Visit here to get their virtual tour of the skull, pelvis and foot structures between a chimp, neanderthal, and human, on the link to the left called "meet your relatives."
I saw the entrance to the room from a distance and felt a deep possession take over my whole person. Turning to my girlfriends as we approached I said, "Is it okay with you... would you mind terribly if I just blab and blab, when we're in there, please?"
We spent a lot of time studying the forms and the Laetoli footprints, trying to decide whether what we were looking at could be tacked up to deformations and individual variation within Homo Sapien. I said, yeah, for about half the hominid record; yeah, you could call a lot of what we see not much different from modern-day man at all. It's the whole record itself, particularly the smaller braincase and semi-bipedalism that really can't be explained without some nod to evolution.
I wasn't too different from my two friends, and I admitted enough. Yes, I may have studied the intricacies of morphology on my own for many years, but, now that I am a Christian who adopts the scriptures in a fundamentalist manner, how can I answer what I think I've learned? I searched anew for some kind of theory to explain their harmony or satisfactorily dissuade myself of one for the other.
There are two significant inherited flaws of fundamental evangelicalism which impact our discussion of evolution as evangelical Christians. Those two flaws of historical fundamentalism are:
1. Its militant mood: to re-Christianize our world
[One of the] definition[s] of evangelical comes from the conservative Protestant reaction to the rise of liberal Protestantism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is nearly synonymous with fundamentalism -- at least as that term was originally used and understood. ... The early twentieth century fundamentalists (especially before 1925) were by and large defenders of Protestant orthodoxy with a somewhat militant attitude toward fighting the encroachments of revisionist Protestantism. Evangelical was one of those terms used to identify them. After 1925, the year of the infamous Scopes evolution trial in Tennessee, fundamentalism gradually began to withdraw from the mainstream of denominational Protestantism into its own subculture.... {1}pg 11
2. The blur made between ignorance and faith, and in some cases the exaltation of dis-education
John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards may fairly be seen as the two great founders of Evangelicalism in the English-speaking world. ... What makes Edwards and Wesley the founders of the evangelical movement is their tremendous influence on church and culture through their persuasive influence on the necessity of radical conversion and experience for salvation and authentic Christian experience. While both men affirmed the absolute authority of scripture and insisted on the classical doctrines of Christian orthodoxy, they also elevated experience over doctrine as the true centerpiece of Christian existence. {1}pg 37
Watch this 59-second introduction:
One Christian woman interviewed said: "The bible says 'In the beginning, God created...'. To me, that's all I need to know." Is this really enough for ourselves, I wonder, let alone for everyone else who asks for answers?
You may have heard the recent trouble "Intelligent Design" has taken from the courts, because it could not prove itself actual science, in its defense.
This particular tv special was both an upsetting attempt to thrash bible-believing Christians but also a wonderful wake-up call to us for how far we are out of touch from the evidence and all reason our whole world functions upon.
I highly recommend this thrilling and entertaining documentary which covers creationism, evolution, DNA evidence, fossil evidence, the scientific method, and science itself. It is two hours, but like many of the people who are interviewed in it said, "We find ourselves going back to school all over again."
Click here to watch the NOVA special
History of Evangelical Theology. Olson, Roger E. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL; 2007, pp. 11, 37.
No comments:
Post a Comment