An Introduction to Creationism
There are currently in the United States, and to lesser
degrees in other English speaking nations and Europe, a variety of groups who
oppose scientific discoveries regarding the origin of the universe, the age of
the solar system, and the evolution of living species. There are Hindu,
neo-pagan, new age, Native American traditionalists, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and
Christians who have some objection to some aspect of science and would call
themselves creationists. When I was the Director for Educational Programs at a
small natural history museum, I met with representative members of all these
groups and subgroups.
Among the most fervent were those individuals who held
that the universe was created ex nihilo
(out of nothing) in six days approximately six thousand years ago and then destroyed and restored by God in a global
flood. They have based all this on a literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis and by summing up the "ages" of various geneological tables scattered in the Bible. We
generally refer to these as young earth creationists. I recommend to the
interested reader two recent books, “Evolution vs. Creationism: An
Introduction” by anthropologist Eugenie C. Scott (2005), and "The
Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism" by historian Ronald
L. Numbers (2006), both published by the University of California Press. Scott
looks at the variety of creationists and addresses many of their factual
errors, and Numbers traces how the modern young earth creationism was nurtured
within the Seventh Day Adventist sect and burst into public with the 1961
publication of “The Genesis Flood” by John C. Whitcomb, and Henry M. Morris.
For the current discussion, I will be addressing the basic
tenets of young earth creationism.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Why would a super being who created everything ex nihilo resort to the womb of a Jewish maiden, live there for 9 months, go through the trauma of birth, live as a man, die on the cross and become a super being again. What a fabulous work of fiction!!!!!!!
Since when, speaking to one of the other posters, did "chance" become a word to bias any argument AGAINST evolution ? Doesn't make sense, unless the poster is reading into something that probably isn't inferred and possibly feels an affront to his or her sensibilities.
-Christopher
ctorri@sycr.com">/>ctorri@sycr.com
First and foremost . . . Dr. Hurd, I'm glad to see you still being such a gadfly [sic].
But, not without purpose. I write this because purpose seems to be the argumentative qualifier--quantuvis. There is no proof that can be substantiated by any human senses to show, undeniably, that a sentient being or force created the earth, life or the universe. Not to say that experiential moments are disqualified from contemplation. Contemplation, but not hard data. The imagination is a petulant child that can force a person to forget rationality by means of frustration, adversity or just plain "it is what it is." There could be, at some point, a convergence of science and faith. Faith, or belief . . . odd conundrum. Six days to create a universe where if one were studying the redshift of the light from distant stars shows a sea of space that is expanding at a rate that could only be proven by billions of years of expansion? I don't think so. And, SPACE isn't empty (just because you can't SEE it). That takes a lot of explanation that religious texts can't, and don't, provide. Also, the amount of times all religious texts have been rewritten should speak to the obfuscation of their messages--pars pro toto.
Six DAYS? No. Six billion YEARS would be closer, but only about half. Then how to explain the closest star, in light years. No mention of that in any religious text. Also, I find it difficult to believe, as the LDS do (not to pick a fight with a single faith), that heaven is a planet next to the sun. Sounds like hell--no pun intended.
Dr. Hurd, Gary, please email me sometime. I would very much like to speak with you.
Cordially, Christopher Torri
You get a gold star! There has to be a first cause, and within Chaos Theory there is a possibility of artificial intelligence, but self awareness? That is the real problem. Any ideas on how man became self aware?
If, as you claim, "there has to be a first cause," then what "caused" God?
If your answer is that God is eternal and always existed, my question to you is this: Why can't I say the same thing about the universe itself?
(This is purely a logical argument, not a scientific one. I don't believe either assertion.)
But in pantheism God and the universe are the same thing.
...but given that this discussion is centered on young earth Creationism and most of the commentary has focused on monotheistic presuppositions, I still have to wonder how "first cause" could be relevant to the universe but not its alleged "Creator".
I would recommend that those perusing this post also consider reading Chance or Purpose by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn. It is an excellent book that might serve as a fantastic bridge for both sides of the debate.
"consider reading Chance or Purpose"
At any rate "chance" is an obviously derogatory word to try to bias the argument against evolution and "purpose" is obviously meant to imply that some "intelligence" is involved. But unless/until there is some way to establish that some intelligence is actually involved, "purpose" is not scientific.
From a review of that book:
"Cardinal Schonborn is clear that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not science"
So it would seem that he (like most Catholics) would reject an interpretation of six literal days.
From another review:
"It reads as a series of transcriptions from the Cardinal's catechism lectures
All around, the book is a great disappointment, leading one to conclude that the Cardinal is as flyweight an author of books, as he was an OpEd writer in the NYT."