1. Young Earth Creationism (YEC)
The Skinny:
Belief that the universe was created miraculously by God around ten thousand years ago (or less).
Explanation:
YECs often insist that their view is the only way to understand and remain faithful to the integrity of the Scriptures. For them, options which integrate evolution or an old earth paradigm compromise the clear teachings of Scripture and even the essence of the Gospel message.
They will often argue (especially since the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1960) that science is on their side using “catastropheism” or “Flood Geology.” They believe that world-wide biblical catastrophes sufficiently explain the fossil records and other geographic phenomena that might otherwise suggest evolution or an old earth.
They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and global flood.
Relationship Between science and Scripture:
Scientific discovery always submits to Scripture in all matters. Science is interpreted in light of Scripture. YECs see the early chapters of Genesis, taken at face value, as an accurate and authoritative (even scientific) guide to the basic details of the origin of the universe. Science is of great value so long as it starts with the Bible.
Notable Adherents:
John Calvin, Martin Luther, Henry Morris, Ken Ham, John MacArthur, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Four in ten Americans believe in YEC.
2. Gap Theory Creationism
The Skinny:
Belief that the earth was created by God an indefinite number of years ago, while the creation of humanity happed ten thousand years ago or less.
Explanation:
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.
Here is how it looks:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
—-Indefinite Time Gap—-
Genesis 1:2a And the earth was (i.e. became) formless and void.
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 formless and void. Some will argue for the possibility of a creation which died out prior to humans. This could include dinosaurs and many other extinct species. While this was popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible in the early 20th century, it was eventually replaced with Young Earth Creationism with the rise of “flood geology.”
They normally believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and global flood.
Relationship between science and Scripture:
Typically sees nature as a complementary guide from God which speaks authoritatively to issues about which the Scriptures are unclear or silent. Whatever source (Scripture or nature) is more clear is the authority in matters of origins. If both seem equally clear, yet seemingly conflicting, Scripture is the final source.
Notable Adherents:
Cyrus I. Scofield, Harry Rimmer, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Clarence Larkin
3. Time-Relative Creationism
The Skinny:
Belief that the universe could be both young and old, depending on your perspective.
Explanation:
Since time is not a constant (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), time at the beginning of creation could have moved much more slowly than it does today. From the way time is measured today, the succession of moments (events with a causal relationship of before/after) in the creation narrative equals that of six twenty-four hour periods, but relative to measurements at the time of creation, the events would have transpired much more slowly, allowing for billions of “years” to elapse.
This view, therefore, does not assume a one-to-one correspondence in measurements of time/space/matter phenomena between the time of creation and today or from God’s perspective to ours. They would argue that any presumption upon the radical events of the first “days” of creation is beyond what science should attempt to speak about with any degree of dogmatism. In short, we can’t gauge, measure, or predict, much less be dogmatic about, the physics present at the creation event.
This view may or may not allow for an evolutionary view of creation. When they do, evolution would have happened very quickly from God’s perspective (almost instantaneously), but from the perspective of human science analysis, it happened very slowly.
They normally allow for a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and global flood.
Relationship between science and Scripture:
Typically sees nature as a complementary guide from God which speaks authoritatively to issues about which the Scriptures are unclear or silent. Whatever source (Scripture or nature) is more clear is the authority in matters of origins. If both seem equally clear, yet conflicting, Scripture is the final source.
Notable Adherents:
Seeing as how this view does not dogmatize anything but candid uncertainty, it may be broad enough to house all those who simply say, “Who knows?”
4. Old Earth Creationism (OEC)
(also Progressive Creationists, Day-Age Creationists, and, sometimes, Framework Hypothesis)
The Skinny:
Belief that the universe was created by God somewhere around 15 billion years ago, while the creation of humanity occurred just thousands of years ago.
Explanation:
The old age of the universe can be reconciled with Scripture by understanding the days of Genesis 1 not as literal 24-hour periods, but as periods of time of indefinite length. The word “day,” according to OECs, would 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 understands the universe is billions of years old, proponents believe that man was created a short time ago. Therefore, they do not believe in evolution.
Most believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and global flood.
