What does it mean to be a creationist? Would I really want to be associated with something that, particularly in academia, often carries a pejorative connotation?
A Google search provides the following definition of a creationist: “A person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.”1
I like this definition. It is descriptive and neutral, avoids negative characterizations, and accurately reflects what, in my opinion, represents the essence of being a creationist. I would happily identify as a creationist based on this definition. It would be prudent, however, to dig a little deeper than a Google search and consider some of the important criticisms faced by the creationist paradigm.
Creationism Is Not Science?
The primary concern with creationism is summed up in the statement: “Creationism is not science.” For example, the Geological Society of America (GSA), of which I am a member, explains in a position statement: “Creationism, creation ‘science,’ and intelligent design emerged from religious thought, and because they invoke supernatural phenomena, they cannot frame hypotheses that can be tested. Hence, all forms of creationism are not science.”2
The fact that some aspects of creationism are not empirically testable and should not be considered science is not a bad thing in itself. In the words of Nobel laureate Richard Feynman: “If a thing is not a science, it is not necessarily bad. For example, love is not a science. So if something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science.”3
At the same time, it is important to recognize that biblical creationism can indeed generate questions and hypotheses that can be and are being explored empirically.
Furthermore, the same demarcation argument used for creationism (that it is not science) can be applied to naturalism if it asserts ontologically the nonexistence of God or His lack of interaction with the world. This is implicitly affirmed in the same GSA position statement: “Scientists do not and cannot claim to prove or disprove the existence of God or other major tenets of religious traditions.”4
In practice, many scientists, Christian or not, adopt the more agnostic stance of methodological naturalism. This approach excludes divine (or supernatural) causation in reconstructing, observing, and predicting patterns and phenomena in nature, but does so without implying that metaphysical realities do not exist. I appreciate the consistency of methodological naturalism, particularly with the principle of the uniformity of laws, and its effectiveness when applied to the study of physical phenomena.
I confess, however, to an apprehension that such pragmatic compartmentalization may lead to a mental picture of reality as self-contained, in contrast to the biblical portrait of a relational, personal God, who is central to every facet of our life. If I could use an imperfect illustration, I worry that methodological naturalism could be akin to telling an orphaned child, “Your father may be alive, but for all practical purposes, live as if he is not, and as if he never was or never will be part of your life.” But what if he was part of my life, or if he will be? What if he is trying to reach out to me?
If being a creationist means engaging with existential questions and coming to openly acknowledge a powerful God who is fully invested in His creation, then I want to be a creationist.
If being a creationist means being honest about what I don’t understand, without giving up the search for truth all while recognizing that I am not God, then I am comfortable with being a creationist.
Creationism Leads to Laziness or Sloppiness?
A second negative claim about creationism is somewhat connected to the first, through the concept of divine agency. If divine intervention is accepted as a possibility, it could be conveniently invoked whenever we fail to fully understand natural features or phenomena. This tendency, known as the “God of the gaps” approach, can sometimes mask a lack of competence or effort, where simplistic explanations replace careful research. In the words of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell: “Never was there a dogma more calculated to foster indolence and to blunt the keen edge of curiosity than this assumption of the discordance between the ancient and existing causes of change.”5
To respond to this charge, we must first clarify that being a creationist does not mean rejecting the idea of natural laws and regularities. Theologically, we understand that “God does not annul His laws or work contrary to them, but He is continually using them as His instruments.”6
In fact, the regularities of the world find more meaning (the why of the laws) in accepting the reality of a Lawgiver and Sustainer. And when it comes to understanding the past, it may very well be that the “gaps” are owing to our limited comprehension of His laws, not to anomalies or suspensions in their functioning. We place these regularities in a context in which there exists Someone who not only has the power to work through them, but who is also greater than these regularities and established them.
As for the concern that belief in divine intervention leads to intellectual complacency, I take one biblical episode as my compass to define my posture toward God’s action in nature. It is found in Simon’s reaction to Jesus’ command to fish in daylight: “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and haven’t caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets” (Luke 5:5, NIV).
