Jesus Was Not A Theistic Evolutionist by Ted Slater on 06/21/2007 at 9:02 AM

Jesus believed the creation account presented in Scripture, and not the one presented by Darwin et al.

He believed that God created everything that exists, that he created specific "kinds"** of creatures that each reproduced "according to its kind" (as opposed to having genetically more complex offspring a la evolution), that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and that they were created "from the beginning" (He intentionally created distinct sexes, rather than allowing them to emerge over millennia), and that death only existed after Adam had sinned (rather than death being the violently blessed means whereby humanity evolved from less complex life forms).

How do I know this? Because Jesus believed the Scriptures. He came right out and said that if you believed the words He spoke, you would also believe the words that Moses wrote. Jesus is giving His stamp of approval on all of Genesis, for example, including the creation account.

Jesus trusted as historical fact, and not mere metaphor, those Scriptures that presented themselves as historical. He spoke of Jonah as fact, for example, and not just as a story. He spoke of Noah's flood as a fact, and not merely as a metaphor. The burning bush, according to Jesus, was fact. The destruction of Sodom was fact, according to Jesus. And so on. Jesus showed no distrust for the words of Moses or any other Old Testament writer, no matter how fantastic they seemed.

It's important to remember that Jesus wasn't merely repeating the prevailing theories, or "creation myths," of ancient Israel. He was speaking as one who had personally witnessed creation. And even then, He wasn't a mere observer, but a participant. The truth is, He was there even prior to creation. If the biblical account wasn't identical to what He had personally witnessed, He would not have so affirmed as historically accurate the book of Genesis.

Why is it important that we see the biblical creation account as accurate? Because if we don't see it as accurate, then our understanding and appreciation of the very thing which we are to proclaim most loudly -- Jesus' atoning death on the cross -- becomes skewed.

The entire premise of Jesus' incarnation was to save humanity from sin and death, something introduced by Adam in the Garden of Eden. Sin and death (death being a key element of the hypothetical evolutionary cycle) did not exist prior to Adam's sin, according to Scripture ("sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin"). The creation process was consistently labeled "good" by God, and not something polluted by sin and death.

Scripture is clear that the first human was Adam, and that He was intentionally created as the first by God, Eve then being created second. There were no "proto-humans." Adam had neither parents nor siblings. Eve was given away by God, not by Eve's father, since she had no father, either human or pre-human.

And it was this sin and resulting death that Jesus addressed on the cross: the sin of Adam and of his offspring. Because of Christ's death, we may avoid the consequences of Adam's and our sin, and become reconciled with the creator. While we remain descendents of Adam, we can become adopted into the family of the Second Adam.

And none of this would make sense if there were no literal Adam, no first sin, no biblical consequence for sin. And the cross would lose its relevance.

It may be difficult to retain a trust in Scripture and Jesus' affirmation of it, especially in light of what we're being told by just about everyone around us. It may be tempting to Christianize evolution by saying that perhaps God used evolution to bring "all this" about, that Scripture and evolution are not incompatible.

But it's important for several reasons that we trust Scripture instead. First, God will find no fault in our trusting His Word. In fact, I believe He takes pleasure in our concurring with Jesus in seeing it as true. And second, I believe He's disappointed when we disbelieve His Word. Jesus said, "For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed...."

As I've acknowledged, His words are difficult, sometimes going against common sense and the prevailing "wisdom." Nevertheless, I believe the biblical account because Jesus believed the biblical account. And if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

I am not ashamed of His words, though they be ridiculed by many of today's "wise men." I pray you are not ashamed of His words either.

(**For more detailed discussion of creationism, including the relevance of "kinds," I encourage you to read "Variation and natural selection versus evolution," written by Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International.)

Jesus Was Not A Theistic Evolutionist by Ted Slater on 06/21/2007 at 9:02 AM

Jesus believed the creation account presented in Scripture, and not the one presented by Darwin et al.

He believed that God created everything that exists, that he created specific "kinds"** of creatures that each reproduced "according to its kind" (as opposed to having genetically more complex offspring a la evolution), that Adam and Eve were the very first humans and that they were created "from the beginning" (He intentionally created distinct sexes, rather than allowing them to emerge over millennia), and that death only existed after Adam had sinned (rather than death being the violently blessed means whereby humanity evolved from less complex life forms).

How do I know this? Because Jesus believed the Scriptures. He came right out and said that if you believed the words He spoke, you would also believe the words that Moses wrote. Jesus is giving His stamp of approval on all of Genesis, for example, including the creation account.

Jesus trusted as historical fact, and not mere metaphor, those Scriptures that presented themselves as historical. He spoke of Jonah as fact, for example, and not just as a story. He spoke of Noah's flood as a fact, and not merely as a metaphor. The burning bush, according to Jesus, was fact. The destruction of Sodom was fact, according to Jesus. And so on. Jesus showed no distrust for the words of Moses or any other Old Testament writer, no matter how fantastic they seemed.

It's important to remember that Jesus wasn't merely repeating the prevailing theories, or "creation myths," of ancient Israel. He was speaking as one who had personally witnessed creation. And even then, He wasn't a mere observer, but a participant. The truth is, He was there even prior to creation. If the biblical account wasn't identical to what He had personally witnessed, He would not have so affirmed as historically accurate the book of Genesis.

Why is it important that we see the biblical creation account as accurate? Because if we don't see it as accurate, then our understanding and appreciation of the very thing which we are to proclaim most loudly -- Jesus' atoning death on the cross -- becomes skewed.

