This is an example page. It’s different from a blog post because it will stay in one place and will show up in your site navigation (in most themes). Most people start with an About page that introduces them to potential site visitors. It might say something like this:
Hi there! I’m a bike messenger by day, aspiring actor by night, and this is my blog. I live in Los Angeles, have a great dog named Jack, and I like piña coladas. (And gettin’ caught in the rain.)
…or something like this:
The XYZ Doohickey Company was founded in 1971, and has been providing quality doohickies to the public ever since. Located in Gotham City, XYZ employs over 2,000 people and does all kinds of awesome things for the Gotham community.
As a new WordPress user, you should go to your dashboard to delete this page and create new pages for your content. Have fun!
posted June 10, 2009 at 9:00 am
What is hopeful is seeing that religious narrative is subject to being recast in the light of scientific discovery. This is as it should be. I have never been one to dismiss the value of such narratives provided that they are subject to being recast when unsupportable interpretations lead to cognitive dissonance.
One of the joys of a post-modern approach is the way in which narratives can be accommodated and allow human participation across what were formally absolute boundaries of immutable Truth. Recognising the insufficiency of any encompassing narrative is humbling and liberating at the same time. It enables growth, or dare I say evolution, beyond the limits of our current frames. This bodes well as rich new forms in art, religion and science inform and inspire us. This is the way forward.
posted June 10, 2009 at 9:44 am
Living in the Bible belt as I do, I’ve never understood how so many can be so convinced that the universe could have ONLY been created according to their own interpretation of the Bible. As a Christian from a family of Christians, I don’t consider that what qualifies as a day today, worked for God before the sun was up. God is awesome enough to have done his thing in ways we couldn’t put on paper when the Bible was written.
posted June 10, 2009 at 2:16 pm
[quote]… Athiests claims that accepting the theory of evolution destroys the idea that God could have created the universe, including human beings.[/quote]
No atheist I know of claims that. It is almost always a Christian fundamentalist that makes that claim, not an atheist.
Atheists claim that evolutionary theory removes a very important reason to believe that God created the universe … namely the argument from design. But it does not eliminate the possibility that some type of a God could have made the universe.
Evolutionary theory has little to do with my atheism. The primary reason that I became an atheist is that when I examine the bible and what theists tell me they actually believe with respect to God, none of it makes sense.
Cheers,
DB
posted June 11, 2009 at 11:30 am
I think Karl Giberson wanders off the reservation more than a bit in this quote from his book. Creation is not a “secondary” doctrine. The doctrine of creation, in fact, is encapsulated in the very first line of the Apostle’s Creed. Moreover, that which Giberson considers “primary” — the incarnation of the divine Logos — is related directly in scripture to the doctrine of creation (See John 1). It’s hard to get more “primary” than that.
I’d also suggest that the “literalness” of “Adam and Eve” is important for Christian doctrine and is not necessarily “called into question” by evolution (depending what we mean by “literal” here). Giberson also wanders too far afield when he insists in his book that accepting evolution necessarily entails rejecting the doctrine of the Fall. The incarnation of the Logos is meaningless without the related doctrines of creation and Fall.
Clearly, biological evolution is one important aspect of the contemporary scientific understanding of natural history that requires us to reconsider how we should understand certain doctrines such as creation and the Fall. The Biblical story of creation and Fall in Gen. 1-4 appears not to be “literal” in a contemporary literary sense, but it narrates events that are “real” and primary for Christian doctrine. Denis Alexander does a much better job of addressing these questions than seems to be the case here, IMHO.
posted June 11, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I’m quite certain that it doesn’t matter if evolution denies creationism since one with ‘Faith’ will continue to believe regardless of logic.
posted June 12, 2009 at 7:33 am
A problem on all sides of this creationist/design-ist/atheist debate is that none of them are aware of the traditional theological understanding of ‘creation’. The issue is not whether it took six days or 15 billion years, but whether ‘creation’ refers to any temporal beginning at all. It does not. Modernity reduces causality to a matter of temporal succession, and God to some kind of initiator ‘in’ time. Traditional theology had a much richer understanding of causality, and was more concerned with ‘origin’ than with ‘beginning’. On this level, anything that exists has its being solely through participation in the Being of God. The issue of creation, being, and motion (such as evolution) should be approach on this metaphysical level.