Ceci n'est pas un blog
Creation or evolution: which way forward?
I posted this elsewhere a few months ago, but I thought it was worth posting it here too. The Christian church is still a long way from resolving the creation/evolution issue, but maybe this points in the right direction.
The Colossian Forum is some new thing trying to promote discussion on issues of science, culture and Christian faith. They invited young-age creationist Todd Wood to write an article for them on What I Would Like to Hear an Evolutionary Creationist Say. So what would Todd Wood like to hear an evolutionary creationist say?
"I don't know."
Perhaps when people ask if Christian theology is compatible with evolution, the first answer should be, “I don’t know.”
He continues,
As a young age creationist, let me take this opportunity to follow my own advice and publicly express my ignorance. If creationism is true, why can we see starlight from stars millions of light years away? I don’t know. If creationism is true, what does radiometric dating mean? I don’t know. If creationism is true, why do humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical genomes? I don’t know. Just like evolutionary creationists wrestling with theological issues, though, young-age creationists have proposed all sorts of answers to the above questions. Some weren’t very good ideas, but others are quite intriguing. And just like evolutionary approaches to theology, there is no single creationist scientific model that most creationists would accept.
And in conclusion,
When it comes to the origins fight, maybe the key is to follow Christ’s example. Maybe the only way we’ll ever resolve the war is through surrender. Maybe in surrender, we’ll find out what real victory is. Maybe we’ll find that confessing ignorance is the first step towards finding God’s truth. Maybe we’ll discover that asking for wisdom is just what God wanted us to do all along. Most important of all, maybe we’ll find that we can humbly ask for wisdom together, and in doing so, the world really will see something different about us.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 1 May 2012 at 2.50 pm, and is filed under Science & Faith. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
No trackbacks yet.
Creation and evolution: my current thinking
about 11 months ago - 7 comments
I've been pondering the issue of creation and evolution for years, and I thought it was about time to set out my current thinking on the area. This is all provisional and subject to change, but the points below are things that I'm fairly sure about. If you desperately want to label me with one…
Evidence for young-age creationism
about 11 months ago - 2 comments
It's not clear precisely what role scientific evidence plays when someone chooses between young-age creationism and evolution over billions of years. Certainly no one can approach the issue dispassionately; we would all have to declare an interest if we were called upon to examine the evidence objectively. But still, we can try to think about…
An open letter to the British Humanist Association
about 1 year ago - 10 comments
Dear BHA, After re-loading your website home page a few times, I found on it the following quote by Ariane Sherine: "All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe." As an evangelical Christian, I wholeheartedly…
Is Intelligent Design creationism?
about 2 years ago - 18 comments
No. But there is a connection. Intelligent Design (ID), being essentially anti-evolutionism, is half of an argument for creationism. Basic scientific arguments go something like this: You are wrong. I am right. Or, in more detail: Your model does a poor job at explaining the data. My model does a better job at explaining the…
Creation or evolution: do we have to choose?
about 2 years ago - 18 comments
This question (also the title of a recent book by Denis Alexander) is one over which evangelical Christians often sharply disagree. Some ("young-earth creationists") maintain that the Bible makes it crystal clear that life, the Universe and everything have had their beginning within the past few thousand years. Others ("theistic evolutionists") are less willing to…
Is atheism compatible with belief in evolution?
about 4 years ago - 1 comment
Perhaps not. Have a read of this extract from Alvin Plantinga's entry on Religion and Science in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (dealt with at more length here): In crafting our cognitive faculties, natural selection will favor cognitive faculties and processes that result in adaptive behavior; it cares not a whit about true belief (as…
Dawkins on rape
about 4 years ago - 6 comments
Presenter of Premier Radio's Unbelievable? programme "Justin Brierley spoke to prominent atheist Richard Dawkins after his debate with Professor John Lennox at Oxford University in October 2008." Here's what was said 5:30 into the interview: JB: But when you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say…
I live in York and I 
Loading ...
about 1 year ago
Some ramblings along this theme...
On the creationist side, you are left with saying that we are struggling to use science to answer some big scientific questions, while on the evolutionist side, you are left with saying that we are struggling to use the bible to answer some big theological questions. The evolutionist position would suggest that we're not very good at understanding the bible, which would suggest that God didn't do a very good job at writing it, as we, with our fallen minds, are his intended audience. The creationist position would suggest that we're not very good at doing science, which could be the fault of our fallen minds which God condemned us to have.
Did God intend to speak to us through the bible or through science? Given that his audience have fallen minds, he should be expected to account for this in revealing himself to us such that his preferred method would be understandable.
In summary, if we start from science we struggle with the bible and if we start from the bible we struggle with science. Where should a Christian's ultimate hope lie? Science or the bible?
(and anyway, there are scientific problems with evolutionary creationist positions)
about 1 year ago
Jeremy - thanks for the comments (it thought you were spam, just rescued you).
I think in both cases we have to start from things that are clear to us and tread carefully when things are not clear. There are things in the Bible that are difficult to understand. Even Peter thought so about some of Paul's letters, and that's bound to be much more of an issue for us with our distance from the original context in terms of language and culture. But, nevertheless, there are things that are clear. (For example, the worldwide church through the centuries has managed to agree on the historic creeds.) The same is the case with the natural sciences: there are things that are clear to us, and other things that are less clear.
I think the problem is that people tend to choose one or the other. Some choose the Bible, then squeeze out as much as they possibly can about science, set that firmly in stone, and then measure any claims from science by that absolute standard. Any suggestion that science could show that some part of the Bible has been misinterpreted is shouted down as "compromise". Others choose science, with whatever metaphysical assumptions are in vogue, and then use whatever comes out the other end in order to re-interpret the Bible. Any suggestion that something in the Bible could suggest that the science hasn't been done correctly is quickly shouted down as "fundamentalism".
We need to get away from these extremes. I think Todd Wood's article is a step in that direction.
about 1 year ago
I agree the extremes are bad. So here's a question for you: Between the extremes there is a spectrum; where on that spectrum is the best place to be? 50/50? Strongly on the Bible but letting having science affect our biblical interpretation under certain circumstances (which are...?)?
about 1 year ago
Well, it's difficult to measure the spectrum, but being perfectly balanced is a good place to be. I just wish I wasn't the only one...
Science can affect our biblical interpretation when our biblical interpretation is wrong. For example, if we interpret the Bible as saying that the earth is at a fixed location in space, and doesn't even spin on its axis, and then find that, physically speaking, that is either meaningless or wrong, then science can be used to send us back to examine the Bible more carefully and check our interpretation. See the diagram here, especially the bit at the top in the middle. It can't affect it in an authoritative sense, but it can serve our interpretation in that way. Science can help us see when we've interpreted something incorrectly.