An interesting discussion occurred on Rebecca LuElla Miller’s blog last week in response to her post “Creation is the Crux”. In it, she contrasts Darwin’s theory of evolution with Biblical creationism; however, the discussion expanded to include comparisons between young earth creationism and progressive creationism.
Despite our differing opinions, most of the responders agreed on this: God is all-powerful and He can do anything He darn well pleases.
MY GREAT GRANDMOTHER KOKO
If He wants to create a process whereby primordial soup evolves into hominids, He can. If it turns out my great (to the power of a whole bunch) grandmother was Koko the gorilla, I’m okay with that.
If God wants to create a universe in six days, fully stocked with buried dinosaur bones, He can. Who am I to argue with God?
If He wants to combine instantaneous creation with snail’s pace evolution, okay. In other words, if humans were literally (rather than figuratively) created from dust billions and billions of years after the Big Bang, then so be it. It’s His creation. Not mine.
FAITH AND SCIENCE ARE COMPATIBLE
God is the author of natural laws and moral laws. So that we can understand His moral laws, He has given us the Bible, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. So that we can understand His natural laws, man created science.
BYE BYE YOUNG EARTH
That being said, if I had to choose between evolution, young earth creationism, and progressive creationism, I’d ditch young earth creationism first. I can’t imagine God would allow people to devote their lives to the study of “million-year-old” fossils that are really only 6,000 years old. (Heh heh. Gotcha! There’s actually no such thing as dinosaurs. Too bad you wasted so much time digging through dirt with a toothbrush. Tee hee.)
Now, perhaps God can manipulate time and physical reality so all that bone digging isn’t a cosmic joke, but— Let’s just say, I’m skeptical.
MAYBE DARWIN AIN’T ALL THAT
I’m left with evolution and progressive creationism. I must admit, over the past few years, I have heard sound arguments for creationism and against Darwinism. In high school, I would have laughed at anyone who questioned Darwinism. Now, I am open to questioning it. After all, the Big Bang was how many bazillion years ago? Yet I’m supposed to believe, without a doubt, that our monkey brains developed from stinky sludge, so remarkably in fact, that we are now able to look back and identify the sludge from whence we came?
How is that any less “far out” than believing there is an intelligent God who went POW! and set the universe in motion so that a bazillion years later he could form Adam from dust. If he’s intelligent enough to go “boom”, he can most certainly create man from dust, right?
FINALLY, A PROFESSIONAL OPINION
I have become more open-minded in my old age. I’m willing to admit maybe we humans don’t know nearly as much as we think we do. Evidently, I’m not alone.
In his article, The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation, Hugh Ross, Ph. D. sums it up quite nicely. I will end this post by quoting select passages from his article.
“The game usually begins with a statement that evolution is a proven fact. Next, this claim is established by the presentation of voluminous evidence from the physical sciences and the fossil record for changes in the universe, the earth, and the forms of life on the earth over the course of the last several billion years. Therefore, it is then claimed (or implied) that the theory that lifeforms developed out of some kind of primordial soup and changed through strictly natural processes into more and more advanced species is unquestionably correct.
At some point in the game, creation is defined as adherence to Archbishop Ussher’s chronology for the Bible-the claim that God must have created the universe and everything within it in the last 6,000 years or so. Then, more evidences are presented to show the ridiculousness of the 6,000-year time-scale. Finally, the reader is told (condescendingly) that he is free to believe in creation, if he insists, as an act of faith, but that our schools and educators must confine themselves to the facts. Meanwhile, we should exercise the tolerance to grant churches the freedom to teach their religious myths, but only to their own constituency, not to society at large.”
