I believe in a talking snake and don’t apologize. On the flip side, there’s nothing that precludes naturalistic evolutionists from believing that a snake could evolve to talk. If we evolved to talk then who’s to say it hasn’t happened to other species in the past or could eventually? Or are naturalists “speciesists” (= racist for your species) and only want to maintain that our species can evolve to talk? Hmmm. *sings* Dum dum dum dum dum.

[...] Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate [...]

God is love. Let it go guys and gals. I don’t recall Jesus debating these topics. He had more important things to worry about – like encouraging humans to recognize the divinity within every other human. The bible was written as mythological truth – revealing realities much more more important than factual truth. Truth about how creation mechanically happened are much less important than the truth of God’s presence and reality in our lives.

If I may, I would suggest the curious minds on the issue of old earth vs young earth and the other perspectives Michael brought up in his blog that they check out the Answers in Genesis web site. Ken Ham and his staff do an excellent job in presenting facts, scientific facts, which would lead one to believe that the young earth position is the most convincing. I am personally of the persuation that the earth is young and that God created the world/universe in six literal days. Rather than go into more details here in this comment, I would encourage people to connect with Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis. You just might find his thoughts and conclusions attractive……

Good blog. I find the critique of both sides simple and to the point. My personal belief lies somewhere between #5 and 6, with a framework interpretation of genesis 1, and I’m keenly aware of the shortcomings of my own interpretation. Unfortunately, nothing I’ve read so far has sounded credible enough to me to change my position… We’ll leave it to God to answer that when we meet Him in person I suppose.

Yes.

[...] http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/six-views-on-the-creationevolution-debate/ [...]

[...] After much wrestling with this post, I decided to abandon any attempt to create the Mother of All Summaries, and concentrate on a few ideas that interest me right now. There’s a useful comparison table here which unfortunately still neglects some views. Here’s another useful summary [...]

I agree #6 and see no conflict. Jesus Lord and Savior. T-Rex and Neanderthals and amoebas have nothing to do with it. The word/mind/ primal thought/God became flesh in process and steps.

The discussion on whether rabbits chew the cud rather bores me. The Mosaic Law never commands anyone to eat every animal which is clean; it only prohibits the eating of unclean animals. So if an animal was listed there which really should have been a clean animal, and they didn’t eat of it, then there was no harm done and they still kept the law.