I used to be a young earth creationist, which made sense to me even though science disagreed, for three reasons: A. I knew evolution was in crisis, and scientists always assumed the scientists in *other* fields surely had evidence for it, because they didn't. B. I knew scientists had an anti-God bias that kept them from checking out what creationists had to say about flood geology. C. I knew if scientists ever *did* take an objective look at creationist writings, they would say, "Oh, wow - this explains what we see a *lot* better than evolution and an old earth."
Turns out, though, each of those
pre-suppositions I approached the issue with isn't true. The evidence for both
the age of the universe (~ 13.73 billion years) and the common descent of
living things is unanimous, overwhelming, and indisputable. Particularly, on
the evolution side, since we've developed microfluidic processors (I don't know
what those are, but they've enabled us to analyze DNA in around an hour,
instead of the years the Human Genome Project took), we can see leftovers in
our DNA of viruses our ancestors had, that have been passed down to us. So far,
we've found 14 of these virus remnants that we have in our DNA, which chimps
and bonobos also have in the exact same position - because our shared ancestors
had those viruses (the same "viral strand" would indicate having the
virus, but where it would be in our DNA is entirely random - since all of them
occupy the exact same position in *their* DNA as in ours, there's no possible
explanation but common ancestry).
The age of the universe is equally
well-evidenced; what I learned in my private Christian school - that scientists
keep making it older to try to give enough time for the laws of probability to
allow for evolution - just isn't true. Most simply, we can see light from stars
13 billion light years away, and light years are both measures of distance, and
the time it takes for light to travel that distance, so that light came from a
star 13 billion years old, therefore the universe must be 13 billion years old.
There is one other possible
explanation for both sets of data, that a few people have suggested. It usually
goes like, "Just as Adam and Eve weren't created as infants, God created a
mature universe", but if one understands the science, it requires God
creating light from stars that never existed, or creating viruses that can only
be explained by common ancestry, and that not just implies, but requires, that
God is a deceiver, creating a world that looks old but isn't to "test our
faith". But we know from Scripture that God "cannot lie"
(Hebrews 6:18) and it's actually a trait of the devil, not God, to deceive the
non-believing (2 Corinthians 4:4).
What do I believe? I believe it was
wrong of me to dismiss the findings of science without having scientific
grounds to do so, and I believe astronomy and biology should fill us with awe
and wonder, not denial, and finally, I believe learning what science tells us
about God's universe, life, and how they came to be, is the most compelling
evidence there is backing Isaiah 55:9, "As the heavens are higher than the
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your
thoughts."
No comments:
Post a Comment