La, La, La, I Can't Hear You!

I recently watched this video about a Creationist Museum. Feel free to take the time to watch and enjoy:

Just in case you didn't watch (the pyrotechnics aren't as good as you would think), it is about an actual scientist (complete with British accent) going to a creationist museum in Kentucky. What I found interesting was the host's conversation with the "scientist" on staff at the museum. This is someone who has a PhD in something (we never find out where he got the PhD) who says he believes science until it goes against the bible. Thus even though all the signs and data of science suggest that the earth is billions of years old (or is it millions?) he believes the earth is about 6,000 years old and was created in six days because that is what the bible says. Obviously, according to him, we are missing something with our science.

So we have someone who chooses to "believe" science and at the same time to "believe" in a literal reading of scripture. My first reaction is to shout at this young upstart and say, "pick something because you can't have both!" Either he should be in the camp of science or the camp of biblical literalism, but not in both (note that I am not equating biblical literalism with Christianity... please, please, please note this).

Yet I ascribe to the tenets of science, as much as I understand them, while ascribing to an idea that there is a creator who is separate from us, who is concerned about us, etc. Scientifically, my faith is not logical and many would wonder if it is possible to hold both views together.

Yet my stance allows for the two to stand together in their own right. Granted some scientists would argue otherwise pointing to the illogic belief in a creator, but that is their stance and their issue. Such a stubborn, atheists stance is akin to the biblical literalist stance. For me science is just below faith (as it is for the creationist scientist), but my faith does not contradict or constrict science. The nice thing about faith, as I practice it, is that no matter what science says I can always posit a prime mover/creator a priori. There is always room for God.

The creationist, on the other hand, will restrict science when it goes against a literalist reading of scripture. His approach does not allow for both to stand together because one forces the other. Science is not free, nor is faith (because everything has to occur exactly as it is written in scripture).

If we want to stand in two worlds at the same time, I would argue that we need to find a way to do just that while allowing each to exist as freely as possible. That would make for good science and good theology.

Unfortunately the creationist is offering a stubborn, closed-minded view of scripture that offers neither good science or good theology.