The latest Time magazine included a "God Vs. Science" dialogue between Richard Dawkins, an atheist, and Francis Collins (right), a Christian who headed up the human genome mapping project. Collins is an interesting fellow. He's not a literal seven-day creationist and holds old-earth views, which places him in opposition to our fundamentalist brethren (and perhaps a majority of UBs). I'm very intrigued with and drawn to his views, and I appreciated his spirit in this dialogue. Dawkins came off as very combative and close-minded, whereas the Christian was courteous and more open-minded on things. Interesting.
At one point, Dawkins suggests that Collins "cease to give [Fundamentalists] the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?"
Collins responds, "I think we don't do a service to dialogue between science and faith to characterize sincere people by calling them names. That inspires an even more dug-in position. Atheists sometimes come across as a bit arrogant in this regard, and characterizing faith as something only an idiot would attach themselves to is not likely to help your case." Touche!
A bit later, Dawkins suggests that Christians are lazy and lacking in scientific credibility. Collins replies, "I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is."
I loved it! Collins was showing that the atheist was the close-minded, dug-in person because he refused to accept the possibility of a supernatural world. Elsewhere, he said because scientists are restricted to the physical world--what they can see, hold, and measure--they can't truly weigh-in regarding God, because God isn't restricted to the physical world.
It's great seeing a Christian like Francis Collins show, to hard-core scientists, that God and science are not incompatible. Unfortunately, many Christians would shun Collins because he accepts the idea that God might have created the world through evolution. I, too, hold that view. The difference is that I would get demolished if asked to defend that view around anyone with a halfway decent IQ.
Career-wise, I've been hanging around and writing about and cheering on churches and pastors for the past 25 years as my denomination's Communications Director.
Why is it so hard for some Christians to accept the Genesis account of Creation? The verses are so clear...the evening and morning were the first day, second day, etc. We, in our finite minds, cannot begin to comprehend what God is capable of. He created a mature earth, mature animals, mature growth. He did not have to have time to create everything we have. We should not try to take away from the awesomeness of His Creation.
J,
I received a Biology degree from my denominations (UB just like Steve.) university. I had two main professors. One was a theistic evolutionist. The other held a hybrid view and called himself a progressive creationist. He held that God created supernaturally and then allowed evolution to take its course. Then from time to time, at key moments in the progression, God created supernaturally again. This is how he explained the jump to vertebrates for example.
For the record, I am a literal creationist, like you, for reasons I won't go into here. However, I want to say that your complaint in your post is not valid for either of my professors. HOW God created did not diminish His awesomeness in the minds of either of my professors. You seem to think that how God created impacts His greatness. Would God have been even greater had He created the world in only one day? Argue all you want for your view. I am just suggesting that to hold another view does not necessarily mean one views God as less great.