1. Young Earth Creationism
The belief that the universe and all that is in it was created by God around ten-thousand years ago or less. They insist that this is the only way to understand the Scriptures. Further, they will argue that science is on their side using “catastropheism.” They believe that world-wide biblical catastrophes sufficiently explain the fossil records and the geographic phenomenon that might otherwise suggest the earth is old. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
2. Gap Theory Creationists
Belief that the explanation for the old age of the universe can be found in a theoretical time gap that exists between the lines of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. God created the earth and the earth became formless and void. Therefore God instituted the new creation which begins in Genesis 1:2b. This theory allows for an indefinite period of time for the earth to exist before the events laid out in the creation narrative. Gap theorists will differ as to what could have happened on the earth to make it become void of life. Some will argue for the possibility of a creation prior to humans that died out. This could include the dinosaurs. They normally believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
3. Time-Relative Creationism
Belief that the universe is both young and old depending on your perspective. Since time is not a constant (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), the time at the beginning of creation would have moved much slower than it does today. From the way time is measured today, the succession of moments in the creation narrative equals that of six twenty-four hour periods, but relative to the measurements at the time of creation, the events would have transpired much more slowly, allowing for billions of years. This view, therefore, does not assume a constancy in time and believes that any assumption upon the radical events of the first days/eons of creation is both beyond what science can assume and against the most prevailing view of science regarding time today. This view may or may not allow for an evolutionary view of creation. They can allow for in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
4. Old Earth Creationists
(also Progressive Creationists and Day-Age Creationists)
Belief that the old age of the universe can be reconciled with Scripture by understanding the days of Genesis 1 not at literal 24 hour periods, but as long indefinite periods of time. The word “day” would then be understood the same as in Gen. 2:4 “. . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” While this view believes the universe and earth are billions of years old, they believe that man was created a short time ago. Therefore, they do not believe in evolution. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
5. Theistic Evolution (with a literal Adam and Eve):
The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. At some time, toward the end of the evolutionary process, God, through an act of special creation, created Adam and Eve as the head of the human race. Some also believe that God did not use special creation, but appointed already existing humanoids as the representatives for humanity calling them Adam and Eve. They may or may not believe in a snake talking and usually believe that the flood was local.
6. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve)
The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. Adam and Eve are simply literary and symbolic, representing the fall of humanity and the ensuing curse.
Problems with the more conservative views:
- Often does not recognize that the Bible is not a science book and was not meant to answer all our questions.
- Can create a “believe-this-or-do-not-believe-anything-at-all” approach.
- Can creates a dichotomy between the Bible and science.
Problems with the more liberal views:
- Often assumes uniformatarianism for all of human history (i.e. the measurement of things today can be applied to the same in the distant past).
- Can seem to twist Scripture to harmonize.
- It is difficult to know when actual (not accommodated history) history in Genesis picks up (i.e. if Genesis 1-3 are allegory or accommodation, where does “real” history start? Genesis 4? Genesis 6? Genesis 12? What is the exegetical justification for the change?)
I believe that one can be a legitimate Christian and hold to any one of these views. While I lean in the direction of number 3, that is the best I think anyone can do—lean. Being overly dogmatic about these issues expresses, in my opinion, more ignorance than knowledge. Each position has many apparent difficulties and many virtues.
This is an issue that normally should not fracture Christian fellowship.
1,207 replies to "Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate"
1) If one trusts the genuine Lord Jesus as Savior, one is a Christian, regardless of view on Creation, & regardless of being right or wrong on many issues.
2) I think that the Day-Age theory will not work given symbiosis; that is the idea that certain creatures depend on each other, like some plant may not be able to survive without bees to pollinate it (symbiosis across day-categories of creatures). (Just an example; I am no expert on either plants or bees.)
3) Gen 1:1-2 does not ASSERT a gap. The question is, Does Gen 1:1-2 ALLOW a time period between creation & tohu-bohu, given the Hebrew grammar. I am not sure on that.
4) The Gap Theory should not be married by necessity with the theory of a pre-Adamite race or a prior-creation destroyed to tohu-bohu.
5) I am not aware of any scientific reason that necessitates an old earth or old universe. Science deals with repeatable events, and testable theories. History is a sequence of unrepeatable events. You can’t really put it in a lab & apply controlled experiment, IMHO.
6) I think scientists are way too dogmatic about the stars, assuming what they must be like & how they changed over time. I don’t think red-shift proves a doppler effect, but that red-shift is a hypothesis on what could cause red-shift. At creation, the stars may have been created along with beams of light extending from them to the earth.
7) Sometimes those who know the least know the most.
Forget labels.
Check out “Evolution vs Creation” by the late Dr. Ron Carlson (http://www.christianministriesintl.org/audio-defending-christianity.php). No nonsense, just the facts, and sheds light on the so-called “science” that is used to contradict the Biblical world-view.
I believe in 6. It makes sense both theologically and historically. Also, I believe God did not “guide” evolution. Rather, he set everything up to happen perfectly at the Big Bang, and only directly intervened with the first Homo sapiens sapiens (prehistorically) and from Noah or Abraham onward (historically).
Nice post and discussion, folks. First time I have come across this site.
It seems plain the earth and viewable universe is millions and/or billions of years old. Some sort of species change has obviously occurred. This conflicts with the 24 day reading of Genesis. Even many hard-core young earth creationists bend a little and say the earth is 10-13,000 years old. If they are going to interpret that way the earth is right about 6,000 years old. C’mon. Stay consistent.
But then why would God create an earth that appears so old?
Evolution has the problem of new features being genetically coded into child generations; not only once, but across populations with enough change to get all the variation we see. It really doesn’t seem likely although change within a range seems likely.
I’m stumped from a deductive point of view.
Christianity and its Judaist roots portray the One that sustains all that there is as breaking into and affecting human history over and above the natural order that the same One maintains. So, it would seem then that all bets are off.
How we view the creation story will have a huge influence on biblical interpretation; whether more literal or more allegorical, where knowledge is acquired through a structural systematic (objects are externally real) view or more value on subjective inner apprehension.
I won’t trouble anyone who reads this with how I now see things – just commenting that this is a good discussion.
UnquestiοnaƄly beⅼieve that which you said. Your favоrite reason appeared to be on thhe net
the easiest thіng to be awar of. I say ttߋ you, I certainly get
irkеd whie peolle think about worries that tһey just don’t know about.
Yoou managed to hіt the nail upon thee top and defineⅾ out the whole thing
withoᥙt having side effect , people can take a signal. Willl
likely be back too get more. Thanks
I’ll be learning about some of the features as I go along. I hope that it eventually proves easier for you the reader to follow the postings and comments.