But For The Bible, We Might All Be Creationists

By Roddy Bullock, founder of Creation Reformation

[This is Creation Reformation’s Substack. Will you subscribe? (It will make our day!) Enjoy!]

---

What if the Bible did not exist?

Imagine for a moment that the Bible did not exist. No Old Testament, no New Testament, and no religion too. Picture a world without the Bible's account of creation, and, of course, without its creator God. What might origins science look like in a Bible-less world?

With no metaphysical apparitions of a holy Creator God to drive men to imaginations of multiverse pumpkin patches and panspermian storks, might science adhere to age-old principles and permit the logical inference that what looks created for a purpose might truly be created for a purpose? If not, why not?

Before dismissing the thought, consider: it's a testable and tested proposition. Historically many with no knowledge of the Bible or its God reasonably concluded the necessity of a non-intuitive but logically necessary creator of all we see around us.

Whether Plato's "demiurge" of divine wisdom as the benevolent “maker and father” of the universe, or Aristotle's "prime mover" as an eternal being of thought, Bible-less super-thinkers of old followed logic to its rational and logical beginning: a scientifically necessary Logos.

A Logos—a rational wisdom manifest in creation—of some kind appears simply inescapable to any right thinking on the topic of origins. According to early philosphers, a rational something or someone must be responsible for the evident structure and ordered composition of the universe.

Today Plato and Aristotle might cheer for modern science that confirms their ancient science with elegant evidence driving reasonable inferences of a rational creator of the universe. What else is rational in view of the precisely specified and massively complex coded building instructions in every living thing? In fact, Plato and Aristotle might agree that now all men are without excuse for not readily assuming a creator with a divine nature. They may even affirm that what has been made compels belief in the invisible attributes of the creative God they could only hypothesize!

But, alas, they could not cheer loudly in the respectable halls of science today. Both Plato and Aristotle would risk being banned from biology class, being lectured in the lab, enduring teaching without tenure, and receiving the insult of all insults: being belittled as creationists. And creationists they were, if "creationist" simply means anyone who believes that an intelligent Logos is somehow and in some way the cause of our universe and life on earth.

How did we reach a place in science where no one is free to scientifically consider a Logos of creation in any form?

The answer is two-fold. First, the complete surrender of institutional science organizations to scientific materialism all but smothers true free inquiry from the likes of Aristotle. Adopting scientific materialism in the form of methodological naturalism drives out free-thinking scientists and permits only thought-constrained theories of origins.

Consider the modern scientific conundrum: how to marshal a purely materialistic (that is, natural, mindless, purposeless, and unguided) causal explanation for the origin of life that exhibits the hallmarks of being created (supernaturally, mindfully, purposefully, and intelligently) by a creator. Modern attempts to do so by intellectually encumbered materialists make the Biblical Logos of creation seem rational in comparison.

Take "multiverse" theory, for example, as advanced by leading evolutionary biologists like Eugene Koonin. Because by every account, whether by materialist or creationist, chance assembly of a code-specified, replicating life form by physics and chemistry alone is impossible, clever types constrained by scientific materialism have landed on a possible solution: multiverses.

Evidently, we are told, life from non-life is inevitable (yes, inevitable) if only we imagine an infinitely expanding multi-verse consisting of an infinite number of universes. Materialists welcome the evidence-starved and untestable musings of an infinity of eternal, unseen (and undetectable) universes as "science." Why? Because thoughts of limitless eternal mindless matter in motion, like a great metaphysical salve, temporarily soothes the mind, leaving for another day the stubborn necessity of an eternal logos, a sentient creator of not only life, but matter itself.

Multiverse theory appears almost scientifically reasonable relative to the wishful theory of panspermia. Panspermia stands as another "scientific" theory held by serious materialists despite the lack of compelling evidence. Leading scientists such as Francis Crick of DNA discovery fame entertain serious thoughts that “life” on earth first appeared when DNA-based organisms randomly hit earth’s surface after traveling through space from another planet or some other far away place in our universe.

Recognizing that the theory of extraterrestrial living organisms reaching earth from another planet, star, or meteorite by chance is "unlikely” Francis Crick set about fixing that problem. Crick proposed the more creative theory of Directed Panspermia. Not to be confused with the earlier unlikely version, Crick proposed Directed Panspermia as "the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth [on spaceships] by intelligent beings on another planet."

Let's get serious. Both multiverse conjecture and panspermia speculation represent in-the-box thinking for those self-imprisoned inside the dark box of materialism. But all such theories only push out or back (while highlighting the need for) that solid rock of immutable truth: the out-of-the-box, non-materialistic causa sui of ours or any universe.

