From: hamilton@hydra.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Musings on a theory of creation
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:45:26 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI

A recurring theme on t.o. is the request from noncreationists for the
creationists to put forward a theory of creation. (Usually it's called
a "theory of creationism", but I believe theory of creation is a more
accurate description of what is being requested. After all, there is a 
theory of evolution, but as far as I know, there is no theory of
evolutionism.)

This request is quite reasonable, in view of the fact that most of the
creationists who post to t.o. appear to be "Scientific" creationists - that is,
they claim that their interpretation of geology and natural history, based on 
their interpretation of Scripture, is more "scientifically plausible" than
the conventional understanding of geology and natural history. 

But usually the response from creationists is silence, sometimes preceded
by a promise to serve it up to us right away. The problem as I see it, from
a conservative Christian point of view is that the religion of most
t.o. creationists (Christianity) is not about theories, in particular
it is not about theories which if established, would establish the
existence of God.  In fact, the Bible spends few if any bytes on 
trying to establish the existence of God. One of the Psalms says "The
fool has said in his heart, 'there is no god'".  The Bible speaks from the
point of view that God is known to exist and has revealed Himself in the
Scriptures and through the Holy Spirit.  Even the passages we Christians
often cite as proof that nature reveals God really talk about His attributes, 
not His existence (Psalm 8 and Romans 1:20). Furthermore the Bible portrays
God as a Deity Who reveals Himself to those who seek Him. Generally He 
doesn't force Himself on those who aren't looking for Him. So it would be
logically inconsistent for a theory of creation to come out of the Christian
"Scientific" Creationist community - at least one that scientists would
consider a theory. Such a theory, if established, would be a proof 
of the existence of God. 
If God did not see fit to prove His existence to the satisfaction of all
skeptics, I would not expect Him to want His followers to attempt that
sort of proof either. 

Christians who get into "Scientific" creationism aren't
looking for a theory. They're looking for a means of backing up their
particular understanding of Scripture. The output of ICR and other
creationist organizatons isn't intended for presentation before a
scientific audience. (Well that's probably a matter of opinion.
Many creationists may think it is, and some ICR folks may think it is,
but it's certainly not the kind of material I'd put my name on and
submit to a conference.) It's intended to bolster the faith of Christians
who are troubled by scientific knowledge that appears to contradict
what they see as an essential element of their faith. I have quite a bit of
sympathy for them - I went through a period in which I was a fairly
convinced creationist. Even a year ago when I "discovered" talk. origins,
I was still struggling with the creation/evolution issue. Chris Stassen
helped me deal with the geology issue, through his posts and some
email exchanges in which he pointed me to references that helped. Many of
you helped with the other issues that bothered me. Thanks. 

So where have I come out? Has my faith been challenged? Yes! Am I still
a Christian? Yes! Do I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Yes!
How do I look at the parts of the Bible which seem to contradict 
a current body of theory in use by scientists? Several ways:

1.  The Bible tells us about the works of a Spiritual Being, many of which
    are miraculous (i.e. not explicable in terms of the known laws of
    chemistry and physics) If I could develop naturalistic explanations
    of all the events in the Bible, there wouldn't be any miracles left.
    God didn't intend us to understand *everything* - just as much as
    we can learn by our own efforts and (for believers) as much as 
    we can understand of what He teaches us.

2.  Science is not complete. (Praise God for that. thousands
    of scientists would be out of work if it were)

3.  Our understanding of Scripture is not perfect.

So: Should t.o. posters continue to ask creationists for a theory of 
creation? Absolutely.  While it is unlikely that a defensible theory
will ever be offered, perhaps it will help open the eyes of at least
some creationists to the fundamental differences in aims and methods 
between science and Christianity.  Not conflict - just differences.

Bill Hamilton
GM Research Labs

Newsgroups: talk.origins