Where I Stand on the Creation Evolution Circus

Very excellent article. Though I do not take a young earth stance (I am agnostic and find numbers 2 and 3 probable and 1 and 4 improbable). I would be more interested in the syrup, too.

Let the battles begin! I’m amazed at the vitriol spewed by the young-earthers & the theistic evolutionists over this and consider it a shame and embarrassment to American Christianity. You would think the entire Gospel (Jesus’ life, death, & resurrection) was at stake over when God created the earth (affirmation that God is Creator is Christian) and the means he used. The dogmatism espoused by both sides gets under my skin, as if “anybody with a brain” or “anybody who can read the Bible” would naturally come to their conclusion. Thanks for the post, CMP, and give me some of that syrup too!

Excellent! I think I’d ask for that syrup, too 😉

I agree that dogmatism is problematic. It is found in all areas – economics, religion, art, politics.

I also have the same position as you, that evolution is not important to me. I’d have to become an expert to discuss it clearly, and i’m not bothered to spend the time.

Though it is frustrating to see people teaching demonstrably false information. What would you say to someone that says: “Hydrogen has 14 protons, 1 neutron and 3 electrons.” ?

–

CMP, why do you disagree with uniformitarianism? maybe because of the problem of induction?

–

In response to ‘something from nothing’, I read an idea recently that nothing (physics definition) has never been encountered. And from that, it is induced that it has never existed. I have no idea how accurate this is, I’ve just been thinking about it recently.

CMP –

I appreciate your strong lack of dogmatism here. It is refreshing that you 1) hold to a view, but 2) are ok if it is not correct and another view is.

Though I am somewhere in the old earth/evolutionary creation views, I, too, am ok if it all happened by divine fiat, as they say – immediately.

When I teach through Genesis, I don’t have a Bible in one hand and a science book in the other. Neither do I feel the need to qualify everything I say with alternative prevailing scientific opinions. Genesis is a theological history, not a scientific book.

I am not even sure someone at BioLogos would teach with ‘a Bible in one hand and science book in the other’. I know it is simply imagery. But I’ve yet to see someone do that. 🙂

And, because Scripture is theological history, not a science book, I think it fair to accept that good and faithful scientific study can help inform us about God’s creation.

Thanks again.

CMP –

One more thing.

Where I find that many evangelicals attack people in the more evolutionary creation camp is they say that, if we accept evolution as the process by which God chose to create, then this will majorly affect our view of the historical Adam. And if that is affected, then it will majorly affect our anthropology and Christology.

But I believe that is a faulty argument. Even if Genesis 1 and 2 fall under the more ‘myth’ literary genre, meaning it teaches us about the one true Creator, Yahweh, our origins, the origins of sin, etc, etc, rather than being an actual, literal, historical account of the early days, then we can still hold to a proper Christian anthropology. And this by no means has to affect our understanding of Christ. Though I would be ok if Adam and Eve were not actual, literal, historical people, I still believe what Scripture teaches us (in Genesis and in all of it) on both the sin problem and Christ. The early chapters of Genesis still teaches us the God-breathed truth, as does the rest of the Scriptures.

This is why I like some of the thoughts that were shared at BioLogos when they discussed formulating a faith statement. They addressed some of these issues I spoke of above in their two articles (first post and second post).

I am just really saddened when some groups of evangelicals, who claim to be holding up the truth in the midst of compromise, anathematize people and make unhelpful claims about people who fall in the more evolutionary creation camp. It is simply a form of fundamentalism that leaves a bad taste in most people’s mouths.

We can engage in this dialogue in much better ways, as you point out in your article.

Is it ok to be “dogmatic” with “facts” not opinions? I think if you ponder for a moment the meaning of dogmatic, you will see that this is probably ok and right.

So I think the reason theistic evolutionist will dogmatically adhere to their positions, myself included, is because we don’t see our position as being on the same level as creationist. (Yes this sounds arrogant and haughty but consider for a moment.)

1. If science is science then it is based on the scientific method. Not ones opinion of what the experiment is teaching. The minute someone says “Well I think….” then you devise an experiment to see if the person thinks correctly or not, based on the results of the experiment you don’t proceed to argue with them based on your “thoughts” alone.

However Creationism is not based on experiment and/or the scientific method but is rather based on opinions over a text that frankly can never being scientifically tested, and know one can know for sure. (granted some opinions are better than others but at the end of the day you just can’t be certain).

So in this sense Creationism and Theistic Evolutionist aren’t on the same plane. Now to the arrogant haughty part…;-) …

Anyone who studies objectively will be an evolutionist because it is based on experimentation and can be understood if one cares to understand it.

