History, Revelation and Evolutionary theory

History, revelation and evolutionary theory

- I think Christianity has suffered a great deal from the notion that Genesis was somehow a revelation that Moses got from god. There is Nothing in Genesis to suggest this. To me, it's clearly history; and should be presented as history. That Moses was given credit by the scribes is about as meaningful as al gore being given credit for inventing the internet. He was a famous figure and so they gave him the credit. (Some say that Joseph [of Egypt fame] compiled the book, or most of it, from ancient records.)

- A popular position of e.s is that 'creationism' isn't science... Why? It's not science because its major tenets come from revelation. This isn't true (in my opinion) as Genesis is clearly meant to be history. The book of Genesis didn't come to Moses in a dream... nor did God dictate it to him. It's a collection of ancient documents; possibly in severely edited form. The creation account isn't revelation it's history. The account of the world before the Flood isn't revelation, it's history. The account of the Flood isn't revelation but history. Genesis has its source in ancient documents, in historical accounts of things experienced by the authors. (There are passages of engagement with God; but this wasn't revealed to Moses, nor did it happen to Moses. eg. when we're told God spoke to Noah, that God revealed things to Noah, this happened to Noah, and was likely written by Noah.)

- There is clearly a difference here between being told a flood is coming (revelation) and being in the flood, surviving it, and giving an account of the experience (history).

- The irony here is that secular e.s don't believe in revelation. When they claim creation science can't be real science because it's based on revelation they would seem to be making a disingenuous argument. ie. if there is no such thing as a revealed word from God, how can you dismiss creation science on the charge of revelation?

- There is nothing unscientific (or illegitimate) with investigating what historians have written, what they've told us about the world. (e.g. it was in no way unscientific to look for the Hittite people mentioned in the bible; nor is it unscientific to look for evidence of King David, or of Solomon.)

- What this has led to is the evolutionists mocking it and presenting a contrast between revelation and science. The conflict isn't between revelation and science but history and science. (Or history and evolutionary theory.)

Notes;
1. This post is a response to a book review [Amazon] of the book 'What science is, and how it works' - by Gregory Derry. According to the reviewer Derry makes a case in the book that creation science isn't real science. Claims like this serve the purpose of marginalizing people you don't agree with. There is no such thing as 'real' science. (What we have are claims that conform to reality, and claims that don't; and it's not always easy to know which is the case.)
2. Theistic evolutionists (an oxymoron if you want my opinion) keep insisting that Genesis was written by Moses, and so is deeply infected by the pagan culture of his day. In most of their books they don't even bring up the possibility Genesis is a collection of ancient family records, that go back all the way to the pre-Flood world, and indeed, right back to the Creation.