Creation Theory (Essay Sample)

Final Examination
Name
Institution
Final Examination
The Theory of Evolution came at a time when Christians had cemented the belief that God created the world and everything else found in tthe world. According to the Creation Theory, the Creator created both living and non-living things. It stipulates that God created the world, and that he existed before all. “All the creation activities took place within six days” (Drees, 2000, p. 45). In the seventh day, God rested. The creation story is based solely on individual beliefs, and thus there is no material evidence to affirm it that indeed God created the universe (Grudem & Purswell, 2000). On the other hand, there are various theories so far postulated to explain the existence of the universe. Some are convincing while others are not. The ever-contentious Darwin Evolution Theory provides the biggest contempt to the Creation Theory (Drees, 2000).
In the context of God’s action to the world, Bube, Hick, Spivey, Smith, Einstein, and Tillich, all agree that religion cannot be a basis of explanation to the subsistence of the physical universe. As a result, religion cannot explain where all the physical objects in the worlds came from. For example, Bube believes that God existed, and was in charge in making the material and other things found in the universe (Grudem and Purswell, 2000). This included the life found in the universe. Bube viewed evolution as a plan by God, found within the universe, to help in the creation of man. In this case, there is no difference between religion and science as advocated by the proponents of the Evolution Theory. For that reason, Biological Evolution is seen as the product of creation. Furthermore, evolution appears a tool formulated by God himself to help man propagate naturally. This implies that God himself determines the evolution process (Grudem and Purswell, 2000). On the other hand, Einstein does not believe in evolution, and as a result, he is not among the theistic evolutionists. He also does not believe in God who interferes with the conduct of human life and affairs (Henderson, 2007).
In an attempt to come to a consensus on the divergent views Evolution and Creation Theories, science has been integrated together with religious beliefs and practices. This has reduced the controversial gap that existed regarding evolution and creation. Because of integration, the inherent conflict that existed between the religious literalism and the scientific materialism has been slowly been negated and contained. For example, there is a need to use religious and science interchangeably in explaining the existence and occurrence of unknown things (Henderson, 2007).
The main reason is that even if one tries to distinguish the body of science as a systematic questioning and reasoning to get a real solution, we should realize that there is some situation, which we cannot make a conclusion with highest precision. We will need religion in-order to relate some of these happenings to the acts of supernatural powers. This is because sciences can explain natural situations that can be seen, touched and measured. On the other hand, doubts arising from supernatural realities need to be explained by religious literalism. In this case, it is imperative to work towards uniting the religious literalism and science materialism in order to establish the virtue of supportiveness of the two points of actions (Drees, 2000).
An additional way of bringing religious literalism and science materialism together is by comparing how the sciences and religions derive their elemental principles. For instance, sciences might use different methodologies from that of religion, but the result is the accumulation of knowledge. To avoid further conflict, we should view science and religion as tools that help in meeting a common goal: the creation of knowledge. Therefore, in the context of the evolution, we should always try to see the two processes actually complementing each other. In the event of disagreement, attempts should be made to see if the results would be consistent to the beliefs of religion (Henderson, 2007).
The fact is that scientific researches utilize various methodologies and rely on multiple assumptions. Assumptions are not always true, and are subject to change. In this regard, it is possible for the scientific findings to give conclusions that contradict religious literalism. In this case, it does not mean once there are controversial findings then it is obvious that the religious perception cannot hold. There is a possibility that the basic pillars relied upon at the formulation stage of the research was unsuitable. Consequently, the findings may be invalid. In such instances, researchers should make a point of reviewing their findings, which may make the results consistent to the literal results. Therefore, in th...