Creation vs. Evolution

Today's local paper carried an article from The Washington Post about the new creation museum that has opened in Petersburg, KY. The article, although not explicitly anti-creation, was written from an evolutionist point of view. It simply assumes evolution and eschews any "religious" encroaching upon the turf of science. I guess that is what bothers me so much about it and about the whole nature of what goes for scientific dialogue today. "Science," as we know it and practice it today, has ceased to have any real association with its Latin origins. Science no longer deals with "knowledge" per se (from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge) but with a specific kind of knowledge, namely, an interpreted knowledge of the material world that is interpreted through a materialistic world view.

If we try to interpret the "facts" from a theistic/Christian world view (the belief in a God), then we are told that we are bringing religion into science and that that is bad. We need to engage in "pure" science and leave matters of faith behind. And "pure" science means interpreting the facts from a materialistic point of view (n.b., materialism is the belief that this world, the material stuff of this world, is all that there is and that there is nothing else).

Well, I have a problem with this. If interpreting the facts of science in a theistic way is "religion" and not science, then interpreting the facts in a materialistic way is also religion and not science. All interpretation of facts is religious, because we all interpret facts based on our presuppositions or our world views (i.e., based on how we view the world). One's world view is a product of one's "religious" belief. To put it simply, if we are materialistic/atheistic in our world view, we will interpret the world order in one way. If we are theistic/Christian, we will interpret the world order in another way.

Evolution and an ancient earth (the view that the earth is millions/billions of years old) have become "facts" of science, when, in actuality, both are simply faith-based interpretations of scientific facts, which facts could be interpreted in different ways.

Let me explain what I mean. Take the age of any given fossil, call it "Fossil X." If Fossil X is dated by our conventional dating procedures and found to be millions of years old, the scientists proclaim triumphantly that this proves an ancient earth. But, what do we really "know"? that by our conventional dating procedures the fossil was found to be millions of years old; that's it. The possible conclusions are as follows (there may be others, I'm sure; this is just a sample):

1. Our dating procedures are inaccurate. We may find out in one hundred years (or more or less) that our dating procedures were woefully inaccurate. Maybe, maybe not. Not too long ago, we thought that making someone bleed was the way to cure them of their sickness (and many folks, sadly, bled to death en route to being cured!). Science has and does make new discoveries over time. We have not "arrived" at the point of "advanced" science in the 21st century. In the future, we WILL discover that we have been wrong in any number of ways.

2. The Fossil actually is only several thousands of years old but was created by a divine power (uh oh, I've brought God into the picture!) to "look" like it was millions of years old (i.e., it was created "mature" rather than in an infantile state, rather like Adam and Eve, who were not created at 0 years old but as adults).

3. The Fossil actually is millions of years old.

4. God wanted to show that the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men! And He wanted some people to stumble over His foolishness, so that He could show the riches of His glory to those who believe (a la Romans 9:19-23).

Not one of us was there when the universe was created or came into being. The best we can do is to gather the facts and then make our interpretations. The travesty is that, under the guise of science, many well-intentioned folks seek to convince us that evolution and an ancient earth are "scientific" facts and that creation and a relatively new earth are merely "religious" beliefs.