How can anyone believe that the world is 6,000 years old?

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe this is slightly OT, but I think maybe an even weirder belief I've heard mentioned in this context is the whole 'lion and the lamb' thing.

Basically: it is believed by some Creationists that, as according to Genesis, all animals were originally created as herbivores. It's further believed that after the Fall, some animals started preying on others. (Genesis is not explicit on this; it just says that after the Flood, humans were given the go-ahead to eat meat, and it's assumed that other animals were also carnivorous from that point onwards, if they weren't already.) They further believe, mainly due to some passages of prophecy in Isaiah, that at the end of time when creation is restored, all animals will again be herbivorous and harmless to humans. (I could argue that anyone who thinks herbivores are harmless to humans by dint of not eating meat has never been kicked in the guts by a deer, but that's another subject.)

The thing is, a lot of these creationists claim to have a huge sense of wonder and appreciation for the natural world, but I wonder how you can say that if you think like this. Because if you look at, say, a lion, and you imagine what kind of changes you'd have to make to that lion to turn it into a herbivore - well, a lion is a good example, because the cat family are the 'purest' of carnivores and the most specialized for that purpose. Not just the teeth and claws but more or less everything about a lion's body has developed for that particular hunting niche. If it had developed to fit any other niche, it wouldn't be a lion. And to say there's something 'wrong' with a lion because it hunts seems to me to be lacking all appreciation for it.

(I chose this example for another reason: C. S. Lewis - of all people! - used precisely that animal in his own argument for this idea of all animals being herbivores in the restored Earth. And he didn't even disbelieve in evolution. Rather makes you wonder whether any faith that requires that amount of mental acrobatics is really worth believing.)

There are a lot of things biologists don't understand about evolution, that's why it is called a theory. It is undisputable that it occurs, but there are things that are not understood about it, which is why it is a theory.

Just as there things about gravity not understood and there is a theory of gravity. Nevertheless, people keep falling down.

There's a difference in the degree of acceptance there. Last I checked, nobody had a competing theory of gravity (at the practical, every day level).

There's a difference in the degree of acceptance there. Last I checked, nobody had a competing theory of gravity (at the practical, every day level).

There's a difference in the degree of acceptance there. Last I checked, nobody had a competing theory of gravity (at the practical, every day level).