Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?

[Zenas]

Primary to the issue of evolutionary creationism, and of grave importance, are the theological ramifications of the tenant that go to affect the entire worldview of the individual.

If the Genesis Creation account is allegorical rather than historical, the evolutionary crationist has a conundrum or two to account for that I cannot see being reconciled so as to form a logical and well-grounded faith in the Gospel.

Mind you, I am not saying that you do not affirm the Lordship of Christ and the sacrifice He has made, or that you are not one of the sheep of the Flock. Rather, I am saying that if you do hold this position while holding to the immediately aforementioned, your groundwork for faith is illogical. I recognize that one is not brought to faith by logic, but I do think that mature faith is itself logical. It is for this reason I think I can firmly state your position is theologically illogical and inconsistent, but say so to one I do take as a brother, despite the shortcomming.

Problem 1: In denying the historicity of Genesis, the evolutionary creationist denies the historicity of Adam as the Federal Head. Being that Adam did not exist as is portrayed in Genesis, he cannot then exist as the Federal Head of all mankind, to be a representative for us. With this taken as true from your position, Christ's work on the cross is meaningless as we are just a bunch of hairless apes who are not really "totally depraved" because sin did not enter the world through Adam.

This is contradictory to the reasoning we see in Scripture which plainly asserts that through one man, i.e. Adam, sin has entered the world. In denying the historicity of Genesis, you deny what Scripture purports about the vehicle through which sin entered the world, as well as any explaination for the total depravity of man.

Problem 2: As was mentioned above, Scripturally, death did not occur before the Fall, it was a result of the curse. This has no place in an allegory and I fail to see how apes evolved into humans via natural selection sans mortality so that they could disobey God, and introduce death into the world, which was already prexisting somehow. I cannot see this as reconciled.

Problem 3: At what point did man gain a soul? Animals are without an ethereal nature and Angels and demons are solely ethereal. Man is the only hybrid, so to speak. At one point in the evolutionary framework did man cease being a souless animal and gain an immortal, ethereal soul? I see no place for this in Scripture, at all, which means you'll need to appeal to an extra-Scriptural basis in order to account for this, which is plainly outside the bounds of orthodox Protestantism.

Edit: Problem 4: I read Rev. Winzer's post and it also reminded me that we also have no basis for the Sabbath. The Decalogue tell us to "remember the Sabbath" because it had already been in effect since creation. If the historical 7 days are denied, then what exactly are we to be remembering?

Sidenote: I don't think anyone here would seek to purport that scientific findings should be dismissed because they are, well, scientific. I would urge you to remember that science was ruled by God fearing Christians for hundreds of years before the usurpation of the discipline by naturalistic, materialistic, atheists. It is with these presuppositions, i.e. that all that occurs is a result of only physical, natural processes and that the supernatural and immaterial are fantasies, that evolutionists have designed a theory to account for our origins that is without sufficient merit to be regarded as it is, i.e. as a presumed law. Irreducible complexity, the genesis of DNA without proteins, and information ex nihilo sans an author all present steep problems for the evolutionary explaination, but they are ignored in an unabashed defiance of logic and scholarship, to the deteriment of us all.

It is not science that is a problem. Science is the discipline by which we explore and discover God's general revelation to us. Rather, it is the presuppositional stance that is required to enter and exist in the field of science that is the problem. It requires that you abandon all tenants of science in a specific area, i.e. evolution, in a foolish bid to maintain a false worldview so that men can continue denying God.

I hope you'll take these inconsistencies to heart and reform your notions about man's origins.

Humbly, your brother.

 

[cih1355]

The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, "...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.

According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.

 

[AV1611]

The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, "...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.

You are correct that we ought understand yom to refer to a 24-hour day. There is no linguistic reason not to. However, that does not mean that these days actually ever took place. As I noted earlier, Gen. 1 is an ancient Near Eastern cosmogony that is presented in a prose that characterises historical writings, like unto to other ANE cosmologies. That is, it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form.

 

[greenbaggins]

Any kind of evolution from one species to another is ruled out of court in Genesis 1 by the fact that God created all living beings "according to their kind." This clearly indicates that each kind is distinct. Furthermore, there must be a clear distinction made here between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former happens all the time when a species develops in order to adapt to its environment. Think of the fruit fly experiments, for instance. But the key here is that they remained fruit flies. They did not change into aardvarks. If macro-evolution were true, one would expect evidence of intermediary forms. Science has not produced these. All the so-called fossil evidence isn't. Most of them are hoaxes perpetrated in order to support a theory. There is certainly no evidence of intermediary forms in the world of living animals today. Similarity of form can be much easier explained by the fact that when God created a template that He liked, He used it more than once.

The other problem here is that science can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER prove anything true in a mathematical proof sense. All it can do is theorize. The theory of evolution is not true, therefore, in any sense of the word meaning "proven." Some other theory might very well explain the evidence far better.

