10 Reasons Christians Shouldn’t Believe In Creationism

 

 

I read this clever post about ordination recently and it got me to thinking.

What other “hot button” issues does the church need to rethink?

For example, we call most people who believe in creationism “fundamentalists” because we assume the idea is “fundamental” to the Bible, whereas those who support evolution are somehow breaking away from the basics.

But is that true?

More to the point, should Christians even believe in creationism?

Now, when I say “creationism” I mean belief in a literal six day creation of the world, not the idea that God is the ultimate Creator of the universe.

Yes, Christians should believe in God as the Creator, but I would like to suggest 10 reasons why Chrisitans shouldn’t believe in creationism.

 

#1 – According to the book of Psalms, nature reveals God’s glory and God’s handiwork. In other words, we can look at nature and discern how God created. Science has done this and discovered that nature reveals a God who created through evolution. So, if nature reveals evolutionary mechanisms at work, but God really created everything in six literal days, but chose to deceive the experts by displaying evolution in nature, then God is a trickster and a liar. In that case, the God of creationism is not the God of the Bible.

#2 – Speaking of nature, creationists would have you believe that contrary to the laws of nature, God created everything instantly. There’s a word for this sort of action which breaks the known laws of science. We call it “magic” or “witchcraft”.  According to Deuteronomy 18, however, practicing witchcraft or magic of any kind is a sin. To be a creationist, then, you must believe that God is a sinner.

#3 – Speaking of sin, creationists get really upset about the idea that humanity shares a common ancestor with apes. Instead, they argue that everyone descended from one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. If that is true, then we are all the products of incest. However, according to Leviticus 18 incest is a sin. If that passage from the Bible is true, then creationism is founded upon sin. Monkeys, on the other hand, are not sinful.

#4 – If, according to John 16, it is that the Holy Spirit that guides our minds to the truth, and the Spirit has helped our minds discern the truth of evolution, yet creationism requires us to reject that truth, then creationism, by extension, also requires us to reject the Holy Spirit. Sounds a lot like the unforgivable sin of  ”blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” to me.

#5 – Christianity is all about restoration and reconciliation. It’s about uniting creation back to its Creator. Evolution supports this effort as it claims that all life on planet Earth is fundamentally connected. Creationism, on the other hand, argues that all plants, animals, and people on Earth, being created on separate days, are fundamentally disconnected from one another, thus furthering the division in the world which Jesus came to heal. Therefore, evolution is more Christlike than creationism.

#6 – If the majesty of creation tells us anything about God, it’s that God is all about beauty. The Creation Museum, however, is tacky and cheesy, both of which are the opposite of beauty. To be the opposite of something is to be its antithesis. Therefore, since beauty comes from God and (as we learn from looking at The Creation Museum) creationism is anti-beauty, then it is also anti-God.

#7 – According to creationists we must believe in a literal six day creation because everything in the Bible must be understood literally. If that is true, then Jesus’ command to cut off your hands or gouge out your eyes if they cause you to sin must also be taken literally. Since there are no creationists in the world who take these commands literally, creationism must be grounded in hypocrisy in order to work. However, in Matthew 6, Jesus says “don’t be like the hypocrites.”

#8 – The Bible is all about long journeys with God: 40 days on the ark, 40 years in the wilderness, 400 years in Egypt, etc. Evolution is a big supporter of really long journeys. Creationism, on the other hand, wants things to happen instantly and then be over with. If the goal of Christianity is to spend not just billions of years, but eternity with God, then creationism’s emphasis on getting things with God finished quickly seems to be anti-Christian.

#9 – If Colossians 1:16 is correct that through God all things in heaven and earth were created and science is a thing on the earth, then it is something God created. Therefore, when creationists reject science and the theory of evolution, they are in fact rejecting God’s creation and therefore God. Vice versa, when we embrace science we are in fact embracing both God and God’s creation.

