Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

not dogpiling here, but i wanted to jump in on something people seem not to have mentioned, and attack this from an angle people haven't considered yet. now, i consider myself a christian. i think the bible is a really interesting book. but the more i study it, the less of god i see in it. it is just simply not written as if god wrote it, it's written like a bunch of independent conflicting sources, compiled and editted together, often in ways that don't make sense.idealogies and themes change. bits are copied, but with differences. there's typos, mistakes, and often dated anachronisms and misconceptions about the natural world. there's overlap.it has become increasinly apparent to me that not only is the bible composed many different books by different authors, but that the individual books are ALSO compilations. at least three authors contributed to genesis. pslams is five independed collections.if god's responsible for this, he's not a very good author. if he was directing the hand of man, he could have directed it a bit better. or he could have at least gotten the message straight.as for a historical reference. no, it really can't be used as one. as i've discussed in other threads, genesis is simply not written as a history of events, just of cultural mythology. you don't get any real hebrew history until you get to kings/chronicles. and even then, the record is far from complete. and it's blatantly tainted by the fact that it is advancing particular views, and it was a social agenda. where is jehu's defeat by shalmanessar iii?the bible is simply not written to be historical. it's just SET in history.

nearest i can tell, all of them.

yeah i'm a little lost too.i think enough knowledge and research and questioning will slowly turn a creationist against creationism. i know my religion has been slowly disappearing the more i study it.

evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. ned's not exactly accurate in saying it's been proven: it's a simple observable fact, and the foundation for all of genetics. "evolution" is just the word we use to describe the heritability of genetic changes.arguing that it doesn't happen is like arguing that the sun doesn't set. granted, maybe you've live in a cave for your entire life and have no knowledge of the outside world, but the sun still sets. and it'll do it again tomorrow too.and if that's being stacked against the creationists -- well the creationists are just plain wrong. not only does the catholic church accept, but so does almost every single fundamental creationist. they just make up special names like "microevolution." now, if you want to discuss what mechanism prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution" such a topic is open for discussion. but whether or not such changes are observed is not. it's just plain silly. i've been studying different views of the bible for the better part of my concious life now. i've spent the last few years in some actual thought, discussion, research, and study about the text. as a believer, it's a very important book to me, although to this day i cannot figure out why.but more i study it, the less i see of god in it. the consistant evidence in the text is that it is not divine in origin. to have this belief against case after case logically disproving it seems absurd. and i've reached the point where i'm done with the mental gymnastics to justify the truth of the book. because i can no longer justify any of it, even just within itself.and no, quoting a few verses at me won't help. i've read them all before, i guarantee you. and i probably have a better understanding of them than most.but i have become a literalist now. i think the bible means exactly what it says, even if it's wrong. and i find that people who claim it to be the literal word of god have to do this interpretation game to get it to line up. apologizing the texts against each other and against reality.but one thing has become certain: the bible being the word of god is a belief. the alternative is education of the evidence on the matter.

the cases of orthodox jews and conservative christians agreeing are few and far between.a bit of research will show that orthodox judaism does not in fact support christian creationism at all. there have been various midrashim, commentaries, and other writings over the last 2000 years or so that talk about an older earth, and non literal days in genesis 1. (personally, i think they're bs, but whatever)orthodox rabbis tend not to say a lot on the matter, but have generally conceded that the evolutionary model fits a vague reading of their text. conservative and reform jews have publically disagreed with young earth creationism.so, frankly, the people who wrote the darned book think you're wrong.

i'm not believing the wrong the kind of scholars. often, i have the book itself in front of when i make these judgements. and i've given it every kind of doubt and benefit thereof imaginable. but the simple fact of the matter is that stuff just don't line up. i don't need the wrong kind of scholar -- or the right kind -- to tell me that. it's a simple observable fact of the bible.it's not written for the reasons you think it was written for. it's not an accurate history in any respect: it's quite biased, full of propaganda (often to exterminate entire peoples), and full of misreading itself. as i might have pointed out before, matthew can't even read jewish poetry correctly. what benefit of the doubt do you want me to give him when he has jesus ride into jerusalem on two different animals because he didn't understand the parallelism in prophesy that wasn't even about jesus. trust me, the bible is ANYTHING but opaque for me. i understand it quite well, better than probably anyone on this board. it's something i'm interested in and like learning about. i accept it for what it is, even if it's wrong.