How can I comprehend creationism as anything other than a lack of faith?

[thisisciaran]

I wouldn't put creationism to a lack of faith. If anything evolution is a lack of understanding of Gods power.

How is it less powerful? The scope of it, the depth of it? To look at how the entire science of biology - founded on the single theory of evolution - has blown open our comprehension of the natural world?

It's vast. The incredible scope of God's care and attention, the profound elegance running through the heart of all life - it's breathtaking. And the scope and scale of the time and geography involved, it more than anyone could ever comprehend in a lifetime of study. There are wonders underneath the wonders we've uncovered, stretching back billions of years. It's far more breathtaking than speaking things into being over a 6 day period.

Indeed, I'd go further. I'd say that one of the reasons the creation account is what it is, is precisely that the full scope and glory of God's natural world would simply not fit into the comprehension of bronze-age people. What would they do with it?

But this isn't to say God is lying, any more than Jesus was lying when He told His parables. The prodigal son wasn't some guy Jesus knew. He was a metaphorical construct.

Jesus is God. And if we want to learn God's nature, we merely need to look at Jesus. How did Jesus treat sin? How did Jesus treat religious arrogance? How did Jesus treat the sick and the lame? We look to these things and we see God's character here.

But then.... how did Jesus communicate?

In metaphor. Constantly in metaphor. Indeed - EXCLUSIVELY in metaphor, for all but His closest disciples.

Just think about that. Are we then to say "Oh no, God couldn't possibly be speaking in metaphor in the creation story! That's totally unlike Him!"

How is that unlike Him? How?

And surely we would be more profitably served - and more profitably serve Him - by asking what is this a metaphor FOR, and not just bickering back and forth about the literality of it.

If we refuse to consider it as a metaphor, how can we ever comprehend what God's deeper meaning is?

Genesis 2:9
And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food

By evolution, yes.

Jonah 4:5
Jonah went out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to the city. Then the LORD God provided a vine and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the vine.

But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the vine so that it withered.

Yes, sure, but then this doesn't mean he created the worm or the tree in six days. Jesus does something very similar a fig tree. God incinerates a whole mess of people with a column of fire when they attempt to usurp Moses's position as the sole attendant of the tabernacle. God can command things. It doesn't mean anything about the origin of those things - and the evolution of those things doesn't mean God didn't do it.

If you want to assume that evolution means that God wasn't there, or God wasn't necessary to set the profound laws of reality that channel evolution and shape its outcome, or that God didn't intervene? If you assume that, then Richard Dawkins has won. He's successfully made you believe that evolution is atheism and atheism is evolution. It isn't.

There is glory in God's crafting of all the natural world through evolution that dwarfs the glory we can imagine if we barricade our comprehension of His power inside the creation metaphor.

Although Lazarus had been entombed for four days by the time Jesus arrived at Bethany, he was raised by Jesus from the dead and emerged from the tomb wearing his burial cloths.

 Lazarus was dead four days, that's four days of decomposing. Again the body must of been Healed of all its deformities in that time instantly in order for I'm to have a functional body.

If we look at the miracles / testimonies of others. We can see examples of broken bones being Healed instantly. Which is also a form of accelerated growth.

Mate, I've seen real-life miracles. I saw a blind woman healed by the power of God in front of me by an Australian Pastor calling on the power of Christ. She had Multiple Sclerosis (blindness is a symptom of that) and was barely able to walk. By the end of his prayers she was - and I kid you not - literally running in circles around the stage, both eyes fully healed.

She wasn't someone this guy had planted in the audience. She was a 20-year veteran of the Church who had had this condition, for something like three full years beforehand. Her name was Sheila. It was incredible. God can do anything. He is God. Nobody is questioning His power.

But - the simplicity and elegance of evolution slices through the entire natural world, bringing light to the darkness. It is the foundational insight of all biological science - and all the amazing things biology has uncovered about God's glory and creation.

