CAUTION: The following is a work of satire. Any similarity to THIS POST is strictly intentional. Naturalists, Religious Progressives, and Persons who are easily offended by any suggestion that Science is NOT the infallible Holy Grail are encouraged to huff and puff about illiterates like me who pose such a great threat to American survival and are a pain in the ass of religious liberals who linked to THAT POST because it supports their undying smear campaign against Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and anyone who concludes that Science is NOT the infallible Holy Grail they believe it to be.
* * *
You know that chart of the protoplasmic blob that becomes a man, the one that’s shoved down the throat of kids in public school? Well, that chart represented my upbringing to a T… until I left the echo chamber that is “public education” and started to think for myself.
Some people dare to think this chart is fake, that there’s simply not enough transitional fossils to support such a theory, and because no one was there to actually witness any of it, some mistakenly place faith in Science, scientists (who are hopefully prejudice-free), and cognitive faculties that have evolved via the processes they seek to critique. But I wasn’t one of these Neanderthals who denied The Chart. I believed what I was taught for years. I believed the earth was billions of years old, and gave Scientists the freedom to add as many zeroes as was needed to reach their conclusions. And I believed all that because it was presented to me by people that I trusted were “real scientists” (that is, inerrantists who had a “personal relationship with Science”).
For ages, I didn’t bother to check to see if their claims were true because
- “real scientists” would obviously not teach bad science or misrepresent the facts,
- everyone in my community appeared to believe in naturalism, biological evolution, that the earth was old enough to have allowed these random mutations to have developed into myriads of highly complex organisms, and
- I didn’t have access to alternative points of view (creationists, young-earthers, and PhDs who dared to contradict the Establishment).
Besides, even if I had considered seeking out such alternative points-of-view, reading them would have been seen as a sign of distrusting Science’s word — and having a lack of faith.
But upon leaving the Public Educational Sphere, I was shocked to learn that so many apologists for Naturalism (including the “real scientists” of my Science textbooks) actually appeared to have misrepresented Creationism and the evidence for it in a way that I can only describe as dishonest (whether they intended to be or not), suppressed alternative points of view, and that many of them also flaunted their credentials to speak “authoritatively,” while censoring said views. These things made up a major link in a chain of things I discovered that resulted in me “losing my faith in Science,” as it were.
I’m only just starting to claw my way out of deep, angry skepticism back toward Science in general.
I know it seems whiny to blame my “trust issues” on my upbringing, but imagine how it would feel to believe in Santa Claus until you were a young adult, and then learn you’d been lied to. Well, that’s what it felt like when I learned
- There were some very smart people who disagreed with the “real scientists” about the age of the earth and its origins
- Many of the pillars of Darwinian theory were either false or misleading
- There were a significant amount of frauds in the paleontology community
- Guys like Karl Popper, considered one of the greatest philosophers of science said: “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”
- Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, said things like this: “The history of organic life is indemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis.”
- Dr. Louis T. Moore, Professor of Paleontology at Princeton University said: “The more one studies the paleontological record, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.”
And there was much more.
Like Ben Stein, in his documentary EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed who contends that “the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution.” Stein:
“Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. They can not even mention the possibility that – as Newton or Galileo believed – these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure or have their grants cut off.”
Even if Stein is a bit of a goofball, how was it possible that “real scientists,” possessors of the Holy Grail, would even feel the need to suppress opposing points of view?
Then there were testimonies like this one… from a real person!
I went to college after having left the church for years. Not that I’d completely turned my back on God or Christ, but I was definitely NOT living a Christian life, or giving God much thought, and I had zero faith in the church. But studying so so so much evolution in my science classes made me see beyond the surface of things, and if anything it gave me MORE faith in God. I saw behind the smoke and mirrors.
Smoke and mirrors? How could this be? Perhaps I needed to reassess, to step outside the bubble and consider religion, intelligent design, young-earthism, and all those things the “real scientists” (that is, inerrantists who had a “personal relationship with Science”) had labelled anathema.
Thing is, I didn’t lose Santa. Instead, I lost Science!
