What Is The Difference Between A Creationist And An Evolutionist?

Can they work together?

We can argue over the length of days in Genesis, the interpretation of the biblical record, we can even call each other names. But, at the end of the day our viewpoints hinge on one main factor.

Presuppositions

A presupposition is a background belief. For example the justice system has to be very careful that juries do not have a background belief that someone is guilty before hearing the evidence. If you are approached by a police officer in a dark alley you will have a different presupposition to being approached a youngster in a hooded jacket. Why do we do that? Because we already have certain beliefs about people and situations and then process our experience through those beliefs.

The origins of man

Nowhere in the Bible is there the suggestion of the evolution of species, neither does it suggest that the earth’s age is measured in billions of years. So why would someone who believes in the God of the Bible think otherwise? Because they already believe that evolution is true because of other information they have received, they then filter the biblical account through their presupposition.

Educated or conditioned?

If we are not careful we can be conditioned to believe just about anything. That includes creation and evolution. It is vital that we start to think through what we say we believe; there is nothing to fear, because if the Bible is true it won’t be disproved and if evolution is the work of God it will agree with the Bible. Truth can stand up to the hard questions.

What can we prove?

The truth is that no one can prove evolution or creation. We have the same evidence, but no one alive today was an eye witness to the origins of man, and neither of the claims of  the creationist and the evolutionist can be observed today. We can only study the result.

Why the different beliefs?

The reason we can have an eminent scientist state that the world is less than ten thousand years old whilst his colleague next door says the opposite is simply what they presuppose. One of them presupposes the Bible to be true and interprets his data accordingly, the other presupposes that evolution is true and interprets data through his evolutionary filter.

It’s all about faith.

Because the creationist cannot prove their point, the evolutionist thinks the creationist foolish and illogical because of his “unsubstantiated” beliefs.  The problem is, he is actually guilty of the same thing. There is no empirical evidence for either standpoint. The big one for me though is why the creationist says what he believes is true; he interprets his surroundings through Scripture rather than the other way around.

How do we view the Bible?

This is where the rubber hits the road; is evolution and an old earth somehow taught in Scripture. Is Adam being a type, rather than a literal person a valid interpretation of the text? For me, the answer is a big no; to my mind that makes no theological or historical sense. What’s more, I have chosen to believe the Bible first (I understand this makes me a target for criticism), but am also satisfied that Science actually agrees with the biblical account.

Coming up

I want to look at how our view of Genesis affects our society, and then an introduction to how science actually supports the story of Genesis.

Go well my friends 🙂

Advertisements

About Mark Neale

Husband to Sandra, dad, grandpa, Christian educator, and a John Maxwell Team Member.
This entry was posted in The Grace of God and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to What Is The Difference Between A Creationist And An Evolutionist?

  1. Hi Mark,

    Just because there no suggestion of the evolution of species in the Bible doesn‘t mean it isn‘t true. The Bible points to Christ. The Bible does not suggest that the earth’s age is measured in billions of years but it doesn’t suggest that it is measured in thousands of years either.

    God can not lie. God is truth. God can not create a deception.

    If the Earth was less than ten thousand years old we would only be able to see stars, nebulae etc less than ten thousand light years away. Yet we can see stars, nebulae etc billions of light years away.

    If God made the universe look old then he would have created a deception. If he created light in transit then he would have created a deception. God can not lie. God is truth. God can not create a deception.

    The reason we can have a scientist state that the world is less than ten thousand years old whilst his colleague next door says the opposite is simply because the one who states that the world is less than ten thousand years old either doesn’t believe in a God of truth or he simply hasn’t seen the contradiction in his beliefs.

    • gotbygrace says:

      Hi Kevin,

      Thanks again for your thoughts and comments.

      Whilst I agree you with you absolutley that the Bible points to Christ, to my mind to support evolution is to dismiss New Testament theology. Also I stand by my argument that we both believe as we do because of presuppositions. If evolution could be genuinely proven then people would be shouting about it, but it can’t. It only works as a hypothosis if you first assume it to be true, the same as creation.

      The argument about the apparent age of the universe has always been a hard one for those of us who reject evolution, my stance was ‘let’s wait and see what is discovered in the coming years”. What has been discovered is that the speed of light is slowing down, apparently quite alot. It is early days, but I am keen to see what comes out here, as it could drastically reduce the apparent age of the universe.

