Does creationism demean Christianity?

[Jase]

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else feel different discussing Christianity and Biblical theology besides the Creation v. Evolution issues with creationists vs. TEs?

Not to say that their not good Christians, but for me, I feel turned away from Christianity when reading posts made by those who are staunchly creationist. I feel like the people who are so naive and gullible as to just adamantly declare evolution the evil spawn of Satan, and anyone who ascribes to it is going to hell to not only impact my views on Genesis, but the Bible as a whole. If so many Christians are creationist, and they are so gullible as to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, why should I trust that anything they say about God or Jesus is going to be accurate? If they can't take a rational approach to what we can determine with evidence, how much less trustworthy are their views on the rest of the Bible that has no evidence? I feel like they would believe almost anything, regardless of its veracity.

I know, creationists will ridicule me for this post, but its something that's been bothering me for awhile. Honestly, I feel like Christianity would be far more successful, and there would be less of a decline in Christians in the world, and less of an increase in atheists if there were more theistic evolutionists. I find it more reassuring to hear people like Gluadys, Mallon, Dannager, Shernren, etc. discuss other theology besides origins. I look at it like, hey, these people are very rational and not afraid to examine the evidence, yet they still believe in God and haven't given into atheism despite probably more than enough reasons to head that direction.

I guess it's partly because i deal with a lot of doubt due to unanswered prayers, God's silence, etc. and hearing more and more rational Christians slip away to atheism, leaving only the creationists really frustrates me. Why can't there be more TEs!

 

[DailyBlessings]

I don't think it is healthy to decide who is "in or "out" of your Christian community over a single issue. I've known many, wonderful people who happened to be creationists, and I don't think it would be at all fair to discount their faith story and understanding on account of it. God reaches us through everyone, not just those who are most akin to us.

 

[gluadys]

I don't think it is healthy to decide who is "in or "out" of your Christian community over a single issue. I've known many, wonderful people who happened to be creationists, and I don't think it would be at all fair to discount their faith story and understanding on account of it. God reaches us through everyone, not just those who are most akin to us.

I don't think it is a matter of the faith of individuals, but of the effect of a belief system on the Christian community as a whole. I agree, there are many wonderful people who happen to be creationists. Most, however, are creationists by default, having never heard or sought for a different Christian interpretation.

In a significant sense, I would consider these wonderful people to be victims of the belief system of creationism. Not in the sense that their salvation is at stake. But in the sense that they have no protection against the assault on their faith they will experience if and when they begin taking the scientific evidence seriously.

It is not difficult to find the testimonies of those who abandoned Christianity in such circumstances, or experienced a severe crisis of faith as they moved from creationism to a different approach to scripture. Aron-Ra who posts regularly in the main Creo-Evo discussion forum, and for whom I hold the deepest respect as a scientist, is one who became a militant atheist. And I find him harsh and abrasive when he discusses religion. Glenn Morton's website contains his account of his own faith crisis and that of others who found creationism wanting but managed to hang onto their faith nevertheless.

In short, I don't think creationism hurts only the Christian community as a whole, by discouraging interest in the faith and/or driving people away from the faith. I think it hurts creationists themselves. Or at least makes them particularly vulnerable to spiritual harm.

 

[InTheCloud]

Creationism seens like a recuiting tool for atheists. Or Catholics. I seen many southern exfundamentalists go either way and destile vitriol on their old childhood faith.
It creates a false dilemma for believers. Either believe in science or believe in God. Not good.
I like Aron Ra, does he have a blog or testimony?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Speaking as an ex-fundamentalist dispensationalist, I can definitely see how it is frustrating. It's hard to take a leap outside of the "the Bible is exactly what it says" box, but that doesn't make it right. It's a lot easier to read the Bible and think that's all you have to do to understand it, but it isn't. There's so much more outside the Bible (basically any kind of -ology) that really is needed to fully understand what the Bible has to say. Sure there are some people who have taken a look at the science, but maybe they haven't taken a look at anthropology or archaeology or history and see how that will influence their hermeneutics. I have found that my theology has changed drastically once I started looking outside of the Bible to more understand the Bible. Typically my theology no longer matches most of the people who are creationists. I work at a Christian book store that is affiliated with the Baptist denomination. I can't tell you how many times people will get angry or upset with me when I suggest any translation other than the NKJV or the KJV. It's astonishing!

Jase, hang in there. It's tough to live by faith when you feel like the one you're faithful to isn't helping. Maybe God's asking for patience. Maybe you're not praying the right prayer? I'm not gonna begin to assume I know more about your situation, but I do know that if the ultimate goal of your prayers is to glorify God, good things happen.