Creationism will only be accepted by those who have a psychological (good or bad) reason to accept it. You can’t come to a belief in creationism through reason. Sorry….now let the rocks be thrown…;-)

Have been teaching on this (following a request from some of our church members) recently and while I would come from a different perspective than yourself (I’m a theistic evolutionist AND an arminian) I come to the same conclusion re the tone of the debate.
I believe in a God who could have created the world by fiat in 6 days or 6 nanoseconds 6000 years ago, but the evidence tends to suggest that he didn’t and I don’t believe in a God who plays tricks with us… But I’m not going to fall out with someone who interprets the evidence differently, particularly if they get to the core of what Genesis 1 and 2 are about: not when and how, but who and why.
If we’re going to proof text on this one I like God’s comments to Job re being there at the beginning, or the verse from Ecclesiastes 3 (a passage which is bizarrely and erroneously pointed to by some in support of Evolution) which says:
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Eccl 3:11
Both scientists and theologians could learn from that… our heads just aren’t big enough to understand it all.
The big issue, as said in previous comments, is how an historic Adam, fall and original sin fits in to all this… This is less of a problem for the Eastern Church which has always been a lot more fluid on their understanding of this… but for us in the West, steeped in Augustine (whether we are calvinist or arminian) it is more problematic… I am interested to read the Jesus Creed take on this at the moment…
Thanks for your approach…
David
ps. I’m not allowed the syrup as I’m a diabetic!

pps I actually majored in Behavioural and Evolutionary Genetics before I trained for ministry… so that’s why this can be a hobby horse for me… But it is a scientific theory, and cannot be a philosophy for life which is how some of the “New Atheists” would have it… They may not be as radical as Nietzche etc in their application of Darwinism and survival of the fittest, but some like Peter Singer aren’t far off…
We aspire not to a world of survival of the fittest, biologically or economically, but to a kingdom where the last shall be first and the first shall be last…

In reference to my comment in #6, I gave 2 links to articles posted by BioLogos on their consideration of a faith statement. I cannot remember if those 2 article address some of the challenges given to those who might accept the evolutionary-creation view, such as not believing in an historical, literal Adam will negatively affect one’s anthropology and Christology.

But what I was thinking of is the current series going on over at Scot McKnight’s blog, by RJS. He has posted 4 articles thus far – article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4. They look at the issues in some good depth.

Well expressed, Michael. I have studied the issue enough to know that I’m not really sure. My geology studies and observations make me feel comfortable with an Old Earth stance, while I am convinced that God is big enough to have created it all. I feel uncomfortable with folks like John McArthur telling me I am a non-believer by questioning if all 6 days of creation were 6 successive calendar days. But I am also deeply disappointed by the BioLogos stand, feeling that it is a bit too accommodating to the world. The fact is, none of us knows for absolute sure. We weren’t there, and God hasn’t given all the details. And I’m okay with that. It’s tough enough to wake up each morning and live out my faith. I’m not ready to tackle the last 10000-1000000000 years when I can’t properly deal with the here and now.

Thanks for the refreshing look at this too-contentious issue. I agree!

One of my Bible profs at Moody once put it very well: “If a scientific theory seems to disagree with the Bible, then either the scientific theory is wrong, or your interpretation of the Bible is wrong– and there are plenty of precedents for both.”

I appreciate the calming effect your post creates around the creation debate.

Michael,

I think you have it coming out about right. A few comments:

1. Re: dog’s in hunt. I’ve been re-reading E.D. Hirsch’s Validity in Interpretation (because I recalled him saying some things relevant to this kind of question). He makes an important distinction between subject matter and meaning. Age of the earth, as subject matter, not uninteresting but not where I bring a dog to hunt. Interpretation of Biblical texts, here I have a dog. He may be an inept dog (who knows) but that is the dog I have.

I encouter a text such as Genesis 1, and it tells a certain story, and it isn’t really unclear about it, it takes a week. Now this can FEED INTO my ultimate concept of the subject matter of “age of the earth.” I can give it the weight I decide it deserves (as it happens, I think it deserves a lot of weight, more weight than Carl Sagan or Steven Hawking do, anyway… but I digress).

I don’t particularly object to my bretheren and my cistern having whatever views about the age of the U as they think fit.

What I do object to it a kind of “backwash” from their conclusions on the “subject matter” feeding into their interpretation of what the author of Genesis 1 probably intended his readers to understand 3500 years ago.

In other words interpretation of the ancient text works as input to my conclusion on subject matter today, but my conclusion on subject matter today does not legitimately work as input for my interpretation of the ancient text.

2. In re: reading Genesis 1 as “myth.”

There are multiple schemes for making out Genesis One to be something other than the fairly simple story that happens in a week’s time. Day-age, nonsequential days, framework, on and on. I’m sure they’re all jolly good fun, but they just really don’t work.

Now what does have some merit is reading the story as it is probably meant to be read, but understanding it as not INTENDED to be received as historical, i.e. a metaphor, or possibly myth.

The hitch here is validating this suggestion, that the author expected the account to be received figuatively. I can’t see that we have any textual evidence to suggest this. On the contrary, Ex. 20 seems to indicate that at the time it was taken as historical.

Now, I’m a bit puzzled in regard to the idea that it is “myth.” Didn’t the ancients believe their “myths”? Aren’t we sort of saying. X explained Y by such and such a story. X believed that the story was in fact explanation for Y. Me, I believe the story presents TRUTH about Y, though I find this truth by demythologizing the story, setting aside the narrative details but retaining the message.

I this is what we mean by reading it as “myth” (and perhaps I misunderstand) we are still at variance with the author, who intended the story both to be historically accurate and to teach the important TRUTH in the message.

On a related note, understand that we have contemporary X’s presenting their contemporary stories to explain Y. That is, what folks like Carl Sagan give us are the Cosmological myths of our contemporary culture. They have a power to our friends and neighbors, since the society around us treat these things as “what the truth is about Y.” That’s what “science” often means to people, what the real truth is. So for “science” vs “religion” it’s no contest. It’s circular.

Frankly, I’m not obliged to give the myths of a particular culture all that much weight.

I understand the implications of the more opposing sides of this spectrum with relation to one’s world view (if we just evolved, then we’re animals with no shared morality, if we were created, then we are accountable to someone).
However, while I agree this is one of the most energy-consuming topics within/out the church, I fail to understand however we got here thousands (or billions) of years ago is so important compared to our lives right now and what happens when we die?!!!!
Maybe, it’s just another position which believers can’t engage the world in so let’s make this our new chew toy.
Seriously, comparing my bc days to that last 13 (with Him), the drastic differences, and there are many, have nothing to do with with which view I take on how I got here!
By the way, I’m a staunch “it – whatever that was, occurred in six days – whatever they were.”
But it never comes up to those I speak to about God – they have much more immediately pressing issues (their marriage isn’t being destroyed because they or their spouse believes in Theistic Evolution – the current bogeyman to those in my camp).

CMP – You consistently take on difficult issues and provide another and often better angle to view the issue. Challenging and refreshing at the same time – well done.

Amen, Michael. Excellent article! I really hope that if not our culture, the Church returns to understanding Genesis as primarily theological, and also has humility in the area of what we can know from science. I’m agnostic on the subject, and think we should remain that way, as it seems God is not concerned about what people believe in terms of their cosmology and cosmogony. I like Biologos, but I usually only comment on the biblical studies, and even that rarely, because there is such a stance that theistic evolution is true and all other opinions on the matter are dishonest and uneducated. Of course, I do think a lot of young earth science is probably stretching, but in the end, these are all theories, some possibly refutable, some not possible to refute, unless one does so with other presuppositions instead of “hard fact.”
I’m glad you put the book of Genesis and science in proper terms. My book on the use of time in Genesis 1-11 is going to be published this month, and my greatest fear is that theistic evolutions (and others) will think I’m supporting their position, simply because I view the text as highly theological. It’s great to know that there are thinking individuals out there that understand that seeing Genesis as theological does not mean a complete by in to theistic evolution. Thanks for this.

Just to be clear, I do think we can know cosmology to some degree. I was just saying that God seems unconcerned about what people believe in the area. I do think we should remain agnostic in regard to our cosmogony.

Oh, and even though I’m agnostic on the subject, I think we should have great humility with those who are not as well. So I would not look down on someone who had a theory.

3. In re: the relative importance of the issue.

Gen. 1 is the first chapter in the Bible. This is not an incidental detail. It isn’t stuck there because that’s just the best place to stick it.

It is the beginning of the story. Start the story differently and your ultimately are telling a different story. The crucial (literally) part of the story is Jesus. But by the time you get to Jesus there is a whole context that is being laid down. What Jesus means in a story as told by, for example, Al Mohler, and what Jesus would mean in a story told with a BioLogos-style beginning, are two vastly different stories, despite similarities. Or so it seems to me.

