Alone in the Middle Part 3 Creation-Evolution

A very old Spiral Galaxy.  Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.com

  Our beliefs are assembled by a number of key processes, the major ingredients being experience, knowledge, and intellect (or logic).  I believe in miracles because I have experienced them, so they are logical to me.  If I had no experience with miracles, I might dismiss them as fiction, unless of course, I gained knowledge of miracles by learning of them from the testimony of a trusted witness, perhaps a friend who had been healed of cancer or something in a miraculous way.

  When it comes to beliefs about creation or evolution, we have to rely heavily on logic, because none of us have much knowledge or experience to apply, since we weren't around at the beginning of the world or at the last ice age.

  So here we go:  I have a lot of trouble with the logic - or illogic - of the most popular versions of both creationism and evolution.

CREATION:

  Let's talk about creation first.  It is not logical to me that the universe was created in six  24-hour earth days, as most literal creationists maintain (and some of them quite vehemently).  In fact, it is quite impossible, if one takes the Genesis account literally, since the sun was formed on day four of the creation process (Gen 1:14-19).  Scientifically, day and night are produced by the rotation of the earth and the light from the sun, a sun which didn't exist until day four.  So, the first three days of creation were apparently not typical earth days.  What kind of days were they?

  So those who try to be literal about the Genesis account, saying, "The Bible says it, and I believe it", are not really taking it literally, because a literal reading renders a six-day creation quite impossible.

  Twenty years ago, my dad, a minister in a conservative evangelical denomination, was teaching creation theories to teenagers in seminars at the church camp every summer.  One of the most sensible to me, of several interpretations of creation that he presented, was a theory called the Day-Age Theory.  In this theory, the first days of creation are taken to be ages of time, perhaps thousands or even millions of years in length.  As we know, in other references the Bible says that "a day is as a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is as a day." (2 Peter 3:8)  This made a lot of sense to me, because I had studied geology in college (yes, Christian college), and had concluded that the earth must be very old.  Millions of years old.  There's no other logical conclusion to arrive at when observing the earth's strata, unless God is a trickster, which I believe he is not.  He did not plant dinosaur bones in the rocks to test our faith.  They are there, under millions of years of sediment, because sedimentary rock is a product of the depositing of debris over a very long time.

  The Day-Age theory allowed for the fact that the universe could be very old, perhaps 13 billion years old as astronomers are now saying, without undermining my faith in God.  Another illogical aspect of young earth theory or this supposed literal translation of Genesis 1, is the idea that God, who has been around for a long time, would wait until eight thousand years ago to create stuff.  Christians all assert that God has always existed, having no beginning and no end, so why would he wait billions of years until he got bored and finally create the universe and man?  That view always seemed a bit humanistic to me, if you will, very man-centered.

  Once a friend of mine suggested that God had created the light from those distant quasars already on the way at the time of creation.  He meant that the light that we see coming to us from those bodies has not really been on its way for 13 billion years, God only made it look that way.  But why?  So we could believe in a six-day creation?  Again, is God a trickster?  Isn't God truth?  Why would he create illusions to pull the wool over our eyes?  This idea is just not logical.

  Creationists tend to approach their views with an all-or-nothing mentality.  In fact, many young earth creationists will question your salvation if you do not believe it.  The Day-Age Theory presents a solution that is neither heretical nor illogical or unscientific.  It allows science and faith to co-exist.  I like it, and when I first received my NIV (New International Version of the Bible), I discovered that Biblical translation allows for it too, because when I read Genesis 1:2  I discovered a footnote for this verse: "Now the earth was formless and empty." The footnote read, "became" for "was".  "The earth became formless and empty."  And there it was, some accommodation for ice ages, long eons of time when the earth existed as a wasteland before it was recycled by God to make it inhabitable for modern humans who were created (re-created?) whole epochs later in Genesis 1:26.

  The Day-Age Theory makes sense to me.  It is logical, Biblical, and scientific.  And I love science.

  EVOLUTION:

  Evolutionists employ the same blind faith that creationists do, because, as with creation,  they have not experienced evolution - they weren't there when it happened.  Evolutionary processes require very long stretches of time, and the life of a scientist is too short to observe it happening.  They must rely on the evidence they find in nature, evidence that is often hard to find because it's been lost over the millions of years, leaving huge gaps that can't be explained.

  Their favorite reply to questions about these gaps is, "We believe that science will one day find the answer to that puzzle."  It's a very unsatisfactory answer to me, the corresponding counterpart to the creationist's dismissive reply, "God said it, so I believe it," which is really no answer at all, since what God said in the Bible can be interpreted in a hundred different ways.

