Subject: Re: Evolution (was women in church)
Date: 31 May 1999 21:57:45 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian

Able <> wrote:
> On 31 May 1999 07:30:02 GMT, Chris Ho-Stuart <>
> wrote:
>
> I will get back to you on the neutral atmosphere latter Chris,

I suggest we drop the atmosphere question. It is now established
quite clearly that Brendan did not in fact ever state or imply
that there was a reducing carbon dioxide atmospehre.

Further questions on the atmosphere are interesting, but not
particularly relevant to this group, IMHO.

Much more interesting is the matter of how confident we can be in
scientific theories, and whether Genesis is comparable with science.

> As far as Genesis is concerned..
>
> Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 
>
> There was light before the Sun Chris.
> Before the plants also , they  did not need the Sun, most hydrophonic
> plants are grown without the help of the Sun at all..but they do need
> light.

Of course there was light before the sun! That is not the question.

I am interested in PLANTS before the sun.  I also don't care that
some plants can be grown outside of sunlight -- I am interested
in how you understand the order in Genesis of creation of plants
before creation of the Sun.

Do you think plants were created before the sun? Simple question.

For what it is worth -- my view is that the order of events
in Genesis is not intended as a historical account. I think one
aspect of the order of events with respect to plants and the sun is
enormously significant. Genesis 1 is (amongst other things) polemic
against polytheism and nature worship.

In the creation order, the Sun is deliberately not the source of life
and light and harvest.  If you look at the plants created in Genesis 1,
there are two kinds singled out: those that bear fruit and those
that bear grain. The association with harvest is direct and explicit.

In the creation order, after the creation of harvestable plants the
Sun was given responsibility for daylight as just another created
being, with a role in the world but not usurping the role of creator
or giver of light.

Another thing. I am not simply bringing this up as a factual error.
It is likely that you have some credible way of understanding
this passage; I have presented what I feel to be a credible
justification for the Genesis creation order myself.

I am bringing this because of an implied comparison between
science and Genesis. Many people make this comparison. Some
make a comparison to show that Genesis is in error, others to
affirm that they reject science when it conflicts with bible
stories.

In my opinion, the first error is even bothering to make the
comparison.

Cheers -- Chris