As to the Framework Interpretation, several things mitigate against it. The appeal to the creation week in Exodus 20 makes no sense whatever if the week is only a literary framework. Secondly, the apologetic edge against sun-gods Shemesh (Babylonian) and Ra (Egyptian) in Genesis 1 (confer the pointed omission of the names for sun and moon in Gen 1:16) explains much better the correlation between day 1 and day 4 (light and lights) than the Framework Intepretation does. The source of light is God Himself, not sun-gods. Light is not God. Confer also the eschatological direction of Revelation 22:5: as the world began, with God being the source of light, so also will the world end, with God being the source of light. The sun and moon are parentheses. Second, the reference to morning and evening indicates sequence. If it is just there to provide realism, then it is superfluous, and nothing in Scripture is superfluous. Thirdly, the argument about poetry is insane. To say that something is poetry, and therefore ahistorical is simply ridiculous. Are no poems ever written about historical events? Fourthly, the argument that natural preservation was the rule in Genesis 1 (argued by Kline and Futato) runs aground in the fact that their argument does not prove that all of creation was sustained immediately by natural preservation. The literary framework of days 1-3 paralled by days 4-6 fits in with the literal interpretation just as easily as with the Framework hypothesis. Therefore, the FH is not tenable.

 

[A5pointer]

The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, "...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.

According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.

What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?

 

[greenbaggins]

The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, "...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.

According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.

What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?

The seventh day is a normal day in human reckoning. The lack of morning and evening references to the seventh day also indicate that in God's reckoning, the great Sabbath begins, into which we will go, as Hebrews tells us.

 

[A5pointer]

The days of creation in Genesis are qualified by the expression, "...there was evening and morning...". Hence, those days are literal, 24-hour days.

According to the first chapter of Genesis, plants and animals reproduce after their kind. I think creationists believe that two organisms are of the same kind if they can produce viable offspring. If the theory of macroevolution were true, then plants and animals would change beyond the limits of their kind.

What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?

The seventh day is a normal day in human reckoning. The lack of morning and evening references to the seventh day also indicate that in God's reckoning, the great Sabbath begins, into which we will go, as Hebrews tells us.

Lance, I agree that the seventh day is marked out as special with emphasis on God's resting from his creation. I do not undersatnd what you mean by "a normal day in human reckoning". My reason for bringing up the difference was to suggest that the markers day/evening do not necessarilly give clues to literalness of time in the account.

 

[greenbaggins]

What does your thesis leave you to believe about the seventh day?

The seventh day is a normal day in human reckoning. The lack of morning and evening references to the seventh day also indicate that in God's reckoning, the great Sabbath begins, into which we will go, as Hebrews tells us.

Lance, I agree that the seventh day is marked out as special with emphasis on God's resting from his creation. I do not undersatnd what you mean by "a normal day in human reckoning". My reason for bringing up the difference was to suggest that the markers day/evening do not necessarilly give clues to literalness of time in the account.

I don't particularly mind your calling me Lance instead of Lane (which is my real name). I get called Lance-a-lot.

The conclusion does not follow. If morning and evening mean a literal day by everyone's reckoning, then the absence of it indicates that something more or different is going on. I would argue that it means for us to ask questions about the Sabbath and its nature, especially that God's Sabbath is eternal, even though He continually works.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Any kind of evolution from one species to another is ruled out of court in Genesis 1 by the fact that God created all living beings "according to their kind." This clearly indicates that each kind is distinct. Furthermore, there must be a clear distinction made here between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former happens all the time when a species develops in order to adapt to its environment. Think of the fruit fly experiments, for instance. But the key here is that they remained fruit flies. They did not change into aardvarks. If macro-evolution were true, one would expect evidence of intermediary forms. Science has not produced these. All the so-called fossil evidence isn't. Most of them are hoaxes perpetrated in order to support a theory. There is certainly no evidence of intermediary forms in the world of living animals today. Similarity of form can be much easier explained by the fact that when God created a template that He liked, He used it more than once.

Lane, unfortunately this is incorrect. Speciation has occurred and does occur. To deny it is to deny simple observation. HOWEVER, you are correct that most of what we see around us is adaption rather than speciation. And while I am an Old Earth Creationist, I do not believe in macro-evolution as a means of explaining the world around us. Basic Darwinian concepts are very valid (like you said, "micro-evolution"), but to extrapolate that to macro-evolution over millions of years to explain the current existence of the biosphere is absurd, and poor science. And you are also correct that we would expect to see almost infinite numbers of transitional species, when in fact we see relatively few.

But where I disagree with you is the idea that speciation does not occur, and that reproduction of every animal "after their own kind" precludes the development of any new species after the original creation. This just isn't true, as we can see from observing animals and plants; new species have arisen during our lifetime. Again, it does not validate evolution on a large scale, but small-level speciation does indeed occur. So, either Genesis 1 is incorrect or our reading of it is incorrect. Obviously it must be the latter...

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Problem 1: In denying the historicity of Genesis, the evolutionary creationist denies the historicity of Adam as the Federal Head. Being that Adam did not exist as is portrayed in Genesis, he cannot then exist as the Federal Head of all mankind, to be a representative for us. With this taken as true from your position, Christ's work on the cross is meaningless as we are just a bunch of hairless apes who are not really "totally depraved" because sin did not enter the world through Adam.