If Science still required faith and so many “real scientists” had to resort to falsifying info and censoring their critics, how trustworthy could the rest of their program be? (By the way, I had also been taught to believe that by joining Creationists and Young-earthers, I would be throwing away my brains and joining a KoolAid-drinking cult that was, most assuredly, an evolutionary branch destined for societal extinction.)
As a last resort, if I MUST embrace God, I was told I should, at least, become an ideological progressive, biblical non-literalist, social liberal, who separates Religion from Science, but always — ALWAYS — allows “real scientists” (that is, inerrantists who had a “personal relationship with Science”) to have the last word.
My friends still think I’m an evolutionist (I still am, if you subscribe to “once indoctrinated always indoctrinated”), but the bond of shared beliefs that I had with them has been shattered. I can no longer watch a National Geographic program without snickering when they mention (queue angelic choirs) Evolution. Their science programs, school textbooks, and museum tours, make me crazy. But I can’t raise objections without being viewed as a religious nut, someone to be feared and distrusted, but mostly pitied.
A Science devotee relayed how proud she was of her elementary-school-aged daughter who stood up in class and angrily confronted the teacher with, “Evolution has been proven, but you’re teaching it as theory!” I bit my tongue, but could have retorted, “Proven to those who have enough faith or are ‘real scientists'” (that is, inerrantists who had a “personal relationship with Science”). But saying that would have outed me as someone who does not adhere to an essential article of the evolutionary fundamentalist faith. It would likely have had no persuasive effect anyway, since a great deal of people in the evolutionist community have been taught to view Theists, Creationists, and especially Young-earthers, as misguided, mistaken, delusional, personally deceitful haters of Science and Truth, or witless tools of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, or George Bush, or any combination of the above.
They’re like Science conspiracy theorists, and I used to be one of them.
The process of leaving that cultish mindset and questioning everything I had never been allowed to question, caused me years of emotional agony, relational strife, and, at times, heartburn and diarrhea as I realized that I now was at odds with people who worshiped Science and viewed that worship as a critical component of what it means to be “evolved.”
Perhaps psychotherapy can help. I mean, if we’re only a complex machine, maybe some pills or breathing exercises can help me regain faith in The Chart. Of course, I may be genetically predisposed toward Religion. In which case, evolution has determined that I become a Creationist. Either way, it hurts and it’s offensive, and sad that people who claim to be SO smart (that is, inerrantists who have a “personal relationship with Science”), demand so much faith, so much allegiance, while fudging info and squelching opposing thought.
So now, I’m forced to bite my tongue and pick my battles carefully. And hope that, one day, Fundamentalist Science will not be so intolerant, deceitful, and close-minded.
are you this stupid in real life or just trying to generate traffic?
BI922: I wish I could be as stupid at Mike Duran.
Lelia:
Right there with ya!
BI, in your dreams, you wish you were as SMART as Mike Duran.
Me likie Mike. me no likie BI922. Me go play in traffic now.
I get what you’re going for, but her essay seemed essentially sincere to me. A bit of wondering out loud, like Philip Yancey often does about his fundamentalist background/upbringing. On a tangential point, I turned down a Ken Ham devotee today who wanted to speak at our church. I told him that groups like Answers in Genesis, imo, simply don’t take the bible seriously as God’s word and quite possibly border on heresy. I take it you’d disagree with my position, but I’d hope you wouldn’t mock me.
btw, I agree that that Huff op-ed piece was mostly nonsensical hubris.
Lyn and Robert (below) — For the record, I favor Old-earthism. However, being that 1.) No one was there to actually witness the creation event, 2.) If the God of the Bible actually exists can perform miracles on a grand scale, and 3.) Science has proved to be a.) evolving and b.) subject to the prejudices of its representatives, I allow room for the POSSIBILITY that our earth is far younger than the Establishment claims.
Mike,
Thanks for the clarification.
Assuming that the God of the Bible exists and has the attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible, yes, He could have made the Earth 6Kyr – 10Kyr back and made the entire universe appear to be 13.7 Gyr old.