  And evolutionists have the same all-or-nothing approach that young earth creationists do.  With atheists, it is even more essential, since there can't be any room for a Creative Designer, so this requires the dismissal of a lot of troubling questions and the putting off of a lot of inquisitive thought.

  "How do you explain miracles and the paranormal?"

  "We believe science will someday find the answer to that question."

  "How do you account for the absence of the millions of missing links - these transitional species that should have been found in the fossil record by now?"

  "We believe science will eventually find the answer to that question."

  Hmm... (skeptical sidewise squinty look from me here).

  One of the biggest evolutional leaps that I have had trouble with has to do with the impossible evolution of the sexual reproduction system.  The last time I checked, it seemed that all - and I mean 100% - of the components for reproduction have to be present and accounted for and fully operational in the first generation... or there can be no second generation.  You don't have the luxury of millions of years of adaptation for this to happen.  It is totally impossible to evolve the reproductive systems, male and female, in one generation.  Maybe there was some other system already in place for procreation?  Budding, perhaps?  Like the amoeba?  No. There are many things that can't be evolved, and sexual reproduction is one of them.  In my mind that constitutes a major gap in evolutionary theory and a giant leap of faith if you're okay with it.  I think you have to want very much for something to be true to ignore such glaring problems in your theory, and I question the objectivity of those who do it.

  "We believe that science will one day find the answer for that question."

  Sorry, but I can't muster that much blind faith.  The idea that highly complex systems could evolve from ignorant predecessors is counterintuitive.  It's not logical.

MY HYBRID THEORY:

  I do not have an all-or-nothing stance on creation or evolution.  In matters of physics and geology and energy and matter, I agree with scientists who say the universe is old, very old.  Because I believe that God is very old.  The Big Bang is an acceptable explanation for the origin of the universe, initiated by a powerful Creator.  It makes sense, it's Biblical, and it is consistent with my knowledge of who God is and what he is like:  Old.  And it doesn't diminish his power in the least.

  In matters of biology, I am a creationist.  I think there was a definite point at which every class of organisms began.  I don't believe that real viable transitional forms - missing links -will ever be found, although I will allow for major adaptations within classes of animals and plants.  Shoot, when I look at a photograph of a caveman's skull I recognize people I've seen in my lifetime.  Neanderthal  man was in my 10th grade algebra class, and his name was Alfred. I know, because his head was shaped exactly like that, and when he bit into his sandwich at lunch, his bite was square shaped, very ape-like.  Millions of years of evolution were lost on Alfred.  I'm not kidding.

  

  Okay, I have only brushed the surface.  This has been a very simple and concise explanation of my basic views on the subject, nothing very complex.

   But let me add one more thing.  I don't think it's fair to ridicule people who don't hold the same views as me.  I have heard stories of students being mocked in class by teachers who dismiss their simple questions about evolution science.  If this has really happened, I expect that the obvious is true: this professor doesn't have the answers.  Maybe there aren't any logical answers.  Ridicule is a weapon that is wielded by insecure folks who are standing on a platform of uncertainty.  It would be more honest to admit to the uncertainty, but to be fair, economics may be at play here as well.  Secular scientists are human beings, and job security is important to them.  They don't get respected positions without towing the evolutionary party line.  Of course, it's the same in religious institutions.  Teachers who do not sign the doctrinal statement on creation do not get the job.  If they have questions, they must keep them to themselves, because their job security may depend on their ability to be quiet and stay under the radar.

  Yep, there's a lot of politics in the struggle between creation and evolution.  Fortunately, there are guys like me who have nothing to lose who will put it all out there and question the dogma of both sides so that those who come behind will not be so afraid to ask questions and challenge the logic of a given ideology.  To them I would say, if an idea you hear in the classroom doesn't make sense, question it.  And do the same with what you hear in church.  Institutions, by their very nature, are inclined to perpetuate poop.

  Have a nice epoch.

Alone in the Middle, Part 2 - Religion

  This is the second entry in my series, "Alone in the Middle", in which I am describing a few settings where I am a misfit.  Part 1 was on Politics and can be viewed by scrolling down to the next post below.

  

Robert on the Road.  Alone.

  When it comes to religion, again I am on the outside, and not to my regret but rather to my delight.  I believe that the institutions of the church are not what God had in mind and are man-made entities.  This doesn't make them inherently evil as some of my friends maintain, it just predisposes them to be infected by the sinful inclinations of man, starting with the early churches and increasing exponentially with Constantine in the fourth century when he first established Christianity as the state religion.

