OK, this may fall under the “Well, duh” category, but it needs to be said *by* a Christian, and a Creationist:
My point, right up on top: I think the root of the controversy between creation and evolution is the interpretation of Scripture which insists on a young Earth, and *not* all the asserted scientific “issues”. It is the “young Earth” belief which *informs* the scientific arguments made by Creationists. It is *they* who are starting from a hugely biased position, making all scientific conclusions suspect.
I believe that the concept of a young Earth is based on a faulty reading of Scripture, but those who *do* believe in a young Earth do so whole-heartedly and approach EVERY issue relating to evolution with the absolute refusal to believe in any theory which would require an Earth older than 6,000 to 10,000 years. They develop their scientific approaches around this presumption, searching for any and every argument which seems to “fit” this need, disregarding all others. That is not a method of arriving at the Truth, it is simply seeking out supportive evidence for a preconceived concept. To my mind, the extremes to which this approach inevitably leads causes more harm to the cause of Christianity than anything the opponents of the Church can manage.
Young-Earth Creationists should at least acknowledge that their scientific conclusions derive *from* their Young-Earth belief. They should say, where appropriate, “yes, absent a belief in a young Earth, that would be a logical position, but because I believe in an Earth only 6,000 years old, I can not accept that. Instead, I think it must be X because that fits within my 6,000 year time restriction.” The fact that they *don’t* do this when appropriate simply weakens their arguments which are *not* dependent upon their religious restrictions.
In any case, I find it very dangerous to develop an intensive body of “scientific theory” around a particular interpretation of Scripture. Humans are fallible and their interpretations of Scripture can be (and have been) very wrong. You may be spending a life’s work developing theories to “fit” an particular interpretation of Scripture which ends up being false, causing more damage to the Church than you could imagine. Satan has many subtle tools to destroy Faith. It would be just like him.
Additional thoughts:
BTW, I am a Creationist, of the “Old-Earth” variety, who believes that evolution possibly played a significant part of God’s creative process (but I personally believe that Man was a special creation at some point). I acknowledge right up front that, because I sincerely believe in God and in the Scriptures, I will approach these subjects with these beliefs in hand (and heart). For me, this means that, while God created the universe, with its laws and predictable nature, He can, has, and will intervene in contravention of these very laws when it fits His plan. But this is “super”-natural, outside of any ability to observe and analyze. It does not in any way negate the work of science, nor is it in conflict with the naturalistic approach to scientific research.
To me science is the study of the natural universe God created, but without reference to His supernatural involvement. Christianity need not accept all conclusions reached by scientific study (scientists are as fallible as those interpreting Scripture), but it also need not conclude that every theory developed by secular scientists are false by definition simply because it “does not take God into account”.
It frustrates me to no end to hear Creationists insist that the scientists who support evolution are doing so based on an improper bias against Christian thought, almost rising to the level of Kennedy-assassination-esque conspiracy theories. I don’t see it. Yes, many evolutionists are not just a-religious, they are anti-religious. But not the majority, by a long shot. Very few actually seem intent upon damaging Christianity. It is not on some agenda somewhere. So, to say that the theory of evolution is somehow a product of anti-Christian activity is irresponsible at best.
My point, right up on top: I think the root of the controversy between creation and evolution is the interpretation of Scripture which insists on a young Earth, and *not* all the asserted scientific “issues”. It is the “young Earth” belief which *informs* the scientific arguments made by Creationists. It is *they* who are starting from a hugely biased position, making all scientific conclusions suspect.
I believe that the concept of a young Earth is based on a faulty reading of Scripture, but those who *do* believe in a young Earth do so whole-heartedly and approach EVERY issue relating to evolution with the absolute refusal to believe in any theory which would require an Earth older than 6,000 to 10,000 years. They develop their scientific approaches around this presumption, searching for any and every argument which seems to “fit” this need, disregarding all others. That is not a method of arriving at the Truth, it is simply seeking out supportive evidence for a preconceived concept. To my mind, the extremes to which this approach inevitably leads causes more harm to the cause of Christianity than anything the opponents of the Church can manage.
Young-Earth Creationists should at least acknowledge that their scientific conclusions derive *from* their Young-Earth belief. They should say, where appropriate, “yes, absent a belief in a young Earth, that would be a logical position, but because I believe in an Earth only 6,000 years old, I can not accept that. Instead, I think it must be X because that fits within my 6,000 year time restriction.” The fact that they *don’t* do this when appropriate simply weakens their arguments which are *not* dependent upon their religious restrictions.
In any case, I find it very dangerous to develop an intensive body of “scientific theory” around a particular interpretation of Scripture. Humans are fallible and their interpretations of Scripture can be (and have been) very wrong. You may be spending a life’s work developing theories to “fit” an particular interpretation of Scripture which ends up being false, causing more damage to the Church than you could imagine. Satan has many subtle tools to destroy Faith. It would be just like him.
Additional thoughts:
BTW, I am a Creationist, of the “Old-Earth” variety, who believes that evolution possibly played a significant part of God’s creative process (but I personally believe that Man was a special creation at some point). I acknowledge right up front that, because I sincerely believe in God and in the Scriptures, I will approach these subjects with these beliefs in hand (and heart). For me, this means that, while God created the universe, with its laws and predictable nature, He can, has, and will intervene in contravention of these very laws when it fits His plan. But this is “super”-natural, outside of any ability to observe and analyze. It does not in any way negate the work of science, nor is it in conflict with the naturalistic approach to scientific research.
To me science is the study of the natural universe God created, but without reference to His supernatural involvement. Christianity need not accept all conclusions reached by scientific study (scientists are as fallible as those interpreting Scripture), but it also need not conclude that every theory developed by secular scientists are false by definition simply because it “does not take God into account”.
It frustrates me to no end to hear Creationists insist that the scientists who support evolution are doing so based on an improper bias against Christian thought, almost rising to the level of Kennedy-assassination-esque conspiracy theories. I don’t see it. Yes, many evolutionists are not just a-religious, they are anti-religious. But not the majority, by a long shot. Very few actually seem intent upon damaging Christianity. It is not on some agenda somewhere. So, to say that the theory of evolution is somehow a product of anti-Christian activity is irresponsible at best.