Why can we not, as did the pagan Greek Heraclitus, who first applied the term logos five hundred years before Christ, simply posit a rational intelligence behind creation? Why must we be resigned to endure the just-so stories of modern materialistic origins science? Are they not patently absurd?

Yes. Evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin refreshingly admitted the obvious when he described materialistic "unsubstantiated just-so stories" and other "constructs" as “patent absurdity." According to Lewontin, he and like-minded others hold to philosophically driven absurdities because they hold "a prior commitment, a commitment to [the philosophy of] materialism."

Such admissions are helpful, but do not reach the real reason why today's enforcers in origins science impose patent absurdity upon us all. After all, most evolutionists are not full-fledged materialists. Most of the public is nowhere near being any kind of materialist. So why must we all suffer the truth-suppressing curse of absolute materialism under the guise of modern science?

Lewontin continued his revealing admission, surprising only for its frankness, as he provided the second—and most important—of the two reasons people are not free to identify as creationists by a broad definition. Voicing a sentiment parroted incessantly on this subject Lewontin continued: "Moreover, that [philosophy of] materialism [that drives patent absurdity] is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Eureka!

Materialist speculations are enforced against non-materialistic explanations not because they might be true—but to keep God out. It's not the Bible's creation story that's the problem; it's the Bible's creator. After all, Genesis-account creationism is no stranger, or less supported, or less probable, or less believable than Koonin's unseen, eternal multiverse or Crick's deliberative spaceship launchers.

The problem with Genesis-account creationism is not that it is absurd to non-believers, but that the theory comes with a Divine Foot, and not just any Divine Foot, but that foot directly connected to that Divine Being. Eliminate that Divine Being from consideration, and there is absolutely no reason not to consider the Logos hypothesis: that what looks created by a creator is created by a creator.

Not convinced? Try this at home: Ask anyone you know who opposes any form of creationism why they reject the Logos/creator hypothesis. The answer you receive will invariably involve one or more of the words, "God" or "Bible" or "Genesis" or “superstition” or "10,000 years" or "six days" or "religion" or "faith" or “intolerant” or “evil” or “goat-herders” or “incest” or “talking snakes” or the like. Then ask your friend to imagine there is no Bible—imagine that the Bible describing its creator God never existed and does not exist now—and ask the question again. And wait.

The silence you will hear, like a great resounding trumpet of truth, might set a captive free.

Because the dirty big secret of the materialists who rule and make rules in origins science today is not merely their collective commitment to scientific materialism. Behind the rule stands the reason for demanding absolute commitment from everyone: a great fear of the Divine Foot in the door.

Whose foot might that be? And how does Lewontin or any God-fearing materialist hiding behind the label of "atheist" have any knowledge of any divine feet at all?

In a better world argument over Divine Feet would follow, not prevent, a discussion of divine footprints. But the Bible has spoiled all that. Because the only being known to be causa sui, the great I AM, the Logos capable of creating footprints ex-nihilo, is also revealed in the Bible as a living God with a claim on life and conscience. And the specter of that Divine Foot affords no safe haven for boxed-in theophobes haunted by the blinding light shining unstoppably underneath the mind-locked door of their materialistic box.

Inside materialism’s self-constructed God-free box it's scientific to believe in eternal, unseen and undetectable infinite multiverses. It's respectable to believe in intelligent beings from another planet using spaceships to shoot life to earth. It’s even tolerable to believe in non-creative and otherwise uninteresting toy gods of other religions.

Why?

Because regardless of how silly, evidence-lacking, unbelievable, and otherwise absurd a materialistic theory of origins appears, it gets great respect because it avoids that Divine Foot in the door.

Without the fear of that Divine Foot in the door shutting down more rational avenues of curiosity we might all be creationists.

Why?

Because, well . . . why not?

---

(C) 2025 Creation Reformation. Roddy Bullock is the founder of Creation Reformation and author of several books related to creation and evolution. For more information, visit www.creationreformation.com, or visit (and follow!) us at Facebook.

Please send editorial comments, including indications of typos and grammatical errors to info@creationreformation.com. If you want to know why there are typos, see my post On the Origin of Pieces by Means of Natural Correction. Enjoy!

And for more info, check out our posts: The Natural Selection Paradox, and Evolution's Fatally Unaswerable Question.

• Eugene V. Koonin paper on the theory of multiverses was previously posted at: http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-2-15.pdf

• Francis Crick paper on Directed Panspermia previously posted at: https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/101584582X436

• Lewontin quotes: Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons," The New York Review (January 9, 1997), 31. Full quote: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."