God Created the Universe

            The Bible opens with the following famous statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”  I believe that the biblical account is completely accurate both in its overarching claims as well as in its specific details.  This means that life on Earth did not evolve slowly over millions of years in addition to being created by God, or that the universe as we know it now is the result of a big-bang that happened over 14 billion years ago.  The Bible says that creation took place in a six-day time period, and that the stars were created on the 4th day. There are many Christians who try to manipulate the words and phrases in this passage in order to get them to mean something else, but their efforts are clearly subjective and as such do not help us determine the original intention of the author who, we Christians believe, was ultimately God himself. Many people claim that the book of Genesis is “poetry” and should therefore not be interpreted literally.  I have two problems with this assertion. First of all, the narrative that begins in Genesis 1:1 runs straight through to the last verse in the book, Genesis 50:26. While there are a few poems that show up in between, these are clearly marked as the recorded uttering of historical characters.  Secondly, Old Testament poetry is not the same as modern poetry. Although it may abound in picturesque metaphors (“Benjamin is a ravenous wolf” Genesis 49:27) it is intended to convey literal truth, not to confuse or to deceive its audience. When Jacob makes the following statement to Reuben in the middle of a poem: “You went up to your fathers bed; then you defiled it” (Genesis 49:4) he is referring to an actual, literal, event that is reported in narrative form 14 chapters earlier.  It is clear here as well as in other poems throughout the book of Genesis that the song writer is not simply inventing scenes and descriptions out of fiction purely for their aesthetic quality.  These words have a meaning. Their implications cannot be ignored simply because they are “poetry.”  The Bible was written to convey truth, both in its prose and in its poetry. Truth is not conveyed through a lie; truth can be conveyed through a metaphor, but only if the metaphor is clearly distinguishable as such. If the Bible does not contain truth, then it is useless to us as a guide into the all important questions about life, death, and God. If we choose not to trust the parts of it that we do not like, than we should be intellectually honest enough to reject it as an authority on the parts that we do like as well.

            The reason why many Christians capitulate on the subject of creation is because they are afraid of the scientists. They seem to believe deep down inside that the scientists have figured out so much about the natural universe that if we provoke them to anger they will simply snap their fingers and disprove the existence of God altogether out of spite!  Worse yet, some who call themselves Christians probably do not really believe in God any more, but want to preserve Christianity for its placebo effect. If we reject evolution, they say, our culture will reject the entire Bible, but if we “play along” they might still let us keep the parts of it that we like. But I believe that if we take the road of appeasement then we are admitting that we are the weaker party in this war of ideas, and we are surrendering valuable, strategic “territory” to the enemy.  This strategy of giving in only makes sense if the other side’s claims about the Bible are true: that it was made by men, not by God.  If that is the case, then our eventual, complete, defeat is inevitable; we are only trying to put it off as long as possible in order to save ourselves from the discomfort of undergoing more cultural upheaval. But if the Bible really was inspired by God, which I believe to be the case, we should take the offensive.  We may be outnumbered and outgunned, but this does not matter since we have on our side Someone who is much more powerful than they are.  Besides, our goal is not to win a majority. Our goal is to make the truth accessible to whomever will accept it, which will always be fewer than those who reject it.  Our goal is not to force the scientific community to admit we are right.  That is something that will never happen.*

            I believe that this subject of divine creation versus “natural” creation is so important that I intend to spend my next eleven posts discussing it on its scientific merits. I believe that the evidence supports the biblical account of creation of life and not the evolutionary approach. I am not a scientist**, so I will deal primarily with general principles which I will attempt to support with universally accepted observations. Some amount of detail, of course, cannot be excluded. My thesis is that you do not have to be a scientist to doubt the theory of evolution.  The evidence can be interpreted many ways, but usually the creationist interpretation is the much more likely one.  I challenge the reader of these posts to take the courage to be intellectually honest with himself.  I am begging you not to be intimidated by the scientists into believing things you do not understand. Rather, you should examine the simplest, most accessible evidence so that you can make a decision for yourself rather than accept someone else’s story by through faith in their inerrant judgment.  You cannot figure out all things for yourself (not even the smartest person can do that), but you can learn enough to allow you to see through the lie that is evolution.  Once you have reached the limits of your intellect and education, you must accept the rest of it by faith (either in God or in the scientists). There is no other way.  I pray that you will ask God to help you see the truth.

* This is not because science does not back up our claim.  It is because scientists see themselves as the gatekeepers of truth and our not willing to give up these keys to religionists whom they do not trust (many religionists should not be trusted). They insist on evolution because it is the best completely natural solution to the question of origins.  They are not willing to accept the possibility of the supernatural, because the supernatural is by definition beyond their ability to predict or explain.  Scientists are inherently analytical, and as such they have a strong desire to explain everything in terms of physical laws.  It is this desire that does not allow them to admit that, in the case of origins, no natural explanation is possible.

** My Bachelor’s degree is in English, although I also hold a minor in Chemistry.


20 Responses to “God Created the Universe”

  1. 1 Dan May 17, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    There are a boatload of other creation stories still to read. It’s all kinda ridiculous that people actually believed these (and your) mythologies as literal.

  2. 2 schildan May 17, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    I appreciate your comment. Yes, there are a lot of mythologies out there, but I humbly suggest that few of them are any less likely than the one that has become pre-eminent in the last 150 years. It is the one that says that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms through repeated inbreeding.

  3. 4 schildan May 18, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Of course you don’t call it a myth because you think its true. On the other hand, I don’t think that evolution is true (or scientific), so I call it a myth. Of course neither of us has proven anything by throwing this word around: we have simply stated what we already believe.

    • 5 Dan May 18, 2010 at 4:46 pm

      2,500 year old goatherders and mystics know is fact better than modern knowledge, which is a myth? What a stupid thing to imply.

      • 6 schildan May 18, 2010 at 9:06 pm


        Alright, we’re getting slightly closer to the heart of the issue this time. Now you’re making an appeal to authority. To clarify things, let me summarize what both of us are putting are trust in.

        You: Modern human beings have figured out through logic that life evolved from a common ancestor.

        Me: Modern human beings have figured out a lot of things, but I believe they overstepped the science in this case. I trust the 2,500 year old goathoarders not because of their scientific knowledge (that would be dumb), but because the evidence shows that God chose to communicate with them.

        Again, this doesn’t prove either of us right and wrong, it just shows where we stand. I would challenge you in your next post to start presenting the actual scientific evidence instead of this useless argument of the definition of a myth. The bigger question is: which one does the science support. Yes, what I’ve been saying sounds silly on the surface, but is it true?

  4. 7 Dan May 18, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    This is probably one of your friends… looks like he thought that faith would save him and science was a myth (medical science, in this case). Thank goodness your type of ignorance doesn’t usually kill, but it does sometimes.

    • 8 schildan May 18, 2010 at 9:15 pm

      I didn’t say science was a myth. I said (or implied) that the theory of evolution was a myth. Every time someone uses the excuse of faith in God to do something stupid people use this as an excuse to attack all “religion” as leading to the same type of idiocy. I would appreciate it if it you would have been reasonable enough to realize that the various different types of “religionists” are not all the same. The case above doesn’t disprove my personal beliefs specifically, because I believe he should have taken the treatment.

      Since “science” is what you’re interested in, let’s talk about science. Do you realize that science proves the existence of God? At least that’s the title of my most recent post. Perhaps you should check it out and see what you think. We both know that you are going to think it is silly, but this time, please give me specific scientific reasons why it is silly so that we can make some meaningful headway into this issue.

      Thanks again for your comments.

  5. 9 Dan May 19, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Yes, you said evolutionary biology was a myth. You’ve got a short memory it seems.

  6. 10 schildan May 19, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    Yes, I believe that evolutionary biology is a myth (that means I don’t believe it). This conversation obviously is not getting anywhere. You obviously think that evolution is true but that creationism is a myth. You haven’t tried to prove it yet, though. All you’ve tried to do is use words to ridicule my belief. Likewise, I haven’t tried to prove my viewpoint yet either (at least not in this series of relatively meaningless back and forth). As a polite host, I’ve been waiting to let you fire the first salvo. I’m not going to force you to rationally discuss the evidence if you don’t want to.

  7. 11 Dan May 20, 2010 at 6:34 am

    “You obviously think that evolution is true but that creationism is a myth.”

    Yes, exactly. I don’t understand why you think 2,500-year-old folk legends hold more weight than modern knowledge. It doesn’t make any sense to take ancient legends like this and refuse to hear new knowledge, just like that kid who told the doctors that they were lying when they said God wouldn’t save him and he needed a blood transfusion.

  8. 12 Dan May 20, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Put another way… I guess I’m just wondering why on earth otherwise intelligent people would believe that the Near East peoples from 2,500 years ago knew more about biology (and geology, astronomy, cosmology, medicine, etc.) than we do today. Why, exactly, do you reject new knowledge?

  9. 13 schildan May 20, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Good question. I have an answer, but you’re not going to like it.

    The reason I believe that the “goathoarders” thousands of years ago got it right and the scientists didn’t is because the goathoarders had help. God says all over the Bible that he loves the weak and the down trodden. These were the ones that He chose to give the answers to.

    As for the scientists, they are very smart, and they have figured a lot of things out. But there is a lot that is still beyond their grasp. They have an inherent impulse to explain everything in natural terms. In the case of evolution, there is no natural explanation because life was not created naturally. Nevertheless, I scientist doesn’t like to surrender. They keep plowing away, convinced that their own intelligence will eventually solve all the enigmas.

    I am sure that you think this answer is stupid, but, regardless, does that answer your question?

  10. 14 Dan May 21, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Yes, I do think that answer is stupid, or at least very very gullible. At the beginning of my comments here I cited a link to a list of creation stories. In each of them, there is some variation of the religion’s god telling someone a creation story. Surely one can’t believe in all of these things at once, they’re mutally exclusive ideas.

    So to recap:
    1) Lots of creation stories are based on the divine word given by a god.
    2) We agree for the most part that they’re not credible.
    3) You believe in your creation story because of the divine word of a god, and find it credible.

    If 1&2 are true, then 3 is false.

    But at least we’re clear that, for whatever illogical reasons, your mind is made up and goatherders somehow were the height of biological knowledge in this world. Some advice though: if you ever do get hurt and need life-saving medical attention, goatherders and faith won’t save you… modern doctors and scientists actually do know a little bit more about biology.

  11. 15 schildan May 21, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    You are operating off of the assumption that all “gods” are equal. I do not believe this is the case. Take for example the “prophets” Jesus and Mohammed, as described by the followers of their respective religions. Jesus, according to the Bible, was raised from the dead, and was seen afterwards by over 500 people. This no doubt contributed to the rapid growth of Christianity in Judea around this time. Muhammed’s defining miracle, on the other hand, is his miraculous journey to Jerusalem followed by his ascension into heaven. Unfortunately, Mohammed’s story is unverified: we have to accept his word for it, whereas Jesus produced hundreds of miracles in crowded cities day after day.

    And as for the medical thing, I do trust science, as far as that goes, but it definitely has its limits (as we all admit at some point). I’ve never claimed that the goatherders knew much about science, but God does, and He’s the one that told them how the Earth was created. And as I’ve said before, the science backs up His claim.

  12. 16 Dan May 21, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    “You are operating off of the assumption that all “gods” are equal. I do not believe this is the case.”

    Obviously – you’ve made it very clear already that you believe that to be the case. My point, which you missed, is that you don’t even attempt at justifying why anyone should agree with you that it is the case. It sounds as though it’s just a matter of personal preference – you were taught to believe that, so you believe it unquestioningly.

    “I’ve never claimed that the goatherders knew much about science, but God does, and He’s the one that told them how the Earth was created.”

    Again, (1) you accept what these goatherders reportedly heard from your god unquestioningly. Why should anyone think that these pastoral people hearing a god actually heard a god, and that this god was telling the truth? Or put another way… when someone in the 21st century claims to have heard god speak to them, no one believes them – they’re usually psychotic anyway. Logic indicates that what is true now was true then… ergo, these people 2,500+ years ago were almost certainly psychologically impaired.

    And (2) yes, you claimed that Genesis (written by a pastoral people well over 2,500 years ago was more credible than evolutionary biology. Ergo, you believe them to be more credible, however they came by their stories.

    “And as I’ve said before, the science backs up His claim.”

    Um, no. Genesis is not a science textbook. It’s a religious text. Know the difference between the two. I’d be happy to discuss biology at length with you (I’m employed as a molecular biologist and have been studying biology for 16 years or so and a fan of avian taxonomy for some 10 years, but haven’t brought that up since you don’t seem really interested in actually learning about modern biology).

  13. 17 schildan May 21, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    First of all I did “attempt to justify” why someone should agree with me in the first place. Remember the part about the 500 witnesses to the ressurrection. This, admittedly, is only a very small part of the extensive evidence for the Bible, but it is the one that I’ve mentioned up to now. Up to now, you hadn’t really attempted to justify your viewpoint either.

    As for the goathoarders I don’t accept their story “unquestionably.” You’re just assuming I do. I accept their stories for a number of reasons. One is that they supplement each other well. The Bible was written by 40 authors over the course of 1400 years, and it is consistent. Another is because of these men’s testimonies. I believe the apostles were telling the truth about what they saw, because they were willing to die for it.

    As for Genesis being a scientific textbook, I’ve never claimed that it was. However, I DO, believe that it is an accurate historical account that has obvious scientific implications.

    Also, you say that when someone claims to have heard voices from God, we don’t believe them nowadays, and treat them as a psycho. This is true, but why do we treat them that way? Because their claims are never verified by anything more than cheap parlor tricks (Joseph smiths witnesses). But Jesus was different. He raised people who had been dead for days, and healed men who had been lame since childhood.

  14. 18 Dan May 21, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    “Remember the part about the 500 witnesses to the ressurrection.”

    Which doesn’t hold up to scrutiny by historical scholars. It’s also known that the Gospels weren’t written by people that where actually there (the first being written some 40-50 years later, and that one actually doesn’t make such a claim). And it’s also known that there was much re-writing of the stories to fit with an increasingly elaborated narrative – like how a story is exaggerated as it passes down the grape-vine. Heck, we don’t actually know who wrote the gospels, much less whether their accounts are credible.

    “As for Genesis being a scientific textbook, I’ve never claimed that it was. However, I DO, believe that it is an accurate historical account that has obvious scientific implications.”

    Hold on, you accept that modern knowledge is more advanced than 2,500 years ago, but those pre-historic people had a more accurate knowledge than that in modern times. Are you even listening to yourself??

    “Because their claims are never verified by anything more than cheap parlor tricks”

    Exactly! But while you don’t fall for the tricks that you actually see, you’ve fallen pretty hard for what in all likelihood were older parlor tricks. This is why I say you’re gullible – you fell for the parlor tricks amigo.

  15. 19 Dan May 21, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    More thoughts on your resuscitation by Jesus argument…

    1) The Gospels report other miracles, but he actually only reportedly performed one resurrection miracle (aside from that claimed for himself, that is) – Lazarus.

    2) Lazarus is only mentioned in John and (in passing) in Luke. There’s no corroboration of stories with the other Gospels as you claim.

    3) Have you ever heard of a “coma”? I’m sure that the people of the time hadn’t – they probably actually believed that Lazarus was actually dead. But actually dead and appearing dead are very different things. [And that’s assuming that the Book of John is an accurate accounting of what actually may have happened, which seems unlikely.]

    4) We were talking about the Genesis mythology versus modern science. What’s up with changing the subject to the Gospels?

  16. 20 schildan May 22, 2010 at 11:37 am

    “Hold on, you accept that modern knowledge is more advanced than 2,500 years ago, but those pre-historic people had a more accurate knowledge than that in modern times.”

    Alright, let me repeat something again. I never said that prehistoric people had more knowledge about science, or much else actually than we do today. All I have claimed is that these “prehistoric” people were given revelation directly from God. God, of course, knows more about science than we do. The only reason these “goat herders” got anything right is when it was given to them directly from God. They were admittedly ignorant of many things.

    As for a lot of the other things you wrote, none of it is something I haven’t heard before (I know, nothing I’ve said is something you haven’t heard before either. I don’t claim to be “original”). There’s not enough time in the day to exhaustively study all of it. But I do have responses for them.

    Oh- and one more thing- you forgot one ressurrection miracle: when Jesus raised the son of the widow.

    As for corraboration within the gospels, there are many things they corroborate, and many that they do not. But they do not contradict each other in any serious way, and that’s the point.

    John 20:30 “therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book”

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

Blog Stats

  • 7,325 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 28 other followers


%d bloggers like this: