full of Thoughts this morning anyway. ages ago you said to ask you about creationism/evolution. so you're being asked! tell me about it :D
Ooh if you have any specific thoughts, you should so message me!
General thought! Okay, will do my best. Reblog/message me if you want expansions or followups.
Evolution isn't found in the Bible, and it isn't well-founded as a scientific theory. Often, evolutionists treat it like it has been proven to be the origin of the universe, but it is impossible to empirically prove the origin of the universe -- whether it was divine or natural. Observational science -- science that involves testable, repeatable, provable, and falsifiable theories -- can be tangentially involved in a study of origins, but it can't be used to prove it. Therefore, when the scientific community treats the theory of evolution as the only possible answer and "as good as" true, they are making a faulty assumption or outright misleading people, especially if they treat any other theory as worthless.
Rather than observational science, much of evolutionary study involves historical science, which involves studying existing data, information, and evidence and drawing conclusions on it based in presuppositions -- i.e., a scientist's worldview. That worldview and those conclusions then often define how evolutionists go about doing other science.
Creationists use historical science too, and their worldviews also affect how they approach scientific study, including observational science. This is normal and natural! In fact, it's unavoidable, but it's important for everyone to be upfront about this. Unfortunately, much of the scientific community sidesteps this truth in discussions of origins.
It really bothers me when the general scientific community treats evolution as objective truth, as it means they're "hiding" their worldview and treating it like it is an objective truth similar to the law of gravity. It bothers me even more when mainstream science treats creationism as unfounded, fringe science when it simply draws different conclusions based on the same data. While creation can't be proven empirically, neither can evolution. I think science as a whole would benefit if everyone was honest about the fact that the study of origins inherently requires a bit of belief -- either in God or the unknowable, unrepeatable machinations of the Big Bang.
Therefore, the question that must be asked is "Which theory of origins is the best explanation for the information and data we see in the present day and use to study the past and draw conclusions?"
Based on my study, I think creationism provides the best answers.
At a base level, the Big Bang Theory is just as supernatural as God creating the universe. Miracles are defined in the Cambridge Dictionary as "an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god because it does not follow the usual laws of nature." While the Big Bang isn't necessarily thought to be caused by a god, it turns science into a god and does not follow the usual laws of nature. In fact, it breaks the first law of thermodynamics and raises questions about the second, as the Big Bang involves order increasing, rather than decreasing. Disorder -- an explosion -- gives rise to order. Nonliving things (energy, rocks, etc) beget living things. Unless the universe is eternally extant (unlikely), it requires a supernatural beginning.
The Bible provides a better explanation of origins by acknowledging the need for supernatural creation. More than that, it provides a Being who is intelligent, outside of time, outside of space, and outside of matter.
An intelligent Creator is important because the universe exhibits a level of intelligent design that logically needs to have intelligence behind it. To use a very old illustration, if you saw a watch, with all its beautiful internal workings and careful design, you would never think random chance or a catastrophic explosion put it together. You would logically assume a watchmaker created it!
Similarly, because the beginning of the universe involves the origins of time, space, and matter it makes sense that Whoever created the universe would be outside of those things. Someone who is bound by time, space, and matter cannot create them. The Bible provides this God -- an eternal, spiritual Being who exists beyond time, space, and matter while still being wholly involved in the hearts and lives of His creations.
Furthermore, creationism better accords with the evidence we have here on earth. While worldview absolutely factors into how said evidence is interpreted, creationism is able to explain, with fewer assumptions and contrivances, why marine animals fossils are found on mountains (the Flood!), why much evidence points to a young universe and contradicts an older one, why no trustworthy "missing links" in human evolution have been found, why the fossil record does not support evolution, why the fossil record further raises questions about the evolutonism-approved geological timeline, etc. I can talk to you about this, if you want! There's lots -- it's really cool.
Finally, I'll quickly address theistic evolution. While I totally understand the impulse to marry God with evolution, since God can do anything, I think theistic evolution isn't supported by the Bible, contradicts God's character as it is revealed in the Bible, and presents logical problems that God, a logical Being, would generally not allow. Overall, it undermines the veracity of the Bible, the sovereignty and love of God, and even the gospel message!
Firstly, theistic evolution isn't found in the Bible. Genesis is very clear. Again and again, the word "day" is repeated in the record of the creation. In the Hebrew, the word yom is used in the creation record in Genesis. GotAnswers explains, "We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5–2:2 by comparing that context to the word’s usage elsewhere in Scripture. The Hebrew word yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. There are a few instances where yom and a number do not imply a literal, 24-hour day. The words evening and morning together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of evening, then morning, along with yom is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time.
All in all, the context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5–2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” seems to suggest that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5–2:2 for most of Christian history."
While there are arguments that say yom meant long periods of time, a twenty-four hour period seems to be the best interpretation, especially because God explicitly uses the period of creation as a model for the human work week in Exodus 20:9-11.
Secondly, theistic evolution contradicts God's character. The Bible explains that God cannot do evil and that death was never part of His plan; it was rather a result of humanity abusing the free will God gave them. However, theistic evolution requires there to be literally millions of years of death and decay prior to the first humans evolving. Evolution is also based on survival of the fittest, meaning God was encouraging and using the savagery of nature to bring about His own ends, supposedly before the first ever sin. Thus, theistic evolution forces God into the role of creating death, rather than simply allowing it as the unavoidable result of human sin. Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned..." However, theistic evolution means death needed to exist long before human sin, which then makes God a liar. It also makes Jesus inaccurate, as He in His earthly ministry affirmed the literal Genesis account of origins. Theistic evolution also creates problems with the doctrine of original sin because not only do death and violence already exist when humans come onto the scene in this worldview, but it also raises questions about the doctrine of original sin. Who sinned? Not a singular Adam! How did sin spread to all of humanity? If it didn't have a singular, spiritual origin in the first humans, where did the sin nature come from?
Theistic evolution also takes away the hands-on nature of creation. The Bible says we are imago dei, made in the image of God, and it paints a picture of God carefully forming Adam from dust, breathing life into him, and directly interacting with him. Similarly, it paints the same picture of one-on-one intervention in His creation of Eve. The Bible also continually affirms that every human life has value, that we are precious to God, and that we are God's primary creation -- to the point where He gives us stewardship over the whole rest of creation. If theistic evolution is true, humanity is instead the product of God starting the engine and letting it run for millions of years, until it finally spit out humans (not a single Adam but a group of humans, slowly arising from apes). That origin does not represent imago dei, nor does it emphasize the degree to which God values humans. It undermines the love God claims to have for humanity, which then undermines Jesus' sacrifice! If He didn't love us enough to create us lovingly with His hands, why would He send His son?
Lastly, theistic evolution raises logical problems. One such problem is the existence of death, as discussed above. Others involve the laws of thermodynamics and other scientific problems evolution faces, which are too numerous to get into right now, but we can talk about it more later, if you want!
This was huge, but I hope it gave you a nice overview! Love you, bestie!
