I've been thinking again about the Creation/Evolution debate lately, and I think I've distilled it into one main question in my mind, one to which I've never heard a satisfactory answer (at least, from a Creationist). One can argue back and forth all day about this or that piece of evidence, and which side it "really" supports, but let's cut to the heart of the matter.

[i]Why does the Earth look old?[/i]

In other words, why is it that the sum total of mankind's knowledge on this subject paints a coherent picture of an ancient Earth? It would be bad enough if the preponderance of evidence merely seemed to rule out a 10,000-year-old planet, without being more specific than that. But we actually have strong convergence on a very specific age: 4.55 billion years. God, being omniscient, must have known that things would appear thus. So why would He give us one message with His Word, and another, contradictory one with His works?

Obviously, I've heard the question asked before, and answers have been given. One of the most popular ones is "apparent age": just as God created Adam as a mature adult, He created the Earth in a mature state. This is completely unsatisfactory. God created Adam as an adult so that he could function as one. However, differing levels of radioactive elements make no practical difference for the functioning of practically anything on the planet. Even if they did, it's hard to imagine a reason for them to be set in a coherent manner within an individual sample to converge on a specific age.

Probably the most common answer is, "it doesn't". Anyone making this argument is almost certainly under-informed, and in any case they're wrong. Unless they have access to significant amounts of data which the scientific community does not -- which is unlikely -- they simply haven't examined the situation in detail and thus cannot be expected to give a meaningful answer to the question. (I say "almost" certainly because of the existence of the Creationist leadership, who have no excuse for being unaware of the evidence. Many of their opponents simply say that they are lying, but I prefer to believe the best, so frankly I don't know quite what to make of them.)

I suppose another answer to the question would be that the ways of God are mysterious, and we cannot know why He did things this way. I agree, but look at where that leaves us. We have a consistent and coherent picture painted of the history of this planet, which seems to be the only one that stands up to rigorous examination. This cannot be an accident: either it is a true account of the way things actually happened, or it is an illusion that was intentionally created by God for purposes unknown, or both. What could He be trying to tell us? Is it a test, to see whether we cling to His Word in the face of strong evidence to the contrary?

Going along with this, is it conceivable that the consistency of the evidence might serve as a sign, from God, that we have to change our interpretation of the Bible? If not, that raises the interesting question: just what form could such a sign possibly take, if not this?

Clearly, the same sort of question applies to evolution and people's objections to it. However, I chose to frame it in terms of the age of the Earth for two main reasons. First, given what we know about evolution and how it proceeds, the Earth's antiquity is a logical prerequisite for evolution to be true. And second, I'm revealing my physics-centric bias once again. :)

I am genuinely curious to hear other answers to the question, or even to hear why the answers I listed were dismissed unfairly if you feel that they were.

13 Comments

Good food, great discussion, and all of it free. It boggles the mind that more didn't attend!

We had a Pugwash meeting this evening on the topic of the ID/evolution debate, and what we as scientists can do to promote good science. Pugwash is named after Pugwash, Nova Scotia, where many eminent scientists first met in the middle of the last century to discuss the ethical implications of their work and their responsibilities to society at large.

There didn't actually seem to be any ID supporters in the crowd. The organizer tried to play Devil's advocate at first, but didn't have much to work with. We discussed the arguments for and against ID at first, then moved on to discussing why it doesn't belong in the science classroom and what we can do about it.

The main point that I took away from it was that more critical thinking skills are needed in schools in general, because good science is difficult enough to distinguish from bad science as it is. We can (and should) address the ID issue directly, but ultimately that's only a band-aid solution. It doesn't do any good for students to accept evolutionary theory just because teacher told them so: we must teach them how to think, and not what to think.

I sat next to a guy who was very strongly atheistic. Most of us didn't have a problem with ID being taught in, say, Philosophy class, but he was vigorously opposed to any form it might take, referring to it several times as a "dangerous idea". Funny, that's what fundamentalists usually say about atheism! Ultimately, I see the people who declare religion and science incompatible, no matter which they advocate, as flip sides of the same coin. As a religious person and a scientist, I strongly disagree with the both of 'em.

