How do Fundamentalists' justify their view on Creation?

[IggyAntiochus]

I too am amazed by this stance.

• Nowhere in the Bible does it claim to be “the manual” on Astrophysics, Biology, Applied Math or Chemistry.
• Neither does it claim to be an accurate recorder of the historical timeline.

Genesis is a Bronze Age creation story that includes many valuable spiritual lessons for us (just not any science lessons)

• Do people expect God should have taught the Big Bang Theory, etc. to the largely illiterate tribes of Abraham?
• They didn’t have the language or prespective to grasp a 4.5 billion year timeline, let alone all the other complexities.

Yes, because we all know that Christ, the Lord of Heaven, Earth, and every timeline within it, was just far too simplistic to understand that Genesis was not literal when He assumed it was, and only existed to teach us spiritual lessons, and not anything about creation, the fall, and history.

 

[hannajomar]

Would you rather be a confused fundamentalist that has faith, or a very smart scientist without faith?

I would be sad to live either of these existances.

Since I have come into my faith, I appreciate the physical world in a way that I never would have otherwise. The sciences captivate me in light of my faith. We can see the scientific world as how our loving God ordered the universe. I remember a college psychology professor who was proudly athiest. He told us that one proof that God does not exist is that when we are happy, we’re not actually happy. It’s just a chemical reaction in our brain that creates seratonin. I thought to myself, wow, God loves us so much, he sends us seratonin just to make us happy. For me, seeing how God works through the physical world that He created makes my faith even stronger. For this professor, learning how the physical world works makes his atheism stronger.

I don’t stress too much about exactly *how *God created the universe and humanity, as it seems many atheists and fundamentalists do. I personally don’t see why it would be all that important for me to know. The scientific community through history has been right about many things, but they have been wrong about a lot of things as well. I’m still waiting to come down with bird flu.

 

[Mudcat]

Hi PazzoG,

Scientists seem to agree that the universe is billions of years old, and the earth took billions of years to gradually form. They also agree about the theory of Evolution and the age of the human race.

Yet certain Fundamentalist factions of Christianity still insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. How do they justify it?

From a Catholic perspective, it would only follow logically that God’s Creation would leave obvious marks in the various scientific fields. Like a crime scene, you’d find evidence everywhere. The evidence would logically follow the event. Same thing with Creation. But the Fundamentalist view of Creation seems to have no evidence. There is no evidence that the world is thousands of years old, for example.

Also interestingly, Genesis seems to contradict itself in the first two chapters. A Catholic would look at that and say that the contradiction just goes to show that the stories are meant to be taken literally but are trying to convey a non-literal, non-historical explanation. How do Fundamentalists explain the contradiction?

Hi Pazzo G,

For the record, I am an Evangelical… I dunno if I qualify as a fundamentalist though.

Science denies anything that isn’t naturalistic. Might as well ask a fundamentalist why they believe Christ actually did feed a whole bunch of folks with a lunch prepared for a boy.

I think Christ fed many with little, I think he healed those that were beyond healing without him, I think he raised the dead and rose from the dead. Science would slap all those things in the face, as well as an Earth that is only a few thousand years old.

From the moment you step out of the secular world and confess your belief in the resurrection of Jesus then you are on the wrong side of Science.

Seriously, I don’t see a need in doubting a persons literal belief in the delivered events of creation by God in the face of science when one also believes in the literal resurrection of a dead man named Jesus by God.

I am presenting a tu quoque argument and feel it’s merited.

In truth we don’t know beyond what we know. The world could have been created as it is five minutes ago and all our information could have been implanted in us to give the appearance that it was otherwise. We have no way of disproving such a hypothesis.

That being said, I think the easiest out for a fundamentalist who also feels the need to embrace science does best to attack the holes in human evolution and to embrace the notion that Adam’s days were numbered from his fall to mortality rather than numbered from his creation.

Just my two.

Regards,

Mudcat

 

[IbnFiktur]

Science denies anything that isn’t naturalistic. Might as well ask a fundamentalist why they believe Christ actually did feed a whole bunch of folks with a lunch prepared for a boy.

I believe this is a false analogy. Whereas there is positive evidence to the end that the universe is significantly older than fundamentalists claim, there is no evidence that Jesus didn’t perform the miracle of the bread and fish.

Science is a tool… for some people it is an ideology, but in all reality it is a tool for understanding the cosmos, the physical world. It doesn’t deny anything that isn’t naturalistic, that’s too philosophical a claim (see: materialism).

 

[Mudcat]

I believe this is a false analogy. Whereas there is positive evidence to the end that the universe is significantly older than fundamentalists claim, there is no evidence that Jesus didn’t perform the miracle of the bread and fish.

