That's a good question. I have been interested for years in the debate over Creation vs. Evolution. I think it's the right time for me to jump into the Blogosphere and add my thoughts on the subject.
I first got interested in this topic when I was in my first year at the University of Virginia, way back in 1969. A good friend suggested that I read the ground-breaking book The Genesis Flood during the summer. I did so, and found both scientific and theological reasons for taking the first eleven chapters of Genesis at face value. It was an exciting and eye-opening discovery.
I studied Chemistry at UVa, and worked briefly as a real chemist before my service in the U.S. Navy. I am now a Web designer and developer. And I have continuously kept up with the Creation vs. Evolution debate over the years.
My favorite classes at UVa were in Organic Chemistry. The exquisite design that is evident in how the chemistry of Life works is a powerful testimony to the Creator.
But that's not all there is to the evidence. The earth itself shows strong indications of having been formed and then re-shaped (by a world-wide flood) fairly recently in history. I would put the age of the earth at no more than 10,000 years; probably even less.
I would like to engage thoughtful, reasonable proponents and opponents to the concept of Creation, in some discussion about the debate, in this blog. I hope you will join me! It is my intention and my hope that I can inject some common sense and friendly discussion into the debate.
4 comments:
John, thanks for your comment!
One of the main things that characterizes true science is its insistence upon verifiable, repeatable test data from experiments. Even young-earth creationists rely on scientific data. The difference between the young-earth creationists and the old-earth creationists is their interpretation of the data, not whether or not one or the other relies on science.
The scientific data and its interpretation are what lead both camps of creationists to conclude that Evolution cannot be correct.
Strictly speaking, neither Creation nor Evolution can be proven from the data, since we cannot go back in time to run experiments that test the hypotheses of either interpretation. But we can look at what data we do have, and arrive at reasonable conclusions. Both Creationist camps insist that the most reasonable interpretation of the data supports Creation.
I am also related to the Mad Scientist and Jim Link and am also a creationist. I, however, lean toward the "GAP" theory which, in part, states that the were two distinct creations between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I'm not dogmatic about this theory, but currently find that it answers questions in MY mind about the differences between the "Young" and "Old" universe theories. I also welcome reasonal, non-dogmatic discussion of all three theories. In my life, the bottom line is that I believe that God is soverign and above all understanding. I accept, through faith, that God works His will as He sees fit and His ways and means are not my concern. On the other hand, God has given mankind an inquisuitive mind to explore his creation in order to capture a glimps His awesome glory.
Thanks for your comment, Ted!
I share your beliefs that God's ways a far above our own. And I'm very thankful to God that we have a built-in (read: created!) curiosity about the world that He has made.
Maybe it's time to tackle a specific topic, in another post! Does anyone have a topic that they'd like to discuss, such as, e.g., how differently Evolution proponents and Creation proponents interpret the geologic strata? Something else?
Post a Comment