I thought this comment was worth answering as a post, as it concerns a matter that I am passionate about:
hi sherrinThere are some scientists who believe in a literal Genesis account!
have been reading your blog for quite some time now and would like to ask you a question.
The problem of the Creationism vs Evolution problem has recently showed up at our local college, causing a lot of strife between faculty and the religious, leading to walkouts during the middle of lectures.
With your husbands scientific training i take it he is a supporter of the evolution standpoint, while your views seem to me to take the bible for its literal value ie. Creationism about 6 thousand years ago.
Have you had this discussion with your husband and what are your views on this sticky issue?
My husband Dave is a supporter of the creation viewpoint. Dave's PHD supervisor, Geoff Downes, is also a supporter of a straight forward interpretation of the Genesis account. Dave chose to come to Australia to study partly on account of the fact that he had the opportunity to study under a devoted Christian man, as it is rare to be able to do so. He has been greatly blessed as a result of his desire to seek out godly company in his field. Geoff introduced Dave and I. Dave also lived on the Downes family property for months, and learnt a lot from interacting with them.
You may be interested in reading about why Geoff Downes became a creation scientist. He shares his testimony here. This testimony has been published in the book In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.
What I found was that the overwhelming majority of the scientific evidence we were taught bore no direct relation to either creation or evolution. The evidence that was presented within an evolutionary framework could equally well be reinterpreted within a creationist framework.
Geoff Downes and his family were also featured in Creation magazine in this issue. At this stage the full text of the article is not available online.
The deception of evolution
You may also be interested in an article titled It's not science which explains the difference between operational and origins science. Don Batton points out the distinction:
However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe).
One of the greatest deceptions of our time is that evolution has been proven and that it is an essential part of science. As Christians, we can understand that science is part of our Creation Mandate (Genesis 1:28) to take dominion over God's creation and to care for it.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28.
When Dave and Geoff study God's creation of trees, they are part of this process of understanding and caring for the earth.
What about Christians who believe in evolution?
Many well meaning Christians do hold to various evolutionist viewpoints. However, I believe there is no good reason for compromise in this area. We know the One who was there at the beginning - and his word can be trusted. Those who compromise upon Genesis do not realise that they are destroying the foundations of our faith. They are often trying to be evangelical - telling people that they can trust in evolution and Christ - yet fail to realise that evolution gives people the very foundation they need to ignore God. If the world could exist without God, and could evolve on its own, why should we believe in God or submit to his rule?
My grandfather was a passionate creation science supporter, and my foundation in this area was one of the reasons I came to know Christ. I wish that all Christians were blessed with such a strong foundation. Due to the blessing a strong creationist position has been to me, marrying someone who did not hold this position was not an option. I would not have courted anyone who did not interpret Genesis literally. I want any children I am blessed with to be given the same foundation that I was given.
The joy of being united
My husband and I are co-labourers in the Creation Mandate of caring for the earth under God, and bearing children whom we will train to do the same. It is essential that we are united. I am able to support Dave wholeheartedly in his work knowing that he is ultimately doing it for God's glory. It is exciting that when we go out and observe nature, Dave is able to share many facts that reinforce a creationist interpretation of Genesis.
Just to finish off, I want to say that if my husband and I did disagree on this matter our disagreement would not be published on the Internet! My job as a wife is to build up my husband and be united with him in pursuing Christ. I fail in this often, but I hope I will never make a premeditated decision to share disagreements on a forum like this! If I do, please email me at sherrindrewATgmail.com and let me know that I'm not living up to what I profess to believe!