7.01.2008

Creationism explained OUTSIDE of the Bible

The debate of Creationism versus Evolution is a battle that will continue on and on and on. That’s just how it will be. It’s a proxy battle over the existence of God which in itself is a proxy battle over the issue of a sinful being in the hands of a holy God. But that’s not for today.

The problem with the Creationism debate is that it keeps referring to the Bible. “The Bible tells me so” will not hold any weight to someone who thinks the Bible is a bunch of hogwash as they show you a fossilized bone. It’s kind of like a footsweep to the argument.

I will tell you right now that it is not up to you to defend God. God defends himself every time, he just chooses the time to do it – that’s why he’s God. He is under no obligation to defend himself at every argument on old vs young Earth or to every pinhead that says “If there is a God then let him strike me down right now!” Nope. God just says “I’m not going to appear before you. You are going to appear before ME and my appointed time. Keep that in mind when you feel that all of Christendom rests on your shoulders as you argue with a grad student in a Dairy Queen.

So what do we do then about these debates?

Well, for starters, the debate is askew. The Evolutionist/Billion-year-whatever proponent is given the task to try to explain the world and universe according to its current set of rules and laws and boundaries. Fair enough. Outside of a scientist having some sort of personal grudge against the idea of God because he was forced as a kid to go to some hostile bitter church (yes, they do exist) he has to rely on the Scientific Method of observations (or he’s suppose to anyway) to gather and test data and form a theory. The scientist is then left a very valid right to say “based on our understanding, this is how it came to pass.”

Enter the Creationist.

Armed with the word of God, no matter what the world throws at him, he will not deter his stance upon the Rock. Despite “evidence,” despite “a-lotta-numbers,” he will not believe what the Evolutionist says. So we wind up with two groups that can’t actually reason their way out of a conundrum of a pickle.

So how is the debate askew? Well, the Evolutionist states that if there is a God, then he has to be bound by the physical, testable laws of the Universe. It doesn’t matter if He created it; he has to be bound by the rules. The Creationists will just refer to the Bible even though the Evolutionist rolls his eyes.

So outside of the Bible, I’m going to show how a creator can exist and created everything in six days. To do so, I’m going to use the following computer game: Sim City 2000


Now, Simcity 2000 is a fun little game to others except myself. I hate it. I have no control. I’m bound by the law of “budget” and can’t build enough police stations to keep my city safe. So, I cheat. As a side note, cheat codes in games started as ways for the programmers to test different parts of their games quickly before it was released. For Simcity 2000, I use something more powerful than a cheat code. I use a hex editor to eliminate the need for a "budget."

Cattle on a thousand hills, indeed

Ok, with my billions in hand I look out on the playing field...

Just a tad formless and full of void

This is something I had fun with as a kid. I put the game on pause and the entire timeline STOPS. I am not bound by the law of “game speed”

A thousand years are as a day to me now


Here’s the fun part. I get to shape the land to my desire:

I put water where I want and I also decide to install the elaborate underground water network:
I then lay out the zones of residential, industrial and commercial and put in parks, roads airports, stadiums, zoos and connect it all with electricity.Wow. Hardly a second has passed by...

Then when I have called it good. I then advance the timeline.

Suddenly, my creation springs to life. Things are being built, cars appear on the roads. People are doing stuff with my creation!Now let’s zoom in and take a look. Oh, I found a church! Reverend Sprite’s been there for 30 (game)years.

Guess who they’ll be worshiping?

Ok Ok. Let me tie it all together. See that little speck?


That’s the car of Mr. Evolutionist. Let’s call him Mr. Pixel. Mr. Pixel goes for a degree in science at the local college and studies “how did we get here?” Mr. Pixel is then on a quest to study his current environment. Based on what he found, he estimates according to the laws of “budget” and “game speed” it must have taken MILLIONS of years to get to this point, what with all the hills and valleys and trees and what-nots. Mr. Pixel becomes Dr. Pixel and goes on a speaking tour. Meanwhile, Reverend Sprite goes to one of Dr. Pixel’s lectures and … well, you see where I’m going.

In the game, I am God. I have unlimited power and unlimited resources. I create and destroy as I see fit. I can pause the game, I can speed it up. I can reload a previous version. I am God. If Dr. Pixel says “There’s no God! If there is, let him show himself to me right now!” I don’t really feel inclined to prove myself to him. He’s just a pixel. Should he provoke me, I can print him out, cut around him and put him on my finger and say “you were saying?”

FOOLISH PIXEL! I AM NOT BOUND
BY MY OWN CREATION, ITS LAWS OR EVEN YOUR WILL!