Relationship between science and Scripture:
Typically sees nature as a complementary guide from God which speaks authoritatively to issues about which the Scriptures are unclear or silent. Whatever source (Scripture or nature) is more clear is the authority in matters of origins. If both seem equally clear, yet conflicting, Scripture is the final source.
Some Notable Adherents:
Hugh Ross, Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, and possibly St. Augustine
5. Deistic Evolution* (DE; often just “Theistic Evolution”):
The Skinny:
Belief, as Darwinian Evolutionists, that God created the universe over billions of years, using naturalistic evolutionary processes to create humanity without intervention.
Explanation:
I call this “deistic evolution” due to the “hands-off” approach God takes to the development of man in the evolutionary process. Darwinian evolution, through the process of natural selection, is accepted. While there is across-the-board agreement that God did not/does not intervene in the process of evolution, DEers are divided as to whether God directly caused the first life to begin or whether he let life come into being naturalistically (abiogenisis).
Concerning Adam and Eve, the views are diverse and, often, complex. Some believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are a creation myth that served as a polemic against other gods and should not be taken literally. Adam and Eve, in this case, would simply be literary, symbolic figures representing the fall of humanity and the ensuing curse. Others believe that toward the end of the evolutionary process, God, through an act of special creation, created and elected Adam and Eve as the representative heads of the human race. Others believe that God did not use special creation, but appointed already existing humans as representatives for humanity, calling them Adam and Eve.
They normally do not believe in a snake talking and usually believe that the flood was local.
Relationship Between Science and Scripture:
DEers employ a type of science known as “methodological naturalism,” believing that the assumption of God should never be invoked at any point to explain naturalistic phenomena. Therefore, no matter how much science may lack understanding as to the “gaps” in our knowledge about the process of evolution, supernatural intervention should never be seen as an option; otherwise, the data is tainted with a “god-of-the-gaps” approach. This is to be distinguished from “philosophical naturalism,” which assumes the complete absence of God in its very philosophy, not just method of inquiry. This view places a higher authority on matter’s origins in their interpretation of nature through science than through Scripture seeing as how, according to them, Scripture does not speak clearly on these issues.
Notable Adherents:
The majority of Christian scientists, B.B. Warfield, C.S. Lewis, Pete Enns, Catholic Church (open to the theory, yet not dogmatized officially)
*Please note, I have never heard this referred to as “deistic evolution” so the designation may be original here. As well, don’t confuse this with theological deism which believes that God does not (indeed, can not) intervene in the affairs of humans at all.
6. Intelligent Design (ID)
The Skinny:
Belief that science itself, without reference to the Bible or any other religious book, points to the reality of an intelligent designer.
Explanation:
It is difficult to classify ID as a a distinct option among these listed. In fact, IDers can fit into any one of these groups except deistic evolutionists. For example, many IDers are theistic evolutionists, but they don’t believe that God took a “hands-off” approach in the process of evolution (otherwise, they would be deistic evolutionists).
It could look like this:
They argue that Darwinian evolution is insufficient to account for the “irreducible complexity” found in so much of creation. Science itself, according to IDers, needs an intelligent explanation to account for phenomena of the universe. God must have had his intervening hand in the process. Therefore, methodological naturalism is denied.
However, IDers are not arguing for a specific model of creation. They simply argue that there is sufficient reason to believe that science points to the hand of a designer.
Relationship between science and Scripture:
In theory, IDers are not about invoking any religious tradition into their agenda. Therefore, they distance their method of inquiry from any religious text.
Notable Adherents:
Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Stephen C. Meyer
A word of caution:
I believe that one can be a legitimate Christian and hold to any one of these views. While I lean in the direction of some sort of Time-Relative creation, I only do this because my main contention is that it is very unwise to be dogmatic. Though I used to be favorable to it, I now reject methodological naturalism, believing it leads to preset conclusions that end up being awkward, unnecessary, and very unscientific. Therefore, though I rejected it at one time, I have come to accept ID as a responsible approach to these matters.
In the end, I believe that the best anyone can do is lean in one direction or another. Being overly dogmatic about these issues expresses, in my opinion, more ignorance than knowledge. Each position has many apparent difficulties and many virtues.
While I believe this is an issue we should continue to discuss with excitement and hope, this is not an issue, in my opinion, that should fracture Christian fellowship.
