Creation vs Evolution. A debate that's been happening since, well, Darwin. A few nights ago, though, that debate looked a bit strange. An Aussie lad and an American boy were debating--the American was pro Evo, with the Aussie taking up the stance of Creationsim. Darwin was probably turning in his grave.
I jest.
But really, as someone raised to believe Creationism who watched Bill Nye the Science Guy on Saturday mornings, I found this debate rather amusing and rather pointless.
I jest.
But really, as someone raised to believe Creationism who watched Bill Nye the Science Guy on Saturday mornings, I found this debate rather amusing and rather pointless.
It's no new thing. Lots of Christians have been up in arms about Evolution for forever. For Christians, that's roughly 6,000 years. For Evolutionists that's somewhere around 3 or 4 billion. Hence the big issue. Creationism teaches that God made everything. And He did it quickly. And that the Earth is actually very young. Evolution teaches that things evolved. Slowly and over time. And that the Earth is actually quite old.
So what is the Earth? Is she your hip, young aunt with tattoos, pink hair and a nose stud, blaring her screamo metal music? Or is she your granny? Sitting in a rocker with a shawl (the only people on the planet who can ever get away with wearing one) around her shoulders, sipping a mint julep, "resting her eyes," although we all know that means she's out for the count.
Personally, I think of the granny when I think of the Earth. Earth is old, dude. Old. I'm not a scientist. But I do believe in science. But not exhaustively. I don't think all of our answers about the origin of the Earth come from science. For instance, I really can't get behind that whole Big Bang Theory. No, not the show. The actual theory. On the same hand, I don't think the Bible holds all of our answers about the origin of the Earth, either.
For instance, there's a distinct lack of dates. I know many Creationists say that there are "markers" but mostly, their dates are speculation. To be honest, it's a speculation that's not too different from how Evolutionists first got their dates and dating practices. No body found a legend that says the Earth first existed in XXXX. So both the Evolutionists and the Creationists had to go digging for it. The Creationists (according to the website I just linked) think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
I just find that hard to believe. First off, how long is a year? During Biblical times, we have at least two calendars in play. And then you have that verse in 2 Peter, "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day." As a writer, I understand simile. I'm not going to be daft and say that this proves that since God created the earth in 6th days and rested that the Earth is 6 or 7, really, thousand years old. But I will say that my interpretation of this verse is that God isn't exactly concerned with or confined by time. Which explains why the books of the Bible aren't written like diaries with dates and aren't flooded with footnotes giving dates.
So what do I believe?
I believe both. I believe that God did create the Earth. I've mentioned, I can't ascribe to a couple of meteors knocking about and creating a planet. (If that's the case, why aren't there any other planets being created in the same way?) I do believe in a God capable of creating heaven and Earth. But I also believe in evolution. It's not that far-fetched really, to believe in Evolution. It's something that we see in practice every day in a thousand ways:
the seed becoming a plant
the caterpillar becoming a butterfly
the child growing into an adult
the infection developing into an illness
hair grows
grass grows
we age
It's all a form of Evolution. Why is it so far-fetched to believe that the two are both correct?
I mean Christians start their dating with man, with Adam. But what about all those unaccounted for and undated years before The Fall? Is there anything in the Bible that says God created the Earth because of the Fall? What if there were gaps of time between creation?
Let's say Creation Day 1 happened. Some time passed. Then occurred Creation Day 2, 3 and 4. (God had a creative streak going on.) Then some more time passed. Creation Day 5. And then maybe some more time passed. The Fall occurred and with it came Creation Day 6.
Why do we assume that just because the Bible says the Earth was created in 6 days that it was 6 consecutive days? The Bible doesn't say that. Why do we assume that time telling has remained the same? Why do we assume that days were the same length of the time? Especially when God professed in 2 Peter to be outside the realm of time?
Here's where I jump off the boat when it comes to Creationism: when creationists uphold their beliefs as science. Science isn't a set of beliefs. Evolution isn't a set of beliefs. For something to be science, it needs to have evidence. Proof. That's what makes something scientific. Evolutionists have proof. We have clear delineation of things changing, years ago as evidenced in layers of sediment and carbon dating, and more recently, as evidenced in the general growth of things.
I know that faith and faith-based things don't necessarily require proof or documentation. And I don't struggle with that. But, I think that not having documentation does prevent something from being a science, since that is one of the precursors of science. I'm not saying Creationism is wrong. And I'm not saying Evolution is right. But I am saying that until Creationism can adhere to a set of documented checks and balances the way any other branch of science can, then I can't regard it as a science. For me, it's a religious belief. There's nothing wrong with that, but when I send my child to school to learn English, Math, History and Science, I want him to learn English, Math, History and Science. Not the opinions or faith of someone heavily pushing a skewed agenda.
