Creation
Does God have to act outside of scientific understanding to gain our respect? In the past it may have been considered a miracle that rain fell on the earth and while we understand the process and its components more thoroughly today, should it give me any less of a sense of wonder? Mountains erupting from the ground and the movement of tectonic plates coupled with erosion have produced such beautiful landscapes yet through understandable physical processes. However, the more I understand the more wonder I have for God. God has set complex systems such as the hydrological cycle and the human body in motion and although they operate by principles we are beginning to understand, they are no less a direct creation of His. Genesis is not an exhaustive account of creation by any means and by whatever process and over whatever time; the earth was created from nothing. Natural selection and evolution (at least on a micro scale) occur and the rocks show a history far beyond what is explained to us. I believe God wants us to open our eyes to his word which is written not only in the pages of scripture but in the rocks he has put under our feet. The miracle is the one God brings about in our hearts and minds by opening them through faith to recognise him in his creation.
Richard Venable
Hannah Venable
johncatmur
Anna S
thereceptionist
owenjohn
ginateal
lulu
shireen
weecw
craigh
feebs
monkiwiland
cherrieanne
Alan Collins
Andrew Fitch
han80
Philip Harvey
nikim
joanna
on October 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
John,
Excellent thoughts! I think you are right that the more information science gives us the more we are in awe. And the more we can praise God for His amazing design in creation.
Hannah
on October 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
No God does not have to act outside of science to gain our respect. Science is defined as the search for truth. Jesus said I AM the truth. therfore all scientific discoveries can only be true when they fit in with Gods framework. This was the approach taken by Faraday, Leibnis, Newton, Terzarghi, and many other great Scientists who held on to the Genesis account as history with dogged faith. My problem lies with the fact that evolution is not science. It is an ideology. It is not observed. Rather people take observations and then mould them so that they fit their chosen ideology or belief system. I face this a lot in my geotechnical engineering papers. Evolution believing geologists claim that it will take billions of years for limestone to be compressed into marble at extremely high pressures. However the genration of limestone by erosion and the rate of global uplift of marble to the earths surface suggests a much faster process. Like wise how come victorian artifacts that have been found are fossilised when this process takes billions of years supposedly. To accept evolution is to say you have more faith in the mainstream media statements then you do in the Word of God. It shows arrogance as you are saying that all believers between 0AD to 1800AD were stupid to accept Genesis as History when in fact we (the enlightened generation?) know its just a metaphor. Perhaps one day in a few hundred years Christians will be enlightened further and then know that the Red Sea crossing was just a story to symbolise the fact that the jews had boats and the Egyptians didn’t?
on October 28th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
There are allot of commonly accepted evolutionary theories out there that seem to contradict the Bible and not being a biologist, I can’t speak with any authority on the subject. Maybe there is one out there who can give us their opinion.
What is hard, is to know when to wait with faith for my interpretation of the bible to be explained, or when, in light of what I observe, to prayerfully ask God if I have incorrectly interpreted his word. The bible is not a scientific text book and deals with our relationship to God, not the intricacies of DNA mutations. Of course, none of us were around to observe creation but evolution aside (I can’t comment on that), we do have a long geological history to explain. Although, as you say, some of the processes could happen fast, the geologically long history of the earth is hard evidence. We can even see the lights from other galaxies millions of light years away.
I honestly struggle to explain these away. With the little the bible tells me on the subject and what creation literature is out there, I must either have faith or ask God if my faith is misplaced and look for some way He could have brought this about.
My current thinking is that there is some extra time that is not mentioned (not important to the message of scripture) or that God has created a history for us in the rocks and the stars. Dabbling in geotechnical engineering and geology in my work, I have found that there are plenty of other geologists with this same dilemma. I’ve found this website useful – let me know what you think.
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/index.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
on October 29th, 2008 at 10:30 am
John,
I think you made some good points about feeling like there must of been extra time somewhere. I agree with you. It seems that either God created things old or the days were not 24 hour days or something else! And since I am not a scientist, I cannot speak directly to evolution either but I will say that evolution ideas don’t seem to contradict the Bible. Whether they are true or not, I don’t know. They are a “theory” like many other scientific theories that have lots of evidence but we can’t ever prove because, as you mentioned, we can’t go back and see creation happen.
Shireen made a good point on another post about creation where she was talking about God being outside time. I think that relates here. It made sense that we can’t explain time and the beginning of the earth since we have a Creator that is greater than time and created time!
Hannah
on October 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Thank you,
I checked out a few of the articles. I recommend
http://www.answersingenesis.org
I would have to disagree with you on there being strong evidence for the earth being really old. The examples I gave of common theory contradicting the practicalities for applied scientists today are just scratching the surface. Carbon 14 dating, Fossil Records, erosion, rock morphology, etc can only give us ratios. Not dates of manufacture. The way we interpret these ratios depends on our own biased beliefs. For example an evolutionist looks at the grand canyon and says its amazing that such a small amount of water could carve it out in a huge amount of time. While I look at it and say its amazings that such a huge amount of water could carve it out in such a small amount of time. The St Helens disaster caused flood waters to carve out massive canyons comparable in size to the Grand Canyon in a matter of hours.
I would argue with Hannah that evolution can not be fitted into the Biblical account. To accept that evolution is true would be accepting that death was in the world before sin. Therefore death is not the consequence of sin. This destroys the whole foundation that the Gospel was built on. Fortunately for us we don’t have to believe evolution. There is huge scientific findings out there supporting supporting a young earth and the genesis account, even if we have to do a little research to find them as they are not normally broadcasted on the mainstream media.
on October 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Don’t worry Alan, I’m not professing to have all the answers or even to claim I have reached a conclusion about what I believe took place. What is important to me is to attempt to remove that bias you refer too when looking at the facts. If what we believe is true then the facts will bear that up.
I used to be subscribed to the creation and technical magazine and answers in genesis but found that their dealings with the facts was too biased for my taste. However, I will continue to search for young earth or any age earth explanations.
I think it is important to have these conversations. At the end of the day, science is not going to give us all the answers and I think we all believe that salvation can only be by faith – nothing observable in a test tube there….
I have a few comments I could make. When we refer to evolution, we are only talking about biology and I would think the evidence either way is rather thinner here. I appreciate the views of geologists as they are not in the evolution/creation camp just the old earth young earth camp and may have less bias.
I would postulate that animal death was not unusual before the fall and wouldn’t negate the foundation of the Gospel. Millions of animal lives are lost every day as a part of the natural cycle of things – we don’t know how long there was between the creation of man and the fall but even the human body needs this constant death and regeneration for life to exist, not to mention all the carnivorous insects and animals out there. I would have to say then that the death that is a consequence of sin is human death only. What do you think?
on October 31st, 2008 at 9:51 am
John,
See my reply to hannah on my post entitled “God’s Power – Not the survival of the fittest” as she asked the same question