Creation Science: Neither Good Science nor Good Theology

{Published in The Buffalo News in 1999, original text submission follows. Incidentally, someone left me a voice mail the next day or so thanking me for being a religious education teacher that would stand up against pseudo-scientific theology.}

25 September, 1999
EDITORIAL SUBMISSION

Scripture holds a high place in my life, but I am appalled by the recent tolerance for so-called “creation science” in any classroom, even in religion class. The proponents of creationism were unable to enforce their exclusive world-view with religious rhetoric, pushing their own “strict” interpretation of the scripture we know today as “the Bible.” Hence the recent creation of “Creation Science” where the precepts are the same, but scientific methods and data are manipulated to fight Evolution on its own soil.

Scientists never had a need to force anything into religion class, but maybe it should (just a little), because the Bible itself provides all sorts of opportunities for common sense against “creation science.” First, in the original tongue, the world was not created in six days. The word traditionally translated as days refers to an indefinite period of time. Historically, the idea of seven days is more Sumerian than Semitic in origin.

But the big kicker is that the God of the Bible “made” life, but DID NOT create it from scratch. Genesis 1 (v.24) clearly states that God said “Let the Earth bring forth every kind of living creature…” This sounds pretty familiar to those of us with a background in real science. From this one verse, if you “take the Bible literally,” we know that when God “makes” something, there is no implication that it was called into existence out of nothing. In other words, Darwin wouldn’t make such a bad Christian after all.

Ken JP Stuczynski, religious education teacher, SS. Peter & Paul, Depew

1 Comment

Ken JP Stuczynski on 22 May, 2010 at 11:47 PM

{Addendum, January 2008}

From: http://www.tothesource.org/8_10_2006/8_10_2006.htm in response to “Tablet Theory” (http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html) which states that Genesis was written by eye-witness accounts, when real biblical scholars have clear, definitive knowledge that this is not true.

Response to editorial… I reviewed the source (from the feedback letter below). It’s a sham. There is no evidence that provides logically any conclusion stated in “tablet theory” while saying logical and supported theories are “disproved” … it’s all poorly constructed arguments from bizarrely interpreted fragments of unrelated data — a total waste of seemingly intelligent writing once it is broken down for what it is. – Ken Stuczynski

By choosing to present the nonsense that Adam was simply a hominid given a spirit, you are denying a good part of the Bible and presenting heresy. Either take or reject Genesis on its own terms and not on terms unbelieving humans are trying to thrust upon it. If you look at the most ancient of available translations, the Alexandrian LXX, by the way, you will find that in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 the cipher for ‘100’ has been dropped in the modern texts which are taken from the Masoretic translations. When the cipher is restored, the earth is shown to be closer to 8000 years old. Research into the speed of light and atomic constants confirms that date via hard data. Trying to combine some sort of evolutionary impossibilities with Genesis is misleading millions of people and those who are doing so and publishing it will end up having to answer for the damage they are doing to the faith of so many. Please consider more carefully what you are willing to publish. God either knows how to communicate with people or He does not. There is very good evidence that Genesis itself may be a series of eyewitness accounts written by Adam, Noah, his sons, and others who signed off on the accounts. Curt Sewell (died last November) did a very good job of presenting some of the evidence here: http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html Thank you, In Christ, – Barry and Helen Setterfield

What are they thinking … “the damage they are doing to the faith of so many”? If publishing a view different than someone else’s about the details or nature of biblical history is so dangerous, then faith must be a very fickle thing. That is not faith, but brainwashing, and all the reading of the bible in the world wont change the inability to understand it in a very basic way (contextually) if you are not willing.

So the author doesn’t realize he is speaking for God Himself: “God either knows how to communicate with people or He does not.”

The obvious response? He is making God an idiot, because if our ability to understand is the result of His ability to communicate, then why are there countless thousands of “literal” understandings of scripture that have so little in common? Maybe they don’t realize the damage THEY are doing by ignorantly putting words in the mouth of God. If scripture was so black and white, the best case explanation for this is that 99.9999% of people don’t know how to read. Any bets on if the above people are the particular ones with the truth? You’re nearly as likely to win the lottery.

I’m sorry that I can’t be more polite about this. This scriptural and scientific quackery has got to stop. It is breeding unthinking sheep, and an embarrassment to the rest of Christianity.

If I can find the original comment I sent them, I will publish it here. Adam a hominid with a soul = heresy? I’d rather be a heretic with a clue than a hypocrite with none.

Ken JP Stuczynski on 22 May, 2010 at 11:47 PM

{Addendum, January 2008}

From: http://www.tothesource.org/8_10_2006/8_10_2006.htm in response to “Tablet Theory” (http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html) which states that Genesis was written by eye-witness accounts, when real biblical scholars have clear, definitive knowledge that this is not true.

Response to editorial… I reviewed the source (from the feedback letter below). It’s a sham. There is no evidence that provides logically any conclusion stated in “tablet theory” while saying logical and supported theories are “disproved” … it’s all poorly constructed arguments from bizarrely interpreted fragments of unrelated data — a total waste of seemingly intelligent writing once it is broken down for what it is. – Ken Stuczynski

By choosing to present the nonsense that Adam was simply a hominid given a spirit, you are denying a good part of the Bible and presenting heresy. Either take or reject Genesis on its own terms and not on terms unbelieving humans are trying to thrust upon it. If you look at the most ancient of available translations, the Alexandrian LXX, by the way, you will find that in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 the cipher for ‘100’ has been dropped in the modern texts which are taken from the Masoretic translations. When the cipher is restored, the earth is shown to be closer to 8000 years old. Research into the speed of light and atomic constants confirms that date via hard data. Trying to combine some sort of evolutionary impossibilities with Genesis is misleading millions of people and those who are doing so and publishing it will end up having to answer for the damage they are doing to the faith of so many. Please consider more carefully what you are willing to publish. God either knows how to communicate with people or He does not. There is very good evidence that Genesis itself may be a series of eyewitness accounts written by Adam, Noah, his sons, and others who signed off on the accounts. Curt Sewell (died last November) did a very good job of presenting some of the evidence here: http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html Thank you, In Christ, – Barry and Helen Setterfield

What are they thinking … “the damage they are doing to the faith of so many”? If publishing a view different than someone else’s about the details or nature of biblical history is so dangerous, then faith must be a very fickle thing. That is not faith, but brainwashing, and all the reading of the bible in the world wont change the inability to understand it in a very basic way (contextually) if you are not willing.

So the author doesn’t realize he is speaking for God Himself: “God either knows how to communicate with people or He does not.”

The obvious response? He is making God an idiot, because if our ability to understand is the result of His ability to communicate, then why are there countless thousands of “literal” understandings of scripture that have so little in common? Maybe they don’t realize the damage THEY are doing by ignorantly putting words in the mouth of God. If scripture was so black and white, the best case explanation for this is that 99.9999% of people don’t know how to read. Any bets on if the above people are the particular ones with the truth? You’re nearly as likely to win the lottery.

I’m sorry that I can’t be more polite about this. This scriptural and scientific quackery has got to stop. It is breeding unthinking sheep, and an embarrassment to the rest of Christianity.

If I can find the original comment I sent them, I will publish it here. Adam a hominid with a soul = heresy? I’d rather be a heretic with a clue than a hypocrite with none.

Creation Science: Neither Good Science nor Good Theology

1 Comment

Categories