“As an astronomer, educator, and evangelical minister, I concur that the normal physical science definition for evolution is well established—things do change with respect to time and in some cases over a time-scale of billions of years. Incidentally, this fact can be established not just from the scientific record but also from the Bible. The first chapter of Genesis is set up as a chronology documenting how God changed the world over six specific time periods. A literal and consistent reading of the Bible, taking into account all its statements on creation, makes clear that the Genesis creation days cannot possibly be six consecutive 24-hour days. They must be six lengthy epochs. Ussher’s chronology represents faulty exegesis, as many Bible scholars affirm.”
“We do see natural selection and mutational advance at work within some species. But, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report, ‘The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation.'”
“As a physicist, I have never seen a fundamental particle called a neutrino. But I have faith in its existence and act accordingly because of certain well-established facts. As a Christian, I have never seen God. But I have faith in His existence and act accordingly because of certain well established facts.”
February 8, 2009, 9:50 pm
Even Darwin said his theories didn’t explain everything.
Have you seen the documentary “Expelled” with Ben Stein? If not you should.
I agree science and faith are compatible. The study of science, to me, should show God’s wonder. It all depends on how open we are to the possibilities.
Some of the people interviewed in the movie (making the case for so-called Intelligent Design), said that all scientists bring their world-view into their studies, not the other way around. In other words, scientists many times expect an answer that will fit their world view, and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
February 9, 2009, 8:35 am
I cannot endorse Darwin’s theory at all. I cannot endorse the “absolutes” of carbon dating. I cannot endorse pure speculation of “millions of years ago” which is just inane to me. As I understood science, it was supposed to be evidence of things “proved”. None of these items can be proved. And the examples of species “evolving” to adapt happens within their same species, not into other species. I simply cannot trust man’s “wisdom” because he hasn’t changed at all through the centuries in the place where it matters: the heart.
Even when I was a child receiving the evolution teaching I wondered why there were any animals left since we were supposedly the ultimate “goal”.
February 9, 2009, 10:49 am
I lean toward the young earth creation, but I’m open to other ideas as the issue isn’t directly tied into a person’s salvation.
I think much of the issues with the appearance of age, including fossils, can be reasonably explained by the Flood. We don’t really know what the world looked like before the Flood (or directly after) so how can we be certain that our equations of dating are at all accurate?
In the end, as long as your belief in the creation process doesn’t hinder your belief in Christ and need for salvation, it doesn’t make a huge difference as far as I’m concerned.
My biggest problem with science tends to come from the fact that they tend to prove their bias than look at all sides and let open debate and experimentation help refine the answers.
February 9, 2009, 1:33 pm
I agree, Andra, with your comment on science and faith being compatible. There are so many awesome things we learn from science and the wonder of it all only enhances my love for what God created.
And I agree with Stuart about the Flood. We’ve had many a debate about fossils and carbon dating in my circle of friends and it seems such a dramatic event like the Flood would completely alter the make-up of the world.
But, in the end, I mostly figure that if God wanted us to know the answers to all this He would have put it in the Bible. If we’re really, really curious for the truth, we can ask him when we see him.
February 9, 2009, 3:03 pm
Andra, I’ve heard of that movie, but have not seen it. Now I’m curious!
Nicole, I see some validity in Darwin’s theory; however, like Andra mentioned above, Darwinism does not seem to be the whole story.
Stuart and Cindy, Thanks for stopping by! I guess I’m not convinced the flood would have altered things so significantly. Additionally, I am of the mind that the flood may not have covered the entire earth, but potentially only the portion of the earth that was inhabited by humans at the time. I do find it interesting that many cultures have flood myths and I strongly suspect they grew out of the same event. I agree, this is not a heaven or hell issue. At least, not for me. Like you said, Cindy, I think we will be able to ask when we see Him. However, I do see young earth creation as a major stumbling block for some. What I mean is, many unbelievers find young earth creationism to be simple-minded, a “fairy tale”, and it hinders them from accepting the Bible’s authority. Just as scientists shouldn’t let their worldview skew their findings, I don’t think Christians should let Genesis hinder or skew scientific discovery. I truly do think the two are compatible. As humans, will we ever be able to match all pieces, though? Doubt it.
