We create things all the time: a meal, a painting, a tidy environment at home, or even a mess! We are always doing something which leaves the world slightly different. We take what we have and turn it into something that wasn't there before. We often say that the end result is more than the sum of its component parts. Even a meal as simple as bangers and mash with gravy is more than just sausages from the fridge put on the table next to raw potatoes with gravy powder sprinkled over them and water poured on top. We have to put something into it, the cooker has to put something into it, and the meal, if nicely presented, is not just food on a plate, but an experience to be enoyed with family or friends.
What, though, if you didn't have any starting materials? That then becomes Creation - with a big 'C'. Somehow the universe is here, with us as part of it for proof. Where that came from is Creation out of nothing - ex nihilo to give it it's fancy Latin name. Whatever your theory about the origin of the universe, it was created. For example, a book by the evolutionary geneticist Adam Rutherford, which was shortlisted for the Wellcome Book Prize, is called Creation: The Origin of Life/The Future of Life (Penguin Books, 2014). We all believe in Creation.
The currently standard scientific worldview, or paradigm, is that there was a period of inflation, followed by a hot big-bang, which then led ultimately to galaxies, the solar system, and the Earth; our planet had the right conditions for life to form spontaneously, which then evolved into all the plants, animals and other life forms around us. That, though, depends on conclusions drawn from theories which are known to be very incomplete, in a paradigm that is possibly creaking at the seams. We don't know what conclusions a new paradigm might bring.
So what about these people who call themselves Creationists? Is it fair to say that, since mainstream science isn't really giving us all the answers about origins that many people claim it is, we can use a different starting point and suggest that the Bible actually gives us a true account of the beginning of the world, mainly in Genesis 1? I think that the answer to that is 'to some extent' or, 'yes and no'.
Everyone believes in Creation; we just have different ways of looking at it.
Firstly, that question has to be asked. Genesis clearly gives a reasonably detailed account of the order of events at the time of Creation. The Bible also gives us a rough indication of timescale. Those who have put their trust in Jesus as their saviour and Lord gradually find that the Bible is actually right about so much that to dismiss other things it says out of hand becomes uncomfortable. So, yes, we have to ask, "Does the Bible give us a scientific account of our origins, or is it just a means of communicating spiritual truth?" If we ask the question, then we have to be open to either answer. Many people accept only the latter option without really giving any consideration to the former; that inevitably closes down the search for truth. Yes, look at the spiritual truth contained in the Bible, but let's also consider what scientific truth might be found there in parallel.
Secondly, are there scientific data which are better explained by creation and what do we do about that? Well, actually, there are loads of holes in both cosmic and biological evolution. The probability of humans existing, even taking evolution as a fact, is miniscule, so much so that there is a principle invoked by many scientists, the Anthropic Principle, to explain that improbability away without having to imply that there was a designer. Even the Professor of Public Engagement with Science at Birmingham University, Alice Roberts, herself an evolutionist and president of Humanists UK, wrote a book entitled The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being: Evolution and the Making of Us (Heron Books, 2015). I have yet to read that, but it is on my to do list. However, just the title gives away the fact that our existance without being brought about by God is totally incredible.
Some people think that that is wonderful, a miracle that it could happen by itself; others would say that if the evolution of the universe and life is so unlikely without a designer controlling the process, perhaps we should be looking elsewhere for the explanation (e.g. John Lennox, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, in God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Lion Books, 2009). There is, actually a huge amount left to be done with regard to sorting evolutionary theory, as evidenced by the opening in 2018 of the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath, contrary to popular belief that it's pretty much done, dusted and definite. That of course, doesn't mean that the scientists working there and elsewhere won't make progress within their own evolutionary paradigm - they clearly will.
There is much to write on this topic and I shall undoubtedly return to it again. However, for now I should like to leave you with the understanding that Creationists are generally asking valid questions, but that there is a way to go before a proper all encompassing Creationist paradigm has been developed. Equally, though, evolutionist scientists are asking valid questions within their own paradigm, but there is a way to go before they have a watertight theory either. There is room for both groups to pursue their own science and report the findings in the context of their (hopefully) stated preconceptions. That leads the way to an open scientific debate. Where it crosses a boundary is when each side of the debate accuses the other of coming up with their findings or conclusions on the basis of their bias. Then all hope of sensible debate is lost. We all believe in Creation one way or another. Let's admit that and work within our own paradigms to find what they tell us about our origins.
If you have any questions or prayer requests,
you can leave a comment below, contact us, or send an email.