CREATIONISTS’ ‘SCIENCE’ DOESN’T STAND UP TO FACTS
I was reading my morning Gazette last week when an ad caught
my eye. “Back to Genesis
Conference: The Battle for the Bible is
the
A few days later, I put on my most professorial-looking coat
and tie, walked in to Rocky Mountain Calvary Chapel, and took a seat near the
front. What’s life if you’re not open to
new experiences?
Everyone was very nice.
Unfortunately, I only had time to stay through lunch. But what I saw, heard, and read brought out
some very passionate responses in me.
Anger. Embarrassments. Shame.
Pity. Then finally, kindness and determination.
The anger and embarrassment come from what groups like the
Institution for Creation Research do in the name of science. Faith didn’t always need to wrap itself in
the trappings of something else. But
somewhere along the way, faith stopped being “hope in the unseen” and became
“certainty about everything.” These
days, if you want to be certain, you need the credibility of science.
I brought home a color brochure with the best creationist
arguments for a young earth. I then went
online and looked around. Every single
one of them has been addressed, with great clarity and patience, by the
scientific community. But the very first
argument jumped out at me.
The brochure said that if the universe were really billions
of years old, spiral galaxies wouldn’t look the way they do. Truthfully, I don’t know much about
galaxies. But I know someone who
does.
My son is a physics and astronomy major. This semester, he is taking a class from Dr.
Debra Elmegreen, one of the world’s leading authorities on galactic
structure. I emailed her
everything. She wrote back in less than
an hour.
Her full reply, unfortunately, is too detailed to be
repeated here. In a nutshell, the
creationist argument about spiral galaxies is years out of date. Newer theories have been tested
experimentally. They show quite nicely how spiral galaxies form in a very, very
old universe.
When dealing with creationists, Dr Elmegreen wrote, “My
issue with such people is that they tend to think words are adequate to replace
data and derivations.” That, ladies and
gentlemen, is how a real scientist thinks.
Creationists selectively sample, ignore overwhelming
evidence to the contrary, and never do outside reading. They just start with the answer and then say
stuff. It’s very frustrating. Frustrating, and sad.
It’s sad because behaving ethically seemed important to
everyone I met at “Back to Genesis.”
Creationist Christians clearly want to do the right thing with their
lives. But if you want to be ethical in
your use of science, you cannot start with any particular idea about how the
world actually is. If you do, you’re not
doing science. You’re doing wrong.
The saddest sights of all were the children in the audience,
none of whom will know the beauty of the world as we find it. I cannot find it in me to tell creationist
Christians how to raise their kids. If
we have anything in common, it is a willingness to treat the other side with
kindness and respect. Despite their
belief that, as an evolutionist, I am incapable of such things.
But I fear for a world where children grow up having been
taught their parents’ world view as the complete and whole Truth. Particularly when it is so at odds with the
evidence.
Somewhere on the other side of the world, parents are
teaching their children that Muslims defeated Christians in every medieval
Crusade. The evidence says otherwise.
Somewhere in
Somewhere in
I understand what is wrong with too little faith. Thanks to the Institute for Creation Research, I now understand what is wrong with too much.