      I think your last paragrapg is unfair because their men and women far cleverer than you and I who argue for a young universe and special creation who do fear God, trust His Word and find their beliefs to be congruent with the Scriptures.

      Go well my friend 🙂

      • As a former creationist I naturally disagree with your presuppositions argument. On seeing the evidence for evolution, reconciling evolution with the sin/death problem was the complicated part.

        If the speed of light altered then the speed of time would have to alter with it. If it didn’t then Einstiens theory of relativity would be wrong and the laws of physics wouldn’t be so precise and finely tuned as they are. The fine tuning points to its creator.

      • gotbygrace says:

        Hi Kevin,

        I would be very interested to hear how you reconciled the sin/ death issue, seeing as we have to come to terms with God saying death, disease and sin were “very good”.

        As to the speed of light, you will have to take that one up with the universities and proffessors who are putting the information out there. Out of my league 😉 but you could start here http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/

        Go well my friend.

      • If the speed of light slowed down an d time didn’t it would avctualy make the universe o
        older and not younger.

      • gotbygrace says:

        Check it out, I think the idea is as light was travelling faster it cover a much greater distance in a given time. This would mean that a light would reach us more quickly, thus not needing the millions of years.

        Go well 😉

  2. savedbygrace says:

    I am vocal on Man evolving from Apes. I just don’t get it.

    but in terms of the Big Bang theory or the those other stuff introduced to explain how did the galaxies and the stars, moon and earth came to be, well In a sort of like it could be.

    the highest of man’s knowledge is to say “Mother Nature”. just like the tower of Babylon, its height is determined by the number of created materials used.

    but we believers, sons of God we do understand that all things came to be through Jesus. as the scripture says “nothing has been created and were created without by Jesus and through Jesus”

    think of this :
    when things on earth are lovely. the blue sky, the green fields, the awesome mountains of New Zealand, the spectacular views of Flower blooms of Holland.
    People say “Mother Nature”

    but when there are Earthuakes, Tsunamis, floods, typhoons.
    people says “Acts of God”

    just look at Insurance Policy, Contacts. all the super bads are “Acts of God”?

    ooops. i have deviated from the subject 🙂

    but this is going to be interesting. I can’t wait for your next post

    – grace and peace

    • gotbygrace says:

      Thanks for that, though I am not sure that you wandered as far as you thought.

      I have to say I don’t like the way God gets blames for the bad and ignored when it comes to the good.

      Come Lord Jesus!

      Blessings 🙂

  3. robert andrade says:

    You christians are the only ones with a presupposition. The reason that so called eminant scientists make rediculous claims in support of the bible is that they start from the supposition that it is true. Real science is done by carefully examining questions, testing, and then coming to some sort of conclusion. In fact the testing process is designed to disprove the ideas that a scientist has.
    I think it’s funny that people like yourself try to use science as proof for things that you will say cannot be proven when backed into a corner. Another thing that I find amazing is the lack of humility christians have. Especially in light of the fact that your deeply held weakly defended ideas can never stand up to critical review. At some point it is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying that you just won’t listen. Think critically and the repressive sky daddy just disappears.

    • gotbygrace says:

      Hi Robert,

      Thanks for your comment. You are of course right, people like me approach science with a massive pre-suppostion – there is a God. If on the other hand, you reject God, then you approach science with a massive pre-supposition – there is no God. I could bombard you with data from the fossil record, radio-metric dating, DNA, the study of light, the amount of space dust etc, as you could me. However, neither you nor I can walk into a laboratory with imperical evidence to support our claims.

      I would like to ask you one thing though. If, as I suspect you do, you believe that the universe is a cosmological accident without design or purpose, you would have to agree with many leading scientists that this planet and its population is totally insignificant. Does this mean that you believe yourself and others to be without meaning, value or purpose? And bearing in mind that your time on this planet is very very short, why do you care enough to comment on my blog about what people like me believe?

      For me, the more critically I learn to think the more I have to accept the reality of God. I certainly don’t have all the answers but God is often the only answer for so many quiestions – though the answer may not be as satisfying as we would like.

      Finally, no matter how much you close your eyes or stick your fingers in your ears, God won’t disappear – but He will continue to love and pursue you as long as you live.

      Go well my friend 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s