177 replies to "The Creation-Evolution Debate in a Nutshell"
I agree with Luke N on the cult issue. Even if it were true, “Cult” is too loaded and too pejorative to use, especially on a brother or sister.
Those that are not YEC can see the dangers of YEC leaders who brook no disagreements and who use demagoguery to paint opponents black, the dangers of being insular and irrational/ contradictory, the refusal to question beliefs and presuppositions, the close-the-ranks approach, etc. But such observations will never, I think, convince a YEC to change their beliefs.
Rather, the approach needs to be almost missiological in nature in the sense that one has to meet them (the lay believers) where they are. In addition, one has to focus on the young people–a matter which almost makes one despair given the hold that YEC beliefs have within the homeschooling movement.
Nevertheless, it is important that evangelical leaders directly oppose the perverse and gnostic YEC views about nature and the faith.
John, I too would say that it is possible to be a YEC and a Christian. It is even possible to be YEC and not cultish about it. But I don’t think it is possible to be a YEC and be a *thinking* Christian. You can *defend* the position, but only by parroting something that someone taught you. If you ever get into actual study yourself and examine *ALL* the evidence, the dogmatism quickly fades.
I come to this topic from a unique perspective. My grandparents and great-grandparents were part of a Christian group that, until the early 1900s, taught that the Bible “plainly” taught a flat earth. I’ve seen what that kind of dogmatic position on scientific matters can do to one’s spiritual credibility.
Michael’s concluding statements are true, “I believe that one can be a legitimate Christian and hold to any one of these views”, and holding differing views should not “fracture” fellowship. That does not entail, however, that certain views should not be vigorously opposed. We can know with great certainty that YEC is wrong, and we can see the great harm that it does.
One can decline to take an active or strong view on the wrongness of YEC because one does not know science all that well, but in those places where YEC is a big issue, evangelical leaders should learn enough so that they can be confident in opposing it. Leaders should also clearly distinguish between the issues of “age” and “Darwinian biological evolution” because the former does not entail the latter. I can understand the YEC concerns regarding our humanity and our relationship to God and the impact of Darwinian evolution beliefs on them. However, the YECs conflate the two issues.
Interesting…
Daniel,
I don’t think that one who studies all the evidence can continue to hold YEC and continue to call themselves a “thinking” Christian. Many thinking Christians hold it by default, but don’t really investigate that particular issue- it is one of many. They are normally going to be surrounded by people in the field they do study, and the age issue may never surface.
John,
Conflation- that is soooooo annoying when trying to defend the faith.
I agree that YEC fuels the war between science and faith. This is what many skeptics use as grounds for continuing to hold the view of such a dichotomy. (annoying conflation #1)
Also, if YECs don’t see the danger in conflating the issues, they just need to look at how the New Atheists insist on conflating Islam and Christianity. (annoying conflation #2)
It’s interesting that origins discussions seem to get the most attention.
I lean towards the YEC position on the age of the Earth while being somewhat ambivalent on the Universe itself.
The time dilation models that Bethyada mentioned above don’t have to do with the speed of light, but the dilation of time in a gravity well which is an inference from the general theory of relativity. If you were falling into a black hole then as you did so to an outside observer you would seem to be falling slower and slower until you stopped completely. You wouldn’t notice yourself.
Applying big bang mathematics with different boundary assumptions (a centre and an edge) leads to a system where time on bodies close to the centre (like the Earth) passes more slowly than those further out. With enough dilation millions or billions of years can pass further out during hours here.
It doesn’t solve every problem, but it is an interesting and ongoing field of study.
Jason,
The time dilation model that you are referring to has been addressed here:
http://www.reasons.org/unraveling-starlight-and-time-0
If the model has been updated in a way to avoid the critiques offered, please point me to a link; I’d like to take a look.
Jason, I personally cannot understand how one would trust scientific theories on time dilation and such and yet NOT trust all the overwhelming scientific evidence an old earth. How does that work?
Is it weird that I just read all the comments??
In my mind, there are two main possibilities:
1) God dictated Genesis 1 to some Hebrew guy several thousand years ago as a revelation of the literal process by which he created; and large chunks of modern science are completely wrong.
