Sunday, December 13, 2009

A Theological Objection to Creationism


"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
- Genesis 1-31

"They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?"
- From "Jocko Homo", lyrics by Mark Mothersbaugh
Devotees of Charles Darwin have had a lot to celebrate this year. February 12th was the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, and November 24 was the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, "On the Origin of Species".

Inevitably, the Darwin Day celebrations have led to yet another round of the old creation-evolution debate. Many of the world's leading scientists have weighed in on the side of evolution, pointing out the scientific flaws in creationism.

I would like to present a side of this debate that gets considerably less coverage: the theological case against creationism. In their attempt to force fit the parables of Genesis into a scientific theory, creationists undermine the book's true meaning.

Genesis actually has two separate creation stories. Chapter 1 and the first three verses of chapter 2 of Genesis present the "seven days" creation story, where God creates the world in six days, then rests on the seventh day. The "Adam and Eve" creation story is presented in the rest of chapter 2 and chapter 3.

In a mere 34 verses, the "seven days" creation story eloquently expresses a deep appreciation of the beauty of our universe. Almost like a musical refrain, this creation story has each day of creation ending with God observing His work and deeming it good. This heartfelt expression of the awe and wonder of nature resonates with many who reject a scientific interpretation of the story.

If you wish to view Genesis as science instead of parable, however, there is a serious problem with the "seven days" story: it contradicts the "Adam and Eve" story. In the "seven days" parable, humans are created on the six day, after all other creatures were created. In the "Adam and Eve" story, man is created before any other creature. This is not a problem if you view both stories as parable, but it clearly is a problem if you want to view these stories as history. Major creationists have a novel way to resolve this contradiction: they posit that God was displeased with his "seven days" creation, and so God destroyed it all and started again with Adam and Eve. In their view, I guess Genesis left out this epilogue to "seven days" story:
On the eight day, God saw His creation and said "Sheesh! What was I thinking last week?" He then buried His previous week's creation in a big hole, and hoped that no one would notice His blunder. He then started afresh to create the universe, hoping that this time, He would get it right.
In their attempt to attempt to defend the literal accuracy of Genesis, these creationists threw out one of it's major themes -- the very message that Genesis 1 is trying to impart to us! This does considerably more damage to Genesis that the position of many Catholics, mainstream protestants and religious liberals that Genesis should be viewed a parable.

In short, creationism is not just bad science. It is also terrible theology.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Dreams of My President

"War is the Health of the State"
- Randolph Bourne

"Even big politicians don't know what to do
Gracie doesn't know either, but neither do you,
So vote for Gracie!"

- "Vote for Gracie" sung by Gracie Allen

Tonight our president gave his long awaited speech on the Afghan war. In the next six months, 30,000 additional American troops will be sent to Afghanistan. Peace activists such as Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Tom Hayden have expresses their deep disapproval of this Afghan surge. After all, they supported Obama to end the wars. Wasn't Obama elected on a peace platform?

Well, not quite. During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama actually supported the Afghan war. He fervently opposed the war in Iraq, and he may well have won based on his opposition to that conflict. But one of the Barack's most frequent arguments against the Iraq war was that it was diverting our efforts from the conflict we should be concentrating on, the Afghan war. He made his feelings on this issue quite explicit: this point was brought up in his televised debates with both Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

So how could these peace activists not remember the positions president Obama took just last year? It might be that Obama's rise was so fast that he was elected before having much of a track record. In the absence of said record, he became a political Rorschach test: people saw in him what they wanted to see. The peace activists dreamed of a President that opposed both wars, and Obama's anti-Iraq war rhetoric convinced them that Obama was the candidate of their dreams.

My sympathy for these peace activists is rather limited. Obama stated his hawkish position on Afghanistan rather clearly, and everything he said tonight is consistent with his 2008 campaign stand. They ignored what Barack said at their own peril; it is time for these dreamers to wake up.