Skip to main content

Creation vs. Science

Having lived in the Bible belt for 10 years, the debate about what is taught in public schools always includes the debate about science vs. creation or both. Being raised in the Midwest and living there again now, this doesn't seem to be such a big issue. So why is it that there's this need, in places where Christianity tends to be more conservative, to keep going over and over this issue?

I believe that it's an issue of knowing absolutes. When you take the Bible as a literal document and one that can be used to support history, you need everything within the Bible to be validated. It has to be black and white to make the Bible make sense in those terms. There's a strong desire within all of humankind to understand how we got here and why things happen in our lives. The Bible talks about many of these basic human questions, yet there's still a problem. The Bible was never meant to be a history or science book.

So going back to the creation story, oops I mean stories (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contain two very different accounts of creation), we can see that the Bible records creation in two different ways. There are no scientific formulas or real numbers given. There's no statement about how a day is defined, or time for that matter. Yet there's movements within Christianity to justify that the earth is only 6,000 years old based on creation being formed in 6 days - that are on God's time. We have fossil records that indicate the creation, destruction and change of living beings - humans being one of them. So what to do in a society that seems very focused on dualities - living in this either/or.

I would like to argue for the both/and approach. I would like to say that a person can be just as faithful to religion by believing that there is true in the recorded stories of faith and also believe that there is a science to the world that we are still learning and will probably never fully understand. I believe that you can be a good scientist, searching for formulas and the observable changes and also believe that there's a Higher Power that put things into motion. To understand and believe in 1 side does not mean that the other is invalid. You can be the both/and and we can know the both/and and it be okay. To truly learn to listen to the other is not a bad thing and doesn't have to be scary. I hope that religion and science can learn to respect and listen to each other. Both might be better for it in the end.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Political vs. Partisan in Preaching

For years now, I have heard in preaching and clergy circles about being political in sermons; the good, the bad and those who state that church shouldn’t be political. There are workshops, books, and podcasts talking about politics in the church with a variety of opinions. What do people mean when they make the statement that the church shouldn’t be political? The IRS has the most say about the rules for the separation of church and state/politics. If your church wants to be tax exempt, there are rules: don’t endorse any candidate or party, if you allow one party to use your space, other political parties also must be allowed to use the space, etc. The UCC’s general counsel, Heather Kimmell, has a webinar on this topic if you’d like to hear a more detailed explanation which can be found on the UCC’s YouTube channel. Churches have gotten “creative” in how to get around this, often partnering with another non-profit group to give support to a particular group. The UCC is proud to claim...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Day in the Life: A Minister and Forgiveness

 I shared in one of my last blogs that I had complaints lodged against me by a small group in my congregation. Most seem to have moved on after our group meeting, where I apologized for a lot of things - probably more then I should have had too. But I'm the professional in those settings so I did it.  I'm not being told, second hand, that two of those in that meeting want a one on one apology from me because what I said in the meeting wasn't good enough. This is the couple who cursed in my church, have flat out lied about me and have repeatedly stated that the only outcome they're willing to accept is my termination.  Let me explain why I won't be having a one on one meeting with this couple and I won't be giving any more apologies. First, lets start with the apology part. I have apologized for my actions - maybe my misinterpretations is a better term. Based off of their actions and words, I communicated with the proper board/committee and asked for consensus ab...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Okayist Pastor - Weekly Reflection 6/13/25

The things - the things. As I try to think of how I want to start this post I'm stuck on the words "the things..." Yesterday I had a member come talk to me, who was talking to me on behalf of another member, who had apparently called the vice moderator of the congregation. That's a whole lot of triangulation that I'm not even going to touch on this blog because that's a whole other blog.  I was told that because I had set out the roses for the confirmands on Sunday (because I had to set out their certificates, stoles, robes, and other gifts from the congregation) and I had filled pitchers with water and put them in the refrigerator while I was waiting on people to drop off things to the church so we had cold water for a funeral reception, I was over stepping and had offended a member. This comes flying at me after I had people write formal letters of complaint to my denominations oversight group because I wrote thank you notes last fall to members who returned...
Post a Comment
Read more