Why do people try to reconcile the biblical creation account with modern science?

Question

There does not need to be any reconcilition. The purpose of the creation account is not scientific or how to.

And I quote:
[in regards to COSMOGONY]
"Futhermore, Hebrew thinking on the subject was mythopoeic rather than intellectual, issuing more out of imaginative fancy than out of logical inference or disciplined inquiry. Accordingly, all efforts to reconcile biblical cosmogony with modern science rest, in the last analysis, on a fundamental misunderstanding of its purport and intent and on a naive confusion between the two distinct forms of mental activity."

Source: Gaster. T. "Cosmogony" The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Abingdon Press: Nashville: 1963. (Page 702)

I am interested in Atheist response to this quote specificially.

I am a Christian.

I hold to this view of the Creation account. I personally approach the creation accounts in the Bible from a theological, literary, and cultural perspective.

Answer 1

I'm sure the writers of the Bible never intended the Creation story to be taken literally. How horrified they would be to see people actually trying to masquerade it as science and teach it to all children in a science class room.

It's just a metaphor, a story, a way to express that God did it in a manner people could understand. If there is a God, he used science and evolution and crafted this world slowly and carefully.

Answer 2

I'm sure I don't correctly understand the difference between cosmogony and cosmology, and several dictionaries have only made the problem worse. I have to admit I've never considered the problem from the perspective of cosmogony. I think you are saying we should look at Biblical creation from a cosmogonical perspective because cosmology really isn't relevant. Right? At this point, I must decline to answer because cosmogony is a new concept for me, which I'm not entirely sure I correctly understand. Sorry. I do think it's a great topic for discussion here, but I have too many questions to risk an answer.

Answer 3

I find it funny that those who do not believe in God try and use Science and the theories of evolution to disprove creationism.

Look around you. The intricacies of nature and the natural events happening on Earth are the way God is expressed. If that is so, then logically if a new species is to come about, it can't just appear in front of our eyes, it must evolve from another. Evolution can be viewed from a creation perspective, it doesn't have to be seperate.

You have to remember, the bible is the word of God but copied down and copied over numerous times by man. Humans of that time didn't have our advantages, things seemed to them to appear, be magical and God-like when in actual fact that may have taken place through natural occurences, such as seas parting due to volcanic activity, which could be seen as being caused by God.

I am Christian and i choose to view the world openly and interpret what i see. Rather than taking the bible word for word i think about the issues that seem to keep Science and God at odds and it doesn't take much intelligence to come to these conclusions. Open your minds, broaden your knowledge, and look closely in nature for your answers.

Answer 4

If you take the Biblical account of creation as "mythopoeic" and "imaginative", then what is to say anything else in the Bible is true, and furthermore, which parts would be true and which parts wouldn't be? You can't pick parts of the Bible that you like because it doesn't contradict common science. The fact that it doesn't follow science is what makes it so amazing in the first place.

If you look at the Bible from only a sociological, then you miss the whole point. Sure we are to fellowship and get along with one another, but the main idea is to please God not others.

Answer 5

The Bible is inspired by God.

As with regard to the difficulty in understanding the Creation account, I wish you would consider several things. The order of Creation is from simple to complex. Science tells us the same thing about the Earth, (the formation of our solar system) and the development of life on the Earth.

Both in the Theory of Evolution and in the Creation account the order is from simple to complex. (Note specifically in this regard the fifth and sixth days of Creation) The word day that is in the Genesis account also is translated age. The use of the word day here confuses the idea of a 24 hour day and the "day" of some historical person or defining historical event. This latter meaning of "day" is more to the points as it defines a "time" when things happened!!!!

The argument about Creation or Evolution is really about "first cause". While design implies a Designer (Creator), natural laws operate of their own accord, but these laws themselves have a system and design to them!!!!

There are other proofs of the existence of God, independent of the contentions about Creation, but the design in nature and the laws of nature reflects the Hand of God.

Answer 6

So, in a nutshell, it's not MEANT to be taken literally. It's a figurative story. Fine. Enjoy the story.

But you can understand when I get my underwear in a knot when you want to teach the story as an alternative to evolution.

Answer 7

I do agree....science has nothing to do with it....God is the one who made everything we see in nature....and even our buildings are from those things he gave us...

Answer 8

hey, I agree, now tell it to the literal-minded fundies, and please stop them from pushing the young earth bible myths as a viable alternative to evolution.

Answer 9

It means that faith is faith and science is science and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Answer 10

because it is the truth