However, if the God of the Bible is truthful and intends to use His universal creation to bring us to faith in Him, I submit that making a 10Kyr-old earth appear to be 13+Gyr old (including all the light sources that appear to have originated near the beginning of the universe) defeats that purpose, because God then becomes deceitful, and instead of bringing me to faith in Him, I now face the suspicion that God is entirely untrustworthy in what He says and decides (somewhat the way I view the predestinarian god of John Calvin).
While no human existed at the moment of creation, we can deduce (if we assume the principle of Uniformity of Nature to be valid) when creation occurred based on rates of expansion of the universe, the distance at which various light sources exist from our present location, and many other natural phenomena. We can also reason inductively and abductively to create testable hypotheses that will support or refute ideas about the origins of the universe.
Yes, science is constantly evolving, and new things are being learned constantly, and scientists are not only biased about many things but they also run down many blind alleys looking for material, physical truth (as opposed to metaphysical truth sought by philosophers and theologians), but to say that science evolves constantly doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING is changing constantly. We still have a law of gravity, even if we aren’t sure about the details of what gravity is, how it works, and where it might fit in a Grand Unified Theory (assuming we can ever devise one). We still have a limit on the speed of light in a vacuum. We still have fundamental constants of nature. These point us to the great age of the universe, even as scientists try and hash out the details of how the universe originated. (As an aside for the record, I doubt the scientific validity of the multiverse hypothesis, considering it more of a metaphysical daydream for physicists than a valid scientific hypothesis.)
I said all that to say that I can allow that the God of the Bible MIGHT have created a Young Earth, but if He did so, then, to my mind, His existence notwithstanding, He’s capricious and no more reliable or trustworthy than the Greek, Roman, and Norse mythological gods of ancient times.
“I said all that to say that I can allow that the God of the Bible MIGHT have created a Young Earth, but if He did so, then, to my mind, His existence notwithstanding, He’s capricious and no more reliable or trustworthy than the Greek, Roman, and Norse mythological gods of ancient times.”
Robert, that’s an interesting conclusion. I respect where you’re coming from. I just don’t think it’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from the “apparent age” of the earth/universe.
One thought I’ve considered is that our current ways of measuring age are faulty.
The other thought is that God might have made a fully mature universe in the same way he made a fully mature man when He created Adam. He didn’t create a fetus. Or a newborn baby. Or a toddler. He created a man.
I don’t think He intended to deceive anyone by creating Adam as a man. He just wanted to give the man a chance to start off fully formed and ready to eat, speak, think as a man does.
Why not God creating the universe mature, ready to support life, because it was needed for the man… not with intent to deceive. Just because that’s what was needed at the time.
Maybe?
Hi, Teddi,
I’m a scientist by training and profession, although my areas of expertise lie in the microbiological, chemical, and biochemical disciplines. I would be the first to admit that we MAY have faulty ways of measuring the age of the universe, and we certainly can devise better ways of measuring the age of the universe given enough time, effort, and understanding. That’s why a truthful scientist will hedge his or her remarks by saying something like, “Given what we know to be true…” or “Based on the available evidence…” or “According to data generated to this point…”, etc. But to admit that our ways of measuring the universe are not the best they could possibly be, or to admit that our ways might even be faulty, is not an excuse to throw all of the evidence of the great age of the universe out the window nor is it an excuse to throw away logic and reasoning about the age of the universe from the available data.
Every scientist who makes physical measurements depends on the principle of Uniformity of Nature (the idea that nature follows the same fundamental laws and principles everywhere we can look). If the speed of light in a vacuum (for one example) isn’t uniform in every vacuum in every location accessible to me, then I have a problem. Either my measuring equipment is faulty, my hypothesis is faulty, or the universe is unintelligible. Other fundamental constants of the universe (for examples, (i) the constant alpha or (ii) the constant known Planck’s Constant) appear to assume the same values and operate in the same way everywhere in the universe we look (which, for the record, is mostly on Earth, though a number of observations about fundamental constants have been made to the solar system and to far-distant astronomical phenomena) and do not appear to vary with time. Scientists cannot explain why this is, and the fact that we cannot explain why fundamental constants exist and cannot say why they have the values that they have is a clear indication that our theories about the universe are incomplete.
