Property Of God
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 786
Ankerberg Theological Research Institute
The Current Debate on Creation and Evolution
Dr. Norman Geisler
Since the time of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), debate has raged within Christianityon whether or not total evolution is compatible with the historic biblical andtheological teaching on origins. Two basic camps have emerged: theistic evolutionand creationism. Within the second faction (creationists), there are two majorgroups: old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists. (The former are oftencalled progressive creationists, and the latter, fiat creationists.) Currently, in America, the young-earth creationists are led by the Institute for Creation Research
(ICR), based on the work of Henry Morris. Progressive (old-earth) creationisms championed by Hugh Ross and his “Reasons to Believe” organization; another proponent of this view is Robert Newman at Biblical Seminary inHatfield, Pennsylvania.
Young-Earth Creationism
The primary difference between young- and old-earth creationists is the
speculated amount of time between God’s creative acts. Young-earthers insist that it was all accomplished in 144 hours–six successive 24-hour days–while oldearth(progressive) creationists allow for millions (or even billions) of years. This is usually done by:
(1) placing long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (making it a recent and
local Creation);
(2) placing the long periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called
“gap” views);
(3) making the “days” of Genesis 1 long periods of time;
(4) allowing long periods of time between literal 24-hour days in Genesis 1
(called “alternate day-age views); or
(5) making the days of Genesis to be days of revelation of God to the writer, not days of Creation (called “revelatory day” views).
There are several variations within these perspectives, making a total of more than a dozen different views held by evangelical theologians on the matter.
Old-Earth Creationism
Old-earth (progressive) creationists are not to be confused with theistic evolutionists. Old-earth creationists do not accept macroevolution as a method by which God produced the originally created kinds of Genesis 1. Old-earth creationism was strong among nineteenth-century creationists, though the view dates from at least the fourth century (in Augustine). Again, prominent contemporary defenders include Hugh Ross and Robert Newman.
Theistic Evolution
Broadly speaking, theistic evolution is the belief that God used evolution as
His means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life. All theistic evolutionists believe that God performed at least one supernatural act—the act of creating the physical universe form nothing. However, this may more properly be called deistic evolution, since there are no miracles involved after the first act of Creation.
Most theistic evolutionists hold to at least two acts of Creation: (1) the creationof matter out of nothing, and (2) the creation of first life. After that, allegedly, every other living thing, including human beings, emerged by natural processes that God had ordained from the beginning. Some theistic evolutionists do insist that God directly created the first soul in the long-evolved primate to make it truly human and in His image….
Areas of Agreement Between Young- and Old-Earth Creationists
Young- and old-earth creationists have much in common, at least among
those who are evangelical. This includes several basic things.
Direct Supernatural Creation of All Forms of Life
Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and
immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life. Both hold that every kind produced by God was directly created de nova (brand-new) and did not come about by God’s using natural processes over a long period of time or tinkering with previous types of life in order to make higher forms (evolution).
Opposition to Naturalism
Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to naturalism, which they see as the philosophical presupposition of evolution. They correctly observe that without a naturalistic bias, evolution loses its credibility. Ruling out the possibility of supernatural intervention in the world begs the whole question in favor of evolution even before one begins.
Opposition to Macroevolution
Likewise, both are united in their opposition to macroevolution, either theistic or nontheistic; that is, they reject the theory of common ancestry. They both deny that all forms of life descended by completely natural processes without supernatural intervention from the outside. They deny that all living things are like a tree connected to a common trunk and root; rather, they affirm the separate ancestry of all the basic forms of life, a picture more like a forest of different trees. Microevolution, where small changes occur within the basic kinds of created things, is acknowledged, but no macro (large-scale) evolution occurs between
different kinds. For example, both old- and young-earth creationists agree
that all dogs are related to an original canine pair—part of the same tree. However, they deny that dogs, cats, cows, and other created kinds are related like branches from one original tree.
The Historicity of the Genesis Account
Further, both young- and old-earthers who are evangelical hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race. While some may allow for poetic form and figure of speech in the narrative, all agree that it conveys historical and literal truth about origins. This is made clear by the New Testament references to Adam and Eve, their creation and fall, as literal (cf. Luke 3:38; Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Areas of Difference Between Young-and Old-Earth Creationists
Of course, there are some differences between the two basic evangelical
views on Creation. The primary ones include the following.
The Age of the Earth
A crucial variance between the two views, naturally, is the age of the earth. Young-earthers insist that both the Bible and science support a universe that is only thousands of years old, while old-earthers allow for billions of years. Youngearthers connect their view to a literal interpretation of Genesis (and Ex. 20:11),
but old-earthers claim the same basic hermeneutic, which they believe can
include millions, if not billions, of years since Creation. They too cite scientific evidence in their favor.
At a minimum, it would be wise if both sides could agree on the following:
(1) The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy.
(2) Neither view is proven with scientific finality, since there are unproven (if not unprovable) presuppositions associated with each.
(3) The fact of Creation (vs. evolution) is more important than the time of
Creation.
(4) Their common enemy (naturalistic evolution) is a more significant focus
than their intramural differences….
Conclusion
The doctrine of Creation is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The essentials of this teaching have universal consent among orthodox theologians. They include the following:
(1) There is a theistic God.
(2) Creation of the universe was ex nihilo (out of nothing).
(3) Every living thing was created by God.
(4) Adam and Eve were a direct and special creation of God.
(5) The Genesis account of creation is historical, not mythological.
While there is lively debate about the time of Creation, all evangelicals agree on the fact of Creation. There is also agreement on the source of Creation (atheistic God) and the purpose of Creation (to glorify God).
The exact method of Creation is still a moot question; however, increasingly, the scientific evidence supports a supernatural Creation of the universe, the direct creation of first life, and the special creation of every basic life form. Hence, macroevolution, whethertheistic or naturalistic, is unfounded both biblically and scientifically.
Quotes from Christian scientists about Evolution:
1. Christian B. Anfinsen, (Ph.D. biochemistry, Harvard University, Nobel prize for physics)–
I think only an idiot can be an atheist. 22:139
2. David Berlinsky (Ph.D. mathematics, Princeton University)–
The theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.27
3. Michael Denton (M.D., molecular biologist)–
Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century.
The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological research– paleontological, zoological and in the new branches of genetics and molecular biology–has provided ever increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.9: 77,358
4. Isaac V. Manly, (M.D., Harvard Medical School)–
[Evolution] is a fairy tale myth. Society has suffered as a result of this adult fantasy. Evolutionists claim their theory is scientific. Where is the science? I can assure the reader the American Kennel Club would not certify an ancestor of your dog based on evidence such as paleontologists present. 29:15,117,228
5. Saltationist SØren LØvtrup, Professor of Embryology, University of Umea, Sweden–
I believe that one day the Darwinian [gradualist] myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: how did this ever happen?28:422
6. H.S. Lipson, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology–
…to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all….I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not rejected a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. (Physics Bulletin, May 1980, p.138)
7. Lemoine, former President of the Geological Society of France, Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, editor of the Encyclopedia Francaise–
…the theory of evolution is impossible. 5 vol.1:151
8. Ken Hsu, Geological Institute at Zurich, former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists–
We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry “the emperor has no clothes.” (“Darwin’s Three Mistakes” Geology, Vol. 14 (1986) p. 534
9. Louis Neel, Nobel Prize for physics –
…the progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be, does not bring science closer to religion but it leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe.22:73
10. Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize for physics–
Creation is supported by all the data so far.22:83
11. Thomas C. Emmel, Ph.D. in Population Biology, Stanford University, Professor of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville–
To me, the concept of God is a logical outcome of the study of the immense universe that lies around us…. the evidence is all too pervasive for me to think otherwise.22:171
12. P.C.C. Garnham, M.D., D.Sc., recipient of the Darling Medal and Prize, Emeritus Professor of Medical Protozoology, University of London–
…by faith and by appreciation of scientific necessity, God must exist.22:173
13. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, holder of three earned doctorates in science–
…the theory totally lacks experimental or theoretical scientific basis!
…this type of [evolutionary establishment] credulousness far surpasses all the religious credulousness and superstition on this entire planet Earth.19:5,51
14. Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France–
Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.1:11
The Current Debate on Creation and Evolution
Dr. Norman Geisler
Since the time of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), debate has raged within Christianityon whether or not total evolution is compatible with the historic biblical andtheological teaching on origins. Two basic camps have emerged: theistic evolutionand creationism. Within the second faction (creationists), there are two majorgroups: old-earth creationists and young-earth creationists. (The former are oftencalled progressive creationists, and the latter, fiat creationists.) Currently, in America, the young-earth creationists are led by the Institute for Creation Research
(ICR), based on the work of Henry Morris. Progressive (old-earth) creationisms championed by Hugh Ross and his “Reasons to Believe” organization; another proponent of this view is Robert Newman at Biblical Seminary inHatfield, Pennsylvania.
Young-Earth Creationism
The primary difference between young- and old-earth creationists is the
speculated amount of time between God’s creative acts. Young-earthers insist that it was all accomplished in 144 hours–six successive 24-hour days–while oldearth(progressive) creationists allow for millions (or even billions) of years. This is usually done by:
(1) placing long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (making it a recent and
local Creation);
(2) placing the long periods of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called
“gap” views);
(3) making the “days” of Genesis 1 long periods of time;
(4) allowing long periods of time between literal 24-hour days in Genesis 1
(called “alternate day-age views); or
(5) making the days of Genesis to be days of revelation of God to the writer, not days of Creation (called “revelatory day” views).
There are several variations within these perspectives, making a total of more than a dozen different views held by evangelical theologians on the matter.
Old-Earth Creationism
Old-earth (progressive) creationists are not to be confused with theistic evolutionists. Old-earth creationists do not accept macroevolution as a method by which God produced the originally created kinds of Genesis 1. Old-earth creationism was strong among nineteenth-century creationists, though the view dates from at least the fourth century (in Augustine). Again, prominent contemporary defenders include Hugh Ross and Robert Newman.
Theistic Evolution
Broadly speaking, theistic evolution is the belief that God used evolution as
His means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life. All theistic evolutionists believe that God performed at least one supernatural act—the act of creating the physical universe form nothing. However, this may more properly be called deistic evolution, since there are no miracles involved after the first act of Creation.
Most theistic evolutionists hold to at least two acts of Creation: (1) the creationof matter out of nothing, and (2) the creation of first life. After that, allegedly, every other living thing, including human beings, emerged by natural processes that God had ordained from the beginning. Some theistic evolutionists do insist that God directly created the first soul in the long-evolved primate to make it truly human and in His image….
Areas of Agreement Between Young- and Old-Earth Creationists
Young- and old-earth creationists have much in common, at least among
those who are evangelical. This includes several basic things.
Direct Supernatural Creation of All Forms of Life
Both young- and old-earthers believe that God supernaturally, directly and
immediately produced every kind of animal and human as separate and genetically distinct forms of life. Both hold that every kind produced by God was directly created de nova (brand-new) and did not come about by God’s using natural processes over a long period of time or tinkering with previous types of life in order to make higher forms (evolution).
Opposition to Naturalism
Both groups are also agreed in their opposition to naturalism, which they see as the philosophical presupposition of evolution. They correctly observe that without a naturalistic bias, evolution loses its credibility. Ruling out the possibility of supernatural intervention in the world begs the whole question in favor of evolution even before one begins.
Opposition to Macroevolution
Likewise, both are united in their opposition to macroevolution, either theistic or nontheistic; that is, they reject the theory of common ancestry. They both deny that all forms of life descended by completely natural processes without supernatural intervention from the outside. They deny that all living things are like a tree connected to a common trunk and root; rather, they affirm the separate ancestry of all the basic forms of life, a picture more like a forest of different trees. Microevolution, where small changes occur within the basic kinds of created things, is acknowledged, but no macro (large-scale) evolution occurs between
different kinds. For example, both old- and young-earth creationists agree
that all dogs are related to an original canine pair—part of the same tree. However, they deny that dogs, cats, cows, and other created kinds are related like branches from one original tree.
The Historicity of the Genesis Account
Further, both young- and old-earthers who are evangelical hold to the historicity of the Genesis account: They believe that Adam and Eve were literal people, the progenitors of the entire human race. While some may allow for poetic form and figure of speech in the narrative, all agree that it conveys historical and literal truth about origins. This is made clear by the New Testament references to Adam and Eve, their creation and fall, as literal (cf. Luke 3:38; Rom. 5:12; 1 Tim. 2:13-14).
Areas of Difference Between Young-and Old-Earth Creationists
Of course, there are some differences between the two basic evangelical
views on Creation. The primary ones include the following.
The Age of the Earth
A crucial variance between the two views, naturally, is the age of the earth. Young-earthers insist that both the Bible and science support a universe that is only thousands of years old, while old-earthers allow for billions of years. Youngearthers connect their view to a literal interpretation of Genesis (and Ex. 20:11),
but old-earthers claim the same basic hermeneutic, which they believe can
include millions, if not billions, of years since Creation. They too cite scientific evidence in their favor.
At a minimum, it would be wise if both sides could agree on the following:
(1) The age of the earth is not a test for orthodoxy.
(2) Neither view is proven with scientific finality, since there are unproven (if not unprovable) presuppositions associated with each.
(3) The fact of Creation (vs. evolution) is more important than the time of
Creation.
(4) Their common enemy (naturalistic evolution) is a more significant focus
than their intramural differences….
Conclusion
The doctrine of Creation is a cornerstone of the Christian faith. The essentials of this teaching have universal consent among orthodox theologians. They include the following:
(1) There is a theistic God.
(2) Creation of the universe was ex nihilo (out of nothing).
(3) Every living thing was created by God.
(4) Adam and Eve were a direct and special creation of God.
(5) The Genesis account of creation is historical, not mythological.
While there is lively debate about the time of Creation, all evangelicals agree on the fact of Creation. There is also agreement on the source of Creation (atheistic God) and the purpose of Creation (to glorify God).
The exact method of Creation is still a moot question; however, increasingly, the scientific evidence supports a supernatural Creation of the universe, the direct creation of first life, and the special creation of every basic life form. Hence, macroevolution, whethertheistic or naturalistic, is unfounded both biblically and scientifically.
Quotes from Christian scientists about Evolution:
1. Christian B. Anfinsen, (Ph.D. biochemistry, Harvard University, Nobel prize for physics)–
I think only an idiot can be an atheist. 22:139
2. David Berlinsky (Ph.D. mathematics, Princeton University)–
The theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.27
3. Michael Denton (M.D., molecular biologist)–
Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century.
The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological research– paleontological, zoological and in the new branches of genetics and molecular biology–has provided ever increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.9: 77,358
4. Isaac V. Manly, (M.D., Harvard Medical School)–
[Evolution] is a fairy tale myth. Society has suffered as a result of this adult fantasy. Evolutionists claim their theory is scientific. Where is the science? I can assure the reader the American Kennel Club would not certify an ancestor of your dog based on evidence such as paleontologists present. 29:15,117,228
5. Saltationist SØren LØvtrup, Professor of Embryology, University of Umea, Sweden–
I believe that one day the Darwinian [gradualist] myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: how did this ever happen?28:422
6. H.S. Lipson, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology–
…to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all….I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not rejected a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it. (Physics Bulletin, May 1980, p.138)
7. Lemoine, former President of the Geological Society of France, Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, editor of the Encyclopedia Francaise–
…the theory of evolution is impossible. 5 vol.1:151
8. Ken Hsu, Geological Institute at Zurich, former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists–
We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry “the emperor has no clothes.” (“Darwin’s Three Mistakes” Geology, Vol. 14 (1986) p. 534
9. Louis Neel, Nobel Prize for physics –
…the progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be, does not bring science closer to religion but it leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a rational explanation of the universe.22:73
10. Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize for physics–
Creation is supported by all the data so far.22:83
11. Thomas C. Emmel, Ph.D. in Population Biology, Stanford University, Professor of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville–
To me, the concept of God is a logical outcome of the study of the immense universe that lies around us…. the evidence is all too pervasive for me to think otherwise.22:171
12. P.C.C. Garnham, M.D., D.Sc., recipient of the Darling Medal and Prize, Emeritus Professor of Medical Protozoology, University of London–
…by faith and by appreciation of scientific necessity, God must exist.22:173
13. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, holder of three earned doctorates in science–
…the theory totally lacks experimental or theoretical scientific basis!
…this type of [evolutionary establishment] credulousness far surpasses all the religious credulousness and superstition on this entire planet Earth.19:5,51
14. Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France–
Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.1:11
Last edited:
