Creationism is the Correct Biblical View of Creation

Creationism is the view that I subscribe to. Most creationists may not consider however that when God is creating the universe out of nothing that he can quicken or slow the pace of time so that a 24 hour day during creation may have been much faster than a twenty four hour day today. Driscoll however does not take this into consideration as he defines creationism as God creating the entire universe in six different twenty-four hour days literal days. (Driscoll, accessed July 4, 2010) The bible does not teach that time is a constant, and for this reason the speed of time could be variable according to God's will. On the other hand God likely would have also made objects to be a certain number of days old when they had first been made. For example God made Adam to be one day old, but yet he was a full grown man capable of soon having a wife after being made.

The reason for me holding to creationism with the special provisions for time changing speed is that both contemporary empiricism and scripture (excluding evolution) could be reconciled together more easily without as much compromise under this view. For example the earth under the speed of today's time might appear to be very old (such as billions of years), but since God can change the speed of time thus the earth could actually be around five or six thousand years old. If God made the universe, then why would he not be able to quicken or slow time as well?

The article by Mark Driscoll made little contribution to my understanding of the debate over creation as I have obtained a undergraduate degree in Philosophy and have operated apologetics organizations in the past. What the article however has done is to categorize and clarify views that people have regarding the creation of the earth and universe and how we can relate to those views. Overall, the article by Mark Driscoll has much value in its details as it educates people upon the ability to make stances on the subject of creation based upon the use of Hebrew words.

Genesis 1 - 3

The fact that God spoke everything that exists into creation starting at Genesis 1:3 shows that the power of the very speech of God to made everything in existence is so powerful as to cause all of creation to be substantiated by the Word of God. If all of creation is substantiated by the world of God, then the account of Genesis is both literal and archetypal. The idea beyond the first words of God being archetypal is that all of creation flows through those words as those words would become patterns for complex design. For example the first week in Genesis 1 became a pattern for the rest of time.

In the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 trees are mentioned such as the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and in this case these trees point even more to a archetype (master mold). Going along with archetypal thinking, Schneider writes about the possibility of ten spatial dimensions as understood by the highly empirically respectable concept called Superstring theory, and in this view the dimensions collapsed, shattered, and reformed into only three spatial dimensions. (Schneider, 25) The idea can be used to give support to the notion that figuratively speaking a life-form existed that its fruit was life and another existed that is fruit was the knowledge of good and evil, and those life forms would have interacted in ten spatial dimensions as well as one time dimension. The point is that although these may have been literal trees, the depth of what they had to offer could have permeated all of creation in a archetypal way.

The same idea applies to Adam and Eve eating the fruit in Genesis 3. Once the fruit was eaten all of creation was permeated by the results, and this was the case because God's word that substantiated creation would have been stopped from following into creation in some ways. Overall, the point is that the darkness (or evil) that existed prior to creation had a disrupting quality upon the flow of God's Word into creation, but in a since God withdrew himself prior to the fruit being eaten as this would have caused the darkness (the serpent) to enter.

The Age of the Universe

The age of the universe would be best to not be seen in the temporal way that most people look at it in. For a time-less space-less person of God the Father and a time-full and space-full God the Son to co-exist in eternity and shape reality together, the result is that God the Father may see the age of the universe like a architect would see a blueprint all at once while God the Son would be both in time and space as a result of the incarnation (this means that he would have aged). The point is that for God the Father time could be seen all at once while for God the Son time would progress as he would move through it.

My view of the age of the universe is that it is very relative to who is talking about it, and this is true because to talk about the age of the universe as an absolute truth can then come into conflict with the concept of the sovereignty of God. For example God in Genesis was so sovereign to make everything in existence to be relative to himself as the absolute truth, so why believe in an absolute truth besides God and then measure everything else according to it? In other words time can be a predictable tool, but we should not take it to be like God that we measure everything else in accordance to.

Although some people may argue that Genesis 1-11 can be reconciled with the old earth view as a result of a few details that are missing in Genesis such as the fact that Cain's wife is not mentioned as coming from Adam and Eve, the conclusion that can be drawn is that some details important for history had not been mentioned because Genesis is not supposed to be purely historical reading. Overall, the point is that if Genesis is read from a theological perspective for theological purposes, then the questions of the old earth view relating to Genesis just simply go away because they are found to be not important.

Did God Make the Universe Trough Evolution?

The most basic response to the prospect of God making the universe through evolution is to point out the fact that Adam and Eve are described as created as fully grown and not born. Most people that believe in evolution do not believe in what the Bible says in its most literal form, so they usually will attack the history of the reception of scripture to indicate that it did not come from God, that it is full of errors, or that God just simply does not exist. Overall, a good counter attack would be to say that science is based on empiricism that teaches that the five senses are all that exists for perceiving truth, and the problem with this view is that under this view love may be nothing more than a chemical reaction that could be produced in a lab, the concept of numbers would have no corresponding reality because they do not exist in things but instead are abstract from those things that they report about, and in empiricism God could never be found to exist because he just is not observable by the five senses anyway and as a result empiricism eliminates the ability to discover God fully from its wrong assumptions to begin with.

The key issues that this subject should address are that no transitional fossils exist to support macro evolution (See Driscoll). If macro evolution was true, then God would be nothing more than a person that would wind up the universe like a clock (as Deism teaches) and thus would not be able to relate to his creation. If macro evolution was true, then man would not be unlike animas as they would be distant relatives (this unfortunately might justify bestiality in the minds of some).

In conclusion, If macro evolution is true, then the morality of sexual relations would be greatly distorted. The authority of the Bible would be in serious question because the six day process of creation would be seen by evolutionists as either being ridiculous or so figurative that it would not accurately explain at all what happened. Overall, the only sensible conclusion is that macro evolution if false, and what the Bible has to say is true.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Driscoll, Mark. Answers to Common Questions About Creation. (accessed July 4, 2010)

Schneider, Sarah. Evolutionary Creationism: Kabbala Solves the Riddle of Missing Links. Jerusalem, Israel: A Still Small Voice, 2005