As a scientist, therefore, I absolutely depend on the universe behaving the same way everywhere I look, and if I cannot depend on the universe behaving the same way everywhere I look, then I really am not able to explain anything to anyone. Everything is reduced to highly localized phenomena, which is akin to saying “everything is magic” or “everything is the whim of the gods”, which is what ancient pagans claimed.
The universe as we are able to see it and describe it, exhibits a high degree of order and design, fine-tuned for life to exist. It isn’t too far a stretch for a scientist to reason (for the sake of space and time, I’ll sweep up deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning into the word “reason”) that design implies a designer, although the nature of the designer is unknown. [Many scientists (though by no means all) reject this line of reasoning, though, because the Designer, assuming He exists, is a completely immeasurable and untestable hypothesis, lying outside the realm of physical science and outside the realm of understanding from physical principles.] Accepting that the universe is orderly and designed, it is quite reasonable to accept the idea that because the universe operates the same in every direction as far as we can see and under every experimental condition we can devise on earth, the Designer (whose existence I accept) made the universe intelligible and explainable. My inability to explain it all is my limitation, not the Designer’s.
However, many Christians object, “Well, He COULD have made the universe 6000 (or 10,000) years ago. After all, He is God.”
The instant that objection becomes part of the discussion, we have left behind the idea that the universe is intelligible and explainable. We are returning to the idea that everything consists of highly-localized phenomena. In other words, we are no longer discussing science but are now discussing magic or the ancient pagan idea that everything that happens is the whim of the gods. Since there is no logical basis for such a discussion (that is, about magic or the whims of deity), and since the universe clearly doesn’t appear to operate in that way, how do you then explain the universe? If you explain it from your preferred religious text, how do you know that your preferred religious text is correct? More to the point, how do you know that your interpretation of your preferred religious text is correct? And how do you know that the principles and requirements of your preferred religious text, though they may work for you, will work for someone else? (As an example, do Torah principles and requirements apply to Jews only or also to goyim? This is an ongoing debate I have with an ultra-Orthodox Jewish friend.) Do you see the problems with this line of reasoning? Once you go there with an explanation that is completely outside the realm of logic and science (to the extent that we know and understand them), where do you draw the line? And how do you know that the line you have drawn is correct? The “God could have done it this way” argument makes the universe unintelligible and unexplainable except by invoking God, and that makes God capricious, and that contradicts my understanding of God and the Bible. (Of course, if God is capricious, then my explanation is entirely wrong, but I have no assurance that your explanation is correct.)
That’s why I reject the idea of Young-Earth Creation.
‘That’s why a truthful scientist will hedge his or her remarks by saying something like, “Given what we know to be true…” or “Based on the available evidence…” or “According to data generated to this point…”, etc.”
Robert–THANK YOU for admitting that. I don’t think the God of the Bible would deceive us by making the universe appear older than it is, either–but I tire of scientists who claim our processes of extrapolation are perfectly accurate and anyone who doesn’t believe so must be an idiot or insane.
I don’t want to get into the whole age of the earth thing too much, though. I don’t believe in the “six 24-hour days” argument (as I don’t understand how a “day” in that sense could be use as measure *before* the earth was set in orbit) but I also don’t believe in a universe and earth that *had* to take billions of years to form because it *had* to have all been by chance.
My point being–I believe God made this universe. I believe there is no way this all could have been one big accident. I also think science is a valid way of studying it, that God created laws and constants. But, the problem comes in when scientist act as though they’ve “got it all figured out.” They will look at us and say, “You silly Christians. Remember when you thought the earth was flat? And when you thought it was the center of the universe? We only made scientific progress when we began to question those theories!” But we are not allowed to look at the world through anything other than an evolutionist view today or we are fools. There is no questioning of current scientific study allowed. Scientists act as though it’s all figured out now, we know EVERYTHING.
