# Is my position on the Evolution vs. Creationism debate Biblical?



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Oct 10, 2016)

I'm a senior at an all-male prep school. I'll be headed to college next year. I'm very passionate about political philosophy. I also love studying the Classics( literature, history, philosophy, languages) Theology is also something I love studying. I'm a very strong student in the Humanities. However, when it comes to science, I'm not nearly as interested. I'm bored to death in science courses.( I only get average grades in science) I take a midway position on the evolution vs. creationism debate. I believe that no matter how creation happened, or how long it took, God did it. I don't take a particular position , because I'm no expert on science, and because I just don't know. So I'm a scientific agnostic.( an agnostic when it comes to science) I think YEC, OEC, ID, and even Theistic Evolution are OK positions to hold( as long as it doesn't exclude God from the process, and as long as it doesn't deny the historicity of Adam and Eve) The reason I have such a hard time embracing YEC or OEC is because the scientific community thinks Creationism is a joke. But I'm not a huge fan of Theistic Evolution either. That's why I said, I just don't know. I don't take any position. I say that no matter how it happened, God did it. Is my position Biblical? J. Gresham Machen seemed to have a similar position on the issue.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 10, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> as long as it doesn't deny the historicity of Adam and Eve



This tends to be the main problem with theistic evolution. There is really no way to embrace any sort of evolution without also conceding that Adam and Eve were likely not literal people ,and certainly were not the first humans, and that death almost certainly existed before the fall. All of this has serious implications for the gospel.


----------



## chuckd (Oct 10, 2016)

"God did it". Did what? Your answer will reveal if your position is Biblical or not. Agnosticism is not Biblical though. Nor is the stance that conflicting theories are all true.


----------



## johnny (Oct 10, 2016)

In regards to Creation vs Evolution there is no debate, Evolution is a lie and is unbiblical.
As for the age of the earth there is some contention (even here on Puritanboard) 
Most on PB are YEC and a couple are OEC. I believe the OEC's are mistaken and in error.

There is pressure in the world of higher learning to conform to its worldviews, but we have been warned in advance that those who live godly in Christ Jesus in this life shall suffer persecution.

I have not watched it yet but the new DVD by Creation Ministries called "Fallout" looks interesting.

http://creation.com/fallout


----------



## lynnie (Oct 10, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Anglicanorthodoxy said:
> 
> 
> > as long as it doesn't deny the historicity of Adam and Eve
> ...



There are many evolutionist Christians- I believe Tim Keller is one- who do believe in a literal first Adam. At some point in time God breathed the first eternal human soul into an evolved creature who became the first man and there was a true act of disobedience and a real fall. They say that the curse of death refers to the eternal death of human souls, not death of primates and animals. Adam's primate Mama had no soul, hence no hell or heaven. 

I don't happen to agree, but to answer OP's question, there are Calvinists who are also old earth evolutionists. 

At some point you might want to read some intelligent design articles about the subject of irreducible complexity. It won't take up much time and won't be too complicated to read. There are all sorts of examples of complex systems in single cells and in higher creatures that could not possibly evolve step by step, but had to happen all together, and it is mathematically impossible for that to have happened given the complexity.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> Theology is also something I love studying. I'm a very strong student in the Humanities. However, when it comes to science, I'm not nearly as interested.



If theology is a topic you enjoy, you might find comparative religions a facet of it, and from there you might find it significant to look at the religious ideas which are at work behind the different sciences, especially humanism, materialism, etc. In the end it will show the significance of theology for life and that everyone ultimately engages in theology whenever they utilise their reasoning capacities. Or, in other words, that "Theos" is an inescapable reality for which every man has a "logos" whether he realises it or not.


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 10, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> I'm a senior at an all-male prep school. I'll be headed to college next year. I'm very passionate about political philosophy. I also love studying the Classics( literature, history, philosophy, languages) Theology is also something I love studying. I'm a very strong student in the Humanities. However, when it comes to science, I'm not nearly as interested. I'm bored to death in science courses.( I only get average grades in science) I take a midway position on the evolution vs. creationism debate. I believe that no matter how creation happened, or how long it took, God did it. I don't take a particular position , because I'm no expert on science, and because I just don't know. So I'm a scientific agnostic.( an agnostic when it comes to science) I think YEC, OEC, ID, and even Theistic Evolution are OK positions to hold( as long as it doesn't exclude God from the process, and as long as it doesn't deny the historicity of Adam and Eve) The reason I have such a hard time embracing YEC or OEC is because the scientific community thinks Creationism is a joke. But I'm not a huge fan of Theistic Evolution either. That's why I said, I just don't know. I don't take any position. I say that no matter how it happened, God did it. Is my position Biblical? J. Gresham Machen seemed to have a similar position on the issue.