#10 – Finally, creationists argue that dinosaurs and man lived side by side. If that is true, then The Flintstones is the most historically accurate portrayal we have of prehistoric life. While Fred, Wilma, and Dino are great, the church has enough credibility problems as it is. Trying to get science classes to use The Flintstones as part of their curriculum will only hinder the furthering of the gospel message. If we really want to spread the gospel, then we’ll have to let Barney and Bam-Bam remain on The Cartoon Network.

 

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

  • Nathan Carden

    As usual you offer a reflective and mature commentary, sprinkled with wit! I was discussing this topic with a childhood friend (who was raised a fundamentalist Christian but now turned atheist). He was convinced that I must be unable to reconcile science with my faith based on the incorrect assumption that I believe in young earth creationism. I surprised him when I shared that I felt that evolutionary “creation” is more consistent with God’s redemption “new creation” at work within the cosmos. I may forward your article to him – Thanks!

    • Zack

      Please do. I’d be very curious to know what his reaction is.

  • http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B006M68MNI Maurice Smith

    Nice “tongue in cheek” article. Repost it when you come up with 10 REAL reasons not to believe in Creationism.

    • Zack

      Personally, I thought The Creation Museum was a pretty good “real” reason not to be a creationist. :)

  • Abby Normal

    Nicely done! I’d also add that I’m pretty sure God didn’t call for any of us to be crappy scientists :)

  • dane

    http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/BiblicalStudies/OldTestamentHebrewBible/?view=usa&ci=9780199730797

    Check out this book. I just read it last week for an OT class. It’s a survey of the many views of creation within the OT compared with scientific findings. pretty good book. Great addition to the Xtian creation conversations.

  • Mr. Venture

    No one can deny that micro-evolution (or adaptation) exists, but there is still no proof for macro-evolution (we all came from common ancestors)

    And I like the tongue and cheekness of this. :-)

  • alex

    zack, i like your articles. and i like thinking of these things. but i see some holes in your arguments. i’m not saying your are wrong…just saying there are some points you make that are ‘flimsy’.

    #2- one is your ‘magic’ or ‘witchcraft’ theories. if anything no possible by science is one of the above terms, then do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ? while i agree that God and science are not enemies, i believe in a God that has power above all.

    #4- did God guide peoples minds to the thought that the world was flat?

    once again…i want to say that i am not trying to blast you. i’m not even disagreeing with you. i’m just saying that a few of the arguments are a little shady.

    now, do i think humans evolved from apes? no.

    • alex

      and yes…many typos there.

      • Zack

        No offense taken. Although, I think you have make taken my post a more seriously than I intended.

        The post on ordination that I linked to in the beginning was tongue in cheek about why men (rather than women) shouldn’t be ordained. This post was written in the same vein: trying to take a light-hearted approach to what is often a sensitive issue.

        In coming up with the 10 “reasons”, I was going with humor (or at least what made me chuckle) over reason. The hope was that the absurdity underlying many of my points would give that away.

        However, I do stand by my conviction that The Creation Museum is an affront to both taste and beauty. :)

  • Daren

    I think #3 brings up some interesting thoughts for me and I would love to hear what you think. The Bible states that Adam and Eve were the 1st humans created by God but what if they were not the only ones. I think Genesis is sort of grey on that. Point in case. Up to Genesis 4 were have only known about Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. Yet Cain mentions fear from others after God places the mark on him for Abel’s murder: 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. If all of humanity started with Adam and Eve, these “whoever’s” would be his brothers and sisters and cousins and nephews and nieces…family. I am just wondering who these “whoever’s” are because it sounds like Cain has no idea who he will come across as a fugitive. If he does not know these possible attackers, where did they come from???

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/ VorJack

      Polygenism has a long history. Unfortunately, a lost of it comes from racist sources.

  • alex

    my apologies for misreading. i really do enjoy your posts. im no blogger….but i enjoy a good one every now and then.

  • Karen

    Zack, have you read “The Language of God” by Frances Collins, a scientist who is a Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project?

