Back in 2001 when I was a Christian Creationist of the Jehovah’s Witness variety, I got involved in an creation/evolution debate on Usenet. I was soundly thrashed. It was a puzzling event for me because I was so certain that I was right and couldn’t understand how the “evolutionists” kept whooping my tail on every point I thought I made. Eventually I retreated and it stung. I promised to read the information they suggested to me but I didn’t ever do it. It was like going into battle thinking that you had a bazooka and finding out it just stuck out a little flag that said “Bang” when fired.

I have decided to go back to those posts (courtesy of Google Groups) and conglomerate the messages I posted into a single statement defending my then current beliefs in creation and Christianity. I’ve edited, adapted, added to and altered bits and pieces because it was originally in a conversation format and I was responding to things people said. I have tried to make it read better, more like an essay, but this is basically me circa 2001 writing about my actual beliefs at the time.

I will next post a thoroughly devastating critique of myself written from my current perspective because frankly, in this post, I reveal myself to be mind-bogglingly ignorant. :-) Enjoy…

A Defense of Creationism and Christianity
by Ryan Sutter
(adapted from posts made on Usenet in 2001)

When people argue about the earth being created in six 24-hour days as opposed to being billions of years old the thing I don’t get is why there has to be such an argument at all. Is the universe older than 6000 years old? Most definitely. Does that contradict the Bible? Not necessarily. If you use the word day in the same figurative way you might say “Back in my day” you can interpret the Genesis account to be discussing periods of time rather than literal days. There is no evidence that the account is trying to say 6 literal days.

It’s an argument over a bizarre need to stick with an interpretation of a scripture against all proof to the contrary instead of balancing the contents of the Bible with the known universe and reaching more rational conclusions. I am a Christian and I believe that an incredibly powerful being (God) created the Universe we see over the course of billions of years and communicated that fact in a way that was comprehensible to the people living at the time. I also believe that the 6000 years of recorded human history in the Bible is not the entire history of the Earth’s existence and it’s not modifying what the Bible says to believe those things and it’s not in contradiction with science.

What I’ve never understood is peoples need to put themselves in such untenable positions (‘God faked the age of the Earth as a test’-kinda stuff) with neither Biblical or scientific backing when a logical answer is staring them in the face.

Now, as for these creationists and others who are very dogmatic about their beliefs, I don’t think that being dogmatic about something necessarily makes you ‘close-minded’ or stupid. I just personally can’t understand it. That does not make anybody else stupid, it just means I can’t understand dogmatism. To me, dogmatism is when facts seem to indicate that an interpretation or belief is incorrect, but the belief is clung to and defended anyway. In my mind, if a fact doesn’t contradict with a possible interpretation of a Scripture, but a possible interpretation of a Scripture contradicts a fact (or even another Scripture) then I’ll reject that interpretation. There were people who interpreted certain Biblical passages to support a flat Earth and made martyrs out of people who said otherwise. The world would have been better off if they had rejected their interpretation instead of reality.

I personally have a philosophy of “question everything and get to the most logical conclusion, repeat”. I study world religions, philosophies and science for myself and try to never let my world view get static. That’s just me. I have only a few basic assumptions about the nature of my personal universe. They are:

I think, therefore I am (ergo: I exist)
I have to operate under the assumption that the rest of the universe is not a figment of my imagination (ergo: I can’t prove any of the rest of you exist, but in case you do I must behave appropriately… besides, I have a hard time believing that my brain would concoct Edwin)
I assume my perceptive abilities about this reality are limited (ergo: there are things I cannot see or understand, it would be vanity to think otherwise)

Given those assumptions, any world view or scientific theory that explains (in a way that makes sense to me) the circumstances of my existence is fair game for consideration. This has so far lead me to believe there is a god (whether a personal God or unseen impersonal force) and that the Bible is a communication from that god. Those are beliefs that explain some things for me in a plausible way that I have yet to see adequately explained in any other way. Your mileage may vary. Of course, I have lots of other beliefs based on these basic assumptions but I do not feel like arguing morality, doctrine or anything else of the sort.