2) God allowed the Hebrew creation myth to be put into the canon of scripture because it teaches truths, like the fact that God created (it is similar to other ancient creation stories, but differs pointedly in its theological truths); and our modern science is uniformly accurate: that is, it isn’t infallible, but dating and archaeology are just as reliable as medicine and rocket science, since they all rely on the same foundations of physics and chemistry and the same basic axioms.
Most of the “in-between” views rely on cherry-picking science and reading stuff into the text, which is not warranted and effectively compromises both.
I am a fan of Occam’s razor, so I’ll go with option 2.
Phantom,
That is what I like and Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org). They do not “cherry pick” the scientific or Biblical evidence. They constantly address the latest scientific research that seems to fit and go against their model. They also take the whole of Scripture, not just a couple chapters in formulating their model.
Dr. Hugh Ross presents the testable model in his book “More Than a Theory”. I’ve reviewed it here, if you are interested: http://fwd4.me/000Q
[…] Michael Patton has a useful and clarifying outline of the various Christian positions on creation and evolution, for which there’s more variety than I new. I’d say that, while this frankly isn’t an issue that’s high on my priority list in terms of needing to have the right answer, what assumptions I do have about creation are probably most in line with no. 4, Old-earth Creationism. Check it out, but heed Patton’s disclaimer: I believe that one can be a legitimate Christian and hold to any one of these views. […]
Luke,
I’m not current with the things RTB are saying at the moment, but have you had a chance to read Dr. Dennis Venema’s critique of some of the positions of RTB?
http://biologos.org/blog/an-evangelical-geneticists-critique-of-reasons-to-believe-pt-1/
Here is the PDF of the whole article: http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/venema_scholarly_essay.pdf
Greg,
I regret that I have not read critique yet. I do know that Dr. Fazale Rana at RTB responded in a 7-part series (I haven’t read the response yet, since I haven’t read the original critique). I did a quick search on “Venema” to pull all the parts into a single link for you: http://fwd4.me/01Nc
I noticed that the search does not bring them up in order. So, you’ll have to sort through them. Although, the first 7 results in the search are the response.
I’ve been meaning to get to reading both, but since you have now mentioned it, I think I’m going to move it to a higher priority. 🙂
Okay, I just went through Venema’s critique. Good stuff. However, common design can make sense of every piece of evidence that Venema states, in his critique, only makes sense from a common descent perspective. So, that can’t really distinguish between the two models. Both models predict commonality in the genes. One not necessarily higher than the other. I don’t see that common design could not accommodate 99% similarity.
Common design is an alternative explanation to common descent, NOT a refutation of common descent. It is only a refutation of the claim that common descent is the ONLY explanation for the evidence provided.
Now we need to find ways to distinguish between common design and common descent models. I challenged RTB on this back in 2009. They responded on their podcast I Didn’t Know That (published May 5th, 2009- http://tra.kz/kdv1 4:50-12:18).
Now to go read Dr. Rana’s specific response to Venema’s critique on the other issues with their…
Daniel E., wrote, “Jason, I personally cannot understand how one would trust scientific theories on time dilation and such and yet NOT trust all the overwhelming scientific evidence an old earth. How does that work?”
Precisely.
That’s what bugs me the most about YEC, they are hoisted on their own petard when they try to use science to defeat science. Once one accepts that there is regularity in creation and that we can make accurate measurements and observations, then the fix is in, the war is over. One is led inevitably to an old earth or God is just pulling a fast one on us.
What one observes with YEC is that they practice poor science, poor reasoning, obfuscation, straw man arguments, misdirection, appeals to authority and tradition, poor math, etc. Then when the young true believers go off to university and are forced to practice good science, they have a crisis of faith.
And because the YEC movement does not distinguish old earth from Darwinian evolution . . .
Greg,
Dr. Rana addressed every point in Dr. Venema’s critique. He included many links that show where they have responded extensively where Dr. Venema claims they have not, and he provides many links that further explain and support their position. If you go to the Creation Update link, the time you’re looking for starts at 25:04.
Dr. Rana’s responses require a finer look at the RTB model and a deeper investigation into the results of the studies Dr. Venema cited.