This is contradictory to the reasoning we see in Scripture which plainly asserts that through one man, i.e. Adam, sin has entered the world. In denying the historicity of Genesis, you deny what Scripture purports about the vehicle through which sin entered the world, as well as any explaination for the total depravity of man.

Problem 2: As was mentioned above, Scripturally, death did not occur before the Fall, it was a result of the curse. This has no place in an allegory and I fail to see how apes evolved into humans via natural selection sans mortality so that they could disobey God, and introduce death into the world, which was already prexisting somehow. I cannot see this as reconciled.

Problem 3: At what point did man gain a soul? Animals are without an ethereal nature and Angels and demons are solely ethereal. Man is the only hybrid, so to speak. At one point in the evolutionary framework did man cease being a souless animal and gain an immortal, ethereal soul? I see no place for this in Scripture, at all, which means you'll need to appeal to an extra-Scriptural basis in order to account for this, which is plainly outside the bounds of orthodox Protestantism.

All of these problems are solved if you believe everything else evolved and man was created separately (not what I believe, by the way). If that's the case, then Problem 1 is solved because through one man sin entered the world if that man were created unique.

Problem 2 is solved because humans did not die before the Fall, only animals. Now, some will say animals did not deny before the Fall, but there is no real Scriptural basis for this; this topic as been discussed extensively in other threads. Even if I were a YECer I would believe in animal death before the Fall.

Problem 3 is solved because if man were created separately then he could easily have been created in the image of God. Some evolutionary creationists (and I'm NOT one of them) argue that man evolved to a point, and then God decided to give him a soul - those first humans with souls were Adam and Eve.

Now, I don't believe in evolutionary creationism. I am an old Earth creationist, meaning I believe the Earth is tens of thousand to hundreds of thousands of years old, that all major species were created initially by God with some minor variations over the years (the same processes we have now). I believe Genesis 1 is a valid historical account, but presented in an allegorical way to make our understanding of it easier. None of that changes theology in any way. An Old Earth and Young Earth creationist can be in 100% theological agreement on everything else without any inconsistency. The same goes for evolutionary creationists, but I do agree that there could be no human death prior to the Fall.

 

[Ravens]

I wish there was a way to poll all of the faculty, pastors, and educated laymen in America, breaking them down into three camps (for our purposes): 1) Framework, 2) Day-Age, 3) YEC.

The poll would consist of only a few questions (feel free to add more) and could be submitted in anonymous fashion.

1) Did a serpent, or a supernatural being manipulating a serpent, really address a historical woman named Eve?

2) Did a man named Adam ever give names to the beasts of the earth?

3) Did the line of Cain really lead the way in developing many of the arts and sciences?

4) Did Noah take representatives of all kinds of beasts and birds into the ark?

5) Was the flood local, or global?

6) Do all human beings currently on this earth, each and every one, descend from one of the eight people who exited the ark?

7) Is the table of nations accurate?

8) Was there a looming figure known either as The Rebel, or Nimrod, who was defiant in the face of Yahweh?

9) Was their actually a great tower or ziggurat of Babel, and do all human languages descend from that event?

10) Was their animal death prior to the fall?

11) If not, then would you ever say in public that men and dinosaurs coexisted?

12) On a scale of 1 to 10, "1" being negligible and "10" being excruciating, rate your embarrassment if your grudged endorsement of # 11 (above) ever became known in public.

I3) Do you hold to a "soft" view of inspiration? Yes or no?

14) Was Moses responsible for writing the vast majority of the Pentateuch?

I imagine that some statistician could give a very informative and revealing analysis of the answers to those questions that would tell us something about the Framework, Day-Age, and YEC views, and who tends to hold which.

That's just a hunch. I could easily be wrong.

 

[Wannabee]

If the Genesis 1 account is allegorical then the proper exegesis of all of Scripture is problematic and without substance. As has been stated earlier, it is linguistically and scientifically (interestingly) proven that the language of the creation account is not poetry.

And, as Bawb said many moons ago, it is obvious that this is a debate worth fighting over. This includes giving any ground on the literalness and preciseness of the creation account, as has been brought forward by many throughout this thread using good exegesis. Simply put, Scripture dictates the verity of science. Science is the study of creation after all, and therefore the study of the Creator. And evolutionary hypothesis is not truly science, but the religion of chance and uncertainty.

It's gotten to the point where any statement against a literal 6 day creation (evening and morning) can be addressed by simply linking to a previous post in this thread. Might I suggest that any further posts must first affirm that they have prayerfully and humbly read this ENTIRE thread.

 

[Ravens]

I like to think of it in terms of Scripture giving us the "big picture". I used to hate the phrase "Scripture is not a science textbook." That is almost always used by those of a more liberal stripe. That being said, there's a sense in which that is true.

That is, anyone who has studied science, mathematics, physics, etc., knows that there is baffling complexity in the warp and woof of space-time, and Genesis 1 clearly doesn't delve into quantum mechanics, superstrings, equations, relativity, the double helix, or anything else. Those things are interesting, and many of them (who knows what will be the physics of tomorrow) are rooted in reality, and should be studied as a subject of profound interest.

