Back in the old days, the SA forums were a little less genteel - indeed, at times they resembled the wild west. And nothing was surer to start a virtual gun fight than a discussion about Creation Science. Passions ran high, patience ran low, and the arguments flew back and forth like stray bullets. In these more civilised times, we tend to avoid the topic.
But I've decided to dust off my six-shooters and venture into the fray once more - not on the SA forums, but on my blog. This subject, straddling the intersection between faith and science, is always of interest to Christians. So today I will share my own position, and explain why I do not believe in Creation Science (CS).
I was first exposed to CS around 1990. I was immediately captivated by the movement, and I bought and borrowed all of the CS books I could find. For a time, I was a fierce advocate of the creationist position, and I can recall having many arguments on the subject.
But my conviction began to slip. As I delved deeper into the literature, the creationist position seemed less and less viable. I kept coming across convincing rebuttals from credible sources. Claim after claim fell apart upon closer examination. Recently, one CS institute created a web page called "Arguments creationists should NOT use". Yet these arguments were the bread and butter of the creationist literature I read in the early 90s.
I was forced, reluctantly, to conclude that CS had no scientific credibility. It was poorly argued, unsupported by research, and frequently quoted serious sources out of context. More and more, the CS apologists looked like men who were ideologically driven, and who would grab hold of any piece of "evidence" that could be pressed into service. Creation science is a conclusion looking for an argument.
My flirtation with CS occurred nearly 20 years ago, and I've come across nothing in the intervening years to make me reconsider my conclusion. Indeed, my concerns have grown, and I am now convinced that creationism perpetrates not just bad science, but bad theology as well.
Is the topic worth raising, given that it so often starts a fight? I believe it is. Many Christians continue to struggle with this issue, so it's important for those who have worked through the matter to nail our colours to the mast.
There is another consideration. In seeking to reach outsiders, it's very unhelpful to have our faith attached to a discredited movement like Creation Science. It may very likely tarnish the truth of the gospel in their eyes. This is hardly a new problem. St Augustine struggled with something very much like it 1500 years ago. I'll finish with an apt quote from his work, De Genesi ad litteram -
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Sometime over the next couple of years, Synod will vote for a new Anglican Archbishop for Sydney. Whoever takes that role will have enormous shoes to fill. The recent financial troubles of the diocese have overshadowed a little the generally excellent job PJ has done in an extremely difficult role. Externally, he has been a tremendous public face. Internally, he has put in place many necessary reforms, while generally maintaining good will and respect. He will be a tough act to follow.
