Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[gmw803]

I could type this in response to every post on the sub-board. I prefer to post it just once.

The creation account has some interesting features. First, the garden appears to be created full bloom. Second, Adam observed a starry sky, even though the light from the nearest star other than the sun would require 50 months to reach the earth. Third, on the day Adam was created, he was already desperately lonely. (I will refrain from more adult descriptions.) Fourth, Adam and Eve were created with a fully functional vocabulary. I could go on. It was as though the blossoms of the garden, the heavens, the man, and the woman were created with a past that was imputed upon creation. I believe that Adam and Eve were created with childhood memories, even though they had no childhood. I believe the trees were created with age rings, even though they had no past. I believe that the stars were created with light in transit, even though their light had no travel. Yes, Adam had a belly button.

I believe that science has made remarkable discoveries - the red shift and the doppler effect are real, and cannot be ignored by evangelicals. Star color, the Uranium-238 decay, Global Clusters, data from quasar light sources, cepheid variable stars.... The believer in the six-day creation has no leg to stand on, right? All the scientific sources seem to provide the same answer (within a billion years or so). One poster in this sub-board suggested I have a working knowledge of genetics before I speak up. I confess that I have no genetics background, yet I have reviewed their findings enough to know that they are based on projective and retro-projective modelling. And that is something I have studied. And I must say that the results are impressive.

Yet it is a stretch to call this science. It is data collected using the most impressive of scientific methodology. But science is the study of our world by observation and/or experimentation. And the origins of the universe can neither be experimented nor observed. Now don't get me wrong. Were I to agree that everything has worked linearly from the earliest of days, then I would have no choice but to submit to all the evidence presented. But even science concedes that if one were to study all things diligently, but omit one piece of relevant data, they expose themselves to arriving at the wrong answer. And I remain unpersuaded that science has properly taken into account the intervention of God in the affairs of history.

If God can create a man with a complete and working vocabulary, then He can create a star that continues to break distance barriers in the universe. He can create a star that is 150,000 light-years from earth, and cause us to perceive it exploding, without fear of paradox that assuming a young earth, that star never existed. It is His star. He can display it as He chooses. God not only created a garden and a man already in progress, but He created the heavens in progress as well. And science completely rejects that possibility. I hear the counter-arguments:

1. The history I suggest is unfalsifiable. And there is truth to that. Similarly, I can present myself to you as one who has never cheated on a school test. That is certainly unfalsifiable - no one kept films of me. But that it is unfalsifiable does not of itself make it a false assertion. The statement becomes false when I confess to its falsity. But the mere fact that it can neither be proven nor disproven apart from my confession does not make it false. God transcends being proven, and He is certainly not going to submit Himself to be solved by man. Without faith, it is impossible to please Him, and that which is seen is not of faith.

A variation of this counter-argument is that creation occurred ten minutes ago, and we were created with the memories of years of history. But why should I take time to refute that? The only event of history that matters is the Resurrection from the dead. And God has spoken that the redemption of all who believe is finished.

2. God would not deceive science in that manner. This counter-argument is disingenuous, for it creates no moral problem for those who put it on the table. All they know is that if God were proven deceptive, that it would create a moral problem for me. The objective of using this counter-argument is not to claim victory in the discussion. It is wholly aimed at impairing my confidence in my position, and thereby allowing him to declare victory by default. Yet I ask: If I were to record a lie in my diary, seal it with the worthless hook lock it comes with, and lock it in my vault, if you gained possession of it anyway, have I deceived you? If I were to be working one night in my garage, and I couldn't find anything to store a sugar solution in than an old gas can, if you were to rob me and steal the gas can, have I deceived you? My answer to this is Don't blame God for deceiving you when you have taken it upon yourself to assume Him out of existence.

3. God's intervention is unknowable. If science is forced to account for acts of God, science would have no way to discover the origins of the universe independently. My response to that is "Excellent observation. You would have no choice but to trust God."

[jimwalton]

Yes, gmw, I have many times pondered the possibility that God could easily have created the heavens and the earth "with age." When he made a rock, a geologist could study that rock and say it was millions of years old, and yet it would have been in existence for only minutes. A tree made with the brevity of a spoken word would have many rings and all the materialization of longevity, and yet be only minutes old. So also a created man and woman, would would be adult-like rather than newborns. It's a fascinating prospect and certainly (easily) within the range of possibility as to how God created. There is no way science could ever plumb the depths of such realities, which are outside of the scope of the scientific method.

I take the position on creation that has been popularized by John Walton in several books about Genesis 1-3, that although the Bible is clear that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth, what Gn. 1-2 are about are function, not structure. This viewpoint also takes the discussion to a different arena, as does the viewpoint of "creation with age." The point, of course, is not just to take the discussion to a different level, but to discern the truth of what happened. I respect your observations and know how easily they could be true. I also know that there are many disagreements and discussions about Gn. 1-2 as we continue to plumb the depths and intent of the truths written there.

[gmw803]

I tend to be fascinated as science dates something as 100, 500, 2500 or even 12,000 years old. But then the next youngest thing they identify is the Leakey chopping tool dated as age 1.6 million years. And a few items younger we are in the billions.

If humanity is truly in the billions of years, is there no direct evidence of man's existence in (say) a six-digit year? Paleontological wisdom seems content to interpolate the advances of mankind.

Just seems odd, that is all.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, I don't really understand much of the scientific practices of dating. I know they use carbon-14 a lot, and my understanding is that it quite a bit of reliability and accuracy within a range. I also know that more discoveries are being made all the time of various skulls and skeleton pieces. It's also possible in my mind that scientists work to conform discoveries to the prevailing model, using that as a presupposition in their thinking.

I know a recent discovery was made that placed the age of the earth at 4.4 billion years. So I don't think scientists are putting the duration of humanity (or hominids) on the earth in the billions, but in the hundreds of millions. To me, in this arena of science, it's awfully hard to discern the truth.