Whatever Happened to Creation?

Why Are Many Modern Christian Writers Starting to Avoid Genesis 1-3?

D uring the last two to four decades an alarming number of Christian writers and theologians have decided not to defend the doctrine of Creation as originally understood and as biblically maintained in Genesis. Rather, the tendency has become to insist that Creation should only be seen and understood futuristically, or eschatologically (that is: in the future, both believers and the earth itself will undergo a re-creation). Others insist that the Creation narrative should now only be understood poetically.

Chandra Wickramasinghe is no creationist but a very distinguished mathematician/astronomer. He stated that, 'For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all planets of the universe - and finding it.'

Two generally very worthwhile theologians, Wolfhart Pannenberg and Stanley Grenz are typical here. The Stanley Grenz 'Theology for the Community of God,' a systematic theology of just under 900 pages and dating from 1994, has a chapter (4), entitled, 'The Creator God,' but there is no discussion of the original creation to be found anywhere. In his fifth chapter, 'The Human Identity and Our Origin in God,' Grenz does refer to Adam and he affirms the clear theological necessity of his (Adam) being a historical figure (Christ, after all, is called the 'second Adam'); that is good. Yet he states very little about him or about the creation narrative in Genesis. While it is certainly true that the approach of Grenz is always philosophical rather than being a painstaking, or a verse-by-verse consideration and delineation of doctrine, I always find it a little sad when the Genesis creation narrative is plainly being avoided. I must say that I remain a general admirer of Grenz, however.

It is sad when the more biblical theologians feel that it is safer to leave the Genesis creation narrative well alone (more liberal theologians have kicked it into touch a long while ago!). All of this, of course, is because of the rise of 'scientism,' which teaches that science alone now holds the path to all ultimate truth. Richard Dawkins is a keen disciple of this school of thought, dismissing Genesis as being a mere myth which no intelligent person should take seriously. In contrast, he depicts his own view as "truth." He used this word a lot in a recent BBC TV 'Newsnight' interview (September, 2011). This, by the way, was a technically lamentable interview in which Jeremy Paxman refused to really interview Dawkins, apparently because he was so in awe of him. Dawkins was allowed to get away with his depiction of science as "truth" in contrast to the Bible (something of quite low regard). Paxman did point out that the Bible has better stories than evolution and isn't it nicer to say that human beings are made "in the image of God" rather than saying that we evolved, over millions of years, from a fish? But there was no serious challenge coming from Paxman and Dawkins just happily 'plugged' his new book (yet another attack on Christian belief).

I call on all Christian writers to uphold, and not to avoid, the Genesis creation narrative. Do they not realise that this Genesis account is actually far more believable than the incredible leaps of logic which macro-evolution requires? But the sheer and utterly overwhelming scientific and mathematical improbability of the claims of macro-evolution has become the best kept secret of evolutionists - we exaggerate not! Evolutionists really don't want you to bring up the subject of the mathematical/logical probability of evolutionist claims to them.

In his outstanding book, 'Does God Believe in Atheists?,' John Blanchard gathers some amazing quotes and admissions from scientists on the staggering improbability of life having started randomly on this earth:

"Interviewed for the 'Daily Express,' [Chandra] Wickramasinghe said that...I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth. He went on to illustrate the odds involved: 'For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all planets of the universe - and finding it.' Significantly, he told the newspaper that the conclusion to which his mathematical calculations had driven him came as 'quite a shock,' as from his earliest training as a scientist he was strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation.'...Elsewhere Wickramasinghe was equally emphatic: 'Living systems could not have been generated by random processes, within a finite time-scale, in a finite universe.'" (p 298, Does God Believe in Atheists? - John Blanchard, 2000 hardback; Evangelical Press).

We should stress that Chandra Wickramasinghe is not a Christian creationist! He is a former university professor (now retired) of applied mathematics and astronomy. But he is a very honest scientist. Moreover, Richard Dawkins and his fellow fundamentalist atheists continue to talk as though the outstanding work of Michael Behe and others had not yet arrived on the scene. Behe, and the principle of 'irreducible complexity' can now demonstrate that so-called 'primitive life forms' are far from primitive. A human cell, for example, is now known to be a miniature factory of incredible complexity, moreover, it is an 'all or nothing' system - take one part away and it does not function, so how could such a thing have gradually evolved?? Again, Behe is not a creationist but is acknowledged to be a very clever molecular biologist but one who refuses to bow at the altar of 'scientism' (science alone can reveal the full meaning of life).

In a 1997 article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, molecular biologist Hubert Yockey (even though a convinced evolutionist), admitted that there is no evidence at all for the spontaneous evolution of even the simplest life-forms: 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.' (source: Blanchard's book, p310).

I will give the last quote here to writer Rob Frost, a former atheist:

"If the scientist prefers to suggest that there is no 'God,' nor 'Creator,' and no 'first cause,' what does atheism offer him intellectually? The atheist must, of necessity, believe that matter without mind created reason and logic. Matter without intelligence created understanding and comprehension. Matter without morals created complex ethical codes and legal systems. Matter without conscience created a sense of right and wrong. Matter without emotion created skills and art, music, drama, architecture, comedy, literature and dance. Matter without design created in humankind an insatiable hunger for meaning and purpose." (p 41, Thinking About God and Science - David Wilkinson and Rob Frost. Monarch, 1996).

So actually creationists remain in a strong position yet they seem to have lost heart in defending Genesis. Why? Much of it is because of propaganda coming from outspoken fundamentalist atheists such as Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, none of it is because of anything new being discovered nor established within real, non-propagandized science. The truth is that Christian Creationism remains in a very strong position, so let us all rediscover our passion to defend the Word of God.
Robin A. Brace. October 12th, 2011.