The entire premise of Jesus' incarnation was to save humanity from sin and death, something introduced by Adam in the Garden of Eden. Sin and death (death being a key element of the hypothetical evolutionary cycle) did not exist prior to Adam's sin, according to Scripture ("sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin"). The creation process was consistently labeled "good" by God, and not something polluted by sin and death.

Scripture is clear that the first human was Adam, and that He was intentionally created as the first by God, Eve then being created second. There were no "proto-humans." Adam had neither parents nor siblings. Eve was given away by God, not by Eve's father, since she had no father, either human or pre-human.

And it was this sin and resulting death that Jesus addressed on the cross: the sin of Adam and of his offspring. Because of Christ's death, we may avoid the consequences of Adam's and our sin, and become reconciled with the creator. While we remain descendents of Adam, we can become adopted into the family of the Second Adam.

And none of this would make sense if there were no literal Adam, no first sin, no biblical consequence for sin. And the cross would lose its relevance.

It may be difficult to retain a trust in Scripture and Jesus' affirmation of it, especially in light of what we're being told by just about everyone around us. It may be tempting to Christianize evolution by saying that perhaps God used evolution to bring "all this" about, that Scripture and evolution are not incompatible.

But it's important for several reasons that we trust Scripture instead. First, God will find no fault in our trusting His Word. In fact, I believe He takes pleasure in our concurring with Jesus in seeing it as true. And second, I believe He's disappointed when we disbelieve His Word. Jesus said, "For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed...."

As I've acknowledged, His words are difficult, sometimes going against common sense and the prevailing "wisdom." Nevertheless, I believe the biblical account because Jesus believed the biblical account. And if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

I am not ashamed of His words, though they be ridiculed by many of today's "wise men." I pray you are not ashamed of His words either.

(**For more detailed discussion of creationism, including the relevance of "kinds," I encourage you to read "Variation and natural selection versus evolution," written by Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International.)

Comments

[1. Jeremy said the following at 9:56 AM on Jun 21:]

1

Amen! I'm so glad to hear you take such a stance on this issue - it's a favourite topic of mine, and it really bothers me when I hear other Christians in my church having theistic evolutionist views, and clearly not believing the bible as it stands - they come up with all sorts of excuses and reasonings to try and make the Creation story fit with secular "science", rather than the other way around! And sadly there's little reasoning with such people.

[2. Mark said the following at 9:59 AM on Jun 21:]

2

Thank you, Ted. It's good enough for me too.

[3. SamC said the following at 10:09 AM on Jun 21:]

3

This is an excellent reminder, particularly for those of us stuck in a scientific environment and surrounded by existentialist peers.

[4. Laur said the following at 10:59 AM on Jun 21:]

4

amen!

[5. Gordon Hackman said the following at 11:04 AM on Jun 21:]

5

Ted,

I'm curious as to whether or not you accept it as possible for Christians to differ about such matters as the age of the earth. Your post here seems to indicate that you are advocating a young earth position over against theistic evolution, but there is a broad spectrum of positions on this issue that fall between those two extremes (ie. people who think the earth is old but do not believe in evolution).

Also, your quoting of Romans 5:12 is incomplete. The last part of the verse affirms that "thus death spread to all men, because all sinned," making it clear that the death refered to here is human death. that says nothing about whether or not there was animal or plant death before the fall. In fact, there had to be some kind of plant death, since humans and animals would have eaten living plant matter.

[6. Ted Slater said the following at 11:31 AM on Jun 21:]

6

Gordon -- great questions.

I've heard convincing arguments on both sides of the "old earth / young earth" equation. While I tend to believe that "all this" was created in literal days (perhaps with a lengthy "gap" of time after the initial creation of the earth, something inferred by Genesis 1:1-2), I'm fine with folks saying that each "day" of creation was in fact a period of time longer than 24 hours.

Regarding your second point, I think Scripture is clear that Adam's sin affected all of creation. Romans 8:18-25 notes how "the whole creation" had become subject to futility and decay because of the effects of sin.

I think I've heard that plant "life" and the "life" of other creatures (such as insects) isn't really considered "life" in ancient Hebrew. So that when Adam and Eve ate fruit and such, or stepped on a bug, or had bacteria in their bellies, they weren't technically "killing" anything. Maybe someone else can speak to that.

It does seem that the first "death" was caused by the Creator of life Himself. Genesis 3:21 speaks of the first animal sacrifice, something that covered the consequences of sin, something that spoke of a Lamb who would someday die to offer cover for the sins of all of humanity.

[7. Mark Willard said the following at 11:46 AM on Jun 21:]

7

Ted, Gordon -- great points.

I used to be dogmatically YEC. Now I'm not really sure. Answers in Genesis has some fairly convincing arguments for YEC. Wayne Grudem has a very interesting discussion on why he leans toward progressive creationism in his Systematic Theology, and since reading that, I'm much more inclined to his viewpoint. Honestly, I'm not sure if it's something we can know for sure this side of Heaven.

Regardless, you're right Ted, that we must reject theistic evolution. It's completely incompatible with Biblical theology on many levels as you pointed out.

[8. Gordon Hackman said the following at 11:48 AM on Jun 21:]

8

Ted,

Thanks for your thorough response. I'll have to go back and look over the relevant passages in Genesis and other places and reflect on the connection between the fall and animal death.

