believe, and then it may change, and then it may change again. That's ok. It's all part of learning. I adapt my ways of thinking all the time. <3
@faerieshadow - Well, I don't want to start an argument (especially with you!) but I don't think Lucy has been disproven. Lucy was an Australopithecus Afarensis (see top skull on embedded link in main post). I'm not so sure about Darwin. I've heard about what you said, that he denounced one of his own theories, but I don't think it was the whole theory of evolution. I think he denounced "survival of the fittest" in favor of natural selection. The fossil record is pretty astounding for being as old as these fossils are too. Like I said, check out that link. I was given that link by my Anthropology professor, and this is what he specializes in, so I trust him. It's all very interesting, and I wish this semester wasn't ending... at least in that class haha.
@The_Palantiri - Certainly not. I'm usually the one arguing FOR evolution...aggrivating people because I insist that it could have happened. I don't know one way or the other, and I waver as to my beliefs. I can take either position. At the moment I don't really think so because I haven't seen convincing evidence, but I don't look down on anyone who thinks they have. I'm open-minded about it.
The topic of this blog entries just like the name of one of the hymm in my school prayer book.
Maybe you have heard this song before. :)
I'd like to point out that the Bible doesn't specify that we physically look like God (save for references to the hand of God, God turning His back). The Bible does say God is a spirit, and we have a spirit. The Bible also attributes many emotions to God, of which we also share on their many different levels. We Love, hate, are jealous, sad, etc. just like God. Don't assume we have a clear archaeological record, because we don't. We don't even have a way to prove how old our fossils really are. And the fossils we have that "prove" evolution are only a few...they are very far from complete. Don't forget to look at both sides. If you haven't heard of Kent Hovind, he is a creationist scientist that deals with all the issues you are speaking of and more. Don't finish your search without checking him or another view that is opposite your teachers...and get someone who is in such a position. Google Kent Hovind and throw in some "evolution" or "creation" related keywords to pull something up. I haven't the time right now, but I'll find a site of his and show you if you can't find it.
Happy searching!
Sorry, bub, but you're going to have to give me a little more evidence than some similar skulls. I don't buy evolution. Have you ever looked at the mathematical probability of evolution bringing about the plant and animal kingdoms that we have today? The numbers are staggering. Science used to just add years to the age of the earth to account for this, but modern technology has revealed evidence that the universe can't be old enough for this. Adaptation is one thing, explaining the dilemma of your post, but there is no evidence that one being can change into another.
I know the evidence seems "irrefutable" in our state-run, secular education. That's because we only hear what they want us to hear. There's actually a great deal of persecution in the scientific community against anyone who doesn't buy Darwinism. Why is that?
Just know that you're not getting the whole story. Check out A Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Also, Kim borrowed a book from me a while ago called How Now Shall We Live, and there's alot in there about evolution as well.
I personally believe that evolution became so widely accepted because Darwin published his material at a time when people were "allowed" to disbelieve in God. They took it and ran with it. Darwin was not the first to put forth his theories, or so I've read, but once he did, everybody read them.
As to the image of God question, I think that refers to the fact that God is a person (well, three actually, but that's another conversation). That when He made us, He used Himself as a model. I also know that He loves variety. He loves a rainbow in varying degrees of melanin.
@TitusRainer - Great points Sheehan! As I said in the beginning of this post, I'm not decided. In fact, I tend to lean away from evolution really. I don't see how matter somehow arranged itself into a single-celled organism and then turned into all these other things. I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure the numbers really are staggering. However, staggering numbers could mean that there is only one being capable of it: God. I'm not willing to buy it yet though.
As for chimps turning into humans, IF the planet really is millions of years old, I could understand how these things would happen. Just a series of adaptations over an unimaginable amount of time. I believe that the beings whose skull are shown in that website actually existed. There are full skeletal remains that they have found in Africa that would indicate it. Some of the earliest ones were like chimps and did not walk, but I think Afarensis was bipedal. From the start of bipedalism, the brain began to grow and our diet changed from jungle food to grassland food. Jaws shrunk, brains were pushed forward. This is all just what I've learned, and I think it's pretty interesting at least.
So in summary, I don't know for sure, but I think it's interesting to think about.
@The_Palantiri - But what evidence is there that chimps were bipedal? Sure, you can look at bone structure, but from the discovered remains that I've seen, making determinations about movement and diet based on those corroded lumps of matter is an exercise in wishful thinking. And that's what I find about the theories of macroevolution- that someone wants them to be true, even though they simply can't be.