    Daren, you might find this site interesting:
    http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/02/alice-c-linsleys-genesis-research.html

    On the basis of biblical anthropological and linguistic research, Mrs. Linley, who is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, demonstrates that Adam and Eve could not have been the first human beings and were not the only human beings on earth at the time they existed, and that to read Genesis this way is to misread it.

  • Emily

    No. 6 was enough of a reason for me :)

  • http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com Alice C. Linsley

    I try to use the term “creationist” with an explanation of what type, since there are different forms of creationism.

    Here is a conversation between two Biblical Anthropologists on Darwin. It clarifies my view.

    http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2012/04/biblical-anthropologists-discuss-darwin.html

  • John Wallace

    Dude keep these articles coming, my friends and I are dying laughing at this. This theology(if sincere) is so jacked. I’ll be sure and let my ugly friends know they are “anti-God.” (#6) LOL!!

    • Zack

      key words: “if sincere”

  • MaryAnn Jackson

    Wow, that is the most ridiculous article I have ever read…

  • Bridget

    #1 is already off. Evolution is only moderately “proven”. Micro-evolution is visible and happens, but macro-evolution is pure theory and nothing more. But even micro-evolution in various species is not pure evolution. Example: Darwin’s Finches – (Darwin didn’t actually study them long enough to thoroughly prove anything, but besides that…) when scientists actually studied the finches, they noticed something peculiar!! During rainy seasons, the birds beaks would change to adapt to the climate in order to get food, but during dry/drought seasons, their birds would change the opposite way to get food, and back and forth. Unfortunately, evolution can only be linear and in one direction, ie: the beaks should only change one way, NOT go back and forth between long and short based on ‘short-term’ climate change. So, animals can adapt, but they don’t really evolve. As for loss of teeth we no longer use, or other arguments supporting “evolution” are more like adaptation. Besides, in all the years of conducting fruit fly evolutionary experiments, has the fruit fly ever become anything other than a fruit fly??

  • Bridget

    #3… your theory that perhaps Adam and Eve were monkeys means they were strange magical talking monkeys who felt the need to cloth themselves when they realized they were naked. Last time I checked, monkeys aren’t aware of whether they have clothing or not; nor do they care. Unless these “monkeys” were a different species called humans… so that wrecks that theory. Also, there are two “versions” of the creation story in scripture. One talks about Adam and Eve and one talks about mankind being created. Adam and Eve were not the only two humans on the planet. :) Study carefully wise one.

  • Bridget

    Also, why exactly does God have to follow natural laws? Seems to me God is often breaking physical laws… like making donkeys talk, and healing the sick, and raising the dead… (referencing #2)

  • Bridget

    #6 how do you know God views the Creationism Mueseum as tacky? YOU might view it that way. I tend to agree with you – but I also think Pastors wearing robes is tacky. I actually think the tabernacle might have been slightly tacky (from the Old Testament). I also think people who sing pathetically in church to midi-files or solo-tracks are tacky. But I wager God doesn’t think any of that is tacky.

  • Bridget

    #9… so God created sin too? (By the way, that’s intended to be rhetorical.)

  • Bridget

    So, just read through some of the other comments. Oh brother. You weren’t trying to be altogether too serious. ::sigh::

  • http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com Alice C. Linsley

    Karen,

    You misrepresent my view when you say: “Mrs. Linley… demonstrates that Adam and Eve could not have been the first human beings and were not the only human beings on earth at the time they existed, and that to read Genesis this way is to misread it.”

    In biblical parlance Adam and Eve can only represent the first created humans. That is what they stand for throughout the Bible. Now as to when they lived, we have a separate question. Since the oldest humans fossils are over 3 million years, Adam and Eve, if historical figures, would have been created before then.

    • Karen

      Forgive me, Alice, for my inadvertent misreading of your post on this topic. Thanks for clarifying. That’s what I get for trying to summarize articles where the science is way over my head! :-)

  • http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com Alice C. Linsley

    Karen,

    There is nothing to forgive. I appreciate that you read Just Genesis and you definitely had the gist. Best wishes to you!