I’ve just reviewed The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is scientifically accurate by Dr Andrew Parker who attempted to reconcile Genesis 1 with the chronology of evolution. As a non-Christian scientist but one open and not hostile to religion he was scathing of what is called ‘creationism’; the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 of a six day creation no more than 10,000 years ago. Of course all Christians believe in God’s creation, that God is the Creator and without Him there would be nothing we’re just no longer united on the details.

Here is some of what Parker said:

Talking of the explanation for fossils: “In this view, God had apparently hidden fossils in the rocks to tempt geologists to faithlessness, a ridiculous argument sadly still wheeled out by some creationists today.” (p122)

On scientific progress: “Each time someone proposes a different view on the accepted mechanisms (most of which are explanations for new observations), creationists pop up to say that this refutes evidence for evolution altogether. This is not the way to make intellectual progress.” (p133)

On responses to evolution: “As evolutionists continued to present their reliable, scientifically validated data, religious factions tried all sorts of tricks to undermine evolution. Some were dishonest and all were devious.” (p231)

On the use of the word ‘theory’: “A cunning creationist would argue that Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory is just one of many that account for life on earth, fraudulently detracting from the achievements of these great scientists and at the same time misleading the public.” (p295)

On science education: “They are perfectly entitled to believe this [a 6000 year old earth], of course – faith is faith – but in doing so they are turning their back on evolution which we know to be factual. Crank philosophy results. These ‘creationists’, or fundamentalists, become harmful to science, however, when they concoct theories that reinterpret the evidence, and then advocate the teaching of these in schools.” (p301)

On the impact of creationism: “But come on, all you advocates of the Bible’s every word: if you believe simply because your faith tells you so, then just accept that faith is your only argument. This would be far more dignified than childishly mangling the facts and concocting a dishonourable theory into which they can be stuffed. It’s no wonder that scientists will fail to take such theories seriously; and worse than that, the scientific world will begin to label religion as unintelligent and unreasonable. That’s religion in general – even the more rational approaches to faith and the divine…” (p304)

Why point all that out? I’m sure there is room to disagree with Dr Parker here but simply put if that is the view you hold you need to know what you’re up against. In the field of apologetics creationists need a game changer, indisputable scientific evidence. It’s no wonder no one wants to debate with them, not because of the quality of the science but because of the deeply held view that creationism is anti-science why give cranks the oxygen of publicity? It would be (in their view) akin to me opening up my pulpit to the residents of the asylum, why do it?

It’s now wonder that people like Karl Giberson writes things like this.

“Science is not a sinister enterprise aimed at destroying faith. It’s an honest exploration of the wonderful world that God created. We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive? To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?” And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.”

I hold very little hope for creationism as a successful apologetic without some startling breakthrough. What do you think?