A Thinking Reed

"Creator of heaven and earth, of all things, seen and unseen"

Written by

Lee M.

in

Marvin has a most excellent post on the creationism vs. evolution debate.

I don’t object, in principle, to people pursuing things like “intelligent design” (which is not the same thing as “young earth creationism” or Genesis-literalism). I don’t know enough about it to say what its merits as a theory are; it seems to me more of a philosophical than scientific theory, though.

But regardless of the merits of ID, my faith is not affected by it, because I’ve always taken the creation accounts to be (divinely inspired) pictures of God’s realtionship to creation and humankind.

Comments

One response to “"Creator of heaven and earth, of all things, seen and unseen"”

  1. Eric Lee

    You’ve probably seen snippets on my blog of how I used to be a die-hard creationist. Wow, what a useless ride that was.

    I think in college I spent two semesters (one in biology and one in earth science) reading a bunch of different view points in the whole debate of origins, and at the end of one of the semesters, a professor was quite passionate when he told me that the whole thing was, while interesting to an extent, ultimately a waste of time because it is not salvific.

    Now, for many people (even perhaps most), this might not come as a surprise, but I actually thought it was at that point because of such nonsense as taught by this guy.

    I think in my earth science class for our final paper, we had to choose one of the four main origin perspectives and defend it: the bible informs science (what’s typically referred to as creationism); the bible and science do not in any way overlap (I think what Stephen J. Gould referred to as non-overlapping magisteria); the Intelligent Design camp; and finally, science and the bible actually work together, hand in hand. All of these are represented in this book that we had to read (this is the other one we read in a previous class when I was a fresman).

    I think for my choice I actually chose two sort of mutually exclusive ones (non-overlapping and hand-in-hand) because they seemed to be the less intellectually faulty. I think I got a good grade because my paper ended up mostly being about how the debate is often fruitless and not salvific and so therefore we need to focus on helping people, contra Dr. Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, et. al.

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts