[Sailor Steve]

The problem I have with Creationism is simply this:

Creationists try to dismiss the theory of evolution by pointing out its flaws; and, as with all scientific theory, there are some. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are a lot of people who do treat evolution as though it were a religious belief, and get into shouting matches and arrogant dismissals themselves.

Every real scientist knows that today's pet theory may well be tomorrow's bad joke. It's something they live with. On the other hand, given the acceptance of radiocarbon dating systems and the observed fact of mutation at the cellular level, it's the best theory we have at the moment. If it were to be proven wrong tomorrow, a lot of people would be devastated, but most would say "Okay, how do we explain these phenomena?" and get back to work.

On the other hand, Creationism came about because one man, Bishop James Ussher of the Anglican Church, carefully calculated the date of creation to be 23 October 4004 BC, exactly 4000 years before the accepted date of the birth of Christ. If the Bible is taken literally then this was valid. Most serious biblical scholars today state the belief that parts of the Bible are indeed allegorical, especially the parts that aren't stated to be eyewitness accounts.

But what about Creationism? It is less than theory, relying on a pre-concieved idea (that there is a God, and that he created the universe out of whole cloth), and attempts to apply it to science. This requires the dismissal of any conflicting idea, which is not science, and while Creationists go to great lengths to disprove parts of evolution, the willfully blind themselves to any flaws in their own reasoning.

I once postulated the qestion of what would happen if God appeared to some primitive shepherd and, rather than saying "Write this down as I dictate it" said "Here, let me show you how I did it!"

Big Bang? "And God said 'Let there be light!' And there was light!"

Show him the development of the Earth through the ages? It gets written down as Seven Days.

Just my own ideas, but are they any less valid than anyone else's when speaking of the esoteric? Would proof that evolution is indeed a reality dismiss the possibility that it was all called into being by God? Would the proof of a 'Young Earth' immediately prove that it was created by God?

In both cases the answer is "No". Evolution is an attempt by scientists to explain what they see. They don't insist the Earth is billions of years old just because their ideas require it. Carbon-dating is accepted as reasonbly reliable. Creationists take evolution as a direct challenge to their most cherished beliefs, and for them to not feel threatened by it they feel they have to disprove it.

Creationism is an attempt to force science to adapt to a pre-concieved idea, one which has its own flaws when looked at with scientific means.

Science is discovery. What is discovered needs to be explained. Natural evolution is one such explanation. So is the idea of direct creation by God. One does not preclude the other. But the idea of dismissing natural explanations by insisting that much of what scientists believe is wrong requires more science, and the idea that the universe had a supernatural beginning is one that cannot be proven, and is therefore outside the realm of science.

It may be true, but trying to prove it with half-science is a desparate grasp at something that cannot be grasped. The Christian's faith, and even salvation, don't depend on believing in the Seven Days, or The Flood, or anything else. They only depend on the Atonement.