Vol. XI • 1989 http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v11n3p09.htm
Creation Scientists: A Non-Scientist’s Observations
Beth Impson
Creation Scientists: A Non-Scientist’s Observations
Beth Impson
When I first met Jesus, while I was an undergraduate at a state university, I was an evolutionist. Not particularly by thought or study —the belief was merely the inevitable outcome of the assumptions of my public school education. As I began reading the Bible, many of my "tolerant" liberal notions began to fall away. If, for example, Jesus was "a" way to heaven (as I had conceded before my salvation), my Bible reading made me realize that He had to be "the" (only) way. Since evolution had not been actively taught to me, but merely assumed throughout my earlier education, it didn't take long for me to see the necessary correlation between a literal Fall (thus a literal creation) and the need for the Savior I had already embraced. My literary background helped me to reject theistic evolution: since God was perfectly capable of creating the world and its inhabitants in 6 literal days, wouldn't there be more evidence in the story itself that it was a "myth" or "allegory" if indeed it were? Thus over a relatively short period of time I turned from passive acceptance of evolution to a literal and well-considered belief of Genesis 1-2, based not on scientific evidence but on my faith in God and His Word
I admit that the agony of a Christian brother majoring in palaeontology puzzled me — surely there must be a scientific explanation for the physical data (fossils, etc.) which didn't contradict the Bible; surely he could discover it somewhere. The experience did intrigue me, though, and some years later—after seeing a film on the Paluxy River discoveries—when my husband was invited to attend a debate of Henry Morris and Duane Gish with some professors at my alma mater, I was as excited about his going as he was. While the memory of specific information has faded since 1975, one aspect of the debate has stayed strongly with him: while the evolutionist scientists kept bringing in God, the Bible and their opponents personal beliefs, Morris and Gish never did. They spoke solely about physical evidence and made assertions based only on that evidence and ordinary logic. (They did not ridicule or personally attack their opponents, either, in spite of receiving quite a bit of such abuse themselves.)
That debate led us into an informal study of origins and creation science, and so we have observed the creation science movement for some 13 years now, reading books and journals, seeing films, attending lectures, visiting museums, etc. My purpose here is simply to delineate some of the goals and purposes we see in that movement and its effect on us.
Obviously, creation scientists see their work as a ministry to the body of Christ. God has shown them in various ways why the act of special creation (in its 6 literal days) is so important to our faith as believers, and they are trying to combat the continual brainwashing of the world. As individuals, our faith has been strengthened by the work of these men. While bath of us already believed in creation, it is encouraging to once more see the actual evidence that we needn't put our minds on the shelf to believe what God has said—we merely need to have them regenerated so as to understand it! (For me it brought back Josh McDowell's careful analysis of the evidence for the resurrection—I had never doubted the event but it was helpful to see how irrefutable it really is, even in the world's own terms.)
Theirs is a ministry of equipping, also. Because evolution is the predominant philosophy underlying all education today, many people—believers as well as unbelievers—have honest questions about creation. It has been helpful to be able to answer those questions or at least tell someone where the answers can be found. Of course, we "take it on faith" that God created the earth —but it is not wrong to show that our faith is supported by the world's system of evidence (which is, after all, based on God's orderly creation!). Thomas may have been rebuked but he wasn't rejected—and he had far less excuse to doubt Jesus' resurrection than anyone today might have to doubt creation as a fact. The work of these scientists has been invaluable to us in equipping our children, too, not having to refute on our own the world's version of science but to use in our home school Christian materials that already have the correct view.
Never have we heard any creation scientist suggest that the act of creation could be "proven," in the scientific sense of that word. Always they point out that finally each of us must make a leap of faith, because no one was there to observe the origin of the world. Their goal, rather, is to point out that evolution is no more provable than creation, and that one can take the same evidence, apply it to both hypotheses, and see which one is the better supported. It has been claimed that no one was ever saved by seeing the scientific evidence for creation. Perhaps not, but we know of many who have been compelled to make a choice when they could no longer deny that the scientific evidence pointed clearly towards order and design — and thus, inevitably, a Designer. (Creation Ex Nihilo has some excellent articles by and about such scientists.) And of course there are evolutionists who admit the evidence is weak but explicitly state that they continue to believe evolution because they do not wish to admit there might be a God.
As believers, then, we've been encouraged and built up in our faith by the ministry of creation scientists. As home schooling parents, we've been grateful for the materials provided by these scientists to use as a basis for our science curriculum. And as witnesses, we've benefited from the availability of answers to honest questions.
I teach English at a state university now. It is not the most supportive environment for one who believes in special creation and all its implications (though l've so far been blessed with a freedom from persecution not always found). The creation science movement has benefited me here, as well — because of my membership in CSSHS, I was challenged to take a stand for Christ and creation from the moment of my first interview for the position I now hold. And the thoughtful consideration of creation as a scientific hypothesis (not only a given of my faith) has given me invaluable insight into rhetoric and the teaching of writing.
Creation is the foundation of our faith and fundamental to our understanding in all areas of knowledge. Thank God for those men and women who have been led to help us understand its importance.
|
|
 |
|