That’s what Creationism is. It’s the realizing that there is something larger than yourself, even the created universe and that Something has a message for you whether you choose to read it or not.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

An interesting perspective. I was with you for most of it.

I think you would do well though to remember that to be an evolutionist is not to be an unbeleiver and that both creationalism is not the only way to interpret genesis although it is fashionable in todays climate.

This Comment
"the Evolutionist states that if there is a God, then he has to be bound by the physical, testable laws of the Universe. "
Is something of a sweeping generalisation! And also untrue.

As your brother in Christ i would appreciate it if you would give a little more respect to those who are saved, but feel differently than you.

That said you make a good point that God exists outside of time. In which case we cannot say there was a six day creation (which would put God IN time) OR a 60 billion year creation. Both are accurate and both are inaccurate.

The flaw is that in your example you are simply using two timeframes, yours and thiers.

Blessings

Sillybear said...

My point is that both arguments are pointless and cannot be resolved. I'm not saying that it was a 6 day creation and I'm not saying that it wasn't. I'm saying what you are saying - they are both accurate and inaccurate from a human perspective.

But my statement about the Evolutionist stands. Not as an attack, just as a logical observation. If God isn't bound by the laws of his creation, then why attack against Creationism being taught as a theory?

If by giving more respect to those who are saved but feel differently than me, do you mean Christians who believe in Evolution? I mean no disrespect, but ask a question instead. Since evolution requires a lot of death, does that mean that death existed before the Fall of Man?

I should warn you that I only believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Things are easier that way. Figurative interpretations are fashionable depending on the climate. 8:o)

Robert said...

Fair enough. I think you are right on the Six day / long view creation debate. Both are right and both are wrong.

And you make a witty point about the "fashionable" interpretation of the bible. :-)

We might talk about the evolution thing though.

I do think you are lumping "evolutionists" together and taking the worst as representative. As you have probably gathered, I am one. And i have never stated that God must be bound by scientific law as we understand it. Nor have I or do i attack the concept being taught as a theory. Its unfair to imply that all evolutionists do.

you said
I mean no disrespect, but ask a question instead. Since evolution requires a lot of death, does that mean that death existed before the Fall of Man?

Fair question. I think that death did exist before the fall of man, however i think that Adam was the first man to die. For me, the Eden story illustrates the emergance of humans as a sapient / Godlike being. Before that Animals died, but no humans.

It may be that your literal interpretation will be completely incompatable with my figurative one, however its often fun to bat these ideas around a bit.

And Regarding literal interpretation i also mean YOU no disrespect but ask a question instead.

The fact that you beleive that the 6 day creation is both accurate and inaccurate in human terms is interesting. How does that fit with a literal interpretation of an infalible document which says simply that it WAS made in 6 days?

Sillybear said...

The fact that you believe that the 6 day creation is both accurate and inaccurate in human terms is interesting. How does that fit with a literal interpretation of an infallible document which says simply that it WAS made in 6 days?

Simple! Because the document was meant for humans. It's hard enough grasping your own reality, let alone the reality of an infinite being. God says "I'm the creator, I want your finite brain to understand this the best that it can so I'm telling you that I created everything in six days." Then He leans over to the angels and says "No need to tell them yet that I exist outside of time and can push pause or fast forward ..."

So what we have is the Bible written for man's perspective. Though we are not required to look at it from God's perspective, it does give an additional peak into who He is and the power he has.

Robert said...

Simple! Because the document was meant for humans. It's hard enough grasping your own reality, let alone the reality of an infinite being. God says "I'm the creator, I want your finite brain to understand this the best that it can so I'm telling you that I created everything in six days." Then He leans over to the angels and says "No need to tell them yet that I exist outside of time and can push pause or fast forward ..."

Excellant answer. Not really what i expected, your interpretation is more figurative than most literalists i know.

On the subject of god and time have you read any of tony campolo's stuff on christianity in the context of special relativity theory?

Tony said...

Great post and comment dialog. I would be interested in hearing from Robert why he's a Christian Evolutionist (I am assuming macro evolutionist). Is the belief that God created a cell and then let nature take its course? That's not a very engaged God.

Another question is, at what point in the evolutionary cycle did man become accountable for his sin? Is the soul part of the evolutionary process?

It's difficult for me to get my mind around how one can believe in sin, atonement, redemption, etc.. and evolution.

Grace and Peace brothers.

Tony

Karen Zemek, author of "My Funny Dad, Harry" said...

Interesting illustration, but just looking at creation shows all kinds of things that point to design rather than chance. I am currently reading "A Closer Look At The Evidence" by Richard Kleiss. This book sets about proving creationism using evidence outside of the Bible such as archeology, biology, chemistry, and history. It's set up as a devotional book with a new page of evidence for each day.