Perhaps some of you might be interested in examining the “Historical Creationism” (textually and exegetically based) view that my dissertation (done 20 years ago) supervisor (John Sailhamer) has unfolded in various journal articles/books over the years. The view is not his, but ancient, both Jewish and Christian. Among other pivotal views, it holds to a 6-day making of the land in Genesis 1:2ff, and yet doesn’t conflict with the discoveries of modern science. In this view, the age of the earth/universe conflicts simply vanish and you don’t have to “give away the store” to accept it.
I shared the view 10 years ago with my congregation (after being with them for 10 prior years) via exegetical teaching of Genesis 1-2 followed by dialogue. Remarkably, for all my mistakes and inabilities to answer all the fair questions (it had been, after all, 10 years since I had worked under Sailhamer and 16 years from my classroom encounters with Hebrew scholar Allen P. Ross in Genesis), it was well-received. They had mercy on me. sdg
My 2 cents. TC

Marv –

In other words interpretation of the ancient text works as input to my conclusion on subject matter today, but my conclusion on subject matter today does not legitimately work as input for my interpretation of the ancient text.

On the second half of your statement, of course you and I know the answer to that is Yes. As continuationists, we recognise that some move from cessationism to continuationism because of experiencing the ‘subject matter’ today. All of a sudden, texts like 1 Cor 13:8-12, Heb 1:1-2, Heb 2:3-4, etc, are interpreted a lot differently because they saw/experienced a healing, miracle, prophetic utterance, etc.

The hitch here is validating this suggestion, that the author expected the account to be received figuatively. I can’t see that we have any textual evidence to suggest this. On the contrary, Ex. 20 seems to indicate that at the time it was taken as historical.

No one said anything about ‘figurative’, though words like that and literal have different meanings to different people. Many a people argue that Genesis 1 was literally intended to be read as is, as the account states, rather than billions of years. But what would normally be argued is that, of course they would mean that it literally took place within the 6-day time frame because their ancient cosmology & understanding would have led them to conclude such. But, then, you start getting into – well, were they errant? But, most don’t argue for errancy. They argue for allowing God to communicate His word through an ANE history and culture.

Or, some might argue that the whole ‘mythic’ (which is different from ‘figurative’) view underlines the fact that the author was not trying to teach how long it took, but to utilise the myth story-account to teach the truths that Yahweh wanted to be communicated. And this was the God-breathed account, over and above all other myth accounts of other…

Scott, not that we haven’t discussed this before, but…

…that’s why I said “metaphor, or possibly myth.”

So maybe here’s where we are not meshing. As you understand myth, in an ancient setting. Do you understand THEM to have a category “myth” in which X tells a story, knowing jolly well it did not go down like this in any kind of history, but the story conveys some kind of theological truth.

Or is it a story they would have affirmed as “actually having happened” but that we (might) say (a) didn’t actually happen, but (b) communicates spiritual truth.

This latter is what I have understood you to be getting at with myth. That I don’t think we can do. The former, if the author consciously wrote a myth, with this non-factual-truth-ness to it, that is another thing.

I’m not talking about parables or fables either. I’m not too sure we have evidence that these guys used myth that way. Or if we are, that the author of Genesis intended this there. But that would be a reasonable way to go, if you could show evidence.

Your continuationism analogy is, unfortunately, not parallel enough to be a valid illustration. If I have instructions to fix my washing machine, they might be hard to interpret just like that. Once I get inside and have a look, the words then start to make sense. This is because I realize I am having the same experience as the author. I am seeing the same thing inside the machine.

If we are talking about prophecy and I don’t quite get 1 Cor. 14, then I see in a church a person receiving a prophecy and seeing his “mail read” and saying God really is among you. I realize I am having the same experience as Paul was talking about. I can thus confirm what he was communicating.

But let’s say I am looking at bacteria in a microscope. I understand that this is a pathogen and causes Cholera, say. If I then read an ancient author, Aristotle or Galen, say, maybe they say cholera is caused by an imbalance of humors…

I cannot legitimately use MY subject matter knowledge to interpret Galen has having stated that cholera is caused by vibrio cholerae. I am NOT having the same experience as Galen. I can see the bacteria because I have a microscope.

Similarly, the author of Genesis never watched Cosmos on TV. He doesn’t “know” about the BBBBillions and BBBBillions of years. I can’t take what I (think I) know and use it to interpret Genesis 1.

The difference, of course, is that I am “committed” to the position that Gen. 1 is true. I then use a false syllogism:

1. The truth is the universe is billions of years old.
2. Genesis tells the truth about the universe.
3. Genesis must mean that the universe is billions of years old.

CMP: “I take a position that the earth is young and that evolution did not happen.”

Biblically orthodox. Historically orthodox. Eminently reasonable. Eminently biblical.

“I have never met a naturalistic evolutionist who believed in personal transcendent First Cause for everything. This is the issue of God’s existence, not how he did it.”

I haven’t either.

“I get tired of people getting pushed into corners with clinched fists by their own breed while the true antagonist enjoys the show.”

