Dave of A Bit of This, A Bit of That, is a frim believer in evolution and gives good arguments against Creationism. I have not done a lot of study on the matter because I have never doubted the idea that God created the universe just as recounted in Genesis 1-2.
The following is from Dave's blog, dated Feb 8, 2006
"Regular readers of this blog and Simon's blog will understand that Simon and I do not share the same opinion on this subject. How any intelligent adult can believe in Creationism is, as I have said many times, completely beyond me. On a mere common sense level it is palpably absurd. To see a blog more in line with my own thoughts please visit CK's.
That said here’s a few discussion points for anyone who wants to respond.
(Dave's Argument #1)
Light – I’ve actually seen this said by a creationist blogger:-
‘What good would it do for God to decide to provide starlight if the stars weren't going to provide the light for millions of years? Well, none. In the Bible, God says he created light FIRST and then the sources of the light.’
Another one said -
'As for the starlight? Easy. God made light, the scriptures tell us. He made it everywhere. So that includes light that was "in transit". Easy. And scientifically, you can't prove otherwise. If God made the raw material for stuff and then shaped that raw material into *everything* including distant stars, then it's hardly beyond him to create "in transit" light.’
Now it’s hard to believe that anyone would postulate this as an argument but there it is. If God had created light in his 6 day effort some 6000 years ago then of course we would now only be able to see galaxies and stars that are under 6000 light years away when in reality we can of course see objects millions of light years away.
(Dave's Argument #2)
Humans – If we are all descended from Adam and Eve and we’ve only been around 6000 years, that’s about 200 generations, can you imagine just how quickly all the various races have developed? I wonder which generation saw the emergence of Caucasians, or of negroes, or of Orientals, indigenous N Americans, pygmies, aboriginals, Arabs, S American indigenous people, Asians etc etc.
Human life however long it has been around has had to develop to where we are now, we have had to have time to invent things. It would seem from the creationist point of view the discovery of fire, and the wheel and then the stone age, bronze age and iron age was concertinaed into a couple of thousand years. Invetions must literally have been happening on a daily basis.
(Dave's Argument #3)
Noah’s Ark – We are told all the animals in the world were on board? There have been loads of articles written about just what a ridiculous story this is if taken literally but I’ll restrict myself to a few thoughts. Even today we are discovering new animals, are we suggesting that Noah found them all and then they were lost? Are we suggesting that Noah walked/rode/sailed to every corner of the world to get a male and female of each species? Just how many hundreds of years would that take I wonder, no actually that’s OK as the bible says Noah was 600 years old! Oh and his knowledge of the whole world was restricted to the Middle East or was he the real discoverer of America, Australia etc?
What geological or archaeological evidence is there of such a universal destruction of all plants, all animals and all human societies except for the ones on Noah's boat? Should there not be a layer of sediment dating from the same time, which contains all the bones of these poor creatures. There should be evidence that all human societies were wiped out simultaneously. No such evidence exists of a universal flood.
So we have a situation where some 50,000 species of animal including all the dinosaurs and all the extinct species that have ever lived are in this boat that’s made of wood. I wonder how the T Rex for example was persuaded not to eat the sheep? The food alone required to feed all these animals for 6 months would have required another 47 arks. The daily amount of animal excrement would have sunk the ark in a week. I could go on but really is it necessary?
However an interesting point is that it seems that from the creationist point of view if you don’t believe in Creationism then you must actually believe in Evolution as a solid, unmoveable fact with no possible concerns about it at all. Very few people would actually take this point of view, I would suggest that most people take it as the best theory that is currently available, that it makes eminent sense and that it is backed up by science. That is not to say that it cannot be discussed and debated.
However the really interesting point of all this is why some, a small minority of the world’s population I know, but some seemingly intelligent people believe in Creationism. What is it that causes them to suspend common sense, to ignore overwhelming scientific evidence? I really don’t know. I have said before that-
‘As far as I am aware no one (well certainly not me) has any problem with creationists believing in God. I don't but many of my friends do and that's fine. My sole 'problem' if that's the word, is with this idea that the bible is literal and that the world came into being in a 'flash' 6000 years ago. …………… But as I have said before this creationism idea is patently absurd. The future of the human race lies in looking ahead and working together not harking back to a book written nigh on 2000 years ago, albeit that it has a lot of sensible things to say.’
Some useful reference sites:-
Creation is a mystery. Science has its theories and religious people have their belielfs based on the ancient writings. Can the two ever meet? If scientists and believers agreed to look at all the facts, both of science and the ancient text of the Bible, perhaps the truth may be known. Rejecting the Words of God isn't the answer nor is rejecting the scientific facts but remember that theories are not facts until proven without a trace of doubt. This is what the debate is about. Evolution is being accepted as fact as religious people point out that important facts are being left out, the creation account in Genesis.
Carol's Counter-Argument #1
Genesis 1:3 does state that God made light on the first day. Up until that point, "the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Gen 1:2 This is interesting because the sun, moon and stars weren't created until Gen 1:14-18.
It appears that the earth has an inherent light apart from the sun, moon and starts. Astronomy might help with this.
Stars and the travel of light brings up another interesting question. If the universe was only created 6000 years ago then because of the travel of light, stars millions of light years away would not exist. This might be true but I put this idea forward for consideration. God created matter with age. Adam and Eve were not created as babies. Earth looked much older than it already was. When the universe was created and the stars put in place, it looked as if they were millions of years old even though they were just created.
Carol's Counter- Argument #2
Regarding the quickness of the development of the different races according to creationism, how accurate are our assumptions that all these different groups of people are as they are now? I suggest that they weren't. The division of people began at the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, which is relevently near the beginning of the world and then they separated. Environmental and cultural differentiation would've begun then
Regarding the speed of inventions, one only has to look at our present age and the rapidity of technological change. "Necessity is the mother of invention."
Carol's Counter- Argument #3
There is a common misconception that God created every type of animal we know now. No, he created all the animals that the others evolved from (yes, Christians believe in evolution, within a species, that is) Eg. From an original feline animal evolved saber-tooth tigers, cheetahs, and of course our beloved pet.
As well, before the flood, the world was one continent so Noah would not have to walk as far as proposed. The earth was divided afterwards and is mentioned incidently in Gen 10:25.
Also, before the flood, man and animals were not carnivores. Gen 9:2-3 Dinosaurs are a amazing mystery to me. The flesh eatings forms would have evolved after the flood. So there would have been no danger of animals eating one another.
I find it interesting that you say that there is no evidence for a universal flood yet different cultures all talk about a great flood. I would have to do further research on geological evidences for I have not heard anyone state that before. This is one interesting site I found, although it is biased.
Yes, Dave, it should be discussed even though, like I stated at the beginning, this is not a topic I have studied extensively.
Christians take God's Word as fact as much as scientists take the fossils they discover as fact. I believe the truth lies in looking at all the facts. This Book has a lot in it to discover, mainly spiritual, but the book of Genesis was written as a book of history not myths. That is why religious people will not deny the facts it present.
I hope you will get a Bible, Dave. It would help your study of this important topic. It is great that you have such a fascination with it.