This is a more recent formative moment. I have reached the conclusion that "creationism" is evil, and must be refuted. I choose my words carefully here.
Growing up, I suppose I held all sorts of perspectives on this issue. I was influenced, for example, by the now-discredited tale of dinasour and human footprints in a single fossil at the River Paluxy. But when I became a man, I put childish thoughts behind me.
I assert that God made the world. And that so far the best explanation we have of his mechanism for achieving that in the physical world is the laws of physics, which presently lead us to postulate a big bang some billions of years ago. Moreover, our best available explanation of the beauty and diversity we see in the biosphere, comes from the collection of processes commonly described as evolution, broadly as first proposed by Darwin.
I am so convinced that these are the best available models that I am not interested in debating that. And insofar as they have shortcomings, I am content to leave their refinement to the processes of peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Now, there are many things about which believing people disagree. Can those who want to assert some kind of young-earth six-day creationism not be left to their own devices? Well, I suppose your private perspectives are your own business.
But there are far far too many who want to promote this creationist clap-trap. They must be opposed. Why?
1. "Creationism" makes God out to be a liar, because it means twisting the available evidence in the beautiful, diverse world he created. Nowhere is that more evident than in creationist accounts of cosmology.
2. "Creationism" forces people to choose between following rigorous science, or following God. That is a vile, evil, twisted calumny; a false dichotomy of the worst kind.
3. Because of (1) and (2), "creationism" does great harm to the gospel. If this perspective promoted love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and the rest; if it was instrumental in bringing people to trust in Christ, to understand that God raised him from the dead, and to follow his teaching, then it would have merit. But I've never heard of it doing any of these things: it appears to turn people away from the truth about God; it appears to confirm them in their prejudices about believers as naive fools [the cross is foolishness to unbelievers: that's a different matter entirely]; it appears, not to promote the fruit of the spirit, but "dissensions, factions and envy".
Why have I labelled this a "formative moment"? Well, I suppose that for years and years I have rejected the creationist line, but have been content to live and let live. But when asked to put an announcement about an "Answers in Genesis" meeting into our church bulletin (which I edit) I suddenly realised quite how bad that would be. I refused to do it. That was my militant moment.
That's not very post-modern of me, is it? I'm not so sure about that. I don't have to hold to a single privileged metanarrative to reject creationism as simply inconsistent with the available data. Indeed, the idea of a God who acts through the mechanisms we call science is itself somewhat mysterious. In fact, such a mystery is best approached, perhaps, through story and myth: just what Genesis gives us.
[Aside: I make no apology for making no links to the stuff I want to denounce. It doesn't need more links. It's a shame the web doesn't allow for "anti-links". I'd make lots of those. I am aware of the book and site "Thank God for Evolution" - it's in the blogroll to the right here. That's on my Amazon wishlist right now.]
Do I sound angry? Perhaps I am. We have been given a beautiful world to explore and to learn about: the believing scientist sees the marvellous hand of the creator in every part of it. I don't want people to fall for unscientific drivel. I want more people to appreciate this wonderful creation in all its mechanisms, their beauty, subtlety and diversity.
4 comments:
Careful there, challenging creation is like opening up a can worms with the church.
I'm with you though, I'm not a fan of creationism, but I have never equated it to a level of evil. I see you're point in doing so, but I can see the flip side of the coin with those who still hold to creationism.
For me, it came down to seeing how much Scientific information there is available about Evolution and the origins of the universe, after fighting it for so many years.
On a side note, the evidence that I used to fight it wasn't the footprint by footprint, it was the carbon atom found in the earth which wouldn't survive more than 6000 years, thus a young earth is the only possible conclusion.
The problem for me was that I felt like giving up on creationism was saying that God didn't do the miracles he claimed, it wasn't till about a year ago that I realized with all the minute details that must be attended in order for human life to continue, there must be some intelligence behind the whole proposition.
I've got a copy of Thank God for Evolution on my computer, at one time they offered it for free on their website. If you can't find it on there shoot me an email and I'll send you the PDF.
Hey Matt,
Yea...the Flood comes next :-).
"Evil"? I've thought long and hard about this. I know the folks with whom I disagree are well-meaning. But the stuff they are peddling is so, so damaging.
I know this is a really big deal in America. In the UK, you'd be hard pressed to find many young-earth creationists, happily. But most believing folks would be ambivalent about it. I don't think I can sit idly by, though.
I think I have the PDF of the book. But, though I read a lot at the computer, I think I need a paper copy to sit down and read.
Wondering if you've looked into BioLogos, and what you think of them? http://biologos.org/about
Hi @Americanruth, no, I'd not seen that before. I have some sympathy with it - theirs is probably just the perspective I'd have had ten years ago or so.
But trying to do the work they're doing whilst retaining a fully evangelical hermeneutic is like ... trying to do philosophy- theology with one hand tied behind your back. Somehow, it doesn't seem quite to work - as evidenced by some of the creaks, e.g. in the comparison with the essays by Keller in the forums section.
I'm rather more persuaded by the "thank God for evolution" guy - previously mentioned in the comments. He's altogether more positive and constructive - and liberal, and not referenced by the biologos people. Sadly, his book is not such a good read, which is why I've never gotten around to reviewing it here.
Post a Comment