For me, I’m tired of the YEC’s and OEC’s hating on each other while the “true antagonists” IMHO are the evolutionists, both atheistic and theistic.

On the subject of whether this issue is important or not I would agree in saying how the universe began is not hugely important in itself….. at least to a good life and salvation.

But it is important (In my thinking) in that it shows how people believe what they believe. In my opinion Creationism shows less concern with the actual Truth and more concern with the truth that they know.

It takes Christianity out of the reasonable possiblities for a world view, not because of what Creation believes but because of how it believes.

But I do see why Creationists believe what they believe.

Michael,

I thought I should point out that your definition of Intelligent Design would not be accepted by many IDers. ID is not dependent on one’s assessment of the age of the universe or macroevolution. ID entails the simple notion that intelligent agency is empirically detectable, and that certain features of the natural world exhibit the handiwork of an intelligent agent.

I work with Reasons-To-Believe and have coauthored an article defending the Big Bang apologetic argument with William Lane Craig (in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology). So I have OEC underpinnings. A few comments:

First, I can’t think of any blog I enjoy more. You seem to have managed to take on every tough topic in Christianity with extraordinary grace and common sense. God Bless!

Second, I think you could offer extraordinary benefit to us if you could tell us why you don’t think an OEC and/or TE view would upset the doctrine of the atonement. That, I believe, is the the main sticking point that AIG and some other YECs have.

Third, I think an olive branch can be extended from OEC to YEC by showing that the Big Bang apologetic argument can still be used by YECers given that the atheist or agnostic probably accepts the Big Bang.

Fourth, I want to point out that many naturalists believe some weird things about time; perhaps even well beyond the YEC/OEC gulf. Stephen Hawking, for example, in his new book advocates a view that there is no true past (or future). Others believe time doesn’t even exist in any meaningful sense (due to quantum gravity). Christians can get more mileage pointing out the wierd consequences of supposed ‘mainstream’ atheist views as opposed to attacking each other.

anslem said: Is it ok to be “dogmatic” with “facts” not opinions?

This is an interesting question.

I think we are morally required to be dogmatic with facts. The opposite – being flexible with facts, means that we are liars.

–

also, this article is related to this thread:

http://www.ecalpemos.org/2010/10/why-creationism-is-bad-for-christianity.html

I was inclined to go with TE without having given it much thought until I was deeply challenged by Edgar Andrews’ book Who Made God?. His thesis is that Colossians 1:17 demolishes TE in that not only God had direct input in creation but also in the maintenance / sustenance of the universe. (While I buy into that intellectually, I find it problematic that God decides on daily weather events which means He deliberately wants villages to be swept away by floods or He wanted Haiti destroyed by an earthquake. Y’all Calvinists probably wouldn’t have much of a problem with that based on what you believe God decrees, I’m assuming).

Andrews is one of those rare Christians fully loaded with credentials in science and gives Dawkins a good run for his money.

Another disturbing offshoot of the creationistic debate is the obscure notion of Preadamism which seems to give some Christians that I have come across an adrenaline rush!

Re your comment: “It is simply not that big a deal,” I would like to suggest that it IS that big a deal. Equating Christianity with Young Earth Creationism (which you didn’t but unfortunately John MacArthur, Ken Ham, and others do) does a tremendous disservice to Christian evangelism. Consider the following quote, which says it better than I could:

“Most people with even a rudimentary knowledge of current science are aware of the scientific thought of a universe and an earth billions of years old and of the success of evolutionary biological science. For people who are not yet Christian believers, the requirement that they buy into the idea of a young earth or a young universe, along with anti-Darwinism, as part of the Christian belief system puts up significant and invalid barriers for these unbelievers. The opening of the door to belief is unnecessarily too narrow. These “scientific” barriers make Christianity seem like a nonsense religion, a religion that is hopelessly out of touch, which requires its followers to turn off their eyes, ears and brains when stepping into church. But this barrier to evangelism need not exist.” [Richard F. Carlson and Tremper Longman III, “Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origins” (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2010), pp. 138-139]

It should also be noted that there are many different flavors of theistic evolution and a number of significant theological issues that still need to be worked out. These issues are being discussed actively at BioLogos and periodically by RJS at Jesus Creed, as well as in a number of recent books.

We will never be able to understand God through earthly wisdom. I go with the bible and don’t really care much what science has to say about it at all. Funny how many people will believe a scientist who says we evolved from Monkeys, but can’t believe an all powerful God could and did create us. I find it harder to bring a human from a monkey over only a period of time, what people want to believe in order not to have to face the truth, God.

CMP:

Good post. I agree with your sentiments.

