N.T. Wright on Darwin 8

The Bishop of Durham distinguishes between the science of Darwin and the philosophy of Darwinists. Believing that one can be both a theist and an evolutionist, Tom Wright exposes the real agenda of those who argue that religion and science are necessarily in opposition.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• N.T.
• Wright
• Darwin
• Darwinism
• evolution
• Creationism
• Intelligent
• design
• Dr.
• Tod
• Bolsinger
• San
• Clemente
• Presbyterian
• Church
• Los
• Ranchos
• Presbytery
• Bishop
• of
• Durham
• England
• Malibu
• Annual
• Pastors'
• Retreat
• PCUSA
• Presbyterians
• bible
• science

[BeefEraser15]

NT Wright is the man.

[freezingstill]

Good video.

[Magnulus76]

OK... God created the universe, and evolution is true? Conclusion? God chose an ugly, cruel method to create. Most species that have lived are extinct, many creatures born never live long enough to reproduce.  And death was here long before "Adam". Is Genesis anything but a bronze age myth? Is God really good? I don't think so.

[zestydude87]

im really liking these videos and im especially liking the comments being posted here because its not the normal creationists/evolutionists bashing that normally goes on. Ive read alot of the comments and they have actually helped me understand a few things better... like a normal casual conversation. Thumbs up!

[AchillesShield]

@modomnoc1010 Agreed. Genesis 1-3 is not a historical account of Creation but a set of parables about the universe and God. In other words, Genesis 1-3 (as well as all myth) is philosophy, not History 101. The Tree of Knowledge is instructive of the nature of knowledge: it's a double-edged sword. It gave us both pennicilin and Hiroshima. Genesis, like a Platonic dialogue, demonstrates truths which are instinctive felt but can never be clearly articulated.

[ScalarPhotonZ]

Does Tom Wright believe that humans evolved from animals?

[modomnoc1010]

There is no evidence God created the universe in 6 days unless science is wrong and we assume the writer(s) of Genesis 1 - 3 were writing science? Genesis 1 - 3 in my opinion was a genre of literature called myth that can contain historical data. I believe in the resurrection based on the Apostles testimony and that is faith and not science. There was an empty tomb and Jesus apostles preached the resurrection of Jesus and the hope for us too to be resurrected when we die.

[downtoawhisper]

@modomnoc1010

And your claim is the exact claim I don't understand... a person can believe in a God who sent His Son to do miracles, healing, get beaten, crucified and then RESURRECTED to life again to save people from their sins---yet somehow cannot believe this same God created the world in 6 days? Can you explain that to me? Because I've yet to hear a good explanation.... thanks!

[modomnoc1010]

It's amazing how evolution can bring up such strong views when Genesis 1 - 3 in my opinion should not be taken as literally true in terms of science and history. If my faith hangs on scientific truth of Genesis then I'm in trouble. But I start with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which I believe with all my being.

[NicholasWhite100]

and yay for NT Wright.  my mans right there