There was a long period where my faith was lost and I was angry at God, but after it was all over I felt stronger and more assured because I could see what God was doing and how he was working in my life when I thought I was being neglected. Good luck. I'll be praying for you.

 

[Catholicon]

I made a thread on the same subject in the "Mission" subforum section:

Why Creationism is Harmful to Religion

 

[busterdog]

I don't think it is healthy to decide who is "in or "out" of your Christian community over a single issue. I've known many, wonderful people who happened to be creationists, and I don't think it would be at all fair to discount their faith story and understanding on account of it. God reaches us through everyone, not just those who are most akin to us.

And one gets heard much more clearly when one has the ability to demonstrate an understanding of the opposing view and agree that it is supported at least in part.

I would say that the primary dispute between the two camps is whether there is any reason and evidence at all for creationism. If there is no reason or evidence, then indeed it would be harmful to teach it.

If reason and evidence is going to be your criterion, then you will find that reason and evidence make many different approaches reasonable to us.

While I am not willing to admit that all views (or even several differing views) of scripture are valid -- since grace and hermeneutics are two seperate categories -- I do agree that human reason can support many different views.

Let's also ask how God communicates. Did Jesus say, "I am God?" Was he therefore, "not God?" It seems that he rather deliberately avoided a basis for argument that would be most apt to our appreciation of reason and evidence. Why is that? Why does he say, before Abraham was, I AM? That is rather indirect to our taste. It gives Muslims quite a few arguments to support what is written on the dome of the rock:

Inner Face: South Wall. In the name of Allah the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no God but Allah alone; he has no co-partner. He is the Kingship and His the praise. He giveth life and He causeth to die, and He hath power over everything.

South-East Wall. Verily Allah and His angels pronounce blessing upon the Prophet. O ye who have pronounced blessings upon Him and give Him the salutation of peace. O, People of the Book (i.e. the Jews and Christians, always referred to as such by the Muslims -Ed.) do not go beyond the bounds in your religion and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is but a messenger of Allah and His word which he cast upon Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe only in Allah and of his messenger, but do not say "Three" (Trinity) and it will be better for you. Allah is only one God. Far be it from His glory that he should have a son.

North Wall. The Messiah will not deign to be in the service of Allah nor will the angels who stand in his presence. O Allah; pray upon Thy messenger "the servant Jesus - (N-W Wall) the son of Mary and peace be upon him the day of his birth, the day of his death and the day of his being raised alive." That is Jesus, son of Mary - a statement concerning which YOU are in doubt. It is not for Allah to take for Himself any offspring, glory be to Him.

West Wall. Allah bears witness that there is no God but Him, likewise the angels and the people possessed of knowledge (S-W WALL) - Upholding justice. There is no God but He, the Almighty and All wise. Verily, the religion in Allah's sight is Islam.

Outer Face: West and North-West Walls. In the name of Allah the Merciful and Compassionate. There is no God but Allah alone. Praise be to Allah who hath not taken to himself offspring. To Him there has never been any person in the sovereignty. Mohammed is the messenger of Allah, may God pray upon Him and accept his intercession.

Praise be God who has not taken unto himself a son and who has no partner in sovereignty nor has He any protector on account of weakness.

It allowed medeival Judaism to assert a new creed by which the word "achad", as in God was one God, like Adam and Even were one flesh, was no longer a unity of beings but one single being.

Actually, 'echad simply means "one," exactly like our English word "one." While it can refer to compound unity (just as our English word can, as in one team, one couple, etc.), it does not specifically refer to compound unity. On the other hand, 'echad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity. There IS a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity - yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages - the emphasis being on the meaning of "only." If Moses intended to teach God's absolute oneness as opposed to a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides, a twelfth century Jewish scholar, noted the strength of "yachid" and chose to use that word in his "Thirteen Articles of Faith" in place of echad: I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be his name, is One (yachid): that there is no oneness in any form like his; & that he alone was, is, & ever will be our God.

Thus, when it comes to reason and evidence alone, humility is required. The Word of God on this matter is clear beyond question. Are there grounds for debate? We can always find them. And as God says in Gen. 2, we have dominion. Its our bloody planet to argue about if we wish.

Exod. 20, however, is less ambiguous about creation when compared to the grounds for the doctrine of the Trinity.

If "reaching people" or turning them from atheism is the only test for a prophetic message, then what about Pharoah? Did God screw up, Jase?

 

[crawfish]

I would say that the primary dispute between the two camps is whether there is any reason and evidence at all for creationism. If there is no reason or evidence, then indeed it would be harmful to teach it.