February 9, 2009, 3:51 pm
Stop and think about it, Jess. How can anyone possibly predict what went on millions of years ago? Millions. That’s ludicrous. Time and time again the Bible (OT in particular) has revealed “discoveries” that weren’t made until centuries later. It doesn’t concern me what kind of fairy-tales the unbelievers assess to creation because their fairy-tale of a big bang, ooze, and shifting species, is not credible. The worldview without Christ will simply not accept the Truth because it refuses to factor in faith with the science.
(BTW you have won a copy of the novel if you want one. Email me with an address if you do.)
February 9, 2009, 5:06 pm
Arguing over whether the earth was created in six literal days 6000 years ago or over billions of years is as useful as arguing over if the chicken or the egg came first.
I prefer not to even attempt the time-factor question, because as Nicole pointed out, it’s guesswork at best. What matters is that we continue to learn and discover all the wonders God created. I believe he created the macro and micro universe for our enjoyment as well as his, and he rejoices when we solve one of his natural mysteries.
February 9, 2009, 8:07 pm
Nicole, I’d love to read your book! I’ll send you my info. Regarding whether we can predict what happened millions of years ago, I don’t know that we’ll ever be able to say for certain, but I do think we can apply the scientific method, study soil and ice samples (and whatever else scientists do!), etc. Through the process, we may learn things that will benefit all God’s children in the here and now.
I absolutely agree with you. We can’t bend the truth to make it “more appealing” to unbelievers. But, I do think it is appropriate for Christians to consider what we believe and why. In this case, I suppose the question is, do we believe in young earth creationism because that’s the way the Hebrews interpreted Genesis, or is it because James Ussher said so back in the 1600s? I think it is good for unbelievers to see us scrutinize our own beliefs, and to see how we reconcile spiritual laws with natural laws.
Andra, yeah, arguing about it is probably a waste of time. I’m kind of a nerd, though, in that I just like to think about this sort of thing. I do, however, think we should strive to understand God’s word, and if that means going back to the Hebrew and amending a mistaken interpretation of Genesis, we should do it. The lost are (unknowingly) comparing God’s natural law to the young earth understanding of Genesis and pointing out a disconnect. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I see it too. We tell them God’s word is truth, yet we do not address their valid questions regarding how science and faith mix. So, they think in order to believe they have to abandon logic and lie to themselves. I’m sayin’…it doesn’t have to be that way…
February 9, 2009, 9:30 pm
I think you’re right in that we’re ignoring scientific questions with regard to our beliefs. I would also love to know how long it took for the universe to be created — as we currently define time. After all, what is a billion years to God who is eternal?
Taking a look at Genesis, we also have to consider the audience. The Hebrews had no scientific background, likely believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us. God couldn’t describe creation as taking billions of years because it wasn’t even a word back then.
We need to ask about the purpose behind describing creation in Genesis as well. I think God wanted to show that he created everything beginning with the stars, the sun and moon, the earth, land and sea, plants, animals, and lastly Man. He also wanted to stress the importance of Sabbath which is why he described rested on the seventh day.
Genesis was not meant to be a scientific treatise on the creation of the universe.
For any Christian to be afraid of science is plain silly to me. Why be afraid of science when God himself created it?
Will we get things wrong? Of course. We used to believe the world was flat, all the stars and planets revolved around the earth, and a countless other “laws of nature” we’ve since abandoned because we continued to ask why.
Too many scientists and Christians have forgotten to ask why with an open mind. We continue to argue and in our frustration proclaim faith and science cannot mix.
Sorry for the longish comment, but like you, science is one of my passions. My faith is integral to my love of discovering how God created everything around, above and below us, the seen and unseen.
February 10, 2009, 4:26 am
Andra, it sounds like we’re on the same page.
“Too many scientists and Christians have forgotten to ask why with an open mind.” So true!