Like Simon’s reaction, the creationist approach is not based on a blind and ill-informed effort. It does not dispense with study and hard work. But it remains open to listening and acting upon God’s Word, recognizing that His power transcends our efforts.
Therefore, if being a creationist means to respect the process of rigorous observation and hypothesis development and testing, but in a context that is greater than mere naturalism, one should not be embarrassed about being a creationist.
Creationism Is Weird?
Can the characterization of creationism as nonscientific and intellectually weak hinder fruitful interactions and active integration of a creationist within the scientific community? This question hinges on sociological considerations, because being a scientist also involves being part of a community.
Any ingroup-outgroup dynamic can be a recipe for tension and isolation, but there is another side to the coin. At its best, the scientific community is inclusive. Consider, for example, this summary of the GSA position statement on diversity: “The Geological Society of America (GSA) is committed to constructing an environment in which all can thrive by building an inclusive, equitable, and accessible professional community that engages diverse students, professional and academic geoscientists, and the communities they serve.”7
Mutual trust is built through respectful acknowledgment of differences and commonalities, exercised with tact and discernment. In the community of scientists we encounter kindred interests but also different worldviews. Professionally and relationally, this can be ground for growth and opportunity. So if being a creationist means to have a distinctive perspective within a community that shares a passion for the study of the natural world, then I value being a creationist.
Creationism Lacks Sound Answers?
Science is so attractive because it is essentially positivistic. It promises a progression of enlightenment and ultimate explanatory power to make sense of all reality. I have felt the thrill of excitement when the evidence I study “clicks” with my understanding of earth history, but I am also mindful of major unresolved challenges still confronted by a creationist paradigm. Indeed, as many philosophers of science and scientists themselves understand, science as a whole has limits, and naturalism faces significant unanswered questions as well. But what should I think when I have no great alternatives to explain what others consider settled but, to me, remains problematic?
My first response is to experience a sense of finitude. I like the way Solomon puts it: “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end” (Eccl. 3:11). I don’t read this passage as a call to quit seeking and learning, a capitulation to ignorance. Instead, by acknowledging the areas in which I lack understanding, I gain the right attitude for a divinely led journey of inquiry.
When I have only partial or unsatisfactory answers, I may be tempted to withdraw from the study of the natural world, which is the opposite of God’s original plan for humanity. It was an enemy who first insinuated that God wants to limit our access to the fruits He created.
But there is also another lie spoken at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: “You will be like God.” A science without God—in which we claim to know everything—reminds me of this deception. As kings of a self-contained universe, we attempt to approximate immortality and divinity by mastering the knowledge of good and evil. To some, this fruit is attractive and desirable. But in the end it leads to very dark places.
So if being a creationist means to be honest about what I don’t understand, without giving up the search for truth all while recognizing that I am not God, then I am comfortable with being a creationist.
An Invitation
Ultimately, from a Christian perspective, being a creationist means choosing to recognize Jesus Christ as the Creator of the world. Developing this conviction is a most profound experience. Like Peter, standing at the edge of his boat and seeing Jesus walking on water, one may feel the urge to say, “If this is true, tell me to come to You on the water.” To the one ready for this journey, Christ will give a simple answer: “Come.”
1 Terms input in Google Chrome search bar: definition + creationist, accessed on Feb. 5, 2025. Source cited on Google dictionary box: Oxford Languages.
2 GSA Position Statement, Teaching Evolution, p. 2, https://rock.
geosociety.org/net/documents/gsa/positions/pos1_TeachingEvolution.pdf, accessed on Feb. 5, 2025.
3 R. P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces (New York: Basic Books, 2011), p. 47.
4 Ibid., p. 3.
5 C. Lyell, Principles of Geology, 1st ed. (1833), vol. 3, pp. 2, 3.
6 Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1890, 1908), p. 114.
7 GSA Position Statement, Diversity in the Geosciences, p. 1, https://rock.geosociety.org/net/documents/gsa/positions/pos15_Diversity.pdf, accessed on Feb. 6, 2025.