Debate: The Bible and Darwin

DMWessel, a community member, wondered if there is common ground between the Bible and Darwin

By: The OpenLearn team (Programme and web teams)

  • Duration 5 mins
  • Updated Sunday 21st December 2008
  • Introductory level
  • Posted under Philosophy
Share on Google Plus Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit View article Comments
Print
A bronze of Rodin's The Thinker Copyrighted image Copyright: Jupiter Images

I know it's a touchy subject but I thought people might be interested in this slant on things:

Evolution says that life came from the 'primordial soup (mud)' and the Bible actually says, what I am convinced, is the same thing:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." (Gen. 2:7)
Dust (as powdered or gray; hence clay, earth, mud:-ashes, earth, ground, mortar, powder, rubbish) ‘of the ground (soil - from its gen. redness).

Darwin said that human beings came from the primates, and Bible writings have this to say:

(Genesis) Adam/man (Hebrew-synonyms) = ‘ruddy (red)’, rosy, the flush of blood

"...man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7b):
soul (Hebrew & Greek) = breathing creature/the animal sentiment principal only

- does not suggest a ‘human’ being but rather a ‘ruddy’ creature (as coming from the ‘red’ earth - dust/ground)

"Prior to being put into the garden, ruddy did not have 'spiritual' ability, he only gained that after he entered the garden; '...and the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man (ruddy) whom he had made." (parentheses mine, Gen. 2:8 & 15)

So then, Adam/man was not initially a ‘human’ being as many believe but rather a ‘ruddy creature of earth’, an animal (had to have been a chimpanzee/rhesus monkey because according to recent genome mapping, somewhere along the line we picked up the chimp gene - see attached 'chimphand').

It was the gaining of this other element that enabled one primate to change from animal to human, and unless he had gained it, could not have changed - thus the reason we don't see other primates in various stages of change.

Religious tendencies are observed strictly in the human species. If human beings are in part ‘soul (animal)’ then why aren’t such tendencies evident in other primates? Could it be because we have something the other animals don’t have?

soul = mortal
spirit = immortal

animal = sou
human being = soul + immortal spiritl