There was one person who was there from the beginning, and was relatively quiet compared to the rest of us. He made a comment about the compatibility of religion and science, and how they complement each other. Right on! He left soon after. I wish we would have heard more of what he had to say; there might have been some insights we missed out on.

Ah well. Now that I'm well fed (a bit too much so, perhaps) and home, I haven't really got any excuse not to prepare tomorrow's recitation.

7 Comments

Well, I finally sent the EDLYA letter about a week and a bit ago. Before I did, I had a good MSN conversation with Greg, and he was both supportive and understanding. It was the first time I'd talked to anyone from EDLYA about leaving Lutheranism to become Orthodox. It made me realize that it was silly of me not to talk to anyone before!

I remember Summer Retreat 2004, which was a definite highlight of the summer. I had really only come back to Christianity for a few weeks at most after losing my faith, and I occasionally found myself disagreeing with what was presented. (Not in the study on Corinthians; I'm thinking more of the falsehoods in the Young Earth presentation in Sunday School.) I felt like I was the only one who was listening critically, and who could see the places where the presenter was mistaken. Obviously it would have reflected poorly on EDLYA to start debating the guy, so I wisely kept my trap shut. But did I talk to people back at the camp, gather their opinions, discuss what we believe and why? I didn't.

I guess I was afraid of people's reactions. Afraid to go against the group; or, at least, the group as I perceived it. The same thing happened at the next Winter Retreat, where an otherwise excellent presentation on Lutheran identity was marred by needless derisions of other faiths, as well as the irrelevant potshots at evolution which comprised the final few minutes. By that time I was already exploring the Orthodox Church (I had still thought it too weird during the last retreat). I was starting to realize more and more that it was indeed the Church Christ founded, and that it had persisted miraculously to the present day. Why, then, didn't I talk about what I was finding, at least with the closer among my EDLYA friends?

Again, I can chalk it up to fear of reaction, fear of being shunned. Compare that with the actual reaction I have gotten since making the announcement, and it's obvious that my fears were groundless. Also, there's the factor that I only get to see these people but twice a year for a few days, and it's so much easier to play euchre and pingpong and enjoy each other's company than to discuss weightier matters. But then that puts me in the awkward position of either a) sending out a mass email briefly outlining what I'm doing and why, or b) arriving at the retreat and saying, "Surprise, I'm not a Lutheran anymore!" Obviously, I chose the latter.

Actually, this reminds me of when I told my family that I had lost my faith. They were very supportive then, too. Not the kind of supportive where they say they agree with you to avoid conflict -- unless they actually do agree, that's transparently false and very off-putting. Rather, they made plain their disagreement but told me they still loved me and would pray for me. And that's what I've gotten so far from my EDLYA friends who've written me back. Like me, they have come to value the friendships we've developed. They have emphasized that I remain their brother in Christ, which is very heartening to hear. And they want me to come to the retreat. If I can get a ride, I am so there!

The difference, of course, is in the nature of my decision. This time the news is positive: I have found the Church and I am joining it! Even if I had talked to everyone from EDLYA, nothing could have changed that. I see now that it was inevitable. But contrast that with my crisis of faith, a fundamentally negative event. If I had talked to my parents sooner, or if I had taken advantage of the fledgeling friendships from EDLYA and emailed them, it might have been prevented. In retrospect, I see how God used even that event to grant me a more mature faith, turning an evil thing into something good as in Genesis 50:20. But there's still a lesson here for the future.

I think the lesson I'm slowly learning is to clue people in about what I'm thinking, while I'm thinking it. Not in every case, of course! But in general it's wrong to assume beforehand that I know how someone will react. Until I actually talk it over with them, I'll never know whether I'm missing some great insight or a whole new way of approaching the subject, even if I see a problem which seems hopeless from my point of view. So long as it's done in a spirit of love, ultimately, only good can come of such a free exchange of ideas.

2 Comments