After hemming and hawing for several months, I'm way overdue for a post on creationism/intelligent design/evolution. It's a topic I've been thinking a lot about. In as many posts, I plan to give my opinions on creationism (the universe has existed for 6,000 years and the biblical account is literal), intelligent design ("belief-friendly" evolution), and evolution (purely naturalistic evolution). Finally, I would like to explain how I've resolved the whole thing in my own mind. I figure this may take a week.
What I think about Creationism
Creationism is the cut-and-dry reading of the Bible. Basically, if you tally the years given for the geneology between Adam and Christ, it's about 4,000 years, which means the earth is roughly 6,000 years old. A very literal reading of Genesis also precludes fish from becoming reptiles, or rat-like proto-mammals from becoming apes, because the text says each creature was made "after its kind."
What disturbs me about creationism as an intellectual movement is that it forces people filter scientific evidence through their very strict reading of the Bible. You cannot even consider other possibilities, such as a figurative instead of literal early Genesis account. Even worse, some creationists see science as sure-fire validation of their beliefs. Often, they use the global flood to explain geologic formations such as the Grand Canyon, or the presence of fossilized clams in the Himalayas. But such schemes seem contortionist, especially when they criticize evolutionary theory as lacking certain key evidences or having inconsistencies. I'm not saying scientific criticism of evolution is wrong, just that this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
So what's good about creationism? Well, I think it's more logical than either intelligent design or evolution. Why? Because it is the only concept that leaves no logical gaps--God is omnipotent and can do whatever He wants. If He wants to create the universe in six days, no problem. The only problem is you have to believe in God, which I do (so, for me, it's not really a problem). I'm not saying creationism has the most solid scientific evidence to back it up, which is what some misguided creationists insist, but simply that it makes the most logical sense. It solves the first-cause (Prime Mover) problem you have with naturalistic evolution and also requires less creative biblical interpretation than a Christianized intelligent design theory.
Next up, Wayfaring Stranger's take on intelligent design.
4 comments:
WS,
I have to say I believe in creation but not the 6000 year old earth. I also believe in a pre-Adamic human existance that I can't prove. I do believe the flood existed but not that it was the only global disaster. In short The bible is true and accurate but implies a gap from Gen 1:1 and Gen1:2 in the original language. It can be interpreted The earth became void.
I don't consider myself an intelectual who can give answers or one burning to know whats correct in the first place. I just believe God made us.
I believe that some of what Ted says is true, but then again I know Ted personally and I think that Ted my be around 6000 years old so he may have actually lived through some of this. This debate/argument can get so heated and out of control sometimes that I think Satan is using it to divide the brethren and cause confusion among the non-brethren.
Contrary to your belief, there is a Theory of Intelligent Design which is supported by evidence which can be found at Intelligent Design Theory. It is interesting that such a theory has been ignored in the recent debate and the court case. Then again many of the proponents of intelligent design may be unaware of it and think that it is just creationism! In fact, there is more evidence supporting an intelligent design theory than there is for an evolution theory.
thanks, ted and uncle joe, for your comments. i agree this is too often a divisive issue among believers. but i do sympathize with creationists who make a big deal out of the issue, since a lot of unbelievers do see evolution as "disproving" God. this makes these creationists feel they have to defend God when in reality they do not--evolution does not disprove God, even if true.
to david, i will take a look at your web site later. thanks for stopping by.
ts
Post a Comment