The Evolution Of The Stars

Since we seem to have gotten into the evolution debate somehow (thanks a lot, Feisty), I thought I'd ask a few questions.

If creationists/ID'ers prefer a literal interpretation of the creation of life as described in Genesis, do they also subscribe to the literal interpretation of the creation of the stars and the heavens? If God, literally, shaped living creatures with his own hands, does it not also follow he literally shaped the stars with his own hands?

If so, do you reject the standard model of star formation?

And if so, what accounts for the fact that we can observe what seem to be new stars a-borning?

If the formation of the stars, as described in Genesis, on the other hand, is to be taken as figurative -- God conceived the stars during Genesis, and as his will and foresight are perfect, that was as good as "creating" them outright, for he set in motion the forces which would, over aeons, form the stars, with devine precision -- why is such a figurative reading of God's creation of life so abhorrent?

If God could create the stars by simply conceiving them and creating all the natural forces of the universe that dictated their actual formation, why not the same with the biological processes which eventually created life?

If we're going by the Bible's text, what in the text alerts you that one is to be taken figuratively, and the other completely literally?

Further, if you accept the standard scientific model of star and planetary formation, how do you account for the fact that life seems to have arisen long, long, long after the creation of stars and star systems? Why such a long gap between this "day" of creation and subsequent "days"?

Just curious.

posted by Ace at 02:31 PM

| Access Comments