One of the things that is interesting to me in this regard is the question of animal predators and where they fit into it all, especially since they seem so well designed for being what they are (in Psalm 104:21 they are observed as part of the creation order that is sustained by God). Were they like this before the fall or did God change them afterwards?

Anyway, thanks again for your response. The relationship between Christianity and science is a topic of ongoing interest to me, and there are a lot of interesting questions that arise. I'm actually reading Vern Poythress's "Redeeming Science: A God Centered Approach" as we speak, which so far is a very good book.

Peace.

[9. k. said the following at 12:27 PM on Jun 21:]

9

I actually fall into the theistic evolution camp. If people like Billy Graham and C. S. Lewis don't tie themselves up in knots over the idea, then I'm not going to, either. :)

From Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man (1999): "I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

[10. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:34 PM on Jun 21:]

10

Without stating my positions I wanted to give readers some differing viewpoints that Christians have regarding accounts in Genesis:

- Young Earth vs. Old Earth
There are some that argue that God created the earth "already old" meaning that many geological formations which would've taken millions of years to form were already made that way.

- 1 Day = 24 hours?
Some Christians believe that when the Bible says "on the nth day God created..." a 'day' refers to a literal 24 hours. They cite that in every use of the Hebrew word for 'day' in the OT it refers to a literal 24-hour timespan so why would there be an exception here. Others believe that a 'day' was symbolic to represent a time period citing the passage in 2 Peter 3:8 . They also point out that the sun, which our day is based upon was not created until the 4th day.

- Regional vs. Worldwide Flood
According to accounts of Noah and the Flood the entire earth was flooded. Some argue that it did not include the entire earth (Australia, East Asia, etc) but merely covered the area where all humans were at the time (Tigres-Euphrades and the surrounding area). Those for that argument site things such as the sheer number of animal species not native to any areas but in remote locations. Those saying that the Flood happened worldwide point to the promise that God would not use a Flood to destroy all life and that regional floods would break that promise. And that the Hebrew word for "animal" wasn't as strict and defined as it is today (meaning that invertebrats might not have been called "animals")

Ted,

What I find myself wondering is how animals interacted with each other before the Fall. Today there are animals which are carnivores, but does that mean that was not the case before the Fall (also interesting to note that before the Fall God did not give them explicit permission to eat animals, just plants)?

I do believe that before the Fall, things were much different. For example, there is no indication that Eve was freaked out by a talking snake (as most of us would be today). I've heard theories which state that humans were much more in harmony with animals and the enviornment.

But I agree that we ought not to dismiss the stories of Genesis as myth and that Jesus was merely reciting them back. It's true that there is some room for debate (e.g. Old vs. Young earth) but if Adam and Eve weren't actual individuals (not mere representations of mankind), a Flood didn't destroy all but 8 people on the Earth, etc. you run into a lot of theological problems. And remember that some of the same people who claim that there was no Creation would also say Jesus did not perform all those miracles recorded in the Gospels, nor rose from the dead on the 3rd day. And if that's the case, our entire faith is in vain.

[11. Samuel PG said the following at 12:58 PM on Jun 21:]

11

K,
You are right about Billy Graham not taking a position, and Lewis did in fact seem to accept theistic evolution. Believe it or not, I was relieved to read that position from Lewis because I was worrying that I was reading too casually because until that point I had agreed with everything he had written.

[12. Dave said the following at 1:01 PM on Jun 21:]

12

Ive wondered if Adam lived 900 something years(cant remember exactly how many is says in Genesis) or does that mean since he was created. If it was since the fall he could have been in the garden billions of years but the natural decay we see now would not have occurred. Maybe Im way off....

[13. Canadian Boy said the following at 1:19 PM on Jun 21:]

13

Now, I'm no evangelical, especially no conservative American evangelical. So maybe I'm just not capable of understanding. But, I have to ask, what is with this "Us vs. them" mentality? I'm seeing it in many of the entries on this blog, including this one.

Why do you have to be against fellow believers, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who believe that God used evolution to create us? I'm one of those people, and I've yet to find anything wrong with it. I am, in no way, questioning, or mocking, or blaspheming God by saying that evolution shows how He made us. Nor am I undermining Genesis- the creation story shows how powerful God is to be able to create this world, regardless of what amount of time it took Him or how He did it. And Adam and Eve, literal or not, is true- it shows what happens when we disobey God and then do not repent. Just because a Christian does not take the Bible to be literal does not mean they do not still accept it as truth.

Both Jesus and God gave commandments to believers to love their neighbours, make disciples, etc- but I've never read "Now go and make sure that everyone believes I created the world in six days- it is CRUCIAL to the faith!" because, really, it isn't. We're not doing any good by trying to convince each other to believe our interpretation of creation, or in saying that God is "disappointed" in each other because we don't believe the same thing. In fact, I'd so far to say that this bickering is probably what the "Enemy" wants.

Oh, and Ted, I'm not in any way being "ashamed" of the Bible by not taking it literally. Though I feel kinda bad that a fellow believer is twisting the words of the Good Book to make it appear that I do.

And Jeremy?
"And sadly there's little reasoning with such people."
We could say the same about you. Don't forget that. ;)

[14. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:23 PM on Jun 21:]

14

Firstly, for the initialed "K.":

"If people like Billy Graham and C. S. Lewis don't tie themselves up in knots over the idea, then I'm not going to, either."

