I suppose we should all realize that this particular
discussion is moot since regardless of what we may believe, we are here. The world exists…unless you are a Philosophy
major, and then you may ask the question of whether reality is really
real. But, I’m sticking with a real
reality…we are here…and how we all got here really doesn’t matter all that
much.
That confusion-inducing statement having been said, this
subject interests me, and it is something that I’ve been thinking about for a
long time. Further, this is also one of
those subjects where my thinking is outside of the mainstream.
In fact, it is outside the mainstream of both
sides of this issue.
Now, I’m not a scientist. I’m just a regular guy who pays
attention…likes Star Trek…is a little nerdy…is intrigued by science...and is a believer in God. In some ways, my opinion isn’t worth two plug
nickels, but I do write a blog and some people read it, so here are my random
thoughts on the issues from the now famous Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate on whether
Creationism is a viable explanation of how the Universe came into being.
First, let me say that I wasn’t going to watch it. I just get tired of these arguments that
solve nothing. But, after I decided to
share my views on the subject, I decided I should take a gander at it. So, I spent a couple of hours watching it on
YouTube the other night. Actually, it
was interesting. I found some compelling
things being shared on both sides, and I was pleased that overall it was a
friendly exchange.
I agreed with some things from both, and I disagreed with
some things from both.
Here are some of my random thoughts on the topic…not
necessarily tied to the debate:
The Bible says that “God created…,” but it never
elaborates on the method used. As a
child, I envisioned that things just POPPED
into existence. But, couldn’t God have
used a method…a process…a portion of which we now call Evolution?
There are things we use in the world today (think technology) that
only a couple of hundred years ago would have been considered
supernatural. The supernatural becomes
the natural once we understand the process and the science behind it.
The Bible is not a Science textbook. It was not provided by God as a way to fully
explain science. That is just not its
purpose…rather Christ was the purpose.
Everything was pointing toward Him.
If you wrote a cookbook and then found out some school system was using
it to teach math, wouldn’t you question that school board’s thinking? A cookbook has some math in it, but that isn't its purpose.
In the debate, the biggest sticking point
between Nye and Ham was the age of the Earth.
Nye believed it to be billions of years old while Ham holds to only
about 6000 years. However, the Bible
NEVER directly says how old the earth is.
It does not ever…EVER…pinpoint a start date. The method used by Ham and others to develop
the timeline is by counting backward from Christ using the biblical
genealogies. If you start at Christ
(2000 years ago) and then follow the genealogies based on how long each
generation lived, you come up with about 6000 years. I don’t believe that this is a viable way to
date the Earth to the beginning point.
However, my main point here is that this is a MAN-MADE construct of how
to date the Earth. The Bible never says
that this is the way to do it. Mankind
has come up with it on its own.
Ham holds to a literal “Six-Days” of creation…meaning
six 24-hour periods. God created and
things POPPED into existence, and He did it all in six literal days. I no longer hold to that view, although I
used to. Rather, I believe that God employed
an allegorical language that ancient people could grasp. Why is it so hard to believe that God could
use an allegory? Do we think He is so
limited in His literary skills that He couldn’t come up with something like
that? Frankly, I’ve come to the
conclusion that the six days represent immensely long eons of time…periods in
the history of the Earth where God brought about great changes using the
processes that science is discovering through its ongoing research. This in no way threatens my belief in the
inspiration of the Bible. Frankly, when
facts are uncovered that challenge my interpretation of the Bible, I don’t
start questioning the Bible…I start questioning my understanding of it.
Now, here’s where I’m going to
throw out my own half-baked theory. It’s
half-baked because it isn’t fully developed. And, it is a theory...not a doctrine that I've constructed.
I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, but I’ve not fully worked
it all out. And, I’m not going to assume
that I’m the first to think about this either, but I’ve never heard anyone express the
following concept before. Here goes…
I am coming to the belief that the
creation of man in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam and his placement in the
Garden of Eden in Genesis 2 are two separate events.
I believe that humans were created
by God (through whatever process He chose to use) sometime in the ancient past,
but the creation of Adam and Eve was something special…a special creation of a
man and a woman that happened much, much later.
I’ve not come to a conclusion as to what was special about them…other
than maybe it was God’s first step toward creating a people to whom he could
have a relationship with…a people who were self-aware, creative, and/or carried
within them a soul. I’m still working on
that. But, if this is true, then it
explains a couple of other things:
It allows for a much, much older Earth
consistent with the evidence being uncovered by modern research.
It even allows for the possibility of a literal
six 24-hour days of creation…just much longer ago…although I still think that it
is an allegory.
It explains where the people came from that Cain
was so afraid of when God banished him…and where he found his wife.
In this theory, Adam is still the first man, but he is first
in a different way than the way the box that we’ve all been raised in explained
it. He wasn’t the first human, he was
first in some other way that has then filtered down through all of mankind.
So, just let me leave that hanging out there….
You can tear it down…help me develop it…think I’m nuts…whatever.
I’ll leave you with some parting thoughts:
Scientific discoveries point to an Earth that is
much older than 6000 years. There are
even some Biblical anomalies that remain uneasily explained in the young-earth
view. If we adamantly deny the evidence
without giving deeper thought…even thought outside our religious boxes…, then
we do begin to appear ridiculous to the rest of the world.
Scientific discoveries are not contradictory to
the existence of God…at least nothing that I have seen says there is no
God. Bill Nye even acknowledges that
science cannot disprove God.
Science does not displace God, it simply reveals
His processes. For example, if evolution
is true, then it was simply the process created by God to bring things about…science
has simply revealed something about how God made the Earth.
Finally, the Big Bang Theory…more than anything
else…points to God. Science theorizes
that the Universe POPPED into
existence sometime billions of years ago.
However, it cannot explain HOW
that happened or WHERE that matter
came from. Scientists cannot really
explain it, but we can understand that it came from God. While we can be questioned on where God came
from… and we have no answer beyond that He just always existed…, science can be
questioned on where the matter in the Big Bang came from…and there just is not
a satisfactory answer to that…other than God.
My conviction is that we Christians should stop fussing
about evolution…stop arguing about the age of the Earth…and just start glorifying
God with each new discovery our atheist friends in the science world uncover
about the processes that God used when He brought the Universe into being. Because, in their own way, those folks will
find that God really was behind it all after all. He is at the end of the string they are tugging on.
PS: I in no way mean to say that there aren't any believing scientists. There are. And they make many, many discoveries of God's processes every day.