As someone who is working through this issue I get discouraged by the one sidedness of some camps. However, I have to say after reading the posts over at Biologos I don’t see them having the my way or the highway attitude that you are seeing. I think the Mohler-MacArthur camp with their “if you don’t interpret Genesis literally your whole theology is going to be messed up” are the ones throwing the rocks.

Excellent and reasonable take on this. Now, when can we have the same kind of civil attitude about the Calvinist/Non-Calvinist debate. I’ll be waiting…

Bible Study:

For the record, (1) no scientist says that we evolved from monkeys, only that we share a common ancestor with monkeys, and (2) there are MANY Christians who believe in God AND in biological evolution as a process that God set up to accomplish his creation. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

This debate is the reason we need more people who can do science AND philosophy. Too many people can just do one or the other which is why we end up with Dawkins and young earthers. That said, it is encouraging to read a whole discussion on the subject in which no one feels the need to throw insults around. I agree with CMP’s sentiment that this issue is not important enough that it should cause division…

The problem I had accepting that evolution apparently happened (I became convinced about a year ago) wasn’t the evidence or the science. It was my concern that if I did, I’d wind up being a liberal who can’t read two Biblical texts next to each other without forcing some kind of contradiction into them. (You’d be surprised at some of the things I’ve seen people claim were contradictions.)

I spent a long time trying to gather data and interpretations. What finally convinced me was the concept of a “worldview interpretation”: assume that the history being discussed is factual (that is, the things the people could have seen), but the cosmology informing the language is based on the culture’s worldview, except when it’s clear that the cosmology is NOT consistent with the known worldview at the time. The best discussion I was able to find on this is the PDF document at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetings/baylor2009/papers/ASA2009Hill.pdf (about 2M download, but highly recommended for its table comparing the major Genesis interpretations).

This neatly accounts for the Bible’s constant geocentricism (worldview, remember!); if our culture were to write the Bible we’d be talking about the Earth spinning through the void (which is not what a scientist would write, by the way). Adam and Eve? Historical. First humans? No, the Bible doesn’t say that. Parents of modern humans? Yes.

By the way, the two things that convinced me most were listening to an audiobook of Darwin’s Origin (from http://librivox.org/the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/) and watching “Beyond The Firmament”‘s video series about evolution and Christian education (at http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/). If you want to address people like me, you’ll have to understand the arguments presented in both of these (even though I have to add that I think the history in the Bible is essentially reliable, while Glover thinks it’s not.

-Wm

After I concluded that I could actually plausibly accept evolution, I saw something that reminded me of my past. After some ten years of being an old-earth creationist, I finally saw a young-earth creationist I could respect. He’s a scientist, actively studying one of the most important biological issues anyone who denies evolution has to study: baraminology (how are the Genesis Kinds distinct from one another, and can they be recognized today?). He’s actually been published in scientific journals.

He admits loudly and publicly that the evidence for evolution appears very strong. He admits that young-earth “creation science” doesn’t have any kind of model explaining with any plausibility why things are the way they are in almost any field (geology, astronomy, paleontology, etc). He explains that he perseveres because he knows that science sometimes works this way: the solution sometimes isn’t obvious until you gather more data. He’s working where he is because he trusts that the Bible will be vindicated literally, and perhaps his work will provide part of the data.

I could see going back to young-earth with people like that. “Never tell me the odds.”

Read at LEAST this entire blogpost, and hopefully the articles he links to at the end as well.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

-Wm

I am definitely a Theistic Evolutionist but I question the little box I have been placed in. At no time have I ever thought that God just let the system run itself. Not only do I consider that there is ample evidence for evolution as a scientific theory but I believe that God is and has always been deeply involved in each moment of it.

Maybe the first, best thing to happen would be to cease putting each other in little boxes and categories and instead consider each other on a continuum.

….Mmmm. I know. Not likely to happen.

As always, sound, thoughtful advice on a contentious topic.

Atheists need evolution because otherwise they have to explain how we came to be here and their PHILOSOPHICAL worldview crumbles.

Scientists can take or leave evolution depending on how it fits the facts (and a lot of the people in the hard sciences would just as soon the evolutionary biologists moved to the department of religion WHERE THEY BELONG).

The problems arise when the new atheists try to use science to decide theological issues (i.e., is there a god?). There ain’t no god-test — an experiment that produces outcome A when a god exists and B when he doesn’t. And if it can’t be demonstrated by repeatable experiment, it ain’t scientific.

We’d waste a lot less time and ink (as Michael so sagely points out) if we stick to our knitting (the risen Christ).

— Ishmael

Marv –

So maybe here’s where we are not meshing. As you understand myth, in an ancient setting. Do you understand THEM to have a category “myth” in which X tells a story, knowing jolly well it did not go down like this in any kind of history, but the story conveys some kind of theological truth.

