Dawkins finds Jesus

In perhaps his most famous book Richard Dawkins reaches an important conclusion.  He says:

...if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals co-operate generously and unselfishly towards a common good you can expect little help from biological nature.  Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

And this is the reason why we need to teach Jesus Christ.  Of course Dawkins doesn't accept that but he has, through biology, recognised this deep human need to be led out of our natural state of selfishness and competition, to a position of co-operation and consideration of the benefit of others, even above ourselves.

This is precisely the power of Jesus, and it's not just a matter of the wise words that we have recorded, like “love your enemies”.  Its about action too.  Jesus is the master who chose to become a servant, he is the King who chose to humble himself to a robber's execution, he is the one who washed his disciples feet, he is the one of would give, give and keep giving to the point of exhaustion.

The apostle Paul also recognised this. He said 'I know that nothing good lives in me'. But he also saw that in Christ he had found the way out of this mess, the pathway to a bright future for society.

Scientific Thinking

The idea that the methods of physical science are quite simply the only intellectual methods and should therefore be extended to cover every subject matter, including our understanding of ourselves, was put forward early in the nineteenth century by Auguste Comte and others. It is still a powerful faith, devoutly preached by many people today. Only radical confusion about the meaning of the word 'scientific' makes it seem plausible.

Mary Midgley in Science and Poetry

Self-replicating?

What brings DNA to life, what gives it meaning, is the cellular environment in which it is embedded... Genetic theorists with little biochemical understanding have been profoundly misled by the metaphors that Crick provided in describing DNA (and RNA) as 'self-replicating' molecules or replicators, as if they could do it all by themselves. But they aren't and they can't... You may leave DNA or RNA for as long as you like in a test-tube and they will remain inert: they certainly won't make copies of themselves... The functioning cell, as a unit, constrains the properties of it's individual components. The whole has primacy over its parts

Steven Rose, Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism
As quoted by Mary Midgley

The Romantic Poets...

...wrote against the dangers of the materialism that had became popular with the Age of Reason. This is not because they were anti-science but rather they saw the error in a purely reductionist approach. So Wordsworth writes:

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings:
Our meddling intellect
Misshapes the beauteous form of things:-
We murder to dissect

in The Tables Turned

A functional creation

In its conclusion The Lost World of Genesis One summarises the argument for a functional view of creation:

1) The Hebrew word translated "create" (bara) concerns assigning functions
2) The account begins in v2 with no functions (rather than no material)
3) The first three days pertain to the three major functions in life: time, weather, food
4) Days four to six pertain to functionaries in the cosmos being assigned their roles and spheres
5) The recurring comment that "it is good" refers to functionality (relative to people)
6) The temple aspect is evident in the climax of day seven when God rests - an activity in a temple

To a Butterfly

I'VE watched you now a full half-hour;
Self-poised upon that yellow flower
And, little Butterfly! indeed
I know not if you sleep or feed.
How motionless!--not frozen seas
More motionless! and then
What joy awaits you, when the breeze
Hath found you out among the trees,
And calls you forth again!

This plot of orchard-ground is ours;
My trees they are, my Sister's flowers;
Here rest your wings when they are weary;
Here lodge as in a sanctuary!
Come often to us, fear no wrong;
Sit near us on the bough!
We'll talk of sunshine and of song,
And summer days, when we were young;
Sweet childish days, that were as long
As twenty days are now.

________________________
STAY near me--do not take thy flight!
A little longer stay in sight!
Much converse do I find in thee,
Historian of my infancy!
Float near me; do not yet depart!
Dead times revive in thee:
Thou bring'st, gay creature as thou art!
A solemn image to my heart,
My father's family!
Oh! pleasant, pleasant were the days,
The time, when, in our childish plays,
My sister Emmeline and I
Together chased the butterfly!
A very hunter did I rush
Upon the prey:--with leaps and springs
I followed on from brake to bush;
But she, God love her, feared to brush
The dust from off its wings.

By William Wordsworth

Are the Genesis days 'ages'?

In an effort to make the Genesis text fit geological time it has been proposed by numerous people that the 6 days of creation are in fact a description of 6 ages, or long periods of time.

I don't think this is correct. The use of 'evening' and 'morning' to describe the extremities of each day signal to me that they are literal days that are being described.

But the argument comes back that the Hebrew word yom, that is translated 'day', is in other parts of scripture used to describe a period of time. This happens in expressions like 'in that day' where the writer is clearly pointing to a lengthy period of time much greater than 24 hours.

This may be true but the problem is that here yom is being used ias part of an idiomatic expression. If we remove the single word out of the whole phrase then it no longer still caries the whole phrase's meaning. For example, take the phrase "Watford played a long ball game". Here 'ball' is being used as part of an expression that means a type of pass in football. But if we take the word out of that context it is no longer correct to define ball as meaning pass. If it did then to say "Pass me the ball" would be a bit of a strange request.

This problem arises from trying to take a passage that was never intended to be a literal description of natural history and make it fit such a chronology.