That's a fairly naive view. I would say a major difference is the view of compatibility between evolution and God.

Don't try to tell me that all we have to do is accept creationist theory as rational and the problems will go away. We aren't the ones who are challenging the salvation of the other side.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I don't think it is a matter of the faith of individuals, but of the effect of a belief system on the Christian community as a whole. I agree, there are many wonderful people who happen to be creationists. Most, however, are creationists by default, having never heard or sought for a different Christian interpretation.

In a significant sense, I would consider these wonderful people to be victims of the belief system of creationism. Not in the sense that their salvation is at stake. But in the sense that they have no protection against the assault on their faith they will experience if and when they begin taking the scientific evidence seriously.

It is not difficult to find the testimonies of those who abandoned Christianity in such circumstances, or experienced a severe crisis of faith as they moved from creationism to a different approach to scripture. Aron-Ra who posts regularly in the main Creo-Evo discussion forum, and for whom I hold the deepest respect as a scientist, is one who became a militant atheist. And I find him harsh and abrasive when he discusses religion. Glenn Morton's website contains his account of his own faith crisis and that of others who found creationism wanting but managed to hang onto their faith nevertheless.

In short, I don't think creationism hurts only the Christian community as a whole, by discouraging interest in the faith and/or driving people away from the faith. I think it hurts creationists themselves. Or at least makes them particularly vulnerable to spiritual harm.

Darn that bible and its creation story. If someone loses their faith over these issues, I question their foundation.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Darn that bible and its creation story. If someone loses their faith over these issues, I question their foundation.

I would question the foundation too, and I did. The foundation that many militant atheists that I have run into have of Christianity, is the YEC foundation. Whether they were once in YEC churches or were exposed to only YEC teachings, it is the YEC foundation that drove them away from Christianity and causes them to react so violently towards it.

I was once a YEC myself, but in studying science so that I could be a better YEC I found that many of the things I was taught by YEC teachers were out right and easily shown lies. This troubled me greatly, I reject that telling a lie, any lie, in the name of Jesus is a good thing. I examined my YEC foundation and found it wanting, it was riddled with lies and half truthes and was crumbling in the light of my studies, so I moved my house to a firmer foundation and became an evolutionary creationist or TE.

 

[busterdog]

Don't try to tell me that all we have to do is accept creationist theory as rational and the problems will go away. We aren't the ones who are challenging the salvation of the other side.

All you have to do is read.

This would be dialogue rather than dispute if the evolutionists were not so incapable of seeing any reason at all in creationism.

 

[DailyBlessings]

All you have to do is read.

This would be dialogue rather than dispute if the evolutionists were not so incapable of seeing any reason at all in creationism.

There is a perfectly good reason to believe in creationism, but it is philosophical, not scientific.

 

[crawfish]

All you have to do is read.

This would be dialogue rather than dispute if the evolutionists were not so incapable of seeing any reason at all in creationism.

My son was discussing evolution at school a few months ago. He was making the point that there was no real problem between believing in both evolution and the bible. The kid he was talking to called him, in what I consider an ironic twist, a "f***ing atheist". He said that he preacher told him that you could not believe in evolution and God; anybody who believed in the former did not believe in the latter.

I will admit; there are some good points put forth by some credible creationists. They tend to get lost in the plethora of misinformation, misunderstanding and outright lies put forth by the majority. The problem is, for the majority of YEC supporters the goal is NOT scientific proof of the creation story; it is the suppression of the teaching of evolution. Most people pushing YEC are not scientists or even remotely interested in the scientific method; they are people who desperately want to find tangible proof for their belief in the creation story. As such, they don't filter the bad information from the good; anything that supports their end goal is fair game, and their non-scientific audience is typically not educated or knowledgeable enough to know otherwise.

If creationists want their theories to be taken seriously, then they must work from inside the system. Get their theories peer-reviewed. Take the criticisms seriously; hone and improve them rather than complain about how your critics are obviously in a conspiracy to discredit God's word. Anything that is true will eventually be accepted.

Bad behavior by creationists and atheists - both extremes on this topic - are causing the problems. And the people in the middle are paying the price.

 

[busterdog]

There is a perfectly good reason to believe in creationism, but it is philosophical, not scientific.

That sounds ok.

We reject some scientific "consensus" on philosophical grounds.

 

[busterdog]

I will admit; there are some good points put forth by some credible creationists. They tend to get lost in the plethora of misinformation, misunderstanding and outright lies put forth by the majority. The problem is, for the majority of YEC supporters the goal is NOT scientific proof of the creation story; it is the suppression of the teaching of evolution. Most people pushing YEC are not scientists or even remotely interested in the scientific method; they are people who desperately want to find tangible proof for their belief in the creation story. As such, they don't filter the bad information from the good; anything that supports their end goal is fair game, and their non-scientific audience is typically not educated or knowledgeable enough to know otherwise.