Here are the links to Dr. Rana’s response:
Part 1- http://fwd4.me/01Or
Part 2- http://fwd4.me/01Os
Part 3- http://fwd4.me/01Ot
Part 4- http://fwd4.me/01Ou
Part 5- http://fwd4.me/01Ov
Part 6- http://fwd4.me/01Ow
Part 7- http://fwd4.me/01Ox
I don’t agree with Dr. Rana that this was an “ad-hominem” attack. Dr. Venema made that clear at the outset of his critique. RTB makes similar statements as Dr. Venema when critiquing other models too.
I don’t throw out ALL YEC science. I think their stuff that is evidence of intelligent design and evidence against natural selection as a means for evolution is pretty good. The problem to me is that one cannot trot out that kind of stuff showing how fine-tuned the universe is (like all the things Ross brings out in The Fingerprint of God) and then, when those same uniform measurements of decay, speed of light, and so forth indicate a old earth and even older universe, say that the underlying principles cannot be trusted.
My daughter is finishing classes this next week at a home-school group that is flood-deep in the tank with AIG and Ken Ham. I’ve given up trying to get these people to understand that while they say they *teach* science, they don’t *practice* science. It is a “learn what I say, but then do what I do, not what I say” approach. Kids are actively taught to challenge/test old-earth “theory”, but to blindly accept YEC propositions as fact. That is not science. And, as a Christian group, it isn’t Biblical. If you attempt to apply 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and challenge their inconsistencies (as my son and I did), they actively separate you from your student peers and tell other students and their parents that you have a “heart problem” for not being submissive and accepting of their “truth”. And don’t even get me started back on their cultish tendencies. /facepalm
Unfortunately, teaching people what to think rather than how to think is a defense mechanism when one knows the evidence is against a cherished belief. I’ve noticed that some people are more committed to certain interpretations of the Scripture than they are to the truth of Scripture itself. This is not just in regards to the age of the universe either.
Daniel, if you guys continue next year, I would use this as an opportunity to learn the objections given by the most avid YECs, and use it as an exercise to address them in written form. This will help your kids develop solid reasoning, research, and writing skills. Also, be prepared to recognize what YECs are doing right (such as the ID research). Find common ground; don’t ONLY focus on the uncommon ground and bad stuff- that will only cause divisiveness. Take the high road here. They may be saying that you guys have a “heart issue”, but is that not what you’re saying about them when you describe them as “cultish”?
Luke, I *did* write them a 3-page letter detailing how their education model (what to think) was in conflict with my parenting model (how to think) and, using Scripture, tried to show them that I wanted to work WITH them and not have them turn my kids AGAINST me. I even mentioned that I’d helped my daughter with an assignment where she had to write a paper on 20 evidences for a young earth and that while I didn’t agree with the “proofs”, she got an A on the paper. They are very authoritarian though (from an IFB background) and saw any kind of disagreement at all as a challenge to them on a personal, spiritual, and practical level. Their only response was to take it out on my kids & wife (who worked there) and to tell other parents that I was a bad influence on the kids. Didn’t matter that my kids got A’s on the stuff I helped with I guess. I was a ‘bad influence”. They didn’t even take me up on the offer to come in and discuss it. For my kids sake, I didn’t push it…
Daniel,
Yeah I’d probably give up after that too. I’ve had plenty of bad experiences at a similar level of hostility (back when I was on that side, and now that I’m not). The only way that kids are going to have the opportunity to break out of that mindset is to have their foundations shaken where they are not “protected”…but that runs the risk of them throwing the correct stuff out too.
I just hate to see this experience be the story that people tend to tell when discussing family and issues they disagree on. I know many YECs who are not nearly as hostile or purposely divisive. That kind of behavior is the minority of my experiences; but they are the ones that stand out most vividly in my memory.
If there is any possibility of the Church coming closer to resolution of this issue, its not going to happen by us making ad hominem attacks on the other side or refusing to discuss (calmly) at all.
What you describe is highly discouraging. I don’t think I would’ve done much different.
