ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
However, looking at my Rube Goldberg system a few years ago, it dawned on me that many problems are created (as well as solved) by the Day Age view. Death, for example, is theologially attributed to sin. But, allowing for millions of years of creational "trial and error" to produce the species of plants and animals, results in a God who keeps trying to get it right and finally interrupts his naturalistic enterprise to drop Adam and Eve into it. Death, then, is only "theologically" not factually the result of sin and that militates against the need for an Adam and Eve at all. If the Genesis saga is merely ANE cosmology gone Jewish, then why not see the whole thing the way Genome head and "evangelial" Francis Collins does, it is all theistic evolution from start to finish without the requirement of ANY divine intervention along the way? Adam and Eve become a quaint intrusion into a naturalistic schema that hardly requires them.
Actually, believing in a lack of animal death before the Fall is much more of a "trial and error" approach than evolution, though I don't believe in evolution per se. If you believe all animals were herbivores before the Fall, then you must by necessity believe in a 2nd creation, or at the very least an extreme modification of the existing creation. For example, were lions created with giant claws and teeth before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God had to redesign them completely, so that in fact they were not really lions at all to begin with. Or spiders - did they spin webs before the Fall? If so, why? If not, God essentially created a new species after the Fall or so changed the original that it would be completely different. So really if you believe animals did not die before the Fall, then you must believe in a trial and error approach, since God would either have to re-create everything or completely change everything, including very fundamental elements of the biosphere, namely the food chain. In reality, nothing in Scripture indicates there was no animal death before the Fall. However, there was clearly no human death. That I agree 100% with, and reject any theory that claims man evolved or arrived by any means other than special ex nihilo.
My point can be summarized as follows:
- First of all, one does not need to believe in evolution as an explanation for life on Earth to be an OECer. An OECer simply believes the Earth was created over millions of years, but that does not mean he or she accepts evolution (though most do).
- Second, one can accept evolution, so long as they believe humans did NOT evolve, but were created unique and distinct by God, and that the first human deaths did not occur until after the Fall.
- Third, evolution is not a "trial and error" process, but a divinely instituted refining process that is in place today. Evolution happens, at least on a small scale. To deny its existence is to deny simple observation. It is a wonderful mechanism of maintaining and enhancing the diversity of all God's creation. That does not mean all living things evolved from the so-called "primordial ooze" (an absurd belief, in my opinion), but it does mean evolution is a valid concept created by God.
- Fourth, while I have not read the Answers in Genesis material, I am still unconvinced that an Old Earth view of Creation changes anything theologically. God is still the Almighty, the Creator. Man was still created in His image, sinned against Him, and thus all his progeny are in need of a Savior. The Bible is still infallible and inerrant. So what if God took millions of years to mold Earth? So what if He did it instantly (as Augustine believed)? I fail to see how it changes any of our beliefs, other than our understanding of Genesis 1.