Now yes - many of those biologists are atheists. Some are devout Christians. But even if they were all atheists, it would not change the fact that what they are discovering is the glory of God - which is and will always be bigger and deeper than we can ever hope to comprehend.

If anything we can say that God has the power to do both ways, cause evolution or create in a short time frame.

Exactly. His power is beyond all imagining.

 

[BobRyan]

Neither the origin of the universe nor the origin of life can be directly tested or observed. Both creation and evolution require a level of faith to be accepted. We cannot go back in time to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Those who adamantly reject creation do so on grounds that would logically force them to reject evolution as well. If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution, as often presented today, is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life developed apart from a Creator God. As such, modern theories of evolution serve as a substitute “creation story” for the religion of atheism.

The Bible is clear: God is the Creator. Any interpretation of science that attempts to remove God from involvement with origins is incompatible with Scripture.

amen.

still it would appear that evolutionism is testable in things like "the long running evolution experiment" where they have the ability to see more than 80,000 generations over time - of the most adaptable body plan on Earth -- bacteria "prokaryotes". And see with their own eyes -- evolution does not work. That bacteria is STILL bacteria even after 80,000 generation! Just as creationist theory would predict. That 80,000 generations is less evolutionary time than it took for humans to evolve (supposedly).

Before we go on - evolution absolutely can be observed and tested in laboratory conditions, and indeed, in the natural world. Horse-breeding and dog breeding is evolution in action

That's like saying "dogs have varying hair color so that proves evolution's claim that bacteria will eventually turn into eukaryotes and then on up to rabbit".

It skips over the entire salient point in the argument for evolutionism regarding the upward march up the ladder of taxonomy from bacteria to rabbit.

 

[BobRyan]

If we look at the miracles / testimonies of others. We can see examples of broken bones being Healed instantly. Which is also a form of accelerated growth.


If anything we can say that God has the power to do both ways, cause evolution or create in a short time frame.

Indeed He "can" do anything. If we had no Bible and were guessing we could then "guess anything".

But He already told us the time frame in Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 (in fact Gen 1 - 2:3) for making all life on Earth

 

[christian-surfer]

This is a much stronger response.

The first thing I'd say is this. Anyone who's mocking anyone is someone who can be safely ignored. It is of course true that huge numbers of Christians - on both sides - rip the other side for being inferior Christians. Creationists are stupid and backward, evolutionists have a diluted faith. We can all point fingers at each other and take the most mean-spirited interpretation of the other side.

And yes, it hurts, it's not nice. But it's also something that can truly just be ignored. Because when people zero in on the worst and weakest possible interpretation of something, their attacks are the worst and weakest form of attack.

To judge as God does - with extreme generosity - means that we can be far more devastating. If you fail a mean-spirited judgement, that means nothing because everything fails a mean-spirited judgement. If you fail a generous judgement, that hits like a truck, because even though someone was being generous with you, you still failed. And to be extremely generous, profoundly generous, means you only interact with the strongest possible part of your opponent's argument. If you blow that apart, that is the most devastating judgement of all.

Before we go on - evolution absolutely can be observed and tested in laboratory conditions, and indeed, in the natural world. Horse-breeding and dog breeding is evolution in action - you select for traits and those traits become stronger in the next generation. Watching Covid-19 develop new strains in real time is evolution in action. So yes, it can be. 100% yes.

What has not been accounted for are two things. One is abiogenesis - a reproducing molecule has not been synthesised in a lab in conditions that existed at the dawn of life. Two is speciation, the development of set, static species (which creationists often call macroevolution). I've kind of gone into that above but I'll happily discuss it more if you want.

But to the meat of what you say, atheism is OBVIOUSLY going to present evolution as a secular creation story. What else is it going to do? But to say that to accept evolution is to accept their interpretation of it? Mate, come on. Be serious.

