In the Philippine setting, doubt is being cast on the biblical account of creation by no less than the President himself. Be it politically motivated or not, is the creation story really stupid?
“Who is this stupid god? Estupido talaga itong p***** i** kung ganun. You created some — something perfect and then you think of an event that would tempt and destroy the quality of your work. How can you rationalize (such) a god?”
There are so many facets to explore regarding this issue that I will just be focusing on a few. And before we put that ultimate “stupid” blame on the Creator, we should all agree that what is really “stupid” in the Creation account was the choice by Adam and Eve to not obey God, as it had cost them such a turnaround.
But, as regards the eating of the one fruit (not an apple, by the way) that God forbade, was it just a case of bad taste? Author and apologist Ravi Zacharias provides this insight:
“In the garden of Eden, there’s only one prohibition: You can do whatever you want; do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You know why that was so? On the day you do that, you will play God, defining good and evil. That’s what it means. The one prohibition was don’t play God because on the day you do it, you will die; you will kill the very purpose for which you were created: to have communion with God, not to become God.”
As it turns out, the poison in the well is man wanting autonomy – the free man wanting to make it without God.
But, think about it, this is in essence part of free will.
If God were to create free men, He would give man the freedom to make a choice. Of course, apart from the grand designer who knows everything about the design, i.e. man, there ought to be that possibility for man to make wrong choices. Plenty of it, if he does not choose to heed even just one warning.
The ability to make choices then, even wrong choices, becomes an integral part of free man.
Now, is it fair that the rest of mankind suffers from the fault of its predecessors?
As a parent, I can easily say enough that many of my past blunders and decisions have caused some of the unfavorable predicaments that my kids are in right now, and I will have to live with that for the rest of my life, as my children will have to also. I don’t think Adam’s case is any different.
If anything, it tells us how pervasive sin is: a degradation of what God had originally intended to be good. Sadly, many of us have sought to soften and desensitize sin for what it truly is.
I wouldn’t call that stupid because it exactly describes the way things are.
Consequently, how sad this story indeed is for man had there been no hope of redemption at all. But there is, and it came from the Creator Himself in the person of the God-incarnate, Jesus Christ. The greatest possible being, God, expressing the greatest possible ethic, love, in the greatest possible way: self-sacrifice, to borrow the words of former Muslim Abdu Murray.
God is still not imposing His will on us, and the free invitation remains for that broken communion with God to be restored in Christ Jesus.
The choice is still ours to say to God, “Your will be done,” or God to say to us, “your will be done.”
We are free to choose, but we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions.
That is what the Creation tells me.
While this is not a discussion on the Creation versus macroevolutionary neo-Darwinian theory (proverbially, from the goo to you via the zoo), a good scientific discussion on that is Darwin’s Doubt by University of Cambridge science philosopher Dr. Stephen C. Meyer.
In 2017, Dr. Meyer reported in an American radio show (Listen here: Cross Examined) that The Royal Society, the world’s oldest and most prestigious scientific organization, called for a revision of the standard textbook theory of evolution known as Neo-Darwinism.