Or is it a story they would have affirmed as “actually having happened” but that we (might) say (a) didn’t actually happen, but (b) communicates spiritual truth.

They could have jolly well known they were communicating myth or not. They could have jolly well meant exactly that it took place in 6 literal 24-hour days, or not. I’ve heard both argued. In my reading of certain authors, I see the early chapters of Genesis explained in either of these two ways:

1) The author knowingly used the literary device of ‘myth’ (not that they used the same terminology as we would today, but that is simply the term we use). There were competing ANE mythical accounts on the beginnings and origins of humanity, creation, the cosmos, evil, etc (i.e. Enuma Elish & Gilgamesh). And here we are given the Genesis account that is the over and above, God-directed, inspired storied account to communicate THE ACTUAL TRUTH about these things, whereas the other ANE accounts fell short.

2) The author knowingly communicated things in Genesis 1-3 as if they actually happened that way. Knowing the ANE history and culture, you would expect nothing less than such an accounting (this is why we see similarities with things like Enuma Elish & Gilgamesh). But, even though it didn’t happen that way, this does not mean the author is erring or faulty or deceptive. Rather the point of these chapters is not to communicate scientifically faithful cosmology and biology. It is written to teach us these theological truths as the God-directed, inspired account – to tell us how we got here, who is Creator and Owner of all, how evil/sin entered the picture,…

Marv –

If I have instructions to fix my washing machine, they might be hard to interpret just like that. Once I get inside and have a look, the words then start to make sense. This is because I realize I am having the same experience as the author. I am seeing the same thing inside the machine.

If we are talking about prophecy and I don’t quite get 1 Cor. 14, then I see in a church a person receiving a prophecy and seeing his “mail read” and saying God really is among you. I realize I am having the same experience as Paul was talking about. I can thus confirm what he was communicating.

Regardless, I believe you have given examples that ‘our conclusion on subject matter today can possibly work as input for my interpretation of the ancient text.’

Looking at the creation stories through a communicator’s eyes (I spent 35 years in missionary radio), they had to be understandable in a pre-scientific age. God being the greatest communicator chose these stories; they have been set at the opening pages of holy scripture to teach us that God made all things – not necessarily how God made all things. The Gospel hinges on our accountability to our creator, not on how long he took to get this planet going.
Great post, Michael.

Paul (#31) said,

Equating Christianity with Young Earth Creationism (which you didn’t but unfortunately John MacArthur, Ken Ham, and others do) does a tremendous disservice to Christian evangelism.

I agree and linking the two IS the big deal, not the debate itself. Christian evangelism is telling the good news that God sent His son, who took on flesh, offered himself up as a sacrifice for sin because mankind is born in sin and can never be reconciled to God without belief in his son. Mankind is in that condition because of the fall. Does it matter exactly what year the fall happened only that it did?

So IMHO, the continued dogmatic insistence that the age of the earth impacts the gospel, one’s ability to embrace and live it out does nothing to further it.

Michael,

Overall, I appreciated your even-handed response. I tracked with you (especially on the attitudinal issues), until you got to the syrup. I think I understand why you prefer to de-emphasize this area of intense debate. But, I read through the grid of 25 years of ministry in a University town. With numerous science professors/teachers in the Church I pastor, it’s interesting. Gratefully, they all have really good attitudes on matters. That said, although clearly evangelical, I doubt any of them are young earthers. I have always found the intramural spirit of young earthers distasteful and often detrimental to Christian witness. But I have also observed the condescending attitude of evolutionists of various stripes. These labels themselves are not always helpful.

But our young people who go to the universities will encounter very well reasoned presentations of philosophical naturalism supported by evolutionary biology. It is helpful to teach them to distinguish what science can and cannot do; to help them see that the moment one uses science to postulate ultimate origins, one leaves science to enter philosophy. Teach them the difference between science and philosophy.

Honest scientists (and there are plenty of them in the academy) know that it’s simply outside the function of science to resolve such matters. Only faith could allow you to believe the conclusions of philosophical naturalism. Stretching science into philosophy (or into a form of religion) has given people the misleading impression that the science of evolution (micro) offers more than it is capable of rendering (macro).

Science can describe in fascinating detail what is within the universe. Science can speak of purposes related to adaptability and survival in the physical world. Only God can speak to purposes of eternal significance beyond the limitations of the physical world. God prescribes what is beyond the descriptions of scientific inquiry.

One more thing, for what it’s worth, I am seeing a new hunger among university students that I believe is a result of dogmatic philosophical naturalism at the academy.