I’m in the situation now where every time I try to explain these issues with my graduating daughter, she takes it as an attack against her friends and becomes very defensive. And, of course, the way they’ve totally dismissed my concerns doesn’t help in the natural rebellion that teens have against dads anyway. It just feeds that. So I’ll be glad when she’s graduated and we can sit down and discuss all this without it seeming like I’m trying to split up her and her friends/teachers/mentors at this “school”. Some people may see great benefit in a dogmatic YEC approach. From my perspective though, it just leads to unnecessary hurt and divisiveness. And any benefit seen from it is a mirage that cannot stand to examination. As such, it is more harmful than helpful.
@Luke N (#9 above)
I’ve read one of Hugh Ross’s book (Creation as Science, I believe) but it’s been a while, so my memory of his specific position is not great.
My major issue with OEC’s like him is that I see no warrant for interpreting Genesis 1 as actually referring to eras, in order to make it seem more consistent with science. The fact is that Genesis provides an utterly ridiculous sequence of creation events from a scientific perspective (light before the sun?). And each day is a day with evening an morning. There’s no reason to interpret it any way other than literally. The question for me is whether we ought to treat the beginning of Genesis as literature or a scientific treatise. If it’s literature, we may read it literally but understand that only the theological truths, or “morals” of the stories, need be true in order to uphold the truthfulness of the Bible.
I also accept, based on the evidence, the common descent of life, which I believe Hugh Ross…
Luke,
Thank you for the links to Rana’s replies. I need to re-read the discussion again, I think.
While looking at Venema’s posts on Biologos, I found a three-parter where he seemed to have responded to Rana’s replies. For example, on part 3 he references Rana’s part 7 response. I only quickly glanced over it though. I will make time to read all replies, but I can’t do it now. There seems to be a YEC taking part in the discussion too, so that should be interesting.
Here is the link for part 1: http://biologos.org/blog/a-tale-of-three-creationists-part-1/
And here is the link for Part 1 of the YEC’s contribution: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2011/01/rtb-and-chimp-genome-part-1.html
For a non-specialist like myself, this stuff is really interesting to read! I’m in the process of explaining my views to my pastor, so hopefully whatever I can read on the current subject can help.
Take care, and thanks for the links!
Phantom,
I’d check out Dr. Ross’ books “A Matter of Days” and “The Genesis Question” for a better treatment of that than what is in “Creation as Science”. Dr. Ross does take Gen 1 literally, and they hold that the perspective of the writer changes from cosmic to earth-based at the end of verse 2. From that perspective, Gen 1 follows what we know about the developmental history of our planet extremely closely. If I had more room, I’d go into more detail.
Greg,
I scanned through Todd’s series. That looks like a lot a good technical stuff that I’m going to have to spend some more time with. Do you know if that series is published on the official sites of BioLogos or any other official science/faith thinktank? I ask because I’d like RTB to respond to it, but I’m not sure they will unless its posted in a more “official” way. In a blog its kind of hidden from plain view of them and is not likely to get their attention.
Luke,
Thanks for the recommendations. I’m always skeptical of those kinds of interpretations – seems like drawing fancy conclusions from plain text – but maybe Hugh Ross will convince me. 🙂
For me, since I can accept that parts of the Bible are not literal scientific history, I don’t see any reason to try to force Genesis to align with science. It’s like the people who try to explain the gods in Homer as personifications of psychological forces, apparently in order to make their presence in the epics more palatable to modern readers. It makes the stories so much less magical, and it most probably wasn’t what the author intended…
Really enjoying this thread as it progresses.
I’d only add that I’ll stick with the word cult when I’m thinking of sectarian, demagogic leaders for whom YEC is an essential doctrine of the faith (and thus demonize their opposition).
As for laity, I would not take such a heavy-handed and derogatory approach, instead opting for something missional (as someone mentioned above).
These discussions always amaze me. I find it fascinating that people are so certain that the musings of the scientific world have discovered how old the universe/ earth is and how it came to be. Really? This is part of the arrogance of humanity. We pit our puny minds against God and presume to tell him how he created the world or at least how he should have. And of course, these discussions also assume that God was too dumb to make it clear how he did create and when he did so. The fact is, people only believe what fits their worldview and their epistemological constructs and if divine revelation contradicts this they have 2 basic options – (1) ignore/ reject divine revelation or (2) twist it to fit their worldview and epistemology. And yes, to dismiss the perspicuity of scripture is a ruse – sorry, it will not work.
