Creation and Science

I’ve been reading a small book put out by a New Zealand Christian organisation called “In the beginning – Creation and Science”. It contains 3 submissions on the subject, one by a biologist/evangelist on YEC, one by an investigative Journalist on ID, and another on “Theistic Evolution” by a scientist.

Now, I thought it might be interesting reading, but let me detail to you my understanding of the flow of the argument of the YEC side;

1. We dont need to convince people the universe is young, they will just believe it when they get converted.

2. Evolution must be wrong because (according to the author) it is statistically unviable and is flawed in methodology.

3. Therefore the only solution is that the earth is young and sprang into being 10000 years ago or so.


Now, that’s not all he says, he does detail the issues around evolution and gives some brief suggestions as to why they are wrong. The problem is though, it seems to me, that the issue is not “what the bible says” but rather, “what science is correct?”. The YEC issues are not really theological, because the Bible does, in fact, say NOTHING about the science of creation. Their issues are in fact scientific. Either the world is old, as shown by empirical observable data, or it is demonstratably young by the same means. Theology and the Bible does not and can not inform science, and vice versa. They can only be used as a “prompt” to verify ones findings either theologically or scientifically. If your theological studies suggest to you that there is something wrong with the current understanding of science, or science suggests that your theolological understanding is perhaps incorrect, it should drive you back to the discipline from whence you came to verify, double verify, and triple verify that you are correct. You can not use “science” to understand Scripture, and likewise, Scripture will rarely if ever make a scientific claim.

So, the issue is, who’s science is more likely to be accurate, those who believe the earth is ancient and stuff has evolved (not that the 2 necessarily go together), or those who believe science shows the earth is young?

I recently watched a documentary which showed a number of archeologists who had been digging in Israel. They effectively voided their own work by basing it on the bible. If you find something in science that agrees with the Bible – great. But using the Bible as a “source” for science, as a handbook for archeology or anything else.. bad. Very bad. So bad that effectively by doing so you have voided any claim to authentic scientific method you might have made, no matter how great you are at it


(ps, I havent read the other 2 sections yet, but I doubt very much they will differ)

You Might Also Like

2 Replies to “Creation and Science”

  1. Three cheers for these comments! I think a lot of YECs and other “fundamentalists” are not aware that their positions are not the “original” form of christian thought but are reactions to the modern world. They are trying to keep the essence of old and couch it in language of the threatening ideology as a way of validating and defending themselves on the “others” turf. What they are not aware of, however, is how much this reconstruction changes significant aspects of

  2. Hi Jim,

    There is a bit (alot?) of that going on for sure. The whole YEC thing is couched in FUD, and tends towards cultism.

    The point is, even if it were true, it is a scientific debate not a theological one. Theologically it does not matter if the world is old, young, or anything else. It only matters that everything exists because of God. The “science” is really irrelevant.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.