Evolution must stand or fall on it's own evidence, but it is not compatable with a Christian's literal interpretation of the Bible.
With genuine respect, may I say that at the time of Galilleo, the Church held precisely the position you make here, but about the 'controversarial' claim of science that the earth orbited the sun rather than, as the Bible seemed to state, the other way around. The Church believed then that was a heresy and tried to (brutally) suppress it, on exactly the same grounds that you have given here: if science says something contrary to a literal reading of the Bible, then the whole edifice of Christian belief was threatened.
Well, science was right about the heliocentric model--and the Church survived, came to terms with it: the earth does indeed circle the sun after all, and that does nothing to undermine or invalidate the teachings of Jesus or Paul or any of the other early Church Fathers about the path to spiritual salvation. And why should it? Jesus did not say anything that was contingent upon the sun circling the earth.
I will grant you that science does appear, in places, to rule out a 'literal' reading of Scripture--but there are several points to be made about this:
Much of physics (particularly quantum mechanics) is even more at odds with literal scripture, but does not give rise to the 'controversy' that evolutionary biology does because it is very difficult to begin to comprehend without advanced mathematics. Evolutionary biology is also a complex and demanding area of study, but large numbers of laymen think they understand it (as they think they understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity) on the basis of popular oversimplifications. The arguments 'against' are in fact directed at the popularised oversimplifications, and simply don't hold up
I am certainly no theologian (and the nature of my own religious belief is of no interest or consequence to anyone else, in any event), but it seems clear enough to me that the whole problem over the Evolution/Intelligent Design issue is nothing to do with science (which has established an overwhelming preponderance of data in favour of evoltuionary theory), but everything to do with a literal reading of scripture. By all means, have that argument/discussion in religious arenas, but please, it doesn't belong in the science classroom!
A final note (not directed at you personally, rightfielder): I am always surprised to encounter Christians who argue for a literal reading of Scripture but who themselves cannot read either Hebrew or Greek, the original languages of the Bible. If arguments about the literal readings were conducted within the framework of the original languages, much confusion would be avoided. But ultimately, the choice between literal and symbolic readings of the Bible are theological, not scientific matters
Final emphasis: most Christians do not insist on a literal reading of the Bible!
Those who do insist on a literal reading are inevitably inconsistent about it. For example, when confronted with the scriptural description of pi as 3, or of the earth being immovable while the sun circles around it, the most imaginative contortions are employed to explain that scripture doesn't really say what it literally says. The same is true of some other passages that show up in these threads from time to time. Yet these interpretive skills are never applied to the creation account in Genesis -- which many denominations read as an allegory -- and which must be an allegory, considering all that we've learned about astronomy, geology, etc.
Why do literalists behave like this? Why draw the line at Genesis, and not at pi, or geocentrism? Because -- this is my opinion only -- some people literally enjoy such controversy, but even the Kathy Martins of the world dimly sense that it's clearly insane to insist that the "controversy" about pi should be in the schools. So they draw their battle lines at Genesis, poor ol' Darwin becomes their villain, and children are being systematically confused about how to think about reality.
We can all agree that there are some passages that are only poetry, or allegory -- and they usually signal quite plainly that such is what they are. But there are other passages (pi and geocrentricism) where we are left clueless by the text alone.
That's where science comes in. Science is an investigation of nature -- or of creation -- God's first book. The universe is in God's original handwriting. Un-transcribed, un-translated, un-edited. It's the primary source, the real deal. It's the context in which scripture should be understood, and not vice versa.
Thank you for your post.
The Bible does not say that the sun orbits the earth.
It says, "the sun rose." We use this same language today.
It was the Church's interpretation that was off, not the Bible.
Points well taken. And I do understand basic Hebrew and Greek well enough to consider myself a literalist.
Biblical Theology was my major, after 6 years of in class study, every supposed "contradiction" was easily reconciled.