But we don’t know everything. I believe in a constant God, who would make a consistent universe. But consistent doesn’t mean we have discovered all the layers. I think we’ve only tapped the surface.
Also, saying that the laws of physics are constant is NOT the same thing as saying that the fossil layers are PROOF that life formed through the process of evolution. The age of distant stars and even of the inorganic material on this earth does not *prove* that God–the same God who would not deceive us by making things look older than they are–would lie and say there was no death before man sinned, well, except for all the fighting for survival and killing each other for food during all those years of natural selection that He used to “create” us. See–either God’s a liar because He made the earth look older than it is, or He’s a liar because He said there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned. But the God I know isn’t a liar, so there has to be more to the story than we know. And we aren’t infallible, so there must be something lacking on our side, in our understanding of things.
Hi, Kat,
“I tire of scientists who claim our processes of extrapolation are perfectly accurate and anyone who doesn’t believe so must be an idiot or insane.”
I tire of those scientists, also (and it’s quite a few of them). When I earned my bachelor’s and doctorate degrees, I was humbled by how much I didn’t know, and I wanted (and still want) to know everything I could stuff in my brain. Many of my fellow students (ESPECIALLY at the graduate level) were puffed up by what they did know. The truth is, though, in science AND in religion, that the sum of our ignorance is far greater than the sum of our knowledge.
As a Christian, though, I find many highly theologically-educated Christian ministers, especially in the Evangelical community, to be arrogant, also. They (the arrogant ministers) have the Bible, their preferred interpretation of the Bible, and their immense education in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Church history, theology, etc., etc., and they have a strongly-held belief that they are right. When I have challenged their interpretations and beliefs in/about the Bible with scientific evidence, many times their responses are as arrogant as the scientists who look at the “foolish Christians” and scoff at them for being so idiotic as to believe in a flat earth, a geocentric theory, and a 6,000 yr creation.
My point is, Kat, that there is a tremendous amount of arrogance on both sides, and a tremendous lack of dialogue between the opposing views, and both sides are at fault here.
I very strongly like “Reasons to Believe” led by Hugh Ross and others who show how both science and Christian theology are and can be compatible. If you are unfamiliar with them, the site is reasons.org. They have an extensive library of writings, videos, and podcasts, and they have an educational program for those who want to defend the faith to the scientific community in a way that will actually reach the scientific community.
“The truth is, though, in science AND in religion, that the sum of our ignorance is far greater than the sum of our knowledge.”
Yes!
And I am aware of the arrogance in church–it’s why I left it for a lot of years. I grew up in a church where the pastor had his doctorate and he would get all ruffled if anyone in the congregation didn’t refer to him as “Dr.” He walked around like he thought of himself as the single most important person in that building at any given time.
Now, I’m at a small church with a very humble pastor and it makes SUCH a difference.
Robert, I agree with you on the multiverse hypothesis. Not that we are particle physicists or anything.
However, I disagree with your last paragraph. How do you figure that?
Thanks!
Matthew,
Please see my reply to Teddi Deppner above.
Basically, if the universe is unexplainable except by resort to “God did it that way”, then the universe is unintelligible and unreliable. God has been reduced to the whimsical creatures of Greek, Roman, or Norse mythology (or Hindu myth and theology come to think of it). That doesn’t accord with my understanding of the Bible, and it also means that I have no basis for saying or explaining anything about how the world works. Every truth, fact, and physical phenomena becomes highly-localized and, therefore, relative throughout the larger world, and the only basis for saying “This is the truth” becomes “Because I said so”.
I really like the satire. I disagree with the Young-Earth Creation position you are supporting for more reasons that I care to post in a comment block.
The original post bothered me on many levels–partly because it tries to make Creationists look like idiots, but also because it is an inaccurate representation of the homeschool community.
The essay may have been genuine. But I have suspicions–I just know it slides those two things together so neatly. SEE! This is why your kids need to be in public school! They’re getting a backwoods education from you clueless parents!