The idea that evolution actually is the lathe of God, that His hand set the deep laws that channel and guide it, from the dawn of time to the present day? I cannot see how this reduces God?

To me it's like when Galileo put heliocentrism to the Church. They believed it heresy because it undermined their current comprehension of God's creation. And it did. Totally undermined it. 100% true.

But the scope of what it revealed? That the universe wasn't just tiny stars embedded in crystal spheres just beyond the sky? That it was billions of times greater and more glorious than we had ever imagined? Does that reduce the glory of God, or increase it?

The idea that evolution is God's potter's block means that God's care and craftsmanship is so much bigger, and deeper, and more elegant, than six days of saying things into being. It's not a reduction in His glory, it's a massive expansion.

And this is what it is to be a Christian. Not just with evolution, or the universe, but everything. God's real glory will always capsize our current comprehension of it, yours, mine, everyone's. And that's awesome. It's the most awesome thing - His majesty will always dynamite whatever little structures of understanding we build upon it. And we'll so much deeper, and so much further, and so we can seek deeper, and seek further.

And that's the wild horizon, man. That's God. That's eternity, that's what Christ died to open up for us - that path into the Father Himself, ultimate truth, the eternally detonating supernova of power and love that God is.

So who cares what the atheists say? I'd rather trouble myself with the internal politics of a termite hive. The horizon man! The horizon! The depths, the glory! This is our inheritance. And it is in the seeking of this that we will find the power to overthrow this Satanic world, atheists and all, and seek His Kingdom come.

The topics of breeding have been covered because it’s limited and there are missing intermediate forms. Evolution does not teach anything about any intelligence behind the universe. There is also archaeological cover ups indicating that man has been around longer than evolution claims. That has been covered by Michael Cremo as well as advanced ancient civilizations

 

[christian-surfer]

Evolution generally is a daily process of change, it makes no denials.

And specifically, the scientific theory of evolution makes no claims about the universe or about what is beyond the universe.

Everything in evolution is about randomness, survival of the fittest. Why did Richard Dawkins write the book “the god delusion” ? He has won countless awards and honorary degrees of all kinds from the scientific and academic community

 

[christian-surfer]

The idea that evolution actually is the lathe of God, that His hand set the deep laws that channel and guide it, from the dawn of time to the present day? I cannot see how this reduces God?

Such ideas about god are generally or often that such a god is not a consciousness and thus praying to such a god would have no relevance

To me it's like when Galileo put heliocentrism to the Church. They believed it heresy because it undermined their current comprehension of God's creation. And it did. Totally undermined it. 100% true.

You can easily connect evolution with social Darwinism and eugenics but this is always ignored by evolutions proponents who instead have to always talk about Galileo. Galileo disproved the Aristotle view of the universe. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and not a Christian, although he did have tremendous influence on the western world and the church as Thomas Aquinas and others followed him but it can be seen as one scientist discrediting another scientist.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution generally is a daily process of change

not true.

every day my fingernail changes - it grows - but that is not evolution.
Every day we age - but that is not evolution

every day genetic combination forms variation within a single species - but that is not evolution.

Evolution requires the upward march such that the bacteria colony will come up with a rabbit given enough time and chance. Very different from variations on existing gene frequency. IT is the acquisition of new novel genes -- gain of function.

 

[BobRyan]

Everything in evolution is about randomness, survival of the fittest. Why did Richard Dawkins write the book “the god delusion” ? He has won countless awards and honorary degrees of all kinds from the scientific and academic community

indeed the compromise is more than a little obvious.

 

[BobRyan]

Chris35 said:

I wouldn't put creationism to a lack of faith. If anything evolution is a lack of understanding of Gods power.

How is it less powerful? The scope of it, the depth of it?

This argument seems to claim that God creating all life on Earth in 7 days - does not require more miracle-working infinite power of God - than the unobservable unworkable stories in evolutionism. The idea that evolution needs God's infinite power to make it work is a novel argument from an evolutionist. I know why some Creationists say it - but it is surprising when evolutionists do it.