  In practice and orthodoxy, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal, religiously speaking, since I am not a participant in any church or denomination.  The Church Universal that is all believers, or the Body of Christ, exists and functions both within and without the religious institutions.  There are wonderful Christians in every church, and there are wonderful Christians who never go to church.

  I am a part of a growing movement in the western world that is a modern exodus from organized church.  In fact, the only church group that is growing in America is the house church movement, and it defies categorizing.  Many have tried to describe it, but with varying success, since there is no central leader or spokesman other than Christ, it is virtually void of hierarchy, and the doctrines and practices vary from one house to the next.  There are characteristics which seem to be common to most house churches, starting with the tenets of the Apostles' Creed but then diverging from there to a refreshing diversity that encompasses a plethora of ideas.

  There is also a plethora of critics who have sought to demonize the movement, and this is not surprising, as humans just normally resist change, and especially religious humans.  Some critics say it is heretical, but the same was said of Christ when he departed from the established religion of his day.  Many of the exiles who are part of this migration maintain that it is the next great movement that God has initiated, since the institutional church has largely lost its way.  In their thinking - and some of them have said this:  Jesus has left the building - and we're following Him.

  The church has become something of a political party with its own unique platform characterized by hypocrisy, bigotry, criticism, and legalism.  It is infected with a general oppressive air that demeans women, the underprivileged, and gays.  And all in the name of Christ who was a friend of women, the poor, and was often called the Friend of sinners.  No wonder so many have left with a bad taste in their mouths.  I think Jesus wants to gag as well, and so he has staged a modern day exodus to rival the original exodus of his people from their slavery in Egypt.

  One of the endemic tyrannies of the organized church is its powerful addiction to the doctrine of hierarchy, an oppressive orthodoxy specifically banned by Christ himself (Matt 20:25-28).   To many it is the cardinal sin of the church that victimizes millions every day.  I would say that at least it is the leaven of the Pharisees that has worked its way through the whole batch.  Jesus said the leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy, which makes me ask the obvious question: How is it not hypocrisy for any Protestant to preach submission to authority in the church when the entire Protestant tradition was born out of protest against church hierarchy?  The word Protestant means, "One who protests".  By teaching submission to authority, you deny your Protestant roots.  Yet millions cower under this dogma every Sunday having never realized the hypocrisy of it.

  In his book, Was Church God's Idea?, Marc Winter says, "So much of the devil's subversion, of those assemblies who are called by the name of Christ, has been through the useful tool of titles. When Jesus said, call no man "Teacher, or Father", I think He meant do not give positional headship to any man, that position belongs to Christ alone. When Jesus said it is finished, we no longer needed ANY human intermediary. Now we ALL are a kingdom of priest. Do not let a human usurping Christ's headship, via their title, interfere with you hearing God's voice."

  Watchman Nee is another scholar and writer who asserts that whenever we designate a leader in the church, we displace the headship of Christ.*

  

  But my own philosophy on the displacement of Christ by the organized church points to legalism as the ultimate culprit, a salvation earned by man's own self-righteousness.  The work of Christ is freedom (Gal.5:1), but the work of the church is slavery to a new kind of law that replaces the Old Testament law but that is just as oppressive and bypasses the cross of Christ.  Most Christians just don't get it: we are living in the age of grace and are free in Christ.  "By grace we are saved, not of works, lest any one boast (Eph. 2:8)."   There is no list of rules to live by, no law but the law of love.  "The entire law is summed up in a single command, 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5:14)  We are at liberty to  experience Christ more fully every day, and it's not done through human effort.  The church cannot save.  In fact, all too often it does the opposite: it condemns us to an alternate hell of human effort, the same as every other religion in the world.

  To some who are reading, my position sounds really liberal, doesn't it?  And by definition it is, since the word means "marked by generosity: openhanded, free from bigotry".  In that case, I don't mind being identified as a liberal, as I'm thinking that  Jesus was the original liberal.  He came to free us from the law, from legalism, from an obligation to obey the rules.  He became our righteousness so we are accepted by God.  Unconditionally.

  If not, then the cross of Christ is good for nothing.  And if the cross is good for nothing, than the church is also good for nothing more than a social gathering, so either way we are in for a good time.  Rejoice!  And be free!

  So this kind of talk is rejected by religious conservatives... and liberals as well but for different reasons.  Either way that makes me a reject.  A reject from all religious institutions.  But I'm not really Alone in the Middle like the Monkey in the Middle, 'cause I'm not even in the game.  Thankfully.

  I reject Christendom.  I embrace true Christianity:  Jesus Only.

* Watchman Nee in his book, The Normal Christian Church.