Creationism: Difference between revisions

From Cor ad Cor
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 38: Line 38:


== Links ==
== Links ==
* [http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/ Stephen E. Jones, ''Creation/Evolution/Design,'' "My Theory of Progressive Mediate Creation: 1.1. What ''is'' Progressive Mediate Creation?"]
 
:: "Progressive Mediate Creation" is the view, based on Genesis 1, that God created the raw materials of the universe immediately from out-of-nothing (''ex nihilo''), and thereafter He created mediately by working (both naturally and supernaturally) through natural processes and existing materials.
:: [Creation/Evolution/Design is] my commentary on creation, evolution, intelligent design and the evidence for Christianity being objectively true. I am an Australian Christian old-Earth creationist biologist who accepts universal common ancestry (but not evolution).
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Scripture Studies]]
[[Category:Scripture Studies]]

Revision as of 18:49, 24 March 2014

It's a mistake to say "Either scientism or creationism." If those are the only two options, then of course a religious person must be a young-earther. But there is a third alternative: Catholicism. Scientism and creationism agree that if there is evolution, then there is no God. Assert God, deny evolution; assert evolution, deny God; or accept God & evolution.

The fear is that if we do not embrace creationism, then we accept scientism. We should not concede the saganist argument that if the Big Bang is true, there is no God or that if evolution takes place, there is no God. We don't have to be creationists in order to deny those absurd arguments from the saganists. There is a third position.

Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye

Debate Topic: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

If you adopt Ham's interpretation for Genesis, you're committed to it for the whole of the Bible. All of his Protestant theology of sola scriptura and the infallible bible come into play.


Reflections

The question for debate was whether creation is "a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era."

My immediate answer is "no" on the grounds that the religious dogma or philosophical judgment that one God created all things is not a model of origins. The thought that there is a sovereign Creator leaves open the question of how God unfolded what we now see all around us. There are many different models that are consistent with this theological and/or philosophical conviction.

A model is essentially a simplified imaginative representation of a larger or more complex reality. Model cars imitate the shape of real cars but not the size. Model aircraft that are capable of flight usually are not constructed of the same materials as a full-size aircraft. Some model ships are capable of floating or are used in tank-testing to predict how full-scale hulls will perform; others are designed merely to please the eye.

The doctrine of creation is that God created all things ex nihilo, which is Latin for "out of nothing." We can model (picture, imagine) this in different ways.

God is the Author of the Big Bang
In this model, God is the direct or indirect cause of the Big Bang. Some scientists speculate that there are an infinite number of universes. If so, the theistic view is that God created all of them. There is no theological difference in the dogma of creation in either case. If God created all physical realities, it does not matter whether the domain of physical realities is far greater than what we can observe now from our vantage point within this universe. The infinite, eternal, all-present, all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful Being whom we worship is the cause of "all that is visible and invisible" (Nicene Creed).
The deists imagined that God simply created the initial conditions of the whole universe, like a clockmaker building a clock, then wound it up and set it running deterministically, with no further participation in the process. I am opposed to determinism, but not to the thought that God did create the natural laws that make the development of life possible.
Things Miraculously Pop into Existence All at Once
The model here is based on a belief in God's miracle-working power. The picture is that the universe as we know it is brought into existence all at once 6,000 years ago, with all of the stars and galaxies spread out as if they had moved into those positions by normal physical processes. They have the appearance of being ancient but really are young.
As a Christian, I believe that God is all-powerful and can do whatever He wills; if the Resurrection of Jesus did not take place, my religion is false and deserves to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Although I concede that, in principle, God could instantaneously create a universe that seemed very old (13.7 billion years, according to Nye) but is really young (6,000 years according to Ham), I am not attracted to the picture of an instantaneous creation.

References


Links