That being said, Scripture still does give us the "big picture". And the "big picture" that it gives us is absolutely true. We don't have the formulas, the equations, the understanding, etc., of what happened to the waters on, say, Day 2, and I myself would allow that, so far as it goes, all of that is a subject of lawful inquiry, providing we understand that Day 2 unfolded as Scripture records.

I know I'm speaking the obvious, but I think it's a point much overlooked.

God has only given us one book of Genesis, one book of origins. And there is one Creation Account, prior to the toledoth records, given to us by our Creator. Undoubtedly this Creation Account was meant to stand the test of time, to feed His people in all ages, from Iceland to India, and everywhere in between. Small children, learned men, people of low estate, people of high estate, of every stripe, age, color, etc., are fed from this same stream.

So I think that God has told us everything He intended to tell us, not more, not less. Within those parameters, then science should be as exalted and rigorous as any other lawful human endeavor. However, as science has this jumble of puzzle pieces, it is to keep in mind the Frame and the Box Picture.

The picture on the puzzle cover is not there to constrain or hamper the pieces. That being said, it's simple folly to build your puzzle in a way that goes against the picture on the box, even if, for the time being , it seems right to you. Thing is, the "other side" does this all the time.

Darwin freely admitted that the fossil record did not, at the time, support his theory. He predicted it would in the future. Ergo, despite the apparent contradiction in the facts before him, he still held his views based on his own notion of "what is". A while back when they found soft tissue remnants in a T-Rex bone, to the shock and surprise of the scientific world, did they automatically re-evaluate the dating of dinosaur life? No. They interpreted it according to the Frame already in place.

So, God has given us the picture, and I think we can rest assured that, at the last day, there will be not the slightest discrepancy between Genesis 1 and science. My personal opinion, in all honesty (since I picture the day of judgment to be a complete, total, and exhaustive vindication of God and exposing of men), is that each and every atheist scientist will have all of their erroneous extrapolations, formulations, and unwarranted theorizing brought home to them, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Creator lets them see how, in fact, all of it did work together.

I realize I'm speaking common sense here, but I think it's worth being said.

 

[a mere housewife]

Might I suggest that any further posts must first affirm that they have prayerfully and humbly read this ENTIRE thread.

But Joe, that will take eons.

 

[Justified!]

In John Frame's book Salvation Belongs To The Lord he says that he believes in six-day creation but does not think we should engage in battles over the issue.

I think we should. If we cannot take God's word seriously in Genesis 1, then where or when can we take it seriously?

Agreed.

 

[AV1611]

If the Genesis 1 account is allegorical then the proper exegesis of all of Scripture is problematic and without substance. As has been stated earlier, it is linguistically and scientifically (interestingly) proven that the language of the creation account is not poetry.

It is certainly not poetry but it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form, as I noted before.

 

[HaigLaw]

I have always held to a young-earth, 6-day creation view, but am a little uncomfortable labeling that a "literal-only" hermeneutic. I prefer the term "historical-grammatical."

 

[HaigLaw]

I don't particularly mind your calling me Lance instead of Lane (which is my real name). I get called Lance-a-lot.

I didn't realize PCA Teaching Elders were allowed to be this funny.

Does your presbytery realize you do this?

 

[Witsius]

If the Genesis 1 account is allegorical then the proper exegesis of all of Scripture is problematic and without substance. As has been stated earlier, it is linguistically and scientifically (interestingly) proven that the language of the creation account is not poetry.

It is certainly not poetry but it is a cosmogony presented in an historical form, as I noted before.

Sorry, but is this (and your previous post) not the kind of sentiment that leads to the Peter Enns error? (Ie: Are you using extra-biblical material to interpret Scripture, rather than Scripture interpreting Scripture?)

 

[Confessor]

Of course not, but the corollary that any truth revealed by science is worthless is a terrible inference.

How is that a corollary?

Sorry that I missed this earlier.

I am inferring from your statement that any scientific discovery that would come at odds with divine revelation falls to the "science is fallible" objection. In other words, I don't think there is anything less truthful about evolutionary theory than, say, the theory of gravity, except that it makes people uncomfortable because of its apparent opposition to the first few chapters of Genesis.

Science is valid but as someone pointed out above, not infallible. After all modern science often carries with it many assumptions about the universe that are explicitly contradicted by God's Word. These assumptions will influence how one looks at the evidence.

For many scientists today, for example, claim that science rules out the supernatural.

I know that science must maintain a naturalistic methodology in order to be practicable (otherwise, all fields would be utterly chaotic), but only staunchly atheistic scientists will claim, a priori, that miracles are impossible. In science, it is best to search first and foremost for a natural cause without rejecting a supernatural possibility in advance.

In addition, some scientists (not even Christians) are now rejecting Darwinism as I pointed out above.

Without getting into specifics, Expelled is an inordinately weak movie.

Hi Ben, I know it's in this same forum but was wondering if you'd read all the way through this post. I thought it was pretty exhaustive/ing and it deals with the Hebrew and some other other specific points. I do think the theological implications of theistic evolution are simply untenable, and am not sure with what certainty we are to approach the resurrection and Christ's other miracles if we begin to allow science to be authoritative in interpreting Scripture. As others have noted, just because a passage has a literary structure doesn't mean it isn't literal historical truth.