I understand where you come from. I used to be a theistic evolutionist. But even a cursory reading of the Bible's first chapters, and of Paul, led me away from it. That is because I had a higher view of Scripture than many evolutionists.
Unlike them, I was consistent. It was science and 'acceptance' or it was the Bible. I knew what was at stake. I chose the Bible but, only by God's grace to open my eyes.


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Oct 10, 2016)

Thanks for all the answers guys. Just to be clear, I did NOT say that I'm Agnostic as far as religion goes( I wouldn't be on here if I was) I said I'm an Agnostic With science, because I don't know what to believe as far as science goes. Why does the majority of the scientific community see YEC as laughable? That's what I can't get my head around. If YEC is true, why is it mocked so much by the scientific community? I'm currently taking Biology at my prep school, and we watched a video today where a scientist said that we are just a bunch of a toms, and that Evolution happened all on its own, without any God. He was talking about how Darwin defeated William Paley. That's what brought this to my mind. I wish Paley had been alive to answer Darwin. I often wonder what he would've said. R. L Dabney ( one of my favorite theologians who was living at the time) totally refused to accept Darwinism.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 10, 2016)

The scientific community also believes the resurrection of the dead is a joke. In fact, a number of them believe anything miraculous is a joke, along with the existence of a divine providence. It may be helpful to remember that we walk by faith, not by sight, and that science is fundamentally empirically based, while the miraculous act of Creation is known by faith (Hebrews 11). If you are agnostic so far as having a position towards the scientific evidence, I would recommend studying the Scriptures and see what they have to say. If they speak contrary to unbelieving scientists, so be it.

Having said that, there are empirical evidences that indicate long ages. If a scientist took divine revelation seriously and concluded that the Scriptures taught YEC, the scientist would conduct his or her science accordingly (perhaps within a mature creation framework).

Don't think of science as being without theological or philosophical bias or as being a neutral revelation of facts; neither think of it as dealing with mere "facts." Largely, unbelieving scientists are theologically and philosophically committed to materialist empiricism (or something similar), and they will find laughable any belief that is based upon divine revelation and held to be fact.


----------



## mgkortus (Oct 10, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> Why does the majority of the scientific community see YEC as laughable?



The majority of the scientific community scoffs at the idea YECism because of their starting point: unbelief. You will hear time and time again that science is able to _objectively_ study the world around us and arrive at a right knowledge of how the world was formed. They claim that this possible due to the scientific method. 

Within the scientific method, one starts with a hypothesis. Then one goes about gathering information (collecting data). The results of this inquiry are then interpreted in order to draw conclusions. From those conclusions, one is able to formulate a new hypothesis that takes into account what has been learned. 

As I said, the unbelieving scientist champions the scientific method as being an objective method for determining truth. However, this is not the case. For one's own biases enter in at the step of interpretation. How one views the results and draws conclusions based on those results is heavily influenced by that individual's starting point. This means it is not necessary to throw out the data that is collected. However, it does mean that we may not rely on the interpretation of that data by unbelieving scientists. 

Why? Because the unbelieving scientist has the starting point that there is no God. Thus, whenever he interprets that data, he will do so from this viewpoint. This skews everything and makes him unreliable for reaching the right conclusion on such matters as the origins of the world (Note: this same bias is not problematic with regards to areas such as medicine - the goal there is improving human health, rather than explaining the origins of the universe). 

I would contend that the data generated by such unbelieving scientists can be (and ought to be) understood from the starting point of faith: that there is a God who created the world in the way set forth in the opening chapters of Genesis. Thus, we can understand physical phenomenon such as the rise of new species from the viewpoint of faith. We believe that God created the world in six, twenty four days. Thus, the fact that we see new species popping up does not provide us with an explanation of the origins of life. However, it may indicate why there is such diversity in the animal world when only a limited number of animals could fit on the ark. 