Growing up in a Christian school, "because God said so" or "because God made it" was the cop-out answer for a lot of things that people didn't understand. That's simply not good enough for me. And I don't think that's practical learning or wrong. I don't think it's blasphemous or sacrilege. Remember Paul's Bereans who searched the Scriptures? Who weren't content with having "thus saith the Lord" crammed down their throats? Why can't Christians take that same approach when it comes to Creationism? That's the approach I take.
So what is the Earth? Is she your hip, young aunt with tattoos, pink hair and a nose stud, blaring her screamo metal music? Or is she your granny? Sitting in a rocker with a shawl (the only people on the planet who can ever get away with wearing one) around her shoulders, sipping a mint julep, "resting her eyes," although we all know that means she's out for the count.
Personally, I think of the granny when I think of the Earth. Earth is old, dude. Old. I'm not a scientist. But I do believe in science. But not exhaustively. I don't think all of our answers about the origin of the Earth come from science. For instance, I really can't get behind that whole Big Bang Theory. No, not the show. The actual theory. On the same hand, I don't think the Bible holds all of our answers about the origin of the Earth, either.
For instance, there's a distinct lack of dates. I know many Creationists say that there are "markers" but mostly, their dates are speculation. To be honest, it's a speculation that's not too different from how Evolutionists first got their dates and dating practices. No body found a legend that says the Earth first existed in XXXX. So both the Evolutionists and the Creationists had to go digging for it. The Creationists (according to the website I just linked) think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
I just find that hard to believe. First off, how long is a year? During Biblical times, we have at least two calendars in play. And then you have that verse in 2 Peter, "A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day." As a writer, I understand simile. I'm not going to be daft and say that this proves that since God created the earth in 6th days and rested that the Earth is 6 or 7, really, thousand years old. But I will say that my interpretation of this verse is that God isn't exactly concerned with or confined by time. Which explains why the books of the Bible aren't written like diaries with dates and aren't flooded with footnotes giving dates.
So what do I believe?
I believe both. I believe that God did create the Earth. I've mentioned, I can't ascribe to a couple of meteors knocking about and creating a planet. (If that's the case, why aren't there any other planets being created in the same way?) I do believe in a God capable of creating heaven and Earth. But I also believe in evolution. It's not that far-fetched really, to believe in Evolution. It's something that we see in practice every day in a thousand ways:
the seed becoming a plant
the caterpillar becoming a butterfly
the child growing into an adult
the infection developing into an illness
hair grows
grass grows
we age
It's all a form of Evolution. Why is it so far-fetched to believe that the two are both correct?
I mean Christians start their dating with man, with Adam. But what about all those unaccounted for and undated years before The Fall? Is there anything in the Bible that says God created the Earth because of the Fall? What if there were gaps of time between creation?
Let's say Creation Day 1 happened. Some time passed. Then occurred Creation Day 2, 3 and 4. (God had a creative streak going on.) Then some more time passed. Creation Day 5. And then maybe some more time passed. The Fall occurred and with it came Creation Day 6.
Why do we assume that just because the Bible says the Earth was created in 6 days that it was 6 consecutive days? The Bible doesn't say that. Why do we assume that time telling has remained the same? Why do we assume that days were the same length of the time? Especially when God professed in 2 Peter to be outside the realm of time?
Here's where I jump off the boat when it comes to Creationism: when creationists uphold their beliefs as science. Science isn't a set of beliefs. Evolution isn't a set of beliefs. For something to be science, it needs to have evidence. Proof. That's what makes something scientific. Evolutionists have proof. We have clear delineation of things changing, years ago as evidenced in layers of sediment and carbon dating, and more recently, as evidenced in the general growth of things.
I know that faith and faith-based things don't necessarily require proof or documentation. And I don't struggle with that. But, I think that not having documentation does prevent something from being a science, since that is one of the precursors of science. I'm not saying Creationism is wrong. And I'm not saying Evolution is right. But I am saying that until Creationism can adhere to a set of documented checks and balances the way any other branch of science can, then I can't regard it as a science. For me, it's a religious belief. There's nothing wrong with that, but when I send my child to school to learn English, Math, History and Science, I want him to learn English, Math, History and Science. Not the opinions or faith of someone heavily pushing a skewed agenda.
Growing up in a Christian school, "because God said so" or "because God made it" was the cop-out answer for a lot of things that people didn't understand. That's simply not good enough for me. And I don't think that's practical learning or wrong. I don't think it's blasphemous or sacrilege. Remember Paul's Bereans who searched the Scriptures? Who weren't content with having "thus saith the Lord" crammed down their throats? Why can't Christians take that same approach when it comes to Creationism? That's the approach I take.