It truly was exhausting.

For the record, stating that science mandates evolution is nowhere near tantamount to stating that miracles, such as Christ's Resurrection and the Virgin Birth, did not happen. Not by a long shot. While I believe that evolution has been proven to have occurred, I do not believe that any of Jesus' miracles have been disproved scientifically, nor do I believe that a scientific naturalistic methodology implies a naturalistic philosophy.

As regards science, they treat 'theory' in this area as established fact. Science is properly a tool to observe things that can be observed; not a philosophy about origins: it is this tool, and not the philosophy, that the reliability or suitability of our senses can be used to validate. Scripture does not give science any authority to speak to origins or to a spiritual world that cannot be observed and experimented with in a scientific manner. In these areas Scientists are walking blind: they can only make guesses and change the guesses as new data about our present, physical world comes forward (and they only have a fraction of the data about even that). God's word doesn't change with all these outdated models.

I would like to point out that "theory" in the vernacular is not equivalent to "theory" in scientific terminology. Actually, the objection that "evolution is only a theory" is actually quite laughable, in that scientific theories are more prestigious than facts; the former are organizations of facts (of which no evidence contradicts) that has an explanatory scope and can be confirmed by future evidence. Evolutionary theory has met each of these criteria: evidence exists for it (such as the observance of macroevolution in the laboratory and millions of peer-edited papers), no evidence exists against it (for all alleged "irreducibly complex" systems, natural evolutionary pathways have been found), and it has explanatory scope for future evidence (the fact that humans had one less pair of chromosomes than apes was predictably explained by a fused chromosome in humans). Besides its being a juggernaut in so many fields of sciences, the objection that "it is just a theory" denies so many other branches of God-given science -- to deny evolutionary theory and remain intellectually consistent, one must also deny the germ theory of disease, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, etc. The only reason that people may deny evolution is because it doesn't obviously fit in with divine revelation. But that does not change the fact that evolution is an explicit statement of God's natural revelation.

Do you believe that death existed before man was created? If so this leads to a theological issue in that death came before the fall.

Since science is basically a system of acquiring knowledge through observation, and since the scientists who observe are tainted by sin, and since the creation that they observe is tainted by sin...why would we look at it as an authority above the Scripture?

I believe the Fall brought spiritual death upon the world. Further, I believe that Adam was already familiar with death; otherwise, how would the threat of death (for eating from the tree) have meant anything to Adam? If Adam had not already witnessed death, then how did a threat of death mean anything but gibberish to him?

If you're going to use that objection against evolutionary theory, then I suggest you not pick and choose which science you want, and deny all of science together.

Edit: Problem 4: I read Rev. Winzer's post and it also reminded me that we also have no basis for the Sabbath. The Decalogue tell us to "remember the Sabbath" because it had already been in effect since creation. If the historical 7 days are denied, then what exactly are we to be remembering?

I believe problems 1-3 either have already been dealt with or can be dealt with by viewing my belief in God's infusion of the soul into the first human. Tell me of any remaining objections past that.

Sidenote: I don't think anyone here would seek to purport that scientific findings should be dismissed because they are, well, scientific. I would urge you to remember that science was ruled by God fearing Christians for hundreds of years before the usurpation of the discipline by naturalistic, materialistic, atheists. It is with these presuppositions, i.e. that all that occurs is a result of only physical, natural processes and that the supernatural and immaterial are fantasies, that evolutionists have designed a theory to account for our origins that is without sufficient merit to be regarded as it is, i.e. as a presumed law. Irreducible complexity, the genesis of DNA without proteins, and information ex nihilo sans an author all present steep problems for the evolutionary explaination, but they are ignored in an unabashed defiance of logic and scholarship, to the deteriment of us all.

With all due respect, I would like to point out that all of the "problems" with evolution seem to be stemming ultimately from ignorance. "I don't know how that could have evolved; ergo, it could not have evolved." Irreducible complexity is certainly a novel concept, but I have read about evolutionary pathways for each proposed IC system. (The main problem with Behe is that he doesn't understand the whole process of creating "IC" systems - as Dr. Ken Miller so often shows with his mousetrap example, not every part is needed when it is viewed as biologically functional in a different context.) Without looking too much into the other problems, they too seem to be ultimately rooted in a misunderstanding or a deficient understanding of evolutionary theory. I would like to redirect you here if you plan to look into it.

It is not science that is a problem. Science is the discipline by which we explore and discover God's general revelation to us. Rather, it is the presuppositional stance that is required to enter and exist in the field of science that is the problem. It requires that you abandon all tenants of science in a specific area, i.e. evolution, in a foolish bid to maintain a false worldview so that men can continue denying God.

I hope you'll take these inconsistencies to heart and reform your notions about man's origins.

I agree that science is a useful tool, but I believe the problem is oversimplified when we try to reduce it to a difference in presuppositions. Both Christianity and naturalistic worldviews believe science is justified in the same manner (the latter might claim that supernatural explanations are impossible, but both can agree that naturalistic explanations are generally preferred if they are found to exist); for this reason, I think it is unfair to science in general to just claim that others just have different presuppositions. If, hypothetically, irrefutable scientific evidence were to exist for a given proposition, it would be wrong (I would even say morally wrong) to dismiss it as a difference in presuppositions, and ultimately an insulting denial of science.