Ah, but even Christian greats such as these are not right on every issue -- not even Lewis, one of the few people I will search for first on the New Heavens and New Earth. Furthermore, Lewis himself became a tad skeptical of evolutionary arguments in his later years, finding that there wasn’t so much a division between the biological and philosophical aspects of the Humanism-driven view of science as he had thought. A six-page article detailed Lewis’s views and excerpts from his letters to longtime friend Bernard Acworth is at http://www.apologetics.org/acworthletters1.html and proves quite interesting.

Meanwhile, I’m quite thrilled as well to find such an interesting topic being tackled at the Boundless blog, and wonder what recent circumstances may have prompted your posting it, Ted.

As per Mark Willard’s above suggestion that “progressive creationism” may have validity, thus far I have not heard any convincing arguments that separate this view from that of Theistic Evolution.

Both views seem to involve “stretching” the clearly denoted days of Genesis in order to accommodate longer ages. And that, in turn, would *have* to accommodate geologic ages of some duration, which in turn would compel one to accept the institution of death before the Rebellion — a theological difficulty to say the least, as Ted and others have already pointed out.

Though I remain open to hearing more about how “progressive creation” differs from “theistic evolution” regarding the views of Creation-day length and the nature of the Flood, I somewhat expect to hear only a few surface differences between the two ideas.

Meanwhile, in case the subject arises, it is worth noting that Answers in Genesis is now involved in a legal tussle of sorts with its corresponding group in Australia — former allies in the global origins-worldview battle. At issue are organization funds, a strange situation involving possibly thousands of magazine subscribers, and a few personal accusations tossed back and forth. Whoever is “right” in that debacle, it has little regard on the issue of God’s word and whether we can trust it from its very first verse, or else attempt to harmonize Scripture with views of science and origins that result from naturalism-biased guesses about the unobservable past — which fall outside of pure, operational science anyway.

[15. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:38 PM on Jun 21:]

15

A brief P.S. for Gordon Hackman, who wrote:

"One of the things that is interesting to me in this regard is the question of animal predators and where they fit into it all, especially since they seem so well designed for being what they are (in Psalm 104:21 they are observed as part of the creation order that is sustained by God). Were they like this before the fall or did God change them afterwards?"

To me the best explanation, especially considering the fact that God foreknew the Fall and always knew He would use its occurence somehow to achieve His own glory, is that the Creator built into His creatures' DNA the information that would eventually be "sorted" -- that is, by natural selection; reference Ted's link for how this is *not* the same as interspecies "evolution" -- throughout the generations, until the body features and instincts necessary for being a predator, for example, were fully functional.

Scripture mentions no divine re-engineering of animals after the Fall, and to think that they contained body features designed for a post-Fall world, which may have been used for less nefarious means before (think pandas' sharp predator-type teeth functioning fine for bamboo stalks), seems consistent with what we know of God and of genetics.

For further, fascinating reading with Biblically informed speculation on this issue, visit http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/death_suffering.asp and scroll down nearly to the end, to the section marked "Is it possible for animals that are carnivorous in our world today to have survived in a pre-sin world without eating meat?"

[16. Keisha said the following at 1:46 PM on Jun 21:]

16

I find it ironic that we as Christians try (through logical inference, argument, deduction and the like) to reason our way to faith, to professing that everything in the Old Testament is literally true. Believing in the Scriptures is supposed to be just that - an act of belief and faith, not a mathematical proof. What is the point of logically or scientifically convincing someone that the earth was created in 7 days or that the flood was meteorologistically possible? Would it make this person a Christian if they were scientifically convinced of it? I think not.

That's why I find logical argumentation against theistic evolution somewhat amusing. If you believe as an act of faith that the Bible is literally true, then why do you have to scientifically convince yourself of it? Why not leave that to people (like myself) who believe that the Bible is true, but also that evolution is accurate - who have to reconcile two differing accounts of creation? Trust me, it would be a lot easier if I thought that Darwin made it all up. But I start with believing in the Bible and trying to make sense of logic, not the other way around.

[17. Adam said the following at 2:18 PM on Jun 21:]

17

I just did a paper on this subject for a biblical hermeneutics class I was taking. With a few noteworthy exceptions, most interpreters throughout history have taken the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hour days, though even in the second century they knew there was a problem with there being "days" before the sun was created. It was only around the time of Darwin that old earth views like the gap theory and the day-age theory were developed. A couple of new theories besides the young earth and old earth views are the framework view and the analogical view. Anyone who is interested in this subject should research these options as well...both of them are neutral about the age of the earth, instead interpreting Genesis 1 to be emphasizing the "who" and the "what" of creation rather than the "when." Of course caution is warranted any time a "new" interpretation of scripture is suggested, but these views are interesting all the same. For a summary of all of the positions, here is a good resource:

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

[18. Ted Slater said the following at 2:24 PM on Jun 21:]

18

Canadian Boy -- I laid out a proposition, based on Scripture. Rather than merely responding emotionally, the way you have, can you specify what you find fault with in my argument? It would make for a healthy discussion.

Keisha -- I specifically indicated that not everything in the Old Testament is to be taken literally. Only those things that present themselves as literal historical truth should be interpreted as literally having happened. Poetry, for example, shouldn't necessarily be taken literally.

Also, you implied that I'm requiring belief "that the earth was created in 7 days" be a necessary precursor to faith in Christ. I said nothing of the sort, and to my knowledge nobody else has either. Seems to me that that is a weak attempt at building up, and then knocking down, a Straw Man. Not something I'd expect from someone like you who respects logic so much.

I'd say to you the same thing I said to Canadian Boy: Rather than attacking my reason in general, please specify where I misinterpreted Scripture or where my logic is faulty. Doing so will help everyone who visits this blog.

