As some of you may remember, I recently had a rather passionate discussion with the author of ‘Theology Archaeology’ on the subject of gay marriage and rights. It does not surprise me to learn that the author is in favour of creationism. I quote:

Those who side with God on our origins, are not telling God anything. They are merely repeating what he told us about his creative act in the beginning. God never said he used science thus it is those who advocate for a scientific origins that are trying to tell God how he should have made the universe and life on this planet.
Whenever I read comments from those who have rejected Genesis 1 & 2 in favor of secular science, I see the same common theme. They are the ones doing exactly as they accuse those who believe God and who reject secular science’s alternatives. This never fails no matter what the topic or issue, those who reject God and his revelations, are always guilty of committing those errors

First up, it would seem that they regard the story of Genesis as literal truth. This doesn’t match up to the wealth of information we have on evolution, and the age of the earth, and the age of the universe, but apparently it’s unreasonable to reject creationism, for rejecting the Bible as a literal source is close-minded.

It gets worse:

The problem with this is, ‘solid science’ may not be telling the truth. Some one forgot to tell Pope Leo that there was a thing called right and wrong, true and false teaching and those biblical teachings apply to science as well.

Biblical teachings might apply to science in the sense that to some scientists, they act as a moral compass (ie, we shouldn’t pursue that research because it might hurt someone), but in the sense that it applies to our origins and understanding of the universe? No, sorry, the literal interpretation of the Bible is but one interpretation, irrespective of TA’s argument.

The church is not opposed to solid science, it is opposed to the lies that secular science produces. Yes, science lies when it says that God and the bible is in error.

Science can get things wrong, but there’s a difference between an error and a deliberate lie. Science does not lie when it comes to observations on the age of the known universe, or the age of certain rocks, or the timescale of processes required to form stars and planets. It does not lie when it comes to evolution and mutation. Science is about observation – it would be a lie to ignore what those observations tell us, in favour of religion (which provides us with several conflicting creation ideas, all of which are claimed to be correct).

But if you using religion to do science, a field that says your religion is in error, then what good is your religion? It seems that the person who adopts this attitude has a faulty religious belief for it allows the holder to be taken away from that religious belief.Science is NOT God’s authoritative representative. The Bible is and when science says that authoritative work is not authoritative or correct, then there is something wrong with the science, not the Bible.

As before, science is about observation. Religion is about faith. Religious beliefs also vary – upon which one do we place our creation? Because the faithful of each (especially the fundamentalists) will claim theirs as the one true origin story. Science on the other hand, offers not only neutral ground, but testable facts and theories. It’s far better to do what the Reverend of my local Church says, and treat Biblical tales not as literal fact, but as allegories (at least in some cases).

I’m afraid this is a case of blind fundamentalism, rejecting not only observable information, but any other possible interpretation of a religious text.