I find it difficult to harbor two contradictory notions in my mind at the same time. And, in reference to the title of the piece, I really am not a creationist at any time. What I do is study the Torah, portion by portion (and not every word in every portion) as the weeks work their way down through the year.
The title of a piece in Science Times this morning, Creationism and Science Clash at Grand Canyon Bookstores, speaks to the idea that the bookstores, at least, can harbor conflicting stories on nearby shelves. I can talk about the science of evolution and the idea of creationism but they are not equal and are a bit like apples and oranges. Both are fruits of the human mind, but they are not the same, are unequal and one masquerades as a replacement for the science of evolution.
I would like to believe -. I didn’t finish this sentence that would have ended in – in creationism in its aspect as a story about a divine being creating the universe in an orderly fashion and by ending with fashioning humans out of clay and giving them “free will”. This is dangerous stuff and it is much safer to argue about differing scientific explanations for how we got here. I easily switch between the Bible’s version and the scientific explanations for black holes and even, alternate universes. But, that is the human mind for you. While difficult we can entertain mutually exclusive and opposite ideas and not go crazy.
On mornings that I study Ruach (spiritual matters) I dip into the weekly portion of the “Old” Testament. Christians have made that distinction because they choose to believe in the books of a “New” Testament. This is about the life and times of Jesus whom they proclaim as the son of God (THE God) who created the science of CREATIONISM – or maybe I have gotten that wrong and mere men have created that “science”. Saturday mornings are great for there are from 30 to 40 of us (sometimes you can find somebody under 50), and we argue, dispute, proclaim and postulate and a lot of other human exchange of ideas. The time passes too quickly and we cover too little ground.
What we have is a leader who prepares a great deal and sometimes delves into the studies of the same portions but which were completed perhaps a thousand years ago and contrasted with a modern commentator from yesterday’s news. Sometimes the leader is left with plans unrealized while a few of us (me, mainly) fly off into the wild blue yonder of speculation, “What if?” I like science but it lacks the sparks that are set off by the students of Ruach on Saturday mornings.