[19. Ted Slater said the following at 2:42 PM on Jun 21:]

19

Adam -- that seems to be an excellent resource. I found the arguments pretty strong. After providing many supporting references, one relevant section concludes:

There is no doubt then, that the New Testament treats Genesis 1-3 as real history. This is hermeneutically decisive for the church, because we acknowledge the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. But there is more than the historicity of Genesis 1-3 at stake in the New Testament’s interpretation of these texts. The very structure of the covenant plan of redemption is found in Genesis 1-3. Bound up with the biblical revelation in the first chapters of Genesis are the New Testament’s teaching on the work of Christ as the eschatological Adam, and its implications for soteriology and the consummation, as well as ethical requirements for the institution of marriage and church order. History is not only born here but sovereignly determined by the prophetic Word of God.

In Genesis 1-3 Moses wrote a faithful, pristine version of the actual facts of history. Genesis 1-11 can not be historically rejected without destroying Christianity. These events and persons must be affirmed, whatever other differences we may entertain in the details of the exegesis of the “days” of Genesis 1.

Whew! Strong!

[20. JMarie said the following at 3:13 PM on Jun 21:]

20

Keisha - For what it's worth, I don't consider myself to be a Christian right now. I got burnt out, considered myself to be agnostic for a while, and in the past year or so have begun tentatively exploring spirituality again. You could argue that reason won't save me, and I would have to agree; if Christianity is true, then faith is needed. However, I learned some of the science behind Creationism years ago, and it made sense to me. It might not save me, but it does keep me hanging on, unable to dismiss Christianity entirely. I figure if Christianity has found truth in some matters, it may have the truth in other matters as well. For those of you looking to convince non-believers, I would think that's worth something; a start, at least. Granted, if you start ranting at a die-hard evolutionist about a young earth, he might come to the opposite conclusion: that if you're wrong about this one thing, you're wrong about it all. I think you have to tread carefully and treat each situation differently, but don't dismiss the use of logic altogether.

[21. Kellie said the following at 3:18 PM on Jun 21:]

21

As someone with a background in biology, I recommmend the book "Coming to Peace with Science" by Darrell Falk. It's an excellent book, and explains the perspective of a Christian biologist. Even if you don't agree with theistic evolution, it's an intersting book.

[22. Keisha said the following at 3:21 PM on Jun 21:]

22

Hi Ted,

I apologize for implying that you were "requiring belief that the earth was created in 7 days [to] be a necessary precursor to faith in Christ" - that was certainly not my intent, I don't think that that is what you think, and I don't think that that is what you were trying to say in your article! I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in what I said and implied. (I think I must have been too confused from trying to turn the word "meteorology" into an adverb.)

I was just trying to say that I think it's funny that we get ourselves all wrapped up in logistical knots when we read Genesis. I think the line "someone like you who respects logic so much" is especially hilarious - being Orthodox, there are so many times when my faith tradition just humbly bows its grey head and simply says "It's a mystery". Of course, in my chosen career path (economics), logical inference is indispensible. However, if I approached my faith the same way that I approach my theoretical model, I think I would just get further and further away from the incredible truth of the Cross. (And I mean incredible in both uses of the word - unbelievable to our muddled human minds, and unbelievably wonderful to our eternal souls!)

As for specifying where you might have misinterpreted Scripture or where your logic is faulty... I don't think your logic is at all faulty. I don't agree with you in rejecting theistic evolution because I think that believing the words that Moses wrote (as Jesus commands us to do) doesn't preclude the truth of God-centered evolution. That's the shortest version of what I think, and I don't think about this particular topic too much. Usually too many other logs in my eye at the moment...

I hope that this is less of ..."a weak attempt at building up, and then knocking down, a Straw Man" (your words). I'm no philosopher, but I hope that my comments aren't as foolish as you seem to think they are.

[23. Canadian Boy said the following at 3:22 PM on Jun 21:]

23

Ted-

Whole thing is, I'm not trying to argue against what you have to say. If you believe God created the Earth in six days and then rested on the seventh, I'm cool with that.

See, I used to believe the same- in fact, I took a biology course just so I could argue with my teacher about evolution. Well, once we got to the subject, I was blown away by the evidence for evolution. It wasn't something I could argue against. I talked to my minister about it, and he said that I didn't have to think about Creation OR Evolution, but moreso Creation THROUGH Evolution.

But what I believe doesn't matter here- and that's what I'm trying to say. Why are you making such a large ordeal about theistic evolution? Why is it such a bad thing for Christians to believe in? What were you hoping to achieve with this blog entry, and why? As I said in my previous comment, just because I don't believe God created the Earth as Genesis says does not mean I am undermining the Bible or that I am "ashamed" of it. I believe in and worship the same God as those Christians who believed He created the world just a few thousand years ago.

So Ted, I'm not here to refute your points (though, if you're not satisfied with this comment, I will)- I'm wondering why we need to be having this argument in the first place.

[24. Keisha said the following at 3:33 PM on Jun 21:]

24

To JMarie:

"I figure if Christianity has found truth in some matters, it may have the truth in other matters as well."

I think you have made a totally valid point about apologetics in your post. Many non-Christians are responsive to the more logical and 'sensible' aspects of the faith (e.g. if everyone loved their neighbor as themselves, the world would be a much better place... and similar arguments). I just think we run into problems when we try to use clever logic to wiggle our way out of Scriptural truths that conflict with our worldly prejudices.