The important thing is to interpret the scientific data from the viewpoint of Scripture, rather than interpreting Scripture from the viewpoint of the conclusions drawn up by unbelieving scientists who are intent on denying God.


----------



## timfost (Oct 11, 2016)

Science must be based on controlled variables and observation. It is a wonderful tool to understand the creation.

Since we cannot control or even number the relevant variables at the time of creation, nor can we make observations, we should default to the One who knows and controls the "variables" as well as the One who made infinite, intimate and perfect observations of the process.

This should lead us to scripture _alone_, not a composite of fallible and infallible (which always equals _fallible_). Even secular methods of inquiry teach the superiority of primary sources.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Oct 11, 2016)

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Modern science is built on a number of assumptions, including materialism (the material world is all that exists). Scientists say that science must be able to show how things happen, or happened, by natural causes. They reject intelligent design because it is unable to be tested scientifically. I've actually read somewhere that scientists don't know how life emerged from non-life, but they know it did because it exists today. 

If you can get a hold of it, you should read _In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation_. These are real scientists who believe that evolution is just not backed up by the evidence. 

With regards to theistic evolution, a major problem is that it puts death before sin. The Bible says that man brought death into the world through sin (Romans 5:12), but evolution says that death brought man into the world through natural selection (for the fittest to survive, the rest must _die_). They cannot both be true.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 11, 2016)

MW said:


> "Theos" is an inescapable reality for which every man has a "logos" whether he realises it or not.



That is publishable, right there. Bravo, sir.


----------



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Oct 12, 2016)

What do you guys think of this statement on the issue from Metropolitan Nicholas of the Greek Orthodox Church?( this guy was a scientist before becoming a priest)

"Research that is done to challenge God, has the disease of prejudice. Research is done to discover scientific truth. What problem is there with someone wanting to broaden the horizons of their thoughts and knowledge? God is approached better this way. God is not an ideology that we should by all means defend, but we believe in Him because He is Truth. In this sense, even scientific truth reveals Him. If He is still questioned, it is time to find out about Him. A believer who fears scientific research, fears the truth. Perhaps he is a believer who does not believe. The teaching of the Church is based on the inspired book of Genesis. This is not a book about Physics or Biology. The important thing it talks about is not whether God molded man from soil and where He found it, but that man was made “in the image and likeness” of God. Everything else falls into details. How can science subvert this? Beyond this, if science improves our understanding of this world and our image of Him, why should we challenge it? The most we can say is that we understand some things better. The God-likeness of man, that is, that we are made with divine life and engraved with the purpose of divine likeness, this cannot be changed by science. Though it can be arrogantly challenged by some scientists."


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 12, 2016)

While Genesis is not a book "about" biology in the sense that this is the main theme, but to imply that Genesis does not speak to biology is to deny the obvious, and to deny that Genesis speak authoritatively about biology is to deny inspiration.


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2016)

Anglicanorthodoxy said:


> The important thing it talks about is not whether God molded man from soil and where He found it, but that man was made “in the image and likeness” of God. Everything else falls into details. How can science subvert this?



This is like saying the important thing is that man has a face, while his nose, mouth, eyes, etc., are "details." The details contribute to our understanding of the image of God, and materialist science subverts this understanding in numerous ways. The Genesis narrative sets man apart as a creative act of God, first, by showing man's uniqueness in an inter-personal consultation; then, it shows the personal and immediate action of God in forming and animating him. It is not simply the image and likeness of God which sets man apart; there is nearness and intimacy in God's willingness to give life to man in a way He does not do with the rest of creation. If this were a "myth" then the incarnation would need revision, together with the doctrine of union with Christ, because it is certain that the traditional view of the incarnation of Christ and union with Christ is built on a literal understanding of biblical anthropology. Jesus Christ is the second Adam.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 13, 2016)

Hello Khater (belated welcome to PB!),

You asked, "The reason I have such a hard time embracing YEC or OEC is because the scientific community thinks Creationism is a joke." Well, they also think the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His resurrection from the dead, His present reign over heaven and earth, and His second coming, all are jokes.

Why would you give these unbelievers in the truth God has revealed to us any credence at all? As it is written, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly..."

Their "science" is based on false presuppositions (there is no Biblical God) and their knowledge consequently flawed.


----------