Basically, the conclusion I reach is that everyone has to believe what fits into their mental framework for what makes “sense” about why they are here and what they should do about it, but when the belief conflicts with the perceived reality then it’s dogma and I don’t understand that.

I consider the middle ground, creation in long time periods, to be much more rational than a belief in evolution or a belief in literal 24-hour creationism. I don’t like the way many proponents of evolution refuse to allow for the possibility of things in the universe outside their perceptive powers and I don’t like how many proponents of creation insist on sticking to apparently incorrect interpretations of a text that can be read in other ways.

Too many people on both sides of the argument start with a conclusion (“God did it all in 6 days” or “There is no god, it all happened by accident”) and then look for facts to support it. I thought the idea was to look at how things are and work from there… Guess I’m naive, but it works for me.

Of course, science is supposed to work the way I’ve described. Science is supposed to start from evidence and work towards conclusions. This is true in a perfect world. If the scientific method were truly followed without prejudice, predisposition or personal bias that would be great. To those that follow it, atheist, Christian, agnostic, Islamic fundamentalist, whatever, kudos. In individuals however, on both sides of the fence, I find those who simply try to find evidence to support their conclusions. It’s natural, it’s human, to deny that it happens is a little naive. For those who say evolution is a theory, not proved, but a possibility and truly treat it that way, I have no problem with them. I have had people try to tell me evolution is a fact however, proved and true, and this is not the scientific method, this is (for want of a better word) religion.

I wish that my experience with human beings put them all in the camp of utterly rational, impartial judges of the facts they were presented with, but I have rarely found that to be the case. This taints the pure scientific method sometimes. Science should have put forth the theory of evolution. Good for Darwin, he was being a true scientist in advancing a theory, admittedly flawed and full of holes. As I’ve said before, I don’t believe in a literal creation account either. Never have. However, I think they should have put forth the theory and rejected it when it was obvious that it didn’t answer the key questions.

The whole creation thing has been broken down into three discrete problems:

1) Initial creation of all matter
2) Life forming from non-living matter (abiogenesis)
3) differentiation of and advancement of living things into various families/species/etc

The big bang is often used to explain the first one by science, God used by creationists. Both have a sticky wicket… Where did the matter and energy for the Bang come from and where did God come from? There are no actual answers to either question. That’s a matter of faith.

The second point, abiogenesis, or the arising of life from non-life, is a very tough one. There are currently no provable scientific theories or experiments that can explain how life arose from non-living matter. Work was done to try to prove that electricity passing through certain amino acids could occasionally create certain proteins, necessary for life. Problem solved. Um, not so on closer examination. The large number and distinct types of proteins necessary for even a single celled organism, combined with the incredible complexity of structure inherent in a single celled organism (not to mention the actual state of the Earth’s atmosphere at the time this supposedly happened vs. the state it would have needed to be in to cause this) basically makes this theory wishful-thinking. Back to the drawing board.

The third point, the variety and evolution of species… Well, scientists have found evidence of a lot of species on this planet with new ones arising in the fossil record fully-formed, seemingly from nowhere leading to a now more commonly held theory of “punctuated equilibrium” as opposed to Darwin’s classic “gradual evolution”. The fossil record just doesn’t support Darwin’s initial assertions and he admitted as much himself later in life. The problem with PE is that it is an effect with no apparent cause that has never been observed or recreated in a lab or adequately explained. Other problems evolution has no answers for include how complex structures (like the eye) which require multiple inter-operating systems to be developed simultaneously and are useless without all those subsystems could have developed via gradual change or mutation, how mutations could be carried to subsequent generations when DNA repairs itself (if indeed mutation is considered an engine of evolution) and why in all recorded human history only variety within a species has ever been witnessed. There are lots more and evolutionists are not in agreement on answers for ANY of these points. You don’t need a creationist involved to start an argument on those, just get three evolutionists in a room together and let ‘em go.
So, where does that leave us? There is a fossil record that doesn’t support the theory of gradual evolution (classical Darwinism), yet a lot of people still believe in it. Those scientists who have discarded Darwinism for alternate evolutionary theories have observation of the facts on their side (i.e.: new species suddenly appearing in the fossil record or sudden appearance of complex biological structures), but no idea what caused these things to occur. At least they are not being dogmatic about it. Good for them. But we are still faced with three distinct problem domains here, each of which has working theories, none of which can be conclusively proved by scientists anymore than they can be proved by creationists. When those theories are called theories and kept flexible, great. The scientific method at work. When they are called facts, although unproven, not so great. Dogma.