Of course, like you said, reason won't save you. But if it piques your curiosity and inspires you to learn more, than it is a blessed thing. I will pray for you, and I hope that you're able to meet some intelligent Christians and have a face-to-face conversation about your doubts. I think that a lot of the time doubting doesn't show that you're not a Christian - it just shows that you're thinking and struggling and challenging yourself to true belief.

[25. Chris Krycho said the following at 3:41 PM on Jun 21:]

25

You all might also take a look at some of the resources presented at Reasons to Believe, which is run by Hugh Ross, a strong supporter of OEC, and a nice counter to Answers in Genesis.

As for Hugh Ross, the guy's testimony is incredibly compelling, to say the least: He became a Christian never having met a Christian on the basis of the historical and scientific validity of Scripture. Now that's what I'm talking about ... double-edged sword, living and active and powerful indeed!

[26. JamesUK said the following at 3:48 PM on Jun 21:]

26

The story of creation is just that. It is an allegory, the point of which is to imform us of two important facts. First and foremost that our Heavenly Father created the world and everything in it and that secondly though we humans though created to be stewards of this earth in His image and that at some point we turned away. I am, by trait, a theistic evolutionist and not in any way an advocate of intelligent design. The reason being is that ID, as some have come to name it implies that every so often throughout the course of the history He has intervened to shape creation the more to His own liking. The conclusion? God makes mistakes, is therefore fallible and hence not worth trusting. So intelligent design is out. Theistic evolution, in which the LORD created the universe in the pre known knowledge of the result with no action being necessary.

The statement that “Jesus trusted as historical fact” is incorrect. The literal interpretation of the creation story has no roots in Jewish tradition, where it was again seen as an expression of Gods sovereignty (and on an aside the doctrine of the Yahudim was always less demanding than contemporary Christian thought). Rather, it stems from the nineteenth century and unfortunate reactionary response of many Christians to the publication of Darwinian ideas with the emergence of the Origin of Species. The response was due in part to the Atheistic rallying cry to such ideas as a means of disproving the existence of God (and intriguingly, in a recent exhibition of the original manuscripts, many letters from Christians were also presented, praising Darwin for his appraisal of Gods creation). As Christians we are guilty of many reactionary responses, most recently with the publication of the Da Vinci code. God is big enough to handle it and I think that it would have been wise to see this as an evangelistic opportunity and not as a call to arms.

But all such argument is unwarranted and unnecessary. These things are not to concern us. Our primary responsibility is not to debate or rubbish how creation came into being. Our job is to accept it is here, thank Him and preach the Gospel of Jesus/Yeshua by life and lip. Keep that in mind.

[27. Hannah Yelin said the following at 3:54 PM on Jun 21:]

27

Evolution is true. That's a fact. (If you don't believe me, read Darwin's "The Origin of Species.") Whether or not you choose to believe in evolution is up to you. The Bible was not meant to be a biology book, so why treat it as such, especially since scientists back then didn't know even half of the stuff that they know now? Your viewpoint makes no sense to me. But, I respect your right to hold that viewpoint, just like I hope you respect my right to believe in theistic evolution.

God bless.

[28. Ted Slater said the following at 3:59 PM on Jun 21:]

28

Kellie -- I did a bit of research into this book, and it looks like it simply propagates the "theistic evolution" argument. The title strikes me as pretty presumptuous, implying that evolution is the only scientific/reasonable explanation for "all this," and that the Christian community needs to just accept that.

Two thumbs down from me.

While there are numerous glowing reviews by laymen on Amazon etc., this one, written by a smart guy with a cool beard, provides a very thorough critique of the book.

Here are but two positions that the Falk holds:

• It is beyond challenge that animals have evolved over millions of years. The fossils have a clear sequence. The early fossils are quite different from later fossils. The transitions are well documented (fish to land, turtle, whale, elephant).

• It is beyond challenge that humans have evolved from apes. Genetics shows that chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 joined up to form human chromosome 2, and we can still see the join in the middle part where there are two telomeres and one centromere.
  

Falk wrote, "Adam and Eve would simply have been the first humans to experience what it really means to live in the image of God."

This is simply a heretical position to hold, that Adam and Eve each had human parents, but that those human parents weren't created in the image of God. Try to get your mind around that heresy and you'll experience some pretty painful cognitive dissonance.

Beyond the theological implications, it's ridiculous to posit that while both Adam's parents and Eve's parents were "ungodly" humans (or "apes," as he writes elsewhere), by some coincidence Adam and Eve were both "godly" humans. And that no human had yet sinned. Talk about immaculate conception!

It's just a mess when you don't accept the plain teaching of Scripture, something that's not at all inconsistent with science.

I'd frankly recommend that none of our readers waste their money on this book.

[29. Matt Huffman said the following at 3:59 PM on Jun 21:]

29

What people seem to be missing is that evolution itself - despite the false claims of naturalists - is not supported by science. After researching the theory of evolution, I'm convinced that it takes MORE faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does in creation! When you open-mindedly study the evidence of each position, it is unfathomable to me how anyone can choose to believe in theistic evolution. The facts don't even support the theory!

[30. Julia Beange said the following at 4:10 PM on Jun 21:]

30

Regarding the debate about the 24 hour days of creation:

If we take the idea that the days were not literal 24 hour days, when did the days then become 24 hour periods? Day 4, 5, 6, 7, 8?

