On a recent episode of the Fellowship And Frivolity podcast, Bill asked a series of questions originally put together by David Wright which are supposed to let those who answer them know if they have been “evolutionized” by “bad science” and naturalism. Bill and Terry didn’t provide a link, and I’ve been unable to find using Google so I can’t pass it on to you.

First of all let me say, many of these questions are loaded heavier than a LongHorn Steakhouse baked potato. Here are the questions along with my answers and a few observations.

1. Are tribes in South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are? No
2. Did dinosaurs live before humans? Yes (This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.)
3. Were the people who lived in caves, and used simple tools unintelligent? No (Still, humans have learned more about the universe around us since Adam started working in the Garden of Eden. We make progress in medicine, agriculture, technology, science, etc. So it would be possible to answer this question with a yes, and still not indicate a belief in evolution.)
4. Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the ark? No (Again, he obviously had what he needed, but he also didn’t have power tools or a Lowe’s store to help him out. This is just a stupid question.)
5. Are the stars older than the earth? Yes (This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.)
6. Is there more than one race? No (If there ever was a “trick question” this is one. Many people would answer yes to this question in regard to the ethnic separation of races (black, white, Hispanic, Latin, etc) but still hold that all of these “races” descended from one original human race.)
7. Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil, coal, and diamonds? Yes (This does not indicate my belief in evolution, but rather in an Old Earth Theology that coincides with a literal interpretation of Genesis.)
8. Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read and write after he was created? Yes/No (How in the name of all that is holy could we possibly answer this question completely. Certainly Adam communed with God and this indicates speech, but it does NOT necessitate writing and reading. We can trace the, dare I say it, evolution of written language throughout history by looking first at the primitive symbol based writing and finally at the phonetically developed alphabets mankind uses today.)

What these questions show more than anything is the simplistic approach to the evolution/creation debate that many creationists take. It is interesting to note that historically, even the fundamentalist Christians did not take issue with an old earth theology. As with many things “fundamental” these ideas grew out of a fear that science would corrupt Christianity and leave us a society of godless men and women.

I certainly believe we have such a society, but I would make two points about it. First, mankind has been a godless society since he left the Garden of Eden. This is not a new situation brought about by evil naturalistic scientists. And secondly, to whatever degree it is possible to curb this evil side of humanity, we would have been (and still would be) better served to approach debates such as this one using sensible, well developed arguments rather than parlor tricks, and closed minded ignorance.

I’ve quoted and mentioned it a few times before, but a great place to begin your journey into a more developed approach to this dialog is The battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution, by Del Ratzsch. Del is a Christian, but his objective in this book is not to defend creation or evolution, but to point out first the history of both sides, and then the errors found in the common arguments presented by both sides. Ratzsch does not provide you with the answers, but rather asks all the right questions and leaves you questioning if your approach to the debate is the best one available. I’m currently working through this book for the second time, and I can’t recommend it enough.

If you can provide me with a link to David Wright and his original article I will be glad to provide the link.

I was recently made aware of Does God Exist, and in particular the article, God’s Revelation in His Rocks and in His Word, by John N. Clayton. While I find some of Mr. Clayton’s arguments to be problematic, there is much to think about, and several challenges to a Young Earth theology that need to be answered.

…The first point that needs to be made is that God can do whatever God likes!…God does not need time at all!…If we understand God as the Bible defines and describes Him, then time is a creation of God and does not control God. The issue is not what God could do but what He did do…

Taken from The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate, by Dr. Del Ratzsch

Some public disagreements transcend the category of mere debate and become social institutions. Each side develops its own organizations, journals, networks, buzzwords, mythologies, heroes, conspiracy theories, horror stories, dire predictions, standards of orthodoxy, loyalty tests and so forth. The “creation-evolution” dispute currently has that status in American culture–and not for the first time, either.

Unfortunately, in such disputes the harder the lines are drawn, the less actual communication there is and, indeed, the less importance actual communication seems to have. “Dialogue” becomes little more than occasions for counting coup or for recruiting the undecided. And the less actual contact of competing ideas there is, the easier it is for favorite ideas–on both sides–to be credited within their respective camps with a status they really do no deserve. Indeed, each side can see the case as so utterly closed that the very existence of opponents generates near bafflement. For instance, on the one side, Henry Morris:

Now the most amazing thing about his whole state of affairs is the absurdity and impossibility of the very concept of evolution! That a theory which is so utterly devoid of any legitimate scientific proof could have attained such a position of universal power and prestige in the name of science is surely a remarkable commentary on human nature. Whether the explanation lies in some monumental web of intellectual conspiracy or merely in man’s enormous capacity for egocentric self-deception, the simple fact is that evolutionary philosophy is both totally false and almost totally successful.

And on the other side, Richard Dawkins:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)….[This is] an area where half the country claims to believe an absurd and palpable falsehood. I say “claims” because a belief that is held in carefully nurtured ignorance of the alternative is hardly a belief to be taken seriously.

J. P. Moreland wrote a short article discussing the role of science to theology which is available at Afterall.

…The question is, how are we to understand the relationship between science and Christianity? At a dinner party I was introduced to a professor of physics. On learning that I was a philosopher and theologian, he informed me of the irrational nature of my fields, contending that science had removed the need to believe in God.

Others maintain science and theology mix like oil and water; they are so different that no discovery in science has any bearing on theology or vice versa. Science and religion are radically different spheres of life, they maintain. This opinion was enshrined in law in the creation science trial in Little Rock, Arkansas in December 1981. In that trial, creation science was judged as religion masquerading as science.

Still others seem to believe theology is not rational unless it has scientific confirmation, and they fervently look about to find that confirmation. Who’s right? Is science a threat or a help to faith, or are they unrelated at an intellectual level?…

Read The Article