Chris Donato,
“IF our observation of the empirical data leads, as conclusively as it can in this fallen world, to the affirmation of something quite distinct from Young-Earth Creationism, then to deny that conclusion would be tantamount to sticking one’s head in the sand, much like we see in the practices of cults (in its gnostic mistrust of the phenomenological).”
Does all empirical data point to a miracle, such as the virgin birth, or a resurrection?
Many of you miss the point of the doctrine of perspicuity (or deny it outright). There is an original intent meant to be conveyed in the text. Simply because there are 16 modern (not early church fathers) interpretation does not negate this single intent by the author. Therefore, what is the most likely interpretation given the original hearers/readers? If deny this original intent, we must say only moderns have the correct view, and pre-moderns could not understand the creation account without science.
[…] The Creation-Evolution Debate in a Nutshell — Summaries and adherents of the major positions in the origins debate. […]
Hello crowd…
I have a couple very unscientific questions for all of you. Despite what lane is true or what lane you believe, doubting scriptures is a very rocky road, as is speculation.
Which leads me to the following questions…
1. If God, the creator and author of all, truly wanted us to know how he brought about the Earth and humanity, wouldn’t Genesis better explain the process?
2. If parts of scripture are merely hypothetical or fictional, what good is the Bible? Because it can be debated then that if it doesn’t hold authority scientifically, it won’t be able to be authoritative anywhere else. I.E. morally, spiritually and in the regards to the Gospel as not be saving.
As I believe that scripture is the only sustaining piece of literature in existance, these theories, in my opinion, are irrelevant and all subtract from our God-given purpose. To spread the Gospel, to love our God with all our hearts and to love our neighbors as ourselves. All I’m…
Dr Michael, I don’t think all evidence points to a miracle, but I can’t think of any occasions where Christ did a miracle, told us that it displayed his unseen qualities, and yet produced something that was overwhelmingly deceptive. It is more than a case of there being no evidence of a miracle, but a case where even Science believes something came from nothing and points to external causation.
Okay, I wish I had read thru all the comments so that I could be sure that I’m not repeating something that has already been said here.
Your explanation of Intelliegent Design is not accurate at all. Have you read Bahe or the others?? ID proponents are not evolutionists! Geez.. Up until that I point, I thoughtt this would be a helpful resource. But since it is incorrect, I can’t recommend it. Sorry.
Just what part of this, Jay, suggests that ID proponents are evolutionists? It specifically says that “IDers can fit into any one of these groups EXCEPT deistic evolutionists.” I personally believe SOME IDers would consider theistic evolution as an alternative, but Michael didn’t even allow that much for them. Most IDers that I’ve talked to, including some of the leaders of the movement, are Old Earthers, but Michael doesn’t even equate *that* with evolution.
Daniel, the part where he actually drew a diagram to explain what he actually said, which was that IDers can fall into the category of theistic evolutionist. Look at it again.
I’ve never met an IDer who would even remotely support macro-evolution. One of the main ID arguments, irreducible complexity, removes any possiblity of macro-evolution.
Daniel, and also the part where he wrote that “many IDer’s are theistic evolutionists”. Yet, the none of the ones he listed fall into that category at all. I don’t ever remember reading any IDer who was a theistic evolutionist, so I think this is a mischaracterization.
Behe allows for evolution. Pretty significant Oder. The point as that id is irrespective of evolution one way or another.
I think that is one of my biggest issues with the ID perspective. They are all over the place. It seems, at times, to be more of an ANTI-naturalism position than some flavor of a pro-creation position. You can pretty much find any kind of non-natural position there, even the “aliens did it” quackery.
Good grief. Which IDer has ever proported the view of panspermian? I’ve heard it from Dawkins, but would be pretty surpised if an IDer had said it.
True, Behe has some pretty mixed views on what he considers allowable in terms of evolution, which I find strange given his work on irreducible complexity and writing in Darwin’s Black Box, which pretty much takes apart Darwinian evolution and subsequent macro-evolution from a cellular level.