Humbly, your brother.

I must say that, despite our differences in views, I do respect the sincerity you have in what you see as correcting me.

Any kind of evolution from one species to another is ruled out of court in Genesis 1 by the fact that God created all living beings "according to their kind." This clearly indicates that each kind is distinct. Furthermore, there must be a clear distinction made here between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The former happens all the time when a species develops in order to adapt to its environment. Think of the fruit fly experiments, for instance. But the key here is that they remained fruit flies. They did not change into aardvarks. If macro-evolution were true, one would expect evidence of intermediary forms. Science has not produced these. All the so-called fossil evidence isn't. Most of them are hoaxes perpetrated in order to support a theory. There is certainly no evidence of intermediary forms in the world of living animals today. Similarity of form can be much easier explained by the fact that when God created a template that He liked, He used it more than once.

I cannot understand how "according to their kind" disallows evolution if it is interpreted as a framework hypothesis. Could you explain this to me?

The objection that "micro-evolution obviously occurs but we have never witnessed macro-evolution" seems to me quite empty, since a macro-evolution is a string of micro-evolutions. What prevents many small changes from becoming a big change? Man-made distinctions of species? I have never heard a legitimate answer to this question. If micro-evolution is true, then, given time, I cannot see how macro-evolution is not true.

Further, regarding the absence of transitional fossils, that is simply false. I believe this is one of the aforementioned arguments from ignorance. Also, you must remember that every single link from one form to another is an absurd request to make of the evolutionist; fossilized corpses are quite rare, and the number of transitional animals known is still quite numerous.

The other problem here is that science can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER prove anything true in a mathematical proof sense. All it can do is theorize. The theory of evolution is not true, therefore, in any sense of the word meaning "proven." Some other theory might very well explain the evidence far better.

Again, if you like this objection, then deny all of science. If you want to keep your views logically consistent, you must reject all of science or accept all of it. The question ultimately comes down to "is evolution scientific?" Any attacks on science as a whole, in my opinion, fall short miserably.

As to the Framework Interpretation, several things mitigate against it. The appeal to the creation week in Exodus 20 makes no sense whatever if the week is only a literary framework. Secondly, the apologetic edge against sun-gods Shemesh (Babylonian) and Ra (Egyptian) in Genesis 1 (confer the pointed omission of the names for sun and moon in Gen 1:16) explains much better the correlation between day 1 and day 4 (light and lights) than the Framework Intepretation does. The source of light is God Himself, not sun-gods. Light is not God. Confer also the eschatological direction of Revelation 22:5: as the world began, with God being the source of light, so also will the world end, with God being the source of light. The sun and moon are parentheses. Second, the reference to morning and evening indicates sequence. If it is just there to provide realism, then it is superfluous, and nothing in Scripture is superfluous. Thirdly, the argument about poetry is insane. To say that something is poetry, and therefore ahistorical is simply ridiculous. Are no poems ever written about historical events? Fourthly, the argument that natural preservation was the rule in Genesis 1 (argued by Kline and Futato) runs aground in the fact that their argument does not prove that all of creation was sustained immediately by natural preservation. The literary framework of days 1-3 paralled by days 4-6 fits in with the literal interpretation just as easily as with the Framework hypothesis. Therefore, the FH is not tenable.

These seem like pretty good objections, and I'll look into them. However, I can refute one of them, I believe: I agree with you that Genesis 1 is "proto-historical" in that it represents history, just not literally -- it is not ahistorical, yet it does not represent history exactly as it occurred. It represents God's sovereignty in creation, creation ex nihilo, and the importance of mankind in God's creation.

 

[DMcFadden]

Evolutionary theory has met each of these criteria: evidence exists for it (such as the observance of macroevolution in the laboratory and millions of peer-edited papers), no evidence exists against it (for all alleged "irreducibly complex" systems, natural evolutionary pathways have been found), and it has explanatory scope for future evidence (the fact that humans had one less pair of chromosomes than apes was predictably explained by a fused chromosome in humans). Besides its being a juggernaut in so many fields of sciences, the objection that "it is just a theory" denies so many other branches of God-given science -- to deny evolutionary theory and remain intellectually consistent, one must also deny the germ theory of disease, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, etc.

You are obviously a person of great faith. Your faith in evolution amazes me. Capable scientists in various fields (e.g., genetics, astro-physics, micro-biology, etc.) have testified that a belief in evolution has no bearing on their day to day work, research projects, or ability to offer an explanation of life on earth. Your statement that one must deny germ theory, atomic theory, etc. to be intellectually consistent with denying evolution is a faith statement, without a necessary logical or factual basis.

(BTW, I was a Big Bang, old earther, until just the last few years. Sorry if the straight forward interpretation sounds obscurantistic or deficient to you.)

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I know that science must maintain a naturalistic methodology in order to be practicable (otherwise, all fields would be utterly chaotic), but only staunchly atheistic scientists will claim, a priori, that miracles are impossible. In science, it is best to search first and foremost for a natural cause without rejecting a supernatural possibility in advance.

