God and Evolution: Your Options

Here is another comment on this blog that seemed worth sharing in a post, this time from Stuart32:

It’s not a question of evolution versus Christianity. If the theory of evolution is true then any objection you might have against it is also an objection against God’s way creating us.

But if the theory isn’t true then any objection against the theory is also an objection against God for creating the world in such a way as to deceive so badly.

  • Sven2547

    Agreed. The evidence is overwhelming that our world is “old” (to the tune of a few billion years). You can draw two exclusive hypotheses from this:
    1: The Earth is “old”.
    2: The Earth is “young”, but was created in a way to make it indistinguishable from an “old” Earth.
    One of these is much more logical than the other…

    • Jim

      Everyone knows that Satan and his minions changed the speed of light,
      screwed with radioactive decay kinetics and planted dino bones all over
      the place to make the earth look very old. Satan probably also caused
      the earth to start revolving around the sun (instead of the other way
      around), about six hundred years ago. His goal is to make people behave
      naughtily and for them to think the universe is really, really old. The proof is everywhere.

      • PorlockJunior

        Heck, the experts can’t even agree on when God changed the Solar System! 16th century (Copernicus)? 17th (Galileo and Kepler)? 19th (Rome allows Galileo’s work to be published without apology or equivocation)? 20th (John Paul II)? Shows the experts don’t know nothin.

        Also, how complicated to be God and have to fit all this together. Enough to make a lesser deity wonder if it was worth the hassle to write an infallible Bible.

      • PorlockJunior

        But now that you mention it, there’s more of a parallel to evolution than people think.

        The idea that God created the world with a load of evidence for its history — all spurious, of course — was put forth in the 19th century in all seriousness. This is fairly widely known, because it’s so funny; it even has a name “omphalism” after the Greek word for navel, as in Adam’s.

        But every discoverer has antecedents, and Sir Philip Gosse, who wrote the book Omphalos about the idea, was no exception, though he probably didn’t know it. His precursor, by about 250 years, was Pope Urban VIII himself, the guy who got Galileo condemned by the Inquisition. Urban’s clever idea was that God could make the universe in any way He blessed well pleased; and He choose to make it just as the Pope and the philosophers said; but He could and did choose to make it *look* as if the Earth moved. Same idea, exactly. Nothing new under the Sun, saith the Preacher.

        (I have to mention that Galileo did not ignore this idea. He put it in his controversial book. By order of the very same Pope. Didn’t get him off the hook, though.)

        • David_Evans

          Galileo was perhaps tactless to put the Pope’s argument into the mouth of a character called Simplicio.

  • stuart32

    The message is, of course, that creationism is the wrong horse to back. If I had to back a horse it would probably be fine tuning – the recent comments of eminent cosmologist Richard Carrier not withstanding.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X