The Sinner's Prayer Book

Steal Me

Thoughts on Creationism vs. Evolution

Science, to the best of its knowledge, says that the universe is fifteen billion years old, and the Earth five billion. Genesis tells us God created the world in six days. How are these to be reconciled? The short answer is that they were never meant to be. Galileo put it, "that Holy Writ was intended to teach men how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." It is one thing to see through the eyes of faith, but it is another thing to be blinded by faith without reason. Science has its basis on what we can observe, and by observation, create theories which predict other things. This has historically been very successful; we cannot discount the theory of evolution, nor the theories of an old earth. Science has a place, and religion does, too. I open my thoughts with the following quote:

Thomas a Kempis, Of the Imitation of Christ

Clearly, parts of the Bible reflect the times within which they are written, like bats being described as birds. Genesis can be read to do this, that it calls the Moon a "lesser light" (Genesis 1:16), when it has been determined by science (through observation first, and proved by men landing on it) that the Moon's surface is made of rock, and that it sheds no light of its own. It certainly appears to be a light, but it is not one; it does light the night, but it is not a light. So which do we throw away, science or religion? The Bible is supposed to be divinely inspired, and if this is so, and God knows all, why didn't He divinely inspire the writer of Genesis to correlate with what would be discovered by science much later? If it is truth, how can it be that it does not correlate with what we know about the universe? The simple fact of the matter is, we cannot throw out things that make sense, and science provides us with this. So how do we correlate fifteen billion years to six days? The answer is that we don't.

"Faith is required of thee, and a sincere life, not loftiness of intellect…". How does correlation of science and religion, that they must agree, help you live a sincere life? If you do not understand parts of the Bible, let it be a mystery unless you are given insight by the one who inspired it in the first place. From my vantage point, what Genesis tells me is that God created all things. Perhaps that was all it was meant to do, perhaps not. If you argue that matching up science to religion would help your faith, you merely beg the issue -- the argument is a rationalization with the purpose in mind to further a blind assumption, that God meant what you think He meant. It is a presumption that we believe we understand all that comes from above as the One above meant it, and Genesis surely does come from above. "Submit thyself unto God, and humble thy sense to faith, and the light of knowledge shall be given thee, as shall be profitable and necessary unto thee."

A point to be made is that to only one person was absolutely everything revealed, and that person was Jesus Christ, who spoke nothing about such things as how old the universe is. Why Genesis is reflective of its times, like the Moon being a light, and not what would be discovered later by science, was that it simply was not revealed to the writer of Genesis. Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36) If you are a Christian and consider yourself a candidate for that kingdom, that means that you should look to the next world, and not this one. To be like Christ, let us also not concern ourselves with things pointless to salvation. How does the age of the world save us?

"God chooses to come to man, not man to God." (Karl Barth) There are Creationists who seem to disagree. They want empirical evidence for the existence of God, a road from man to God. I believe this is unwise: what they want is a dead fact, and what they should have is a live faith. I was led to God by evidence from my own life -- I had reasons to believe that if told to a devout atheist would not convert him or her, but it converted me; my faith was given to me in a very personal way. It was not some grand universal proof which convinced me, and that is what Creationists seem to want. I believe what they want is a crutch, and I believe that faith is something quite opposite, that faith is wings.

So are we descended from monkeys? The very question is riddled with ignorance. What evolution teaches us is that monkeys and humans had a common ancestor, and two evolutionary branches made two different things, one branch monkeys, the other human beings. Evolution has been observed to happen (though in small amounts, in accordance with the theory, which calls for long times' elapse for big changes). It is consistent. The question, though famous, is not the real issue. People seem to think that such a natural law (survival of the fittest) replaces the need for God. Newton, however, retorts this in his beliefs. His discovery of the laws of gravity proved to him that God existed because the laws existed. Not everyone saw it this way of course, but it teaches us something. The question of are we descended from monkeys points to the shortsightedness of the one asking the question. The shortsightedness is to believe that evolution, and other natural laws, eliminate the need for God, where in fact, it may necessitate God. If your faith does not see it, perhaps it is your faith that is in question, and not things people have observed to actually happen.

I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible contains only truth. That does not mean I should try to prove that the world is the center of the universe. People once believed that, and it (unfortunately) had religion to blame for it. Disbelief in evolution I put in the same class, though the theory is not as easily proved. Creationism may one day be looked upon with the same scorn that the geocentric view of the universe has shown itself to be. Creationists may want that faith be not thrown out for the furtherance of reason, but let us not throw reason out for the supposed furtherance of faith.

-