I am part of a really large homeschool group made up of mostly Christians. And while there may be a small percentage of parents who teach really bad science, the rest do not. My kids’ science curriculum, and most of what I’ve seen that goes beyond young elementary school (notice she gives an example of fourth grade work, not high school), does a great job of teaching Creation from a very critical standpoint. Evolution is not touted as evil–the books merely question it. And we focus much more on the observation and understanding of the function of life, rather than where life came from. The quotes Mike highlights are correct–the origin of life is indemonstrable, and Darwinism is untestable.
However, in public schools, questioning evolution is not allowed. It is treated as fact, when it has not been proven–it is theory. That is the issue, I believe, and why I appreciate the satire of this piece.
Matthew’s statement below makes me want to clarify something I said above. When I said “I have suspicions” I didn’t mean to imply I think the girl who wrote this is lying. I do wonder if possibly she was pressured, and I do think this is being used as propaganda. (And yes, there have been instances where very heartfelt essays like this have turned out to be fake.) But I am not in any way accusing the girl who wrote this of being at fault.
I have often wondered about the true age of the earth. Going on the premise that the planet is only 4000 years old seems ridiculous. On the other hand, believing that it’s billions of years old just to make room for the theory of evolution seems just as ludicrous. I don’t discount the possibility evolution occurred, or that it’s still occurring. However, I believe whatever happened, or is happening, God is behind it.
Mike,
having gone through what the young lady went through, and come out on the other side, I don’t think she’s so much the problem as:
1. those who have fed her the exclusivist propaganda in the first place, and
2. those who are using her testimony as exclusivist propaganda.
Disillusionment is real, and not fun. I hope that she recovers substantially, though she may never recover fully. Some poisons are hard to work out of the system.
* Should have written “secular exclusivist propaganda” to be more specific.
Poisons? Young earth creationism may be wrong–and I tend toward believing it is–but it is anything but poisonous. It’s just one type of group think, very much like the larger, more mainstream version she chose to go with. Teaching it isn’t the same as spiritual abuse, or emotional abuse, or physical abuse. It isn’t the same as brainwashing people into being racists or sexists or general bigots. At most, it’s science abuse. And what kind of crime is that? That’s why her statement, especially as done anonymously, comes across as emotionally manipulative rather than sincere. That’s why it makes good satire. Perhaps that’s a harsh way of putting it, and maybe I shouldn’t couch it in those terms. But as somebody who is neither a fundie nor a young-earther, it came across to me as manipulative.
Oh, I’m sorry. I meant the disillusionment was the poison. Not the young-earth creationism. I lean young earth, myself, though I have a certain amount of respect for old-earthers.
However, I can totally relate with her disillusionment. Creation seems like a small deal, but it’s pretty foundational. If you give up on it too easily, all of a sudden, the universe becomes very empty. Totally changes your perspective on life. So to me it doesn’t sound overblown. It sounds exactly like I remember it feeling.
That being said, I’ve thought back through my conclusions during that period of my life, and have come to different conclusions now. It’s not that I don’t doubt anymore, it’s just that I understand that the young-earth creationist position is valid and I operate within that framework.
As a piece of satire, this is brilliant, Mike. Love it.
I’m with Kat — as a homeschool mom, I’ve seen a variety of things. I haven’t experienced any trouble finding Christian homeschool curriculum that provides an open approach to this question (questioning the typical Darwinian evolution without pushing a specific, adamant Young Earth doctrine).
Then again, maybe it depends where you are (I’m in California, which is not as conservative as, say, Georgia or Alabama) or what homeschool group you choose (I don’t tend to join groups who are blindly and prejudicially spouting dogma without regard for true thoughtful examination).
I thought it was a bit silly that some of those other articles tried to paint things as if the greater evangelical Christian community is strongly and exclusively young earth. As if old-Earthers have to “come out of the closet”. I have not found that to be the case, since most Christians have been raised in the public school system.
Like so many things in Christianity, this issue is too often used as an excuse for a fight or division, when very little about it is necessary or central to following Christ. I wish more Christians would follow Love first and be willing to hold these unknowns a little loosely. The bottom line is that God is the Creator. Exactly how and when He did it all isn’t worth arguing about.
To be clear, I do think it’s worth investigating. And sharing what we discover, whether as bible scholars or scientists. It’s just not worth arguing over our conclusions.
Matthew Sample II — I totally agree with you in regards to disillusionment. I think the exclusive teaching of one dogma without ever giving other schools of thought fair time is the true danger here. When someone realizes that they were not told the whole truth about something, it can prompt them to toss EVERYTHING they ever heard from that tainted source. Which causes many kids to lose their faith when they learn things they were never prepared for during their Christian upbringing.
When I discovered how many things that are taught by evolutionists as fact were really not true or were uncertain at best, I was outraged. But not necessarily devastated, because I’d always been encouraged to question it, during my upbringing by Christian parents (part-time in public school, part-time homeschooled).
Over the past decade, I was really excited to explore the discoveries of young earthers and creationists… Until I read some accusations that they were also falsifying information to promote their beliefs.
Science is supposed to be objective and fact-based — and secular scientists were lying. Christians are supposed to be honest and lovers of the truth — and Christian scientists were lying. That’s deplorable. Both sides have lost my trust and let me down.
As a homeschool mom, I intend to continue to train my kids with the latest information I can find from many sources, and to encourage them to keep an open mind while staying grounded — always — with the Scriptures as their baseline for Truth. Which is tricky enough, because interpretations of the Scriptures vary wildly.
Thank God for the Holy Spirit, who will guide us into all truth when we learn to hear and trust Him. (And ain’t that a whole can of worms, too? Ha!)
Amen! When I think of creationists like Dr. Kent Hovind (doctorate in education), I feel kind-a sad. I appreciate him as a person, have met some of his family, have friends who used to work for his Dinosaur Adventure Land. But he was rather extreme in some of his ideas. I much more appreciate the scientists at ICR who are trying to be very careful about what they say, and even Ken Ham’s AiG. The Creation Museum is impressive, though it is made for a popular audience—not a laboratory by any stretch of the imagination. The intelligent design community is bringing up very interesting information and ideas.
Yes! Very grateful for the Holy Spirit! Judging from others in my generation, there’s no way I should have come back from the other side. God is very kind, His grace extends to the worst of us, even those that have doubted His word and His existence.
Sounds like your kids are getting a good education. Keep giving it to them, even as you keep trusting God to keep them.
Kangaroos are my ancestors? I thought I was a monkey.
“Arrogance on both sides” is a pretty fair comment.
For the record, I too believe in an Old Earth, partly from listening to the claims of a Young Earth speaker at a local church.
But consider the double standards on the other side.
How many hardline Evolutionists have you met who will basically flip their lid if anyone uses the phrase “Theory of Evolution”. Yet consider, how do people refer to Einstein’s work. My University course spent several weeks deriving the “Theory of Relativity” from the Michelson–Morley experiment. Nobody objected to the wording, yet Relativity is experimentally proven every time you use your sat-nav. It is impossible to prove Evolution, because you cannot rerun the experiment, the best you can hope for is to show it to be a very likely explanation.
The truth I see is that the hard-line Evolutionists believe in their cause, not because of scientific proof, but because of a deep-seated prejudice against any religion except their own unproven atheism, just as the hard-line Creationists are driven by an equal fear of anything outside their own unproven alternative account of a Creation and their own selected interpretation of Genesis.
Oddly enough both sides do have one area of common agreement, that the only way Genesis could ever have been intended by the writer is as a scientific treatise, despite all the biblical scholars holding more different options than I can honestly judge between.
Scientists can get things wrong, and a true scientist should be ready to re-examine their conclusions in the light of evidence, just as Christian teachers should be ready they just might not have the only true interpretation of Genesis.
Has it not occurred to any of them that sometimes “I don’t know” is a very good and honest opinion to hold.
> Sometimes “I don’t know” is a very good and honest opinion to hold.
Yes, yes, and yes! Good one, Malcolm.
“I don’t know” is a great answer when you don’t know and are humble enough to admit you don’t know. Humility is in short supply, though.
It’s an awesome piece of writing designed for all the online visitors;
they will obtain advantage from it I am sure.