I have rocks in my head...

()

Space rocks...

I'm often asked if I'm a creationist. And I'm always surprized by the question. I'll clarify. If you are talking to a Christian, you are talking to a creationist. Every Christian should believe that God created everything.

But the term "creationist" seems to have been exclusively attached to "recent-creationists", or "young-Earth-creationists". There is the possibility that God created the Universe eons ago, and then created Adam intact as a mature human. It's not just a question of evolution vs. a young Earth.

Now, with the question suitably rephrased, I can absolutely answer, "I don't know."

The fact of the matter is that I'm not sure who is right about the age of the Earth/Cosmos. And the fact of the matter is that I'm not too overly worried either way. The creation account can be interpreted either way. And its truth doesn't hinge on any scientific model.

Maybe it is a description of literal days-- yom in the original Hebrew. Maybe the universe is only a few thousand years old, and God made it with the appearance of maturity just as He did Adam shortly after. But He would have had to purposefully done things such as having light travel toward us at different rates than it is now. It seems almost purposefully planned to trick us if it is young. But then again, He would also have had to have placed blood in Adam's body in places it hadn't been pumped to, so apparent age shouldn't be too surprising.

Now we're back to space rocks clanging around in my head. They're problems for both recent-creationists and evolutionists. They're kind of a "one-size-fits-all" thorn in the side.

Have you ever seen pictures of the moon close up? Notice the rugged beauty of its cratered surface. That's what Earth would look like if it didn't have all the water to cover the craters and climate to erode them. It's been beaten as badly as the moon and, though erosion has removed many of them and the oceans cover many more, we still have craters pock-marking our planet in plain view.

My question to a recent-creation model is, "when?" When did we get hit will all of those meteors? It would have had to have been between the fourth day and Adam-- some time before life was created else life would have had to have been recreated after a catastrophic impact ended it.

My questions to the evolutionist is "how?!" The probabilities of random mutation and selection giving us the almost-infinite variety we see in life is beyond my thresholds of belief. Even considering the billions of individual creatures in the innumerable generations of this scientific theory, the idea of any blind process developing the unimaginably numerous complexities and specializations we see is ludicrous. Now, throw into the mix globally catastrophic impacts that would have snuffed out almost all life on the planet several times over during this process, and you have gone from ludicrous to absolutely feeble and back again.

Man, those thorns hurt. And they show that the discussion isn't such a strict either/or between recent-creation and evolution. Maybe the Universe looks old because it is old. Maybe the creation account really isn't about literal days, especially since yom was used elsewhere in scripture to indicate an expanse of time, and poetic description was used pretty liberally elsewhere too. I don't know. Maybe God created the cosmos and let the dirt age a while before forming Adam from it.

I'm actually a little bummed to post this, my first post in quite a while, containing all questions and no answers. But I guess sometimes the questions are constructive too. I think sometimes we all need reminding that a lot of these questions will remain questions until we see things more clearly, when we actually see the Author face to face and He explains it all perfectly.

Is it all young, or all old? Was it six literal days or a poetic description of a big bang? Does it matter, since both answers require God's work? Does it matter, when He's still the author and finisher?

Either way He is still God-- awesome enough to uphold the universe and still save a wretch like me.

Be blessed...

Problem for evolution?

First, the term creationist is generally applied to both young-earth creationists (YEC) and old-earth creationists (OEC). You, as a potential OEC, still seem to hang on to YEC principles such as a recent creation of life with this statement:
Maybe God created the cosmos and let the dirt age a while before forming Adam from it.
If that's the case, why accept the appearance of the earth's age while denying the appearance of life's age? If that's not the case, I apologize for the misrepresentation.

Now, you lose me with this statement:
...the idea of any blind process developing the unimaginably numerous complexities and specializations we see is ludicrous.
I guess it all hinges on what you mean by "blind," but the implication is pretty clear. Ludicrous is a strong word. There are lots of people that have dedicated long hours, careers, even lives to the pursuit of knowledge. The conclusion of that pursuit is overwhelmingly in favor of that which you (mis)characterize as "blind."

Now that I'm through with my hissy fit, I'd like to point out that science has found lots of global catastrophic events, and they nicely fit with the evidence we see. Check out the evidence of the dinosaur extinction at the K-T boundary. There's a layer of soil with all the stuff you'd expect to be formed during a large asteroid impact. Below that layer are dinosaurs. Above it, no dinosaurs except a few birds. Many other species suffered great losses.

Events like this actually can contribute to diversity. When large groups are killed off, other organisms are free to spread into previously saturated niches when the environment recovers. Smaller populations are more likely to have isolated groups, which tend to change (evolve) more rapidly.

There is a point of yours I can empathize with. You said you're bummed by this post with all questions and no answers. Scientists feel this way frequently. Every question answered opens up several new ones. It can be discouraging, but there's no reason to give up on the process and just wait around for an audience with your mythological creator. :^)

There are lots of people

There are lots of people that have dedicated long hours, careers, even lives to the pursuit of knowledge. The conclusion of that pursuit is overwhelmingly in favor of that which you (mis)characterize as "blind."

There you go again with the arguments to authority and popularity...

From the inside jacket of "The Blind Watchmaker", Richard Dawkins

One of the most famous arguments of the creationist theory of the universe is the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley's: Just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed. But as Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford University, demonstrates in this brilliant and eloquent riposte to the Argument from Design, the analogy is false. Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. Emphasis mine

I got a grin from the following:

It can be discouraging, but there's no reason to give up on the process and just wait around for an audience with your mythological creator. :^)

No... I'm looking forward to your audience with my "mythological" creator. (Romans 14:1)

:^P

Be blessed, and thanks for your input...

I think you misunderstood my beef...

I don't really mind you calling the process blind. I do think that word conjures some inappropriate images for the general public, but that's a minor nit that I won't pursue.

I also don't think I'm appealing to authority. I'm just saying that to dismiss hours and years of painstaking work (that's been thoroughly documented) as "ludicrous," you better have something to back it up. I apologize if I'm misrepresenting you, but it seems to me that all you've presented is some a priori emotion and quote mines from popular literature.

I'm sure anybody reading all of our discourse here won't realize how we are actually such good friends. In fact, it's our friendship that allows me to express myself so freely. Please be assured that any apparent animosity is purely imaginary. Also be assured that I don't interpret any animosity from your comments.

Believe it or not, I really appreciate the reference to Romans 14. I don't remember reading that before, and I really like the message there. Thanks.

Thanks...

Thanks for bringing up the clarification for those who may not know of our friendship, and I consider it a great compliment to be referred to as such. And thanks for seeing the need to show this clarification, as a defining characteristic of our close friendship is the ability to speak with candor within mutual respect.

It's been a very busy weekend so far. I'll post a more detailed response soon. I'll probably do so with a new blog post dedicated to the subject so that our discussion can be attached to the subject. I'd really prefer for the comments in these two blogs to not get too far away from the subject of theose particular blogs.

I hope this is OK.

Be blessed... :D

Syndicate

Syndicate content