According to Gen 5:3, 5:4, and 5:5, Adam died at the ripe old age of 930. If the creation days were not literal, and were, perhaps, 10, 100, or 1,000 years long, that makes it difficult to account for Adam's age when he died.

If we extend the idea of "longer than 24 hour period days" to one day of creation, we must logically extend it to all 7 days of creation. Doing so would make Adam much older than 930.

[31. Sam said the following at 4:14 PM on Jun 21:]

31

Perhaps I'm cooky, but I refuse to "die on this hill". If others want to, go for it. In the end, only a few things actually matter and the most important is what you do with the claims of Jesus Christ. Outside of that, all I gotta know is that God created everything and He's in control.

Continue "debating".

[32. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:54 PM on Jun 21:]

32

Just food for thought:

Notice how nowadays many people (Christians included) accept evolution as "fact" simply because they've been taught that in school or have heard it over and over and over again. Or maybe they just don't want to be branded as a "fundamentalist, uneducated Bible thumper" so they go with the status quo.

I would argue that scientists and those in academia are today's version of priests. By that I mean we consciously or subconsciously believe what these people say simply because they "are smarter" or "are experts" in their field.

I applaud those on either side of the fence who do not take things at face value and dig deeper to verify the claims, but most do not.

Personally, I have problems with evolution as a valid scientific theory for a number of reasons:

1. Many scientific theories of years past were believed as "true" only to be debunked many years later. Aristotlian physics (heavier objects fall faster, if something is moving there must be a force moving it, etc), the infeasibility of heavier than air flight (before the 20th century the most brilliant minds thought this was impossible and would ridicule you if you thought otherwise), the theory of "humors" (body fluids) governing the body, bloodletting was considered "good medicine" until the last 150 or so years, the list goes on. Thus evolution should not be viewed as "infallible" as any of these other beliefs which were not quackery but widely agreed upon principles.

2. Evolution itself has gone through many, many revisions in its history. First of all, the word "evolution" occurs only once in Darwin's book Origin of the Species. Darwin himself disliked that word as we've turned it into today relying more upon principles such as Natural Selection. Secondly, many don't remember a lot of these revisions because you rarely, if ever, see a retraction. First evolution stated that change took "many generations and millions of years" to jump from species to species. Yet in the last 20 or so years the theory has changed to "changes took place quickly within a relatively short span". Oops. Or how about this one. I remember a Time magazine article years ago whose front cover title was "Suprise! Everything you thought about dinosaurs are wrong". In it, the article stated how scientists now believe that many dinosaurs were warm-blooded, were more involved in the care for their young, etc. If that's not the case anymore you never saw a retraction. The point is that the scientific community does not want to send the message that evolution may be wrong or at least not totally figured out because they don't people to feel that evolution COULD be wrong.

3. I've noticed (yet don't have any hard data to back this up so it's not the strongest argument) that many hard-core evolutionists are also very anti-miracle. By that I mean if they dismiss Creation, they dismiss all the other miraculous events listed in the Bible (the Flood, crossing the Red Sea, Jesus' healings, etc). And if that's the case, most in this camp are atheists, agnostics who act like atheists, or at best are Diests. To me that says that evolution is just a symptom of a greater issue: That belief that there is no God or that if there is one, He/she/it/they aren't involved in human history as the Bible says.

4. Traditional evolution produces a lot of theological problems. For example, who were Adam and Eve? Were they the first homosapiens? Or could they possibly be some earlier pre-humans like Cromagnum, etc. Another issue: If Adam and Eve weren't real individuals then how did the Fall occur (which begs the question at what point did man need salvation?)? What about all the other specific names in early Genesis? Cain and Abel? Noah (and the Flood)? Were those real people too or just fictional characters to make a point? At what point in the Bible did myth become reality? I don't think that Christians who are evolutionists aren't real Christians, but wonder if they've thought through the problems that traditional evolutionary theory presents for their faith?

Interesting discussion indeed though. Thanks for all the great links and contributions on both sides.

[33. Bethany said the following at 5:04 PM on Jun 21:]

33

Ted, please let me defend Canadian Boy. Regardless of any emotionalism there may be in his response, I think he has a legitimate comment to make. If I may jump off from what I think is his point, we all need to be careful when discussing issues in which honest Christians disagree. At the end of the day, we are all on the same team. Which is why I, too, was a little taken aback by Jeremy’s line that “sadly there’s little reasoning with such people.” “Such people”? Forgive me if I am reading a condescending tone where there is none.
I am often convicted of my own brand of “reverse self-righteousness” --- in which I as a more liberal evangelical roll my eyes at all “such people” that believe in young earth creationism, with whom there is “little reasoning.” Whatever my intellectual reasons, I must admit and honor that “such people” have upright intentions, and certainly I, too, stake my life on the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. I am encouraged and challenged by your willingness to take a stand, despite the eye-rolling you will no doubt receive, and I seek to emulate that courage in my own life.
I recommend John Walton’s NIV Application Commentary on Genesis, a very good source that has influenced my thinking on the matter. I agree we should stand against the nihilistic philosophy often hidden in theories of evolution, but I also don’t think our entire faith depends on the veracity of young earth creationism.
Canadian Boy, this feeling of being an outsider is the risk you run when you read people with whom you do not agree. I have read this blog for years, differ with it on multiple fronts, but keep coming back precisely because we are all fellow Christians. We can learn from each other. I’m glad to have you here.

[34. Peter said the following at 5:10 PM on Jun 21:]

34

I think it's good to talk about this, but it is very important not to let extra-biblical speculation become part of the gospel to us.

