Creation / Evolution
For several years I subscribed to a creation magazine which promoted the idea that about 6,000 years ago God supernaturally created the universe, and that evolutionary theory was largely bunkum. Their reasoning was very convincing and I still think that a divine creator is the most sensible explanation of the universe’s existence. Creationism is the official position of the Assembies of God.
From almost the beginning I had been aware that creation theory had small holes (eg the Bible says that initially, there was no death on earth, so what did the carnivores eat?), but I thought those holes had possible explanations, and I thought that evolutionary theory had far bigger holes. It was mainly correspondence in the local newspaper between myself, another creationist and two evolutionists that led me to question the strength of the overall creationist argument. Once I wasn’t certain about creationism, I was more inclined to question everything else I believed.
A number of things reduced my confidence in creationism:
1. The letter to the editor of the NZ Herald in 1998 by a creationist asked for evidence of a key part of evolutionary theory, namely "selection-worthy information coming into existence through mutations". Obviously the author wasn’t expecting any proof to come forward. But on 7/11/98, Raymond D. Bradley of Simon Fraser University, British Columbia replied by referring him to the article "The Origin of Species Before Our Very Eyes" that was printed in the Canadian Journal Equinox, April 1995. Bradley claims that this describes a case of what the creationist implied doesn’t exist. There was no reply printed, that I noticed, to Bradley's letter.
2. At first I thought that all Christians who were open to questioning evolution would believe in short-age creation if they were given the opportunity. But later I found that many Christians had evaluated it decided that short-age creationists are wrong.
3. A web site I came across (which I can now only find in the Internet Archive: http://home.sol.no/~jansh/wteng/creat1.htm) which in part criticised the work of specific creationists who I followed.
4. There are one or two verses in Genesis that sound like they might be supposed to be non-literal. Eg Eve being created from a rib. How much else of Genesis could be non-literal?
5. Pondering how most of Christian academia doesn’t agree with short-age creation theory. From what Ive heard (I may be wrong) this includes both New Zealand's BCNZ Bible College and Lifeway Bible College and also most Bible colleges in America.
6. The way scientist Micheal Denton apparently slid closer to the position of an evolutionist than a creationist. This is a scientist who has proven that he is prepared to think critically about evolution, but he later moved closer to it!
7. I think I heard a leading creationist say he isnt interested in what people think about evolution, he's only interested in what the Bible says (I am not able to find proof that he did say this, but I later found a report that one of the founding fathers of the modern US young-earth creationism movement effectively said the same thing). Such thinking is fine if your interpretation of Scripture is correct, but what if it's not? Then you would be closing your mind to facts which would otherwise show you what's correct.
Materials from the creationists I followed had always done a good job of making their theories sound sensible and valid, but I became aware that this is not enough. Hinduism and communism have made sense to millions of people, but that doesnt make them right.
Post script - Years later, A 2006 BBC/Horizons documentary called "Intelligent Design: A War On Science" further eroded my confidence in Creationism. The documentary was about the law suit basically against Intelligent Design, as raised by Dover High School (USA) parents in 2005. This trial was described by some as the Scopes Trial in reverse. The documentary (and trial) attacked mathematical arguments against the probability of evolution, appeared to demolish Behe's argument of irreducible complexity, and reported that the eventual judgement was an indictment on Intelligent Design.