I you want evidence against, how bout 1 basket of a boys lunch does not equal 12 baskets of leftovers. Math is science, isn’t it?

Seriously. If you think science gives room for the miraculous works of Christ, you are kidding yourself, rather than making some sort of point towards me.

 

[IbnFiktur]

I you want evidence against, how bout 1 basket of a boys lunch does not equal 12 baskets of leftovers. Math is science, isn’t it?

Seriously. If you think science gives room for the miraculous works of Christ, you are kidding yourself, rather than making some sort of point towards me.

You’re perceiving science as some sort of hostile ideology. It’s not. It’s a method.

The miracles of Christ cannot be explained by science; miracles do not adhere to natural laws, and science is a method for learning about the natural world. Miracles are SUPERnatural; therefore, science cannot explain them. They are beyond science.

Science does not “deny” the existence of the supernatural, it simply does not encompass the supernatural. An ideology or philosophy, such as materialism, may deny the existence of the supernatural.

Science can help us make positive claims about the natural world. It has already helped us made positive claims about the age and nature of creation. Again, see the distinction between positive and negative claims here.

 

[Neildown]

Not that I really have anything personal or particular against macroevolution, as I really couldn’t care less whether Genesis is literal or not, but I want to have a go on this just to prove that at this point it is still all up in the air.

Scientists seem to agree that the universe is billions of years old, and the earth took billions of years to gradually form. They also agree about the theory of Evolution and the age of the human race.

Scientists would also probably agree that they need to make a living by producing results. Many scientists have to work hard in one field just to stay in sync with the rest - otherwise they fall behind in their line of work. It makes sense then that many are willing to overlook certain flaws in theories like macroevolution and in the so-called “fossil record” in order to produce hypotheses.

Yet certain Fundamentalist factions of Christianity still insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. How do they justify it?

In my opinion it is justified through uncertainty, just as macroevolution and every other theory currently is, really.

From a Catholic perspective, it would only follow logically that God’s Creation would leave obvious marks in the various scientific fields. Like a crime scene, you’d find evidence everywhere. The evidence would logically follow the event. Same thing with Creation. But the Fundamentalist view of Creation seems to have no evidence. There is no evidence that the world is thousands of years old, for example.

Fact is, the world in its entirety is a LOT more complex than a crime scene (even Jimmy Hoffa’s). Plus, God never said that knowing our origins was relevant to our living or to our serving Him, therefore there is no reason creation should have left more or less evidence than the big bang & macroevolution. There has not yet been found any one “obvious path,” so that’s a double-edged sword.

Also interestingly, Genesis seems to contradict itself in the first two chapters. A Catholic would look at that and say that the contradiction just goes to show that the stories are meant to be taken literally but are trying to convey a non-literal, non-historical explanation. How do Fundamentalists explain the contradiction?

What contradiction, specifically?

 

[10gr8kids]

My aunt who is not a believer in Christ lives in rural Kentucky around many fundamentalists. She was hiking in the middle of the woods with a fundamentalist friend and they came across more ocean fossils that are all over the place where they live. She asked the friend something like, “if creationism is true, how can there be ocean fossils in Kentucky, a place which is hundreds of miles from the ocean?” The fundamentalist friend answered something like “The devil puts things like that around to try to decieve us.” My aunt used this poor answer to again confirm that Christianity just forces you to give up reason. That’s actually very dangerous thinking, that any evidence against what you believe is just from the devil.

I think a much better answer would have been the Great Flood.

 

[Mudcat]

The miracles of Christ cannot be explained by science; miracles do not adhere to natural laws, and science is a method for learning about the natural world.

Do you think the creation of the Universe was a miracle of just a product of the natural world?

 

[IbnFiktur]

Do you think the creation of the Universe was a miracle of just a product of the natural world?

I believe that God is the beginning and the end. Any scientific explanation will inevitably leave more open questions. God is the ultimate answer to the infinite line of questions regarding creation. Creation is the ultimate miracle.

 

[SaitanaKeDasa]

This has perplexed me for a while actually

 

[cath4alltime]

My aunt who is not a believer in Christ lives in rural Kentucky around many fundamentalists. She was hiking in the middle of the woods with a fundamentalist friend and they came across more ocean fossils that are all over the place where they live. She asked the friend something like, “if creationism is true, how can there be ocean fossils in Kentucky, a place which is hundreds of miles from the ocean?” The fundamentalist friend answered something like “The devil puts things like that around to try to decieve us.” My aunt used this poor answer to again confirm that Christianity just forces you to give up reason. That’s actually very dangerous thinking, that any evidence against what you believe is just from the devil.

Whoever your aunt was with was not real smart in that area. The answer would be the great flood deposited those fossils