Here is a central issue that evolutionary theory must address if they wish to take the Bible seriously. The world does not function according to naturalistic methodology. At best we can only say it functions that way now. In fact God has altered the course of "ordinary" providence many times. He has done so with global consequences such as Creation, the Flood, the tower of Babel, the 3 hours of darkness during the Crucifixion, etc He has done so regionally, such as the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah. He has done so in all the healing miracles in both the OT and NT. This world does not function like the deist machine, but is sustained and supported by God according to his good will and pleasure. This skews and frustrates all the data for a naturalistic methodology. The promise of regular seasons did not even come until after the Flood.

So long as a naturalistic methodology is adopted by a scientist, you will simple not be able to reconcile the data of Scripture with the observations of science. Science has no capability to evaluate origins when they cannot as a rule allow the data of Scripture as part of their evidence. Just think of all the ripples the interposing of God's power causes in the so called "laws of nature." What happens to the laws of conservation of mass and energy when Jesus decided to create a new ear? Or reanimate a new life? Or feed 5000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish? Consider what happens at the subatomic level... Consider the natural disturbance of parting the Red Sea or pummelling Sodom with fire and brimstone? All that affects how we interpret the evidence we have today (or should anyway). As Christians we believe in the providence of God, not mechanical laws of nature.

While I believe that evolution has been proven to have occurred, I do not believe that any of Jesus' miracles have been disproved scientifically, nor do I believe that a scientific naturalistic methodology implies a naturalistic philosophy.

A naturalistic methodology by definition requires a naturalistic philosophy. Otherwise it would be a super-naturalistic methodology, one for instance that would take into account the fact that God has spoken in Christ, and has told us how we are to interpret the facts of the world around us in submission to Christ.

Evolutionary theory has met each of these criteria: evidence exists for it (such as the observance of macroevolution in the laboratory and millions of peer-edited papers),

Where exactly did this happen? If this were indeed true, then why has it not been trumpeted throughout the scientific community and the media?

no evidence exists against it (for all alleged "irreducibly complex" systems, natural evolutionary pathways have been found), and it has explanatory scope for future evidence (the fact that humans had one less pair of chromosomes than apes was predictably explained by a fused chromosome in humans). Besides its being a juggernaut in so many fields of sciences, the objection that "it is just a theory" denies so many other branches of God-given science -- to deny evolutionary theory and remain intellectually consistent, one must also deny the germ theory of disease, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, etc. The only reason that people may deny evolution is because it doesn't obviously fit in with divine revelation. But that does not change the fact that evolution is an explicit statement of God's natural revelation.

That's just the point of contention. Scripture clearly says that all was created. There is no evidence for evolution in Scripture. It has already been pointed out over and over again in this thread. The genre of Genesis is historical narrative, and indicated clearly by the Hebrew grammar and by later interpretations of Scripture (Exodus 20, Jesus, etc.) And if the Scriptures will not allow it, then you are simply misreading the voice of natural revelation, not to mention the obvious over-confidence you have in the speculations of evolutionary thought.

If you're going to use that objection against evolutionary theory, then I suggest you not pick and choose which science you want, and deny all of science together.

It is not science that creationists deny. Science is a wonderful tool to aid man in exercising dominion over the earth God has made for us, and it wonderfully shows the majesty of the Creator. I cannot but worship God as I study all the sciences. It is a joyful hobby of mine. It is the unbiblical presuppositions of some scientists which we reject (such as naturalism), such assumptions which cannot even be justified by their own methodology of observation and experimentation, especially regarding assertions about origins.

I believe problems 1-3 either have already been dealt with or can be dealt with by viewing my belief in God's infusion of the soul into the first human. Tell me of any remaining objections past that.

The problem with your solution is that you cannot verify it by your naturalistic methodology. It is a blind faith claim. Another problem is that Genesis tells us how God made the first human, from dust, not from another species.

I agree that science is a useful tool, but I believe the problem is oversimplified when we try to reduce it to a difference in presuppositions. Both Christianity and naturalistic worldviews believe science is justified in the same manner (the latter might claim that supernatural explanations are impossible, but both can agree that naturalistic explanations are generally preferred if they are found to exist); for this reason, I think it is unfair to science in general to just claim that others just have different presuppositions. If, hypothetically, irrefutable scientific evidence were to exist for a given proposition, it would be wrong (I would even say morally wrong) to dismiss it as a difference in presuppositions, and ultimately an insulting denial of science.

Actually science is not justified in the same manner. We believe science is justified because God sustains the world in a consistent manner (usually) and has created us with the capacity to understand it. Frankly, the fact that scientists are so concerned with origins indicates the vacuum of their naturalistic presuppositions. We have already been told how we got here and why. Science is suppose to help us accomplish our goal to glorify God and serve him, not write a new creation narrative.

Further, regarding the absence of transitional fossils, that is simply false. I believe this is one of the aforementioned arguments from ignorance. Also, you must remember that every single link from one form to another is an absurd request to make of the evolutionist; fossilized corpses are quite rare, and the number of transitional animals known is still quite numerous.

That is interesting since I just listened to an evolutionist who honestly conceded we have no evidence of transitional species.

