You want to see a fundamentalist get red in the face? Ask him his opinion about evolution. Worse yet, tell him you don't the conflict between the Bible and modern science, you think they should peacefully co-exist. Then get ready for some fireworks!
What is it about the issue of creation and evolution that brings out such emotional combativeness? Is it righteous anger? Passion? Insecurity? Fear? Doubt?
The Nicene Creed begins "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible." In my view, the belief that God is the creator of all things is essential Christian doctrine. It is one of the core affirmations of our faith.
However, within Christian circles the debate is not so much about whether God created all things but how. The three prevailing opinions are as follows:
1) Young Earth Creationism: the belief that earth was created in 6 literal days about 5,000-10,000 years ago. Many who hold this view regard it as the only legitimate Christian view because all other views distort the plain truth of scripture.
2) Old Earth Creationism: the belief that the 6 days either stand for 6 eras, or are figurative. So then the earth was created billions of years ago as scientists suggest. However, the basic outline and means of Genesis 1-2 are true.
3) Theistic Evolution: the belief that God used evolutionary processes to create. Genesis 1-2 then are taken as literary polemics or poems answering questions more applicable to Moses and the Israelites than to modern science.
Many hold variations of these views, but these are the basic categories.
I believe that so long as we maintain that the Lord is truly creator of all things, we can hold any one of these views.
What do you think?
Which is your view? Do you think there is room for all of these views or not?
What issues are most important to you as you think about this debate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
My face wouldn’t be so red if I had more melanin. Just a note I have met some peeps with more melanin in their skin and they do not get red in the face however I can tell they really do not enjoy this topic of conversation and this to will come back to hermeneutics so which way do you slide to the left maybe the right maybe like Michael Jackson you just have a clever moonwalk and do not cater to the topic. I have been in these conversations publically and if I could go back I would have been like Michael being they do nothing for the unbeliever or newbie. To answer the question I am a young earth creationist and this stance will also give insight into how I practice my hermeneutics. I have studied the other views and concluded they do not fit into what I understand and believe. The important topics in this discussion are the history of the different beliefs and what they have morphed into and why. I wonder if we would be having these discussions if we didn’t live in times of wealth. Hermeneutics my friends Hermeneutics that is the question.
ReplyDeleteRyan!
ReplyDeleteFirst I was a thiestic evolutionist after becoming a believer at 20 studying science at the U of A. Then I got into Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AiG) hardcore and actually ended up choosing DTS b/c ICR recommended them as a school that taught 6-literal days. I was pretty annoyed to find some faculty members weren't YEC. Since discovering genuine believers that were not YEC as well as reading "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament" by Walton I became a little more tuned into what mattered to the ancient Israelite and a little more comfortable with an old earth to the point where I preferred it over YEC though not strongly. Last week I read "Beyond the Firmament" by Gordon J. Glover and I now feel like I can watch the Discovery Channel and marvel at creation without wincing at the dates or theories for how creation has been created (Other books have been influential as well).
There are serious questions I'm still working out but I'll suffice it to say that the evidence for a 14-billion year old universe is consistent with a faithful God who does not lie whereas my understanding of YEC is that it is not consistent in either its science or its exegesis (case in point, the firmament and the geocentric [vs. heliocentric] solar system that no YEC takes as literal fact).
Furthermore, I believe that YEC creation "science" actually undermines the Gospel and creates barriers for both believers and unbelievers as many creation-evangelists tie YEC to the gospel so tightly that people are forced to choose both or neither.
Miles,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts! You are exactly right that this is a hermeneutics issue. The hermeneutic question we have to answer 'How do we understand everything the Bible says about creation?' Along with that we have to decide how much we allow an understanding of Moses'/Israel's surrounding cultures, stories, etc... effect our reading of the Bible, and how much we will allow science to effect our view of reality.
Bern,
I agree that creation science attempts to do science while remaining true to the gospel, but ends up badly marring both. Whatever the answer is, I think believers have to stop accepting shoddy pseudo-science as 'evidence.' Sometimes it seems like we are so desperate to find anything that proves our position that we are gullible (can anyone say VAPOR CANOPY!!!).
It is always a funny thing to me when people say “you can ask him or her when you get to heaven?” Does anyone else think “yeh but I want the answer today not in heaven!”, then I ask myself do I want the answer to build my silly pride or to edify and lift the church and do I have the ninja skills to accomplish such a undertaking. Anyways annoyed at the” you can ask when you get to heaven” comment. I am convinced that commentary and book are killing our thought. Daily I combat the commentary and think that I am going to shift my studies into history and culture , even with that info it is easy to come into critic mumbo for me the Textual Criticism has been more profitable in my walk and relationship with the Logos. But I guess I will have my answers when I get to heaven uhg I do not like that… Does anyone else cringe at that comment?
ReplyDeleteMiles,
ReplyDeleteI must say I disagree with your assessment that commentary and book are killing our thought. If you mean by that people often substitute knowledge of those things for knowledge of the text, ok. But if you mean that we would be better off without these works by serious scholars and that somehow studies of history and culture cloud the text, I cannot follow you there.
I think the assumption that I can come to this ancient text with no understanding of its original setting and understand it fully is naive. I am not saying that everyone is required to understand all of this, but I am saying there is tremendous benefit in studying it. For instance, how on earth can we possibly understand Moses and Israel who spent almost 400 years in Egypt if we don't understand Egypt at least a little? I think there is a difference between helpful explorations into history and culture and "critic mumbo jumbo."