Creationism – open for change?

One of the chief criticisms that I hear levelled against members of the “intellectual dark ages” like myself (e.g. young-earth Creationist types) is that we’re so close-minded. In fact, a popular trend in anti-Creationism writing these days seems to be to argue that Creationism can’t be science because it can’t change. Any idea that is “fixed” and closed for discussion is non-scientific, it is argued, because science never closes the book on anything. If science doesn’t prove hypothesis, but merely fails to falsify them, we need to be open to the idea that our pet theory might have to be changed somewhere down the road.

Now, one might argue that these same people effectively try to “close the book” on evolution, but that’s an argument for another blog entry. My question in this post is this:

Where do people get the idea that creationism isn’t open to change?

Well, it’s pretty simple. They get that idea from creationists. Apparently, there’s a lot of us who would argue that creationism is a slam-dunk, who would shut our minds to any new evidence, any new information that might require us to change or discard our “pet theory”. I think that’s, well, a bit idiotic. Sorry for the strong language.

Now, here’s the thing: I’m pretty unlikely to discard my opinion that God created the universe. But change? Happens all the time. I used to think God created each species exactly as we see it today. I don’t think that any more. Then, I used to think that we could easily divide evolution into “micro-evolution” (changes within species) and “macro-evolution” (everything from speciation to common origins). I figured we could throw the evolutionists a bone on “micro-evolution”, but clearly “macro-evolution” is right out. Then I heard about the three-spined sticklebacks in northern Vancouver Island that may very well be a perfectly good example of speciation (at least in terms of the biological species concept), where I previously thought none existed.

You might argue that I was (or am) an undereducated ignoramus, and that the creationist movement as a whole doesn’t accept change to their theory. Well, perhaps that’s true for some big-C “Creationists”, particularly some of those in the States. But even a cursory glance at the history of creationist belief will show you that, by and large, major changes in what most creationists believe about creation have in fact occurred, and parallel my own personal changes quite closely in some respects.

I think that people, both Christians and non-Christians alike are guilty of having a pretty naive view of Christianity – namely, that anything falling under the umbrella of Christian thought has been “fixed” and “static” since the beginning of Christianity itself. This, I suppose, is one area of post-modernity that fits pretty well with the world as I think it’s unfolded: changes in how we think are expected and embraced. The way we think about creation has changed because of the cultural context we find ourselves in, and also because of new observations that force us (in, surprisingly, a rather scientific way of doing things) to revise our hypothesis and the predictions that follow from it.

So, please don’t pull the ol’ straw man on us on this one. My fellow creationists are prolific enough at setting up logical fallacies without the evolutionists getting into the game. (Note: I don’t actually personally know any creationists who are as weak at arguing their point as the poor “straw creationist” who is dismantled in that last link.)