Making Sense of Creationism
Oct 24th, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 12 Comments |
[ Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 ]
I assume you are a creationist? If so, you should write up your reasoning for being one. It’s not so easy to understand..
I enjoy the way the question is framed. My reasoning is simultaneously unknown (and therefore requested) and not easy to understand. No, I’m not making fun of Mr. Salk. I just love the intricacies and tangles of language. We all know perfectly well what he means.
Whether one believes in Creationism or not depends on a whole host of other questions:
(1) Do you believe there is a God?
(2) Do you believe the Universe had a beginning?
(3) Do you believe either (1) or (2) is logically necessary (i.e., can be proven)?
Etc.
The question of Creationism is, therefore, entirely too complex to be dealt with in one post. This is true especially because there are at least three different versions of Creationism:
(i) 6-Day Creationism (represented by AiG)
(ii) Progressive Creationism (represented by RTB)
(iii) Theistic Evolutionism (see here, for instance, as well as Catholic understandings)
The 6DCs are the most skeptical (though many of them are scientists). They not only reject biological (macro-)evolution but cosmic evolution (that is, the Big Bang/billions of years stuff). (AiG, btw, has done a lot of interesting work on information theory, a field I intend to get into some day.)
The PCs accept the the cosmic evolution stuff but reject biological (macro-)evolution. I find at least the RTB people to be easier to deal with than the AiG people (though I don’t want to insult anybody). RTB also works with Walter Kaiser, my favorite Bible Scholar. Which means they’re cool. (Many RTBers are scientists as well.)
I get the impression that most religious scientists fall into the third camp. They accept both biological and cosmic evolution.
What I believe, however, fits none of the above positions. I’ve written a book on Genesis 1-3 called “The First Story: The Creation Story Recaptured” which spells it out in greater detail than I can here. But perhaps I should write up a summary, since it hasn’t been published . . . .
Get on that summary, Micah. I’d love to read it.
I’m somewhere in the ether between 6DC and PC.
To get on your good side… I have a few Kaiser books on my bookshelf.
I would like to see a summary also. Bonhoeffer’s “Creation and Fall” is one of my favorite books. Genesis 1-3 is incredibly rich stuff.
Thanks Steve and Vance! I’ll try to do so this evening. I’m skeptical about how satisfactory it will seem to most people, but I enjoy it thoroughly.
Dietrich, eh? I’ve never read anything by him. I . . . well I have some opinions on him nonetheless. He’s been a great inspiration to a lot of people.
Micah,
A very…interest piquing post. I’d certainly be interested to read your book on Genesis 1-3.
As a side note, I don’t know you or Kaiser very well, but I wouldn’t have guessed to put you two together. Interesting.
Thanks!
I want a copy of the book! When is it going to be published? I have only met biologists who are in the third category and I am at a Catholic school. In fact, there seems to be a lot of animosity aimed at the first two groups by my biologist friends.
Not surprising Chuck; those groups deny the validity of biology!
I like the verbal tangle prelude to this discussion as well. It echoes the semantic divisiveness of the belief systems. The Literal Translationists can be difficult to cope with when they stray from the Ten Commands..
Actually, I would disagree with you concerning everyone in the first two groups denying the validity of biology. I have actually observed a lot of people in the third group very confused about their own presuppositions and epistemological frameworks; these things are at the root of the differences between the three groups.
To make a gross generalization, education is the most common divider.
I’ll read up on the stances before commenting further.
Y’all never cease to impress me with your thoughtful comments. I really appreciate it.
Oh, and sorry Chuck. I didn’t mean to imply that the book was in the process of getting published. Though I see now that that’s how the line reads.
Not that I haven’t pitched it to publishers. I have. And am waiting to hear back from at least one.
I really fell in love with Genesis 1-3 while writing the book, so I hope I’ll get blessed with a publisher eventually and can show people what I found.
Part of my thought on Genesis 2 has been accepted for publication in article form at Radiant Magazine’s site. I’ll make sure to inform everyone when it gets published.
[...] more on Genesis and Creation, see these posts (esp. this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [...]
[...] For more of my thoughts on the issue of creationism, see this post-series. [...]
[...] Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 [...]