The science textbooks take the approach that, after hundreds of years of scientific progress in understanding the natural world in terms of physical processes, there is in every likelihood a natural chain of events leading from non-life to life (even if we never figure it out). After all, the reasoning might go, here we are. Trying to stay clear of a confrontation with a multitude of religious claims, the textbooks do not attempt an analysis of natural versus super-natural causation. What they do teach is the consensus view of our understanding of the natural world (albeit always a few years out-of-date).
The creationists here are coming from a different viewpoint - they already know God "poofed" everything into existence 6,000 years ago, and so reject any claim that a natural chain of events led to life, because they "know" that is not how it was done.
Just as with ID, even if we can't figure out HOW it could have happened, this does not mean that God did it via a supernatural event- it just means that we have not figured it out. So we are back to the classic God-in-the-gaps explanation. YEC-ers argue for gaps in our understanding where they can say, "see, God did it." Inevitably, the gaps reconfigure, and the YEC-ers are forced to say "What I meant was, God did that."
Compare this with geocentrism in Martin Luther's time. The gap was different, but the approach is the same.
| Quote: |
| "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." - Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43. |
Martin Luther based his geocentrism on the Bible (just like YECs), he denied the evidence in deference to his interpretation of Scripture (just like YECs), and he was demonstrably wrong (just like the YECs).
The YEC position results in:
- a celebration ignorance (God acts only where we don't know what happened - as soon as it is explained "scientifically" God disappears from view),
- discouraging real science (any attempt to demonstrate the "hows" of a gap are seen as part of an anti-God agenda), and
- distorting our educational system (instead of learning about the world, the classroom is given over to partisan wrangling about the validity of the Genesis account of creation).
So not only do I think the YEC approach is flawed as both an approach to biblical interpretation AND as science; it also shrinks God to fit into a set of ever-diminishing, tawdry gaps.
