There are many people who contend that theistic evolution is not compatible with a literal reading of Genesis 1.

There are also many open-minded creationists who would at the very least argue that theistic evolution is not only a reasonable model, but is even implied by certain verses found, of all places, in Genesis 1 itself.

I am of the belief that neither creationist nor evolutionist can afford to be dogmatic about their respective "sides," if I must resort to partisan imagery. My goal in writing this post is not to preach theistic evolution, but rather to instill an appreciation for the theistic evolutionist's argument, and to hopefully deter a few more prideful snickers whenever the "e word" is mentioned in Sunday school. Thus my title, "Keeping the Door Open," and not "Kicking the Door Down."

"After their own kind"

"And God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation [...] according to their various kinds." (Genesis 1:11, NIV)

In verses 11-12 of Genesis 1, the phrase "according to their various kinds" is used three times. Most young earth creationists would contend that this leaves no room for evolution, because of the limitation of being within one's own "kind" would clearly prohibit evolution into another "kind." However, this requires the assumption that these verses are referring to reproduction. A more careful reading will show that this is probably not the case, since God Himself is doing the creating; the vegetation is not propagating itself at this point. The same is true for the birds and "creatures of the sea" (v. 21). There is no reference to them multiplying according to their kind, but only that God created them in this way.

Reproduction is mentioned in verse 22: "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." But something seems to be missing here. There is no indication to reproduce according to their own kind. There is only the command that reproduction take place; there's nothing limiting their reproduction to specific kinds. This passage doesn't prohibit evolution at all!

Creation Out Of Nothing

Creationists argue that God spoke, and it was, instantly. Therefore slow evolutionary processes infringe on what Genesis supposedly communicates as instantaneous, "out of nothing" creation.

But look again at Genesis 1:11 — "Then God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so." Continuing on to verse 12: "The land produced vegetation [...] And God saw that it was good." God certainly could have directly created vegetation. But what happens instead? He lets the land produce vegetation. The land is allowed to act of its own accord to produce plants. If anything, the text seems to support evolution.

Here are some other examples:

• "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life" — v. 20
• "the waters brought forth abundantly" — v. 21
• "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature" — v. 24

Consider that last example, in which the earth brings forth the living creature. Then look at Genesis 2:7 — "And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground [...]" This passage agrees perfectly with the creation of life up to this point. Nature is allowed to work according to God's design.

Do you have the time of "yom"?

One of the most compelling arguments against theistic evolution is that of the interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom," translated as "day" in Genesis 1. Many who believe in a young earth invoke a fabricated "ordinal rule," which says that all uses of this word in conjunction with a number are always in reference to a literal, 24-hour day. Although yom is used some 1,400+ times in the Old Testament, its definite meaning must be determined by context, not according to a rule grounded on educated assumptions.

Conclusion

I'll just use this space as a disclaimer, to say that I've probably left out some key arguments which so-called scholars will say that I should have known about. Again, I'm not trying to convert anyone to theistic evolutionism. I want to simply provide a very real argument which is often neglected in place of firebrand fundamentalism.

For anyone who would like to comment with objections, please be mindful of my humanity, in that I can't answer every one of them for a simple lack of knowledge. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, nor am I a theologian or a scientist.

Today my brother brought home one of those ubiquitous Scholastic book catalogues.

It's really amazing what people try to pass off as "young adult literature" (imagine me saying "quote-unquote"). Sure, I still see some of the timeless classics I enjoyed in 6th grade, like Holes and The Giver. I even see some books on McKinley's English outside reading list, like Island of the Blue Dolphins by Scott O'Dell.

But some of these other books are laughable, if not downright idiotic. I see things like the Hannah Montana Poster Book, featuring who else but Disney's own prized pop tart. There's also How I Survived Middle School: Who's Got Spirit?, because middle school is all about pubescent girls and their aspirations to later whore themselves in high school. They even try to wax political with such titles as High School Musical Set and The People Pick a President. It's a pretty novel approach to politics, actually: see which candidate Zac Efron supports and then vote otherwise.

Shame on Scholastic for selling such garbage to ingenuous kids who wouldn't know a classic from a graphic novel (a flowery euphemism for a comic book, by the way). Young adult literature should be written at a young adult's reading level, but not make them dumber as a result of reading it.

People everywhere are no doubt in a fix as to what to get their mothers for Mother's Day, and the guys in marketing don't seem to be helping.

I personally have a hard time believing that anyone would get their mother, say, a new cell phone for Mother's Day. The cell phone companies are constantly advertising new pink, frilly cell phones in order to make them seem as ubiquitous as that Elizabeth Arden compact you gave your mother last year. But the whole premise of gifting, of all things, a cell phone seems just ludicrous. Putting a pink bow on a year's worth of cell phone bills doesn't make them seem any more desirable.

Car dealers have also boasted of all the great deals you can get when you buy your mother that car she's always wanted. Seriously. To anyone who's considering getting their mother a car or two for Mother's Day, make sure to put those gas receipts in a really nice envelope.

And then there are gifts that are simply absurd no matter what kind of gift-giving convictions you have. Gifts.com includes as one of their top gifts a "pretty eyeglass case," in the event that your mother forgot about her deteriorating vision.

If you want my opinion, I think a thoughtful card is always a winner. Especially if it's in a nice envelope.

I think that by now it is no secret that I am far from being an advocate of what is called "contemporary worship" in the church. One can go so far as to say that I outright oppose the secularization of worship music, and for some reason I have not yet written out my reasons why. But I have ordered my thoughts, and it is more than apparent to me that the conversion of musical worship into a sensationalist, artsy and superficial neo-religious rock concert makes absolutely no sense to me. What confuses me even more than this movement's own inherent foolishness is how we were so imprudent as to allow it to even happen, especially given the theological context in which it has occurred.

Given the degree to which we have strayed from the original paradigm for musical worship, our current permutation of it is far from being worshipful, it is an insult to God. I find it alarming that there is no difference in appearance between pop/rock groups and so-called "Christian" musical groups. I have heard the catchphrase that is Romans 12:1 repeated and quoted ad nauseum, but to no effect. Here we are, supposedly making every effort to not conform to the world, and yet we think it's permissible to emulate the trends in secular music. God is being represented in the musical industry by talent-starved halfbrains wearing black eyeliner. And it has totally escaped Christian detection.

But undoubtedly the argument arises that it is the attitude of the worshiper that determines the quality of worship, and that the style of music makes no difference. Then someone might explain to me why not a single hymn has ever been sung at an FBC summer camp, and why there isn't so much as a solitary hymn in the youth worship books. But of course it's absurd to suggest that we would cater to the ever-growing population of youths, who are largely responsible for evaporating every semblance of ceremony and reverence from the church. We profusely point accusatory fingers at evangelical movements who strive to make Scripture more relevant and "up-to-date," but somehow it escapes all consciousness that we are doing the same thing with worship.

Not only has the quality of the music been seriously downgraded, but so has the quality of the church musician. The liturgical chorales of Bach and Handel required people with musical abilities, who could read music and play an instrument. That has been replaced with the buffoonery of anybody who can incontinently spew out chords on a guitar. The music of the former was written using a rhythmically precise and harmonically firm system of notation. But somebody thought that a more fitting replacement would be an arbitrary smattering of chords and words, which gives no indications of rhythm, orchestration or voicing.

We have fallen from the sacred worship that God requires. Our attempt to make worship more palatable for youths is causing a compromise of doctrine and respect for Him. I hope that at the very least there will come a realization of this much for anyone reading this.

I'm not entirely sure of what requirements are in place by which Starbucks measures the worthiness of the masses of aspiring baristas to man the stands at the mall and on street corners around the globe.

But I'm quickly finding that my order is invariably given to varying forms of a perky college student with a greasy coiffure and godly clear skin. I don't know if this is some kind of a prerequisite for employment, or if it's just what becomes of any ordinary person subjected to a caffe mocha or two every half hour. Either way, I personally find their almost obnoxious happiness unbearable, even if I only experience it for a total of thirty seconds at a time. The knowledge that I'm subjecting my body to this common poison makes me wonder if I might someday wake up to find myself hopeful for the future of mankind, effusing this effervescent demeanor in a constant stream of caffeine-driven optimism. If this curse should ever come upon me, it will be a billion arguments too soon.

One might be tempted to think it unfair to be so privileged as to bask in the coffee-induced delirium of the Starbucks barista. However, thoughts of racing, pumping hearts and erectile dysfunction quickly beckon us back to reality. Still, the syrupy goodness of a white chocolate mocha, and perhaps also the image of everlasting youth taking your order, eventually bring us back for more. (Coffee, that is.)