Evolutionist Duplicity in Church

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

Evolutionist duplicity in church as Justin Thacker, Head of Theology for UK Evangelical Alliance advised Christians to mislead others when he wrote an article entitled “I'm a Creationist - are you?” His article was in response to the UK Government stating teachers could now discuss creation in the classroom.

He wrote: "I have a confession to make: I´m a creationist. Unfortunately, the Government doesn´t agree. On Monday this week, it released guidance regarding the teaching of creationism in school science classes. This is what it said, "Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles." Given that I am the kind of creationist who views evolutionary processes as part of the way in which God brought this world about, I was a little perplexed by this affirmation. For surely evolution is underpinned by scientific mechanisms, and if evolution is an aspect of God´s creative activity, then creation itself is also underpinned by scientific principles.
Things became a little clearer, however, when I examined the FAQ section of the guidance. In it, the civil servants draw a hard distinction between "creationism" and "belief in creation". "Creationism", in their eyes, turns out to be the view that the earth came into being within the last 10,000 years (i.e.young earth creationism), and "belief in creation" is to accept that "God created everything that exists". This is different from "creationism" in that those who `believe in creation´ do not add the belief that the Earth is geologically young.
Having appreciated this, the condemnation of "creationism" at least becomes clearer. In reality, what they are suggesting is that belief in a young earth is not underpinned by scientific principles. This conclusion seems to me to be valid, as we cannot escape the fact that the currently available scientific evidence points in the direction of a geologically old earth. In addition, even the book of Genesis when examined in its original language doesn´t require a young earth interpretation.
Where I take issue with these officials, though, is the way in which they label "creationism" as out of bounds at the start of this document without explaining what they mean by the term until the FAQ section.
While the distinction they draw between those who are "creationists", and those who "believe in creation", has now been accepted by many of the scholars and authors in this field, it has not yet been appreciated by many of the school children, let alone teachers, who struggle with this issue. I suspect that many of the teachers won´t get to the FAQ section, and will simply read into this guidance that they are not allowed to discuss in the science class any notion of a creator God. In other words, the students will be presented with a choice - either believe in a creator God, or keep your scientific principles. The implication of the first part of this guidance is that you are not allowed both.
In the face of this challenge, too many Christians appear to give up the fight and just don´t talk about a creator God. So, here´s my suggestion.
Let´s not give up, let´s fight the good fight. Let´s talk about a creator God and creation till we´re blue in the face. Indeed, let´s even call ourselves "creationists". But let´s do it while at the same time accepting where the scientific evidence leads, which at present certainly means an old earth, and probably some form of evolution. Sometimes `both - and´ really is possible. This is one of those times."
Justin Thacker, Head of Theology.

Editorial Comment: When you tell people to say one thing when they mean another – you are counselling them to lie. A UK Head of Theology redefining a lie as the truth is no excuse.

Evidence News 31 Oct 2007

q_and_a2
crc_youtube
outdoor_museum_panel
free_audio2