creation or evolution , Do we have to choose?

[glow]

Has anyone read this book and if so what do you think? I am wondering if it could be used in a ladies bible study.I found the reviews very interesting.

Thanks Glow

Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?
By: Denis Alexander

[Jill]

.

[glow]

Thanks Jill.
I was interested in this book because it was written by a scientist who also is a Christian.

I like to read and find ways that show the worlds ways are really Gods ways also when studied deeply.
I also am trying to find ways that I can learn both sides so when I am in a situation where I have unbelievers that ask me wordly questions vs the bible I can have deeper knowledge that they will listen to. I bump into kids that are very smart and seeking.This could be a good foot in the door.

I am around young folks from grade school through mid 20s.This writer from the peeks inside the book on Amazon? and a christian science( not Christian scientist the religion) site I have bookmarked,the writer is a bible learned man so he compares Gods word and than the study of science and pulls them together.I am not opposed to traditional bible study, I attend and have taught it, I am looking for a broad range to reach out or be prepared .

I am curious if someone has already read the whole book and what they thought of it.

[NevadaDad]

Hi Glow,

I have not read the book, but I have read the Wikipedia article on Dr. Alexander and his views are quite clear: creationism and intelligent design are woefully misguided, are not science, and evolution and the Bible can quite peacefully coexist.

It is not necessary to even bring science into the discussion to immediately understand that yes, we do have to choose. Think about what evolution REQUIRES versus what the Bible REQUIRES:

• Evolution requires that man is the culmination of millions of years of mutation and natural selection (i.e., survival of the fittest). This means that DEATH is a necessary component of evolution - millions of years of death are required before man can appear.
  
  The Bible requires that death is the result of man's sin, not man the result of millions of years of death.
  
  Evolution requires that death preceded man.
  
  The Bible requires that man preceded death.

There are elaborate attempts by christian evolutionists to reconcile the Bible with evolution, but frankly, this cannot be done without undermining the basic underpinnings of the Christian faith and the clear teachings of the Bible about the nature and origin of sin.

So, to return to the original question, I would say quite emphatically that yes, it is necessary for us to choose one or the other. They cannot coexist. Evolution relies on the record of death (the fossil record) as the basis for virtually everything that it posits. The Bible clearly states that sin entered the world by one man - Adam - and that through his sin, death also entered the world. You cannot have man as the culmination of millions of years of death while simultaneously having man originally made in God's image and without sin.

If you are interested in this topic, I would encourage you to visit the many fine websites and other biblical creation resources that exist in the form of books, podcasts, DVDs, etc. There is a plethora of information out there.

[backwoodsman]

I haven't read the book, but if NevadaDad's summation of the author's views is correct, it seems it would be a poor choice for a Bible study, except perhaps as a small part of a broader look at the topic.

This is one of those topics on which Christians have allowed some pretty deep divisions to form in the church -- Christians insisting other Christians can't be saved because they believe the wrong way on this issue, and the like. To me, this is probably the most important reason to look into it and learn a bit about the most common views -- to try to heal the rifts.

There are basically 3 positions to be considered:

1. Evolution
2. Young-earth creationism
3. Old-earth creationism

(Then there's theistic evolution, gap theory, etc., but I don't consider them credible because they're merely attempts to synthesize a position with absolutely no supporting evidence.)

Of the three, only one fits together all the evidence from both fields -- Biblical and scientific -- without compromising anything from either: Old-earth creationism. Some of its primary proponents have done a really good job of explaining their position and analyzing other positions in light of evidence and sound reasoning, so their material is a good place to start: http://www.reasons.org (This is Hugh Ross' group's website, Reasons to Believe, for those who have heard of him.)

A word of caution: I've found it's best not to take a young-earth creationist's word for what old-earth creationists believe, because they usually grossly twist and misrepresent the OEC position. That's what happens when one is so heavily invested in a position that they're unable to objectively evaluate a different view. So it's best to go straight to the source and see for yourself what the OECs really say.

[Paidion]

We have to choose — because, if we don't choose, we have made a choice.

[darinhouston]

We have to choose — because, if we don't choose, we have made a choice.

Geddy Lee reference? Who would have guessed.

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance take,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
"The stars aren't aligned,
Or the gods are malign..."
Blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren't born in Lotusland.

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.

[Ian]

I nearly lol`d Darin. Why would a 73-year old man have the slightest interest in Rush?

[TK]

Well, Paidion is Canadian (that might rhyme although I am not 100% certain).

TK

[Ian]

I like Rush, comparatively unassuming for rock musicians. But it`s sad they don`t recognize where their talent comes from - blind chance? A "roll of the bones"?

I have the slightest of connections with Geddy - the wife of one of my wife`s cousins is an anaesthetist who once put his mother to sleep. Now there`s something for me to brag about!