[35. Kellie said the following at 5:19 PM on Jun 21:]

35

Ted, creation vs. evolution is a hotly debated topic even among Christians, and while I can respect your views, not every Christian believes in a literal six day creation. Some of us do believe that God may have used evolution to create the world. And just for the record, I was actually a student of Dr. Falk's at one time, and he is an excellent, Christian man.

[36. Abby said the following at 6:32 PM on Jun 21:]

36

Quickly skimming through these posts prompted me to reply:

1. I have a B.A. in Natural Science, and even though all my studies had a focus on evolution, I couldn't help but more fully see how evolution could not have developed the creation around us today.
2. I have listened to and attended many workshops and lectures given on the evolution vs. Creation (or Intelligent Design) and the more and more I listen, the more and more I can't ever accept the claims made by evolutionists.
3. The big issue with Evolution for me, is that it's degrading. Human Life is a by-product--there is nothing special about it. If we continue with the mentality that we evolved, how easily will we begin to accept the message that many in our societies are pushing: life isn't valuable--go ahead and use it for your own selfish purposes. (Stem Cell research using embryos is a good example).
4. God created the heavens and the earth.... and he made man in HIS image. What a wonderful concept. We are made to look like God, to have God's heart-- God values each and every one of us. If we don't accept and believe that, we will fall down the slippery slope: If a body wasn't formed perfectly, why not destroy it (according to survival of the fittest, we should leave those behind who are hindering others...) We don't do these types of things, because we value life, it's stands above all of God's other creation-- he created the world for us, and humans for himself.

Be careful what you say you believe... you never know what consequences your "beliefs" may have on other ideas.

[37. Melody said the following at 6:45 PM on Jun 21:]

37

I am a big fan of Answers in Genesis and a biology major as well as a Christian and I absolutely believe that God created the earth in 6 literal days - 24 hour periods. The Greek uses the words Erev and Boker which mean morning and evening in English respectively. I don't know about you but evening and morning sure sound like one ordinary, 24 hour day to me.

The fact that the sun wasn't created until day 4 should not be a problem, on day 1 God created light - and plants need light, it doesn't have to be sunlight - after all they grow plants on spaceships and in basements with only artificial light! Besides which in the new Jerusalem there won't be any sun, God will be the light and the Tree of Life is there, so I don't think that should be an issue. And yes the tree of life is a real, literal tree, it grew fruit etc.

As I see it the problem with not taking the Biblical account of Genesis literally is that if you can't take the first verses of the Bible as written, who is to say what else may not be true? Where does it stop? Is the story of the fall allegorical as well just because we don't like it? No, Jesus supports that in Scripture as well. Nowhere in Genesis is there any form of allegory, it is all written as a historical account, allegories are clearly identified in the Bible and anyway you can't make theology out of one allegory unless it is many places in Scripture to support it, that would be bad hermenuetics.

Creation is the base on which the rest of the story of life and redemption rest, if it wasn't important, God wouldn't have mentioned it. It is essential to good doctrine! I am not saying that you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in a literal as written Creation account, but the logic doesn't follow when you try to explain the gospel from the beginning to yourself or others. Why did Christ need to die if the fall didn't occur? If death occured before the fall, would God have called it good? NO!Death was only introduced after the fall when God provided animal skins for clothing.

And as others have said science is constantly changing what it believes and furthermore consistently supports what the Bible says about many other scientific topics such as a round earth etc - read Job.
Oh and by the way that passage in 2 Peter 3:8 should not be used to allegorize time, it is simply referring to the fact that God created time and is outside its dimensions and is thus not bound by it. However, when God is talking to us he uses time as literal because that is what we are bound by, we cannot grasp eternity. Also, the context in which it is located is talking about creation and the flood, which the author obviously took as written.

Don't be fooled by just accepting what scientists claim is true, stick with the Truth that never changes and you will be on solid ground.

[38. Brooke said the following at 6:53 PM on Jun 21:]

38

First of all, I want to state that I do tend towards believing in theistic evolution or Intelligent Design theory, whatever you want to call it. I do also believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Remember, God can do anything...maybe he created the world through evolution and then created man. I would also point out to the YEC, that you alientate the secular scientific community if you claim that to be a Christian you must believe in a literal six day creation. I don't recall that being part of salvation....

[39. Chris said the following at 7:16 PM on Jun 21:]

39

Mike Theemling makes several points about evolution that I'd like to address.

1 (Evolution, like many other theories, should not be viewed as infallible).

True, and absolutely required by the scientific method. Evolution, like every other theory, must be falsifiable. No good scientist would claim otherwise. That's no reason, however, to not defend it or not claim it's the best thing we have at this point. When someone comes up with a better, falsifiable theory, then the scientific community will fight over it and the better theory will eventually win out. Just look at the arguing going on over string theory. Some used to claim it was the best thing since sliced bread when it came to explaining the universe. Now many feel it's just fancy mathematics that don't really cut it. When a better theory than evolution comes along (and, no, ID ain't it), it will eventually win out.

I'd like to also point out that science's basic "skills", as it were, have improved drastically over the past few hundred years. We can conduct experiments that before hand would have been merely thought experiments. Our methods have become naturalistic in that we examine things in terms of natural laws we can observe and theorize about. To construct a theory today is not as easy as it once was. You can't just chaulk up phenomenae to some unexplained fluids or unobserved forces. Just look at dark matter. There's some heavy mathematics and thought processes behind it. That's a far cry from the "quackery" of yesