...there are a multitude of theories that are scientifically plausible that still harmonize with the biblical account of creation.Depends on what you mean by "harmonize." A lot.
True, science presents a big challenge to ancient and medieval ideas about philosophy and spirituality.
I'm pretty sure the reason you and others choose to reject the wonderful things we've learned about the universe is because of an elephant in the room: the Copernican theory's logical conclusion that our planet and our species aren't the most important thing in the universe, merely an extremely wonderful example and lesson of God's creative imagination.
As I'm sure my dear Mom would have said, if the universe seems indifferent maybe it's because, just perhaps, it's not all about you.
That's the crux of all this, really. The facts require a huge paradigm shift when reading the Bible and still accept it as the Word of God, (not the Words of God) which I do. Galileo was immediately bludgeoned with Scriptural literalists in the 17th century, and even today many people of faith are on the defensive, 500 years later.
Truly, it's really unfortunate Ellis and other friends of "creation science" are missing out on the wonder and excitement of it all, both from a scientific *and* spiritual point of view.
I can accept that the Enlightenment is a long process and will not happen overnight -- or even in 500 years. It continues to bear wonderful fruit however. I am pretty thrilled to live in the age of antibiotics and vaccines, among other things. The benefits will continue to fuel its progress.
Just don't cross the line of trying to teach children to reject a 4 billion-year-old-earth because "the Bible says," or, worse, attempting to hide the facts from them -- especially my kids. That's where I draw the line.
Posts
The fact that the earth orbits the sun does nothing whatsoever to creation science or the Bible's account of creation. However, I think the case can still be made that humanity is still at the top of God's concern because we were created in His image (He says so) and He sent His Son to die a terrible death to save us from our sinful condition (He didn't send Jesus to die for Mars or Alpha Centauri or even dolphins, but for humans).
ReplyDeleteAs for Galileo, that incident has been twisted around as an excuse to bash the creation account. Galileo, a Christian, was working against a prevailing Aristotelian mindset that some in the church had also latched onto (just as some have accepted theistic evolution today). There were also other political factors in play that affected the situation. He was NOT persecuted for "frightening the church with science."
You claim that I and other creationists are "missing out on the wonder and excitement of it all," but that is 180 degrees from the truth. Knowing the Creator PERSONALLY and trying to figure out how and why He did so many incredible things is the greatest wonder and excitement imaginable! Because, you see, God makes all His creative wonders work through SCIENCE.
The thing that naturalists intentionally blind themselves to is the fact that God, as author of science (the mechanics of creation) is able to supersede those scientific laws (those actions of supersession are what we call "supernatural").
Just as the programmer of a computer operating system is able to go into the programming code and change what it does and how it performs (i.e. operate outside the programming), God can "operate outside the programming" and create things at an accelerated rate (or even instantly), or create global floods, or heal the sick, or raise the dead. Why? Because he's the master programmer.
You and I can't rewrite Windows or OS X because we're not OS programmers. Humans can't do supernatural acts--unless empowered by the Master Programmer--because we're not that Master Programmer.
But trying to figure out how and why God created things as he did is one of the most exciting things in the world.
Finally, you speak about the theory that the earth is 4 billion years old as if it was a fact (actually that theoretical age has been changed many times). Yet you have not a single piece of evidence that proves it. Oh, I know all about radiometric dating (that dated the 1980 Mount St. Helens lava dome at several million years old) and the geological column (which relies on circular logic and throwing out "inconsistent data" to have even a hope of being useful). But those are hardly better than throwing a dart at a map.
Ignorance is one thing. Refusing to examine the evidence is another. I've examined the evidence of both sides, and that of an ancient universe and evolution are woefully lacking. I encourage you to take a serious look, too. Read up on the subject. Come out to the seminar next weekend. You might be surprised how much sense it makes.