Tuesday, 9 June 2009

Creationism or creationism?

The term 'Creationist' has been well and truly pigeon holed over the last forty-odd years to describe a specific view that life on earth (that's each individual kind of organism) arose literaly out of nothing by God's supernatural power.

Well, writing that first sentence has taken me about 5-minutes. When you think about it the whole idea of 'Creationism' has an incredibly narrow focus. Sure there are variations (broadly speaking from Young Earth to Old Earth Creationism) but when you come down to it what links them together is that opening phrase. Its tempting to define Creationism as a belief in a literal understanding of the opening chapters of Genesis but actually that doesn't work either. Whilst its true that the young-earthers do take things hyper-literaly, the old-earthers by necessity can't do the same.

When you think about for long enough the Creationist view becomes inconsistent. The Bible is clear that you - sat reading this posting - and me - sat writing it - have been created by God. Take Job, as an example:

'Your hands fashioned and made me... Remember that you have made me like clay;
and will you return me to the dust... You clothed me with skin and flesh,
and knit me together with bones and sinews.' ch 10 v 8-11


Powerful words, but let's try understand them in a way that is true and consistent to the Creationist interpretation. Let's take this passage literally. Let's forget genetics, meiosis, mitosis, embryology or any other aspect of the science of reproduction. Let's picture a ball of mud in our mother's womb.

Well of course no one does. These aspects of science find acceptance across the board. What this means is that to believe in the words of Job and believe in God as a creator means to believe in a God who works THROUGH natural processes. The natural consequence of that is that Creationism (with a big 'C') is a breaking of the mould.

Sure there are clear examples of 'special creation' - Jesus must have got a Y-chromosome from somewhere - but these are the exception, not the rule.

I am all for consistent creationism.

No comments:

Post a Comment