Guess you need to read more creationism.

If creationists want their theories to be taken seriously, then they must work from inside the system. Get their theories peer-reviewed. Take the criticisms seriously; hone and improve them rather than complain about how your critics are obviously in a conspiracy to discredit God's word. Anything that is true will eventually be accepted.

And if we disagree on their methods? Then what? Pound salt?

Bad behavior by creationists and atheists - both extremes on this topic - are causing the problems. And the people in the middle are paying the price.

The problem here is you can't get the time of day from an evolutionist. "The problems" you refer to are not ones I am familiar with.

 

[crawfish]

Guess you need to read more creationism.

Is that a threat?

And if we disagree on their methods? Then what? Pound salt?

You won't gain any ground by subverting the current processes of peer review. It will require much patience.

The problem here is you can't get the time of day from an evolutionist. "The problems" you refer to are not ones I am familiar with.

I do not want to have to pick sides. I am a TE, but all that means is that I'm open to looking at science - or the bible - in new ways, in light of new discoveries. The current "problems" between YEC and atheists are drawing a line in the sand that should not be there.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I think YECs are stuck in a catch-22. If they would look outside the Bible they would see that to fully understand the Bible you need to look outside and discover the truths, not just for us, but all humanity and throughout all time, but they'll never do that because they don't know to look outside the Bible.


One of the first things you see is that God's revelation is always evolving (you can say "changing" or "growing" I don't care). It is and always has been evolving and to say differently is just ignorance. YECs don't realize their theology was what grew out of the reformation that grew from the middle ages and so on and so forth all the way back to the Patriarchs, but they just haven't caught up to today's theology.

 

[Assyrian]

Their bible interpetation is actually post reformation, though I am not sure exactly where the cut off point is. They accept without question metaphorical interpretation of flat earth passages, good early church work that. They also accept that the geocentric passages are not describing the literal motion of the sun and stars. If their theology was Reformation, they would be geocentrists like Calvin and Luther, instead they take as read the reinterpretation of the geocentric passages that emerged in the centuries after the Reformation. Is there a cut off point sometime after the reformation but before Hutton's Geology, and reinterpretations of scripture before then are what scripture meant all along, but reinterpretations after that cut off deny the word of God? Perhaps the 17th century, Westminster confession and the beginnings of the Baptist churches?

The other possibility is that it is a sliding point. Only science younger than say 200 years is seen as a threat, so the emergence of the ID movement marks the gradual acceptance of Hutton and Lyell's geological ages, while Darwin still completely contradicts scripture.

 

[artybloke]

We reject some scientific "consensus" on philosophical grounds.

Interesting admission there.

The problem with fundamentalism generally (including creationism) is that its avowedly anti-philosophical stance tends to obscure (to themselves as much as anyone else) the philosophy that underpins it and actually determines their reading of scripture and of the world.

That they cannot see the "common sense empiricism" of their own reading of the world and scripture is because of their total inability to examine themselves. "The unexamined life is not worth living" as Plato said. "Fact=truth" underlies everything they think about the Bible and the world. This is an instrumentalist view of the world, and of language (language has to be "clear", "instructional" or "factual," no room for amibguity, irony, metanomy or anything other than a "plain" reading. Unless, of course, it's "obvious" that we're dealing with poetry or parable.)

That's probably an exageration of a position that rather more nuanced than that (they're quite prepared to find messianic prophecies all over the OT, despite the fact that a literal reading of those scriptures wouldn't hold that reading.) But I've often been startled how objectionable they find the idea that the Bible is a work of art, as well as a work of great spiritual truth! Or how nobody can seem to answer the question of why God can't tell fictional stories, except the instrumentalist answer of "God doesn't lie!" Is all fiction a lie?

Of course, tagged onto this instrumentalist notion of truth is supernaturalism: the idea that God works miracles all the time. Fine, but why try to prove empirically using science that the Bible is factual? It's either a miracle, in which case it's outside of the realm of science, or it's a natural occurance in which case it can be examined by scientific priniciple.

Fundamentalism needs to get its philosophical house in order; but I don't think it ever will.

 

[Teshi]

When I study the cosmos, or I read about archaeology, or about adaptations, I am amazed at how complex and beautiful our universe is.

So while I don't think it's an inherently bad thing to be a creationist, I do think they're really missing out on a lot of extremely neat things about this world that God put in place for us.