An overview of ID that will probably be helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
An overview of ID that will probably be helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Jay, I’m not claiming that any leading Christian IDer believes in panspermia. I’m saying that panspermia fits within that model. Just Google panspermia and intelligent design and browse the 19,000+ links. One cannot deny there is a connection. The fact that the IDer’s specifically choose not to name the Creator leaves a vacuum for ANY proposition for that role. You are so fond of the need for us to educate ourselves with the Wiki article on ID, I’ll return the favor. Check out their article on Panspermia – notably, the link on the bottom on “Problems with Panspermia or Extraterrestrial Origin of Life Scenarios” housed at the Christian “Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center” that lists “Intelligent Design Panspermia” as one of three categories of problematic Panspermia theories.
Adam (#29),
Here’s my thoughts on your two questions.
1. God wants us to know him, worship him, and be saved by him. He doesn’t care whether we know how old the earth is. He gave us the Bible so that we can learn about him and his expectations, not to teach us science.
2. I agree that it can become a slippery slope to say that parts of the Bible are not true in the literal sense. A lot of people address this by saying that the Bible is inerrant in matters of “faith and conduct” – that is, it is a perfect guide to what we ought to believe about God and what his expectations are for us. All of the Bible is true with regards to, for example, salvation or God’s attributes; its methods for teaching these truths may include both factual and fictitious stories. No theological truths hinge on the age of the earth or (I would argue) the precise manner by which new species are created; the point of Genesis is that God created them.
Jay,
It is very hard to see how “irreducible complexity removes any possiblity of macro-evolution.” You also said “I’ve never met an IDer who would even remotely support macro-evolution. One of the main ID arguments, irreducible complexity, removes any possiblity of macro-evolution.” The very person who came up with the idea of irreducible complexity, Michael Behe, clearly shows that both of these claims are wrong.
From pages 70-71 of his most recent book, ‘The Edge of Evolution?’;
“When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of chimps and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C.
… (cont)
As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation.
More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin—not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. …. In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a “psedugoene”) that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.
Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotides that seem to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes.
… (cont)
A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene’s coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseduogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.
The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.
That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.”
MP
Listing BB Warfield as an advocate of Deistic evolution cast , in my mind, alot doubt on your over all research. Fred Zasper’s article in Themelios and his recent book onBBW as well as the article I wrote for The Banner of Truth magazine(Aug/Sept 2009) debunk the wide spread myth- one continually pushed by the Biologos group and even the Answers in Genesis people- that BBW was a Darwinian evolutionist.
Considering the thoughtful interaction on this topic here on Michael’s site, I’d appreciate your comments and thoughts on an interpretation that I’ve been leaning towards that I posted on Theologica (http://bit.ly/djegen). For the reasons I list there, if the two creation accounts are two different events, it leaves the door open to both special creation of Adam and Eve AND natural processes. As CS Lewis put it, you end up with both Homo Sapiens and Homo Divinus. I think it explains a lot and would love to interact with thoughtful dissent and support of the idea over on the Theologica forum.
Glen, I know, I’ve read that before. Like I said, Behe is perplexing, because his work on irreducicle complexity takes apart classic Darwinian evolution/Darwin’s Black Box. He also considers himself a neo-creationist, according to a recent interview. The ICR prints a large amount of his work to this end. He is definitely a bit more nuanced than most of his ICR companions.
Daniel, your efforts to connect ID to panspermia actually betray a very common sentiment, which is to cast IDers in the worst possible light. There is clearly a bias on BOTH sides of the debate against the work that they are doing.
Yet, their stuff is exactly what our kids going into college need to be learning to help them get thru the evolutionary onslaught.
I am not the one making some connection. I’m just pointing out the existence of the connection. I’m just the messenger. And I have no motive to defame the ID movement. I’m just pointing out that not all IDers are of the Christian/Creation persuasion. The biggest strength of the ID movement is also it’s biggest weakness. By not specifying God as the Creator, they can say it is science and not religion. But this strong divorce from religion is a two-edged sword because it allows for ANYTHING to be proposed as the designer. When you add in the fact that a lot of change speaks equally of “broken genes” and lost abilities, ID is better at explaining the existence of life AT ALL than is it in explaining all the species we have today. ID is a good tool in the toolbox, but it is a tool that works best only in some instances and isn’t a good one-tool-to-do-everything kind of solution to how man got here.