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.”