In the mean time - God has given us the 7 day time from the origin of life on Earth and the amount of time from first plant - to first fish and bird, and first land animal - to first human. Ex 20:11 says it was in the same seven day period as was already in place at Sinai.

God tells us the time that He took to do it. Apparently everyone here agrees that God having infinite power could do what He said He did.

Indeed, I'd go further. I'd say that one of the reasons the creation account is what it is, is precisely that the full scope and glory of God's natural world

no doubt it was a great miracle to do it all in the 7 day period God said He did it in. Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-2

would simply not fit into the comprehension of bronze-age people.

Even you agree that the Bible is pointing to a literal 7 day period of time as the time that God claimed He took to do it.

Interesting.

I suppose you would agree that the bodily resurrection on the third day followed by the bodily ascension of Christ to heaven - is also what even a bronze age man (or today's ten year-old) could also easily understand and accept.

But this isn't to say God is lying, any more than Jesus was lying when He told His parables. The prodigal son wasn't some guy Jesus knew.

Legal code in Ex 20:11 is not parable... as it turns out.

He was a metaphorical construct.

Legal code in Ex 20:11 is not metaphorical... as it turns out.

 

[christian-surfer]

People get fired in academia for question evolution. Archeologist who claim that there is evidence of advanced ancient civilizations are sometimes denied access to archeological sites.

Many young people end up becoming more atheists or agnostic or promoters of socialism when they attend college for a few years. The academic disciplines are largely controlled by many with leftist views. When people become older then they often become more conservative. It seems to indicate a lack of true wisdom because young people are more easily swayed or brainwashed in certain ways by education.

Some other educated people seem to have a high opinion of themselves because they are educated. They perhaps believe that because they have a degree in law, medicine, or chemistry or that they have advanced use of language idioms then it makes them more wise in all ways related to religion, philosophy, politics, etc. I sometimes seem to see the opposite phenomenon where undedicated people seem to have a better sense of discernment of hogwash sold to them by the government and media

 

[trophy33]

not true.

every day my fingernail changes - it grows - but that is not evolution.
Every day we age - but that is not evolution

every day genetic combination forms variation within a single species - but that is not evolution.

Evolution requires the upward march such that the bacteria colony will come up with a rabbit given enough time and chance. Very different from variations on existing gene frequency. IT is the acquisition of new novel genes -- gain of function.

Generally, evolution means just change. Do not confuse it with the specific theory of evolution in biology.

Definition of EVOLUTION

descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[trophy33]

Everything in evolution is about randomness, survival of the fittest.

Not sure what you are trying to claim. The survival of the fittest is not randomness, obviously. Its actually the best design for a constantly changing environment. Evolutionary algorithms found application in several important areas.

Why did Richard Dawkins write the book “the god delusion” ? He has won countless awards and honorary degrees of all kinds from the scientific and academic community

I dont care about Dawkins.

Interestingly:

British scientists really, really dislike Richard Dawkins, new study discover

The investigation into science's public image didn't even ask about the atheist professor, but it got an answer anyway

www.independent.co.uk

 

[christian-surfer]

Not sure what you are trying to claim. The survival of the fittest is not randomness, obviously. Its actually the best design for a constantly changing environment. Evolutionary algorithms found application in several important areas.

It is the best human explanation or agreed upon consensus of things that are nearly impossible to prove or fully comprehend. It is a soft science or a it's theory. It's far from a hard science but also has a lot of dogma associated with it

 

[trophy33]

It is the best human explanation or agreed upon consensus of things that are nearly impossible to prove or fully comprehend. It is a soft science or a it's theory. It's far from a hard science but also has a lot of dogma associated with it

Ability of a subject to change in time in response to a changing environment is not a dogma or anything similar. Its the best possible design.