As you know, the dominant view of most of public and much of private education (for the last five decades) has been that the physical world is a self-contained system that works by impersonal, blind, unbroken natural laws. Supported by a ludicrous overreaching use of evolutionary biology, this naturalistic philosophy declares that nothing beyond nature could have any conceivable relevance to what happens in nature.

I am suggesting that this has inadvertently stirred a growing hunger for what is real, lasting, hopeful, eternal, spiritual—for a world with opened windows. You won’t find much of it among the self-appointed intellectual custodians of the academy. But you will find it among their students. The students are tired of being stuffed into the culturally mandated, narrow, little world without windows!

I think that being forced into a “world without windows” has left a new generation hungry for something more, something bigger, something beyond—for mystery, transcendence—for the eternal.

What an opportunity this is for the church. This is not a time for the church to get stuck in battles of the past or to trivialize over things that are not of primary importance. It’s a call for the church to be truthful rather than trendy; faithful rather than fashionable. It’s a call to a fresh, bold, humble incarnate proclamation of the truth of the gospel!

I wrote about this at: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/a-world-without-windows-in-print/

Michael. My stance is that really, this is a very pointless debate. I prefer to come from where my opponent comes from provided it doesn’t clash with essentials.

It does not say “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and a young-earth and you shall be saved.”

It does not say “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and deny marcoevolution and you shall be saved.”

The question is really, what is essential to the gospel? It’s belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity and that salvation is found only in Him.

Nothing in there about views on age of the Earth or evolution.

If my opponent believes in macroevolution, fine. I’ll grant him that for the sake of the debate.

Even if he believes in an eternal universe, I’ll grant him that for the sake of debate.

Of course, if he believes in naturalism, I can’t grant that since that denies God entirely, but I can agree to the facts of science without the inferences drawn from those.

My goal is to get him to the cross and empty tomb. Why should I try to get him to accept my science before he accepts my savior?

You might have missed a very plausible answer to Gen 1 . . .
It’s called COVENANT CREATION and is shaking many to the core
http://beyondcreationscience.com/
Yes, I’ve taught YE Creation and know that as one learns about another view, it’s not so much the “new info” that’s the problem but the “COST” of giving up the old and realizing that you may have spent too much time on the wrong trail.

If you own any book with “Creation Science” in it’s title then you also need to own: BEYOND CREATION SCIENCE

Michael,
I truly appreciate your emphasis on this not being a non-essential to the Faith. Unfortunately, I did notice that you had quite a bit of misinformation in the post- specifically that you seem to equate an old universe to evolution and that there are only two creation passages (you did qualify that statement by saying passages that describe all of creation, so that last critique may be moot).

AiG and Biologos definitely represent the extremes- demonizing anyone who disagrees with their position. I am a fan of Reasons to Believe (reasons.org) because even though they hold a progressive creation/old universe model (with much scientific and biblical validity), they do not bow to evolution nor do they even hint that someone who disagrees with them (but holds the essentials of the Faith) are not really Christian. They allow their biblical and scientific arguments to stand on their own without ad hominem attacks.

Also, just a side note, my Sunday School class has been going through the Introduction to Theology. The further we get into it, the more I see that Reasons to Believe is systematic with their theology, and how young-universe creationists rely heavily on Biblical Theology (disregarding the analogy of Scripture) in their interpretations. This is not meant to be an ad hominem attack. Much like you have said in the past, you can still be a Christian and do bad theology.

I understand your desire to minimize this debate within the Church (since it is a non-essential); however, old/young universe issues is a major stumbling block for many to come to the Faith. Discovering the truth of this is extremely important in carrying out the Great Commission.

If the evidence shows that Jesus rose from the dead; the Bible teaches a young universe; and direct measurements of the universe yield an age older than the Bible allows, we have a huge contradiction on our hands. Which is cannot be the work of the God of the Bible- a further contradiction.

Michael,

Thanks you for the post. I disagree with your logic — “Awesome. Can you pass me the syrup?” The reasons are as follows. Students in Universities –Junior, Sophmore etc are bombarded with alternative views. We should at the very least be able to say I believe in either : 1 or 2 or … From my perspective it is important but not essential!

I also happen to believe that these groups of believers are misguided. It is more probable that both evolutionists and creationists are correct. They only see it from a different time frame!

We need to think out of the box.

Science

Most scientists in the mid 1950s’ believe that universe had NO Beginining. Now most scientists believe that there is a begining except afew die hard like Hawkins. Even that logic/assumptions boil down to a begining.

Bible
Go back to Gen.1. There is evening and morning, Day One. Evening and morning, Day Two.. Till Day 4 where the Sun is mention. See the problem here! What is the source of light when the Sun was not mention? So if we search further maybe both groups are right, only difference is we see things from a different time frame.