One of the most basic objections by creationists to evolution seems to be: why would God need to take the time to evolve things over time, when he could have simply created them "already evolved" at the start?
I would respond with a question: Why would God take 6 days to create the universe, if he could have done it all in just 1?
This is not a joke, and is not meant to be disrespectful of Christians. It is an honest question. Why do you see no problem with God taking longer than he needs to to "pop" everything into existence, but then turn around and see a giant problem with God taking longer than he needs to to form life from other life (i.e., to evolve it) gradually? If the 6-days account is not problematic, then why on Earth would the 13-billion-year account be? Surely either length of time is equally unnecessary for an omnipotent Creator.
2007-03-08
08:44:07
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Rob Diamond
3
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Jonah-nine, a cook takes time to bake a cake because he's not omnipotent. If cooks were omnipotent, they'd just "poof" cakes into being, wouldn't they? So your answer doesn't solve anything.
The issue stands: if God needs or wants to create things over the course of time, rather than instantaneously, then why is the billion-year scientific account any less compatible with God than the 6-day Genesis account? Who are you to tell God that it's OK to spend a week creating, but any longer than that is out of the question? Who are you to tell God that "poofing" creatures out of thin air is OK, but evolving them from each other is not?
2007-03-08
08:53:37 ·
update #1