Its quite useful in many areas, for example in developing autonomous systems. And, obviously, its also the best design for living organisms.

 

[christian-surfer]

Ability of a subject to change in time in response to a changing environment is not a dogma or anything similar. Its the best possible design.

Its quite useful in many areas, for example in developing autonomous systems. And, obviously, its also the best design for living organisms.

It's a design that no human has designed. It's based on a theory agreed upon by various individuals who may likely attack you if you question it

 

[Job 33:6]

Yes. But I think Genesis has far deeper truth in it than mere cosmology. The question is, what truth? What is God communicating about human nature here? About the relationship we have with Him? With sin? With each other?

Because I think the problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis is exactly the same problem with a purely cosmological interpretation of Genesis: neither take any interest in the deeper truth. That deeper truth is where the action is. Arguing over which superficial interpretation to accord with or dismiss is like two people arguing over who gets a one-dollar bill, while standing on top of a massive, untapped, billion-barrel oil well.

Well one thing is for sure, and that's that, regardless of what that deeper truth is, it has nothing to do with anything scientific. The perspective is an ancient cosmological perspective, not one to be understood as scientifically concordant.

 

[trophy33]

It's a design that no human has designed. It's based on a theory agreed upon by various individuals who may likely attack you if you question it

Humans design evolutionary algorithms that are applied in many areas, for example in developing autonomous systems.

It's based on a theory agreed upon by various individuals who may likely attack you if you question it

You must question it properly. Not with arrogance or with ignorance. And you must have a better reason for questioning it than just your personal religious belief.

 

[Vambram]

I do not define inspiration as "the originals being perfect and accurate". I define it as Paul defines - as being useful for godly life.

Thank you for your response. I disagree with your definition of inspiration and inerrancy.

God's revelation to mankind is not composed of any secular super-knowledge (like a revelation regarding history, cosmology or anatomy), but theological (namely monotheism and the salvation in Christ).

However, this answer is one in which I do final almost complete and total agreement. As a caveat, let me add that God's revelation to mankind would also obviously mean that even those who faithfully attempt to try to follow, understand, and obey the written word of God can indeed (and sometimes very often did) misinterpret the written word of God. There is a long history of many, many centuries of faithful men and women failing to understand the prophecies in the written word of God. Likewise, the ancient Hebrew cosmological beliefs shouldn't be something we ought to try to use in order to understand Genesis chapters 1 through 3. I hope that you can also agree with that as well.

 

[trophy33]

Thank you for your response. I disagree with your definition of inspiration and inerrancy.

I am not surprised. However, Bible knows nothing about any technical word-for-word inerrancy, its a religious idea which is not biblical. Bible also makes not claims about the first manuscripts.

Likewise, the ancient Hebrew cosmological beliefs shouldn't be something we ought to try to use in order to understand Genesis chapters 1 through 3. I hope that you can also agree with that as well.

And which cosmological beliefs should we try to use to understand Genesis 1? The American one from the 21st century? That would be quite absurd.

 

[Vambram]

I am not surprised. However, Bible knows nothing about any technical word-for-word inerrancy, its a religious idea which is not biblical. Bible also makes not claims about the first manuscripts.

The Bible does not use the word Trinity, either. The Bible cannot explain with a great deal of understanding regarding the doctrine that our Lord God is a Trinity. Nevertheless, by using multiple different passages of Scriptures from the OT and the NT, there is no doubt for most born-again Christians that the Lord God has been, still is, and always shall be a Trinity for ALL of the eons of eternity.

And which cosmological beliefs should we try to use to understand Genesis 1? The American one from the 21st century? That would be quite absurd.

In my opinion, the very best way to attempt to understand Genesis 1-9 is to look at ALL of the different passages of the Bible (not just single verses here and there) that speak about creation, Adam & Eve, as well as the global flood. Then, use that frame of reference and understanding when interpreting all of the relevant scientific evidence which has been discovered and verified.