I am not naive enough to think that scientists are immune to human ego and can seek only pure fact. They have want of support by peers, notoriety, etc and it taints their work in all fields (including medicine, computing, genetics, etc). I believe in the scientific method, if it were ever carried out by truly impartial creatures.
So, why specifically am I a Christian? Why do I accept the “Bible theory” as opposed to the evolutionist one? Lots of reasons. First off, there are visible proofs to me that humans used to be smarter than they are now or at least in touch with somebody who was.
Look at the pyramids, Stone Henge, the Mayan and Incan ruins, heck even Coral Castle (which was built in this century) and you’ll find evidence of construction techniques, skills, astronomical knowledge and the like that science simply cannot explain or understand. This is concrete, this is real, this is here and nobody knows why.
If the Bible is true, than people were created in perfection, smarter, stronger and longer-living than we are now. They would have created things we can’t understand today. If they were dumber, brute savages, they would not. Those things exist, that is a powerful argument to me. I believe the scientific principle that order degenerates, moves towards disorder. I have no reason to believe that is not true of people and there is evidence that it is. This would support the Biblical notion of lost perfection.

Go a step further and look at the fossil evidence and you see whole species just pop into existence with no transitional stages. No explanation yet given to me is satisfactory. Gradual evolution is at odds with the fossil record and punctuated equilibrium doesn’t explain the engine of change. I have yet to have an evolutionist explain to me how whole new families of species simply appear in the fossil record with no warning, predecessors or transitional state. The missing link is still missing.

OK, so we have things I can see and measure and ponder but can’t rationally explain, both human and natural. Let’s add some more things.
About 2000 years ago somebody in the region of the Mideast changed the world more dramatically than any before or since. His life had to be special to have made that sort of impact and the teachings recorded as his are certainly profound and wise and worth living by even if you don’t believe he is the Son of God. He is a historical figure, with secular confirmation of his existence. I agree with the things he said and try to apply them.

Next, there are prophecies fulfilled. I don’t think people can see into the future without a little help. Bible writers did on many occasions and it’s a strong argument for the concept that “somebody” other than us is involved to my mind.

Combine all these things with time spent perusing and studying other religions and philosophies, notably Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shinto, Islam as well as always being into science and I’ve heard a lot of world views. Everything from Erich Von Danikans ancient astronauts to Siddhartha Guatamas denial of self to ancestor worship to agnosticism to downright atheism. I’ve considered them all as possibilities (Jainists believe all living things are gods and wear masks so as not to inhale bugs… one of the more interesting schools of thought, I think). I’ve rejected some for not providing answers to the right questions, others for being provable wrong (Shinto’s Emperor Worship, proved horribly wrong when Japan lost WWII for example) and I’ve wound up a Christian. I do not support or condone the vast majority of the “Christian” religions in the world as I find them to be dogmatic and hypocritical, but I still believe in the things Jesus said and the things the Bible teaches and the answers it gives, if one knows how to really look.
It just seems to me that there is more than the world we can see with our senses, the patterns of history fit the Bible story, evolution and other religions fail to offer sufficient explanations and the Bible (being the most ancient and logical book claiming to be a message from God) appears to tell us what God wants from us and who he is. If there is more, and I believe there is, there must be a creator and he wouldn’t just put us here without telling us why and what he wanted from us. The Bible gives us that piece of the puzzle. So, that’s why I’m a Christian, in a nutshell.

More From Ryan Sutter

RyanSutter has content marketing with Arkayne Socialize.

Related posts