Introduction

It is sadly to discover how many Christians no longer believe in the historical story of Genesis 1. This is partly due to the science that ‘facts’ bring out that the earth is not thousands of years old, but millions, to billions of years. And if you dare to go against this, you get a lot of accusations. Science has irrefutable scientific ‘proof’, hasn’t it? All measurements point out that the earth is billions of years old, isn’t it? How can you claim the contrary? And so many Christians reconciling themselves to it.  And apparently, we must read the story of creation otherwise. For example, as a poetic prose. In the first place, it was not the intention of the author of the creation story to show that the earth was created in six days. But that there is only one God and not many gods, such as the surrounding peoples of Israel believed in. Although there is a kernel of truth in it, this does not mean that, despite at the first sight ‘poetic’ character of the story of creation and the actual ‘purpose’ of the writer to put down a monotheistic vision, that the story of creation could not be historically true. On the contrary.

Facts = facts?

But all facts and scientific evidence speak against this, isn’t it? Is it possible still to believe in a six-day creation and that the earth is not older than 6,000 years? Yes it is possible! And no, this is not a faith without a strong foundation. This belief is based on scientific facts. Yes, you heard it right. Scientific ‘facts’. And yes, this speak against ‘the’ scientific facts of ‘the world’ (who believes in evolution or theistic evolution). But if two of the same facts contradict each other, then there must be one wrong? To make it even less clear, my answer is yes and no, because “firmly’ there is no contradiction. The whole debate on many scientific “facts” are not about ‘the facts’. Many get caught up in a ‘game’ involved on the surface ‘facts’, because both groups (both evolutionist and creationist) forget an important aspect in their ‘discussion’.

Science is objective, right?

Before I am going to indicate what this is, we will first need to find out how science is actually practiced. Many believe that exerting (natural) science happens objective. That it is a neutral zone. Nothing could be further from the truth! Such as Willem Ouweneel says in his book ‘Het woord van God. Ontwerp van een openbarings- en schriftleer.’

Evidences takes only indispensable place within the framework of our pretended worldviews and paradigms.’

The fact’ that the earth is billions of years old, is a proof within the framework of the pretended worldview and paradigm of the theory of evolution! One of this paradigm is that the world is a ‘closed system’. That is to say that there can be no ‘interference’ from outside (i.e. from a god or gods). The world originated by ‘himself’. Now you can bring in that the measurements irrefutable carried out that the earth really is billions of years old, whether you look from an evolutionary or creationistic point of view. And just here they make a logical error. Because it doesn’t have to be that way. Are the measurements than incorrect? No, not necessary. From the evolutionary point of view could the measurements be ‘true’. I will try to make this clear with an example.

Example 1

Suppose there stands under a watertap a measuring jug. And the water tap drops the water drop by drop in the jug. At the sight of this ‘experiment’ you see that there is already 300 ml of water in the measuring jug. You also notice that the water trickles at a rate of 50 ml per hour. When I would ask you how long the water dripping in the measuring jug, you would probably answer: ‘six Hour’! And from a theoretical point of view, with the data you have, this would be also correct. You have the amount of water in the measuring jug divided by the speed of the number of millimeters per hour. And you can’t get something else than six hours.

Presumptions

This is also the way science works. In the first instance there is little against it. The problem is that you walked in ‘halfway’ the experiment. And now the presumptions and paradigms come around the corner. When you assume that the measuring jug was completely empty in the beginning, then the ‘proof’ of 6 hours is correct. But you can also argue that probably the jug was not empty in the beginning. Or that you presumed that the water tap drippling twice as fast in the beginning. Arguments that are all plausible, since you are not present at the beginning. In other words, the ‘proof’ or ‘fact’ that you bring forward is not just based on ‘objective’ observation (although everyone is looking at the same fact, that the water drippling at a rate of 50 ml per hour in the measuring jug and that there was already 300 ml of water in a measuring jug), but also on a person’s assumption. On someone’s worldview or paradigms.

The same measurement methods other results

When I reason from an evolutionary world view, then I can all agree with the evolutionist. And from this point of view, the evolutionist is right and are the facts true. But this is the whole problem. My view of the world is that the world is not a closed system, but an open one! And when I look at the facts from this presumption, I come to other conclusions and ‘evidences’. I see the same experiment, I also use the same method of measurement, but I come to other insights. Not because my measurements are different, but my paradigms.

Example 2

I will take an example from the cosmology. Both the evolutionist and the creationist measure, for example, that a star is a huge number of kilometers away from the earth. But both come to different conclusions and evidences. Because the evolutionist goes out of a closed system, (without a beginning of someone outside the visible world itself). The first origin is for him a big bang that started everything. To calculate the number of light years, and thus to calculate how old the universe is, he will need to do several assumptions. Like: that the star has always moving at the same speed and that the starting point of the star is located in the big bang. When we look at the creationist, then he assumes an open system (someone outside of the visible world, would be able to create a starting point). The first origin do not need to be a big bang. His assumptions could be, for example, that the star is created in the middle of the universe (is called into being) with the speed in which he is now moving. Or that the star has moved faster in the beginning than now. Of course, you understand that both comes to other facts or evidence.

What a puzzling

We also must take into consideration that there are within each paradigm or worldview contradictions. This is also referred to as anomalies. You could also say ‘missing links’. You would be able to see a worldview like a puzzle. The puzzle is than, for example, evolution or creation. Within this puzzle they are looking for the right puzzle pieces that fits within this worldview (i.e. evolution or creation). In this way we try to discover the world. When you practice science, you will come to the discovery that puzzle pieces are missing or puzzle pieces that does not fit within the entire puzzle. This is quite normal. And these missing or incomplete puzzle pieces appearance to both; the evolutionary as the creationist worldview. This is no disaster. It may be that this missing or incomplete puzzle pieces will be discovered or can be make fit in the future.

The forgotten aspect

However, the aspect what will be often forgotten is, that a fact or evidence, is ‘subjective’. A fact or evidence is surrounded by hypotheses and assumptions. In my opinion, I believe it is rather pointless to debate with an evolutionist who is not willing to step outside his own worldview. And vice versa. Such discussions are useless and will not bring both parties to understanding.

What glasses puts you on?

The entire discussion about evolution and creationism is not a scientific discussion about who is right. Because, as I already have tried to make clear; both the evolutionist as the creationist are right from their own worldview. It is not even about the scientific ‘proofs’ they bring forward, because these are also not ‘objective’. It goes however within the whole debate about, through what ‘glasses’ you want to look. From what worldview do you want to see the world? How must value has God’s Word for you?! And has God’s Word still ‘control’ or ‘authority’. And no I believe God’s Word not for no reason. God’s Word is truth, because the Word of God testified of itself. But the question is ‘whose word’ do you believe?

Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
LINKEDIN
Whatsapp