Creationists Have More Fun

Just as they used to say about blondes, creationists have more fun (except in this case, it's true).

The Robbinsdale Radial disagrees with my take on creation, evolution, the age of the earth, etc. I don't mind. I was once somewhere in the vicinity of where he is now.

I used to try and harmonize what I heard from pop culture about the age of the earth, evolution and such to what the Bible says about our origins. In doing so, and without a serious examination of the evidence on both sides, I bought into some of the theories such as "Day-Age" and "Gap Theory."

It was at the first creation event sponsored by the Black Hills Creation Science Association about 10 years ago that I first discovered that (a) not only are those theories completely irreconcilable to both the creation account in the Bible but also to what the Bible says about humanity's sinful condition and the reason Christ came to die for us, but (b) there are a multitude of theories, based on a multitude of evidence, that are completely scientific and match with what the Bible tells us about how the universe came to be as we currently experience it.

What it all boils down to is this: both atheists and creationists examine and accept the same evidence, they just interpret it through a different set of presuppositions, or lenses, i.e. a worldview. The atheist presupposes everything had to come about through completely naturalistic causes (i.e. no supernatural causation), and the creationist presupposes God is the ultimate author of all things and natural laws.

Interestingly, the creationist interpretation not only fits together and functions easier, it also fits the evidence better than the naturalistic interpretation.

Below is a comment I left on the RR's blog in response to his latest post. Hopefully it will shed further light on the point I'm making:

The fact that the earth orbits the sun does nothing whatsoever to creation science or the Bible's account of creation. However, I think the case can still be made that humanity is still at the top of God's concern because we were created in His image (He says so) and He sent His Son to die a terrible death to save us from our sinful condition (He didn't send Jesus to die for Mars or Alpha Centauri or even dolphins, but for humans).

As for Galileo, that incident has been twisted around as an excuse to bash the creation account. Galileo, a Christian, was working against a prevailing Aristotelian mindset that some in the church had also latched onto (just as some have accepted theistic evolution today). There were also other political factors in play that affected the situation. He was NOT persecuted for "frightening the church with science."

You claim that I and other creationists are "missing out on the wonder and excitement of it all," but that is 180 degrees from the truth. Knowing the Creator PERSONALLY and trying to figure out how and why He did so many incredible things is the greatest wonder and excitement imaginable! Because, you see, God makes all His creative wonders work through SCIENCE.

The thing that naturalists intentionally blind themselves to is the fact that God, as author of science (the mechanics of creation) is able to supersede those scientific laws (those actions of supersession are what we call "supernatural").

Just as the programmer of a computer operating system is able to go into the programming code and change what it does and how it performs (i.e. operate outside the programming), God can "operate outside the programming" and create things at an accelerated rate (or even instantly), or create global floods, or heal the sick, or raise the dead. Why? Because he's the master programmer.

You and I can't rewrite Windows or OS X because we're not OS programmers. Humans can't do supernatural acts--unless empowered by the Master Programmer--because we're not that Master Programmer.

But trying to figure out how and why God created things as he did is one of the most exciting things in the world.

Finally, you speak about the theory that the earth is 4 billion years old as if it was a fact (actually that theoretical age has been changed many times). Yet you have not a single piece of evidence that proves it. Oh, I know all about radiometric dating (that dated the 1980 Mount St. Helens lava dome at several million years old) and the geological column (which relies on circular logic and throwing out "inconsistent data" to have even a hope of being useful). But those are hardly better than throwing a dart at a map.

Ignorance is one thing. Refusing to examine the evidence is another. I've examined the evidence of both sides, and that of an ancient universe and evolution are woefully lacking. I encourage you to take a serious look, too. Read up on the subject. Come out to the seminar next weekend. You might be surprised how much sense it makes.