 

[AV1611]

Sorry, but is this (and your previous post) not the kind of sentiment that leads to the Peter Enns error? (Ie: Are you using extra-biblical material to interpret Scripture, rather than Scripture interpreting Scripture?)

Let us say, for example, I give you a copy of T. S. Eliot's Ash-Wednesday and ask you to explain it. Now you would need to consider a number of things to give an accurate explanation of it. First and foremost you need to recognise its genre, i.e. it is poetry. Secondly, you would need to consider who the author is. Thirdly, when it was written and the historical context of the poem. It would not be insignificant that this was his "conversion poem", written after he converted to Anglo-Catholicism. In order to understand it properly, we need to understand the context in which it was written.

In a similar fashion we need to understand the context in which the Bible was written. It was not written in an historical vacuum. Whoever wrote Genesis 1 was writing in the ancient Near East and to deny that there are major similarities with other ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies is to bury your head in the sand. Once we understand the nature of the text, its genre, its similarities and differences with other ANE cosmogonies we will be in a better position to interpret it. Our duty is to interpret Gen. 1 in accordance with what it is not what we would like it to be.

I would suggest a read of Walton's Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible.

I would also suggest Gordon Wenham's Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 1 Genesis 1-15

As for Peter Enns, I am not sure what has been going on but I would suggest a read of his reponse to Prof. Greg Beale's review of his book here.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In a similar fashion we need to understand the context in which the Bible was written. It was not written in an historical vacuum. Whoever wrote Genesis 1 was writing in the ancient Near East and to deny that there are major similarities with other ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies is to bury your head in the sand. Once we understand the nature of the text, its genre, its similarities and differences with other ANE cosmogonies we will be in a better position to interpret it. Our duty is to interpret Gen. 1 in accordance with what it is not what we would like it to be.

It is much better simply to go to Exodus 20, where it is as plain as day that the days of creation were meant to be six literal days of work, followed by one literal day of rest.

While extra-Biblical sources can be useful, we must not set them above the text of Scripture itself. After all, how would the Israelites in Moses' day have understood his words regarding the days of creation: literally or otherwise?

 

[AV1611]

It is much better simply to go to Exodus 20, where it is as plain as day that the days of creation were meant to be six literal days of work, followed by one literal day of rest.

I am not sure it is quite so straight-forward. The Ex. 20 account does not invalidate a non-literal understanding of Gen. 1.

While extra-Biblical sources can be useful, we must not set them above the text of Scripture itself.

No-one is setting extra-Biblical sources above the text of Scripture, rather I am engaging in, as others have who are far more able than myself, comparative study. Just read some of the ANE creation accounts and you will see what I mean!

After all, how would the Israelites in Moses' day have understood his words regarding the days of creation: literally or otherwise?

Would you like to tell me?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am not sure it is quite so straight-forward. The Ex. 20 account does not invalidate a non-literal understanding of Gen. 1.

So how many Sabbath days do you know which last for thousands of years? The point of Ex. 20 is that we are to be patterned after God, which would not make any sense if the days were not literal.

Would you like to tell me?

I suspect it would be literally, unless they were idlers who thought they should not work because the Sabbath lasts for thousands of years.

 

[AV1611]

So how many Sabbath days do you know which last for thousands of years? The point of Ex. 20 is that we are to be patterned after God, which would not make any sense if the days were not literal.

I see what you are getting at and I think you have misunderstood what I have been arguing. I agree that the yom in the Genesis account is the same yom of Exodus 20. I also agree that they are refering to a day of twenty-four hours. So I am not arguing that each day equals a long-time etc. Those who do that misunderstand Gen. 1 just as much as those who take Gen. 1 to be literal history.

In the twelfth tablet of the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" we find significant material for the Sumerian concepts of the creation of the universe.

After heaven had been moved away from earth,
After earth had been separated from heaven,
After the name of man had been fixed;​

This can be summarised thus: "Heaven and earth, originally united, were separated and moved away from each other, and thereupon the creation of man was ordained." (Kramer)

Sound familiar? Now it would be wrong to say that the Israelites borrowed these ANE myths, but we should recognise that Gen 1. performs the same function as these did, to explain the origin of the Israelites. That is it is a cosmogony and ought to be interpreted as such.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sound familiar? Now it would be wrong to say that the Israelites borrowed these ANE myths, but we should recognise that Gen 1. performs the same function as these did, to explain the origin of the Israelites. That is it is a cosmogony and ought to be interpreted as such.

Okay, apologies if I have misunderstood you, but what is the relevance of this to the length of the days of creation?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderator: Discussion of unconfessional views is one thing advocacy is another. The advocacy ends now. If you cannot operate under that distinction, then it would be best you not post on the subject.

If it is determined otherwise, if it is determined by the forum's authorities that evolution should not even be *discussed* further, then I will discuss it no further.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The theory of Evolution has dire consequences upon both anthropology and Christology.

If man is evolving, then how can Christ be the mediator between God and man. Because if man has evolved from apes, then how can we be certain that he won't evolve into something else, and so how can Christ - a true man - be the mediator between such beings and God, since He is fully human?