Evolution Vs. Observations of Moses - What's the Point?

Herman Cummings has done an excellent job in Evolution Vs. The "Observations of Moses" to show the divine authorship of the Bible. Mr. Cummings brings up some really good arguments to show the validity of evolution and the non-debate of evolutionary and creation theories. While all of these are good arguments, it is very interesting to look at some other options available in terms of theories as well, and the problems with evolution.

First of all, I would like to point out that while I think Mr. Cummings has presented some very good information in a very good format, there are some errors in there. For example, if Moses was really being inspired by God to write, which the Mr. Cummings agrees is the case (proving the Divine inspeiration of the Bible is one of the important points of the article), then how did he manage mistaking the 6 different days in geological eras as consecutive?

Secondly, I would like to clarify that the Young Earth model doesn't really hold up to scientific or Biblical scrutiny. The Genesis account is written in the poetic-allegorical manner that has the relationship between people and God and the creative power of God as the central point. The 6 days of creation is not the central thrust, and we cannot assume from the account that God did really create the Earth in 6 days. However, there is still the fact that 90% of the tests done to measure the age of earth show it to be in millions and not the 3.6 billion years. So we can't really assume either evolution or the current idea of creationism as accurate.

Then there are some issues with evolution that need to addressed:

(This is an excerpt from http://www.betterisoneday.org/page4.html)

Probability calculations have shown that in the time it would take for humans to evolve from organic goo, earth would've been consumed by the sun ten times over.

2. The very first organism would've been nothing but a random mixture of certain elements and compounds. The idea that RNA (considered to be genetic material in earliest organisms) just popped into existence is absurd.

3. Genetic mutations of the kind that would generate over 30,000 genes from virtually nothing to begin with are impossible (literally).

4. Natural selection brings about speciation in a fashion that yeilds similar species, if not physically, then at the very least genetically. In such a case, evolution as a whole is not feasible.

5. The speciation event is not very common and requires a substantial population to suffer from the very same mutation, have a remnant that is eventually fixed in the population through genetic drift and then have the population survive long enough to multiply.

6. Why would the first chemical mix that couldn't even be considered "alive" reproduce at all? Secondly, how would it achieve it since it couldn't create a similar composition?

7. If evolution is true, then it itself is a miracle going against reason, natural law and proven statistics and would be an even greater proof of God's existence and supreme intelligence.

As such, the first point that I would like to bring up is a simple one - both of them should be taught as theories. Why make a big deal over a point that doesn't even really have much of a bearance on one's salvation? Yes, there are religious groups who would like to make this an important issue, but really, it's not important to one's salvation. Teach them both as theories, and present an accurate view of both of them so that people can make up their own mind.

There are some points that I would clearly disagree with though:

The 6 days in Genesis are consecutive. Whether they are allegorical or literal, they are consecutive. The Bible clarifies this by mentioning over and over again that evening came, and then it was morning and that was the next day. The chain is pretty clear, and they are consecutive.

The problems with evolution are many, and a fair study of the theory reveals many holes in it. To believe it just because it seems cool and more advanced than the beliefs of a fundamentalist is just foolish.

The problems with the 6000-7000year old earth are numerous as well. There is no way to accurately chalk it up as that young even with the Biblical narrative as the Bible makes jumps at times in certain chapters.

We need to understand the Bible in the context that it was written. The numbers in the book of Genesis have a meaning. We can't just assume that they are literal. For example, 120 and 12 represent God's perfect timing and timing of completion. Thus you have 120 years before the flood that Noah builds the ark in. 40 is a time of significance, so you have 40 days of flood, 40 years of wandering in the desert (which is more than likely literal and the origin of use of 40 as the number of significance and tribulation). And that's why you have Moses who spends 40 years in three different phases with the result being 120 years - completing everything ordained for him by God.

All in all, as the debate between evolution and creation rages on, we need to understand what all it would change. It doesn't affect the historical fact that Jesus died and rose again. So is it essential to your faith? I don't think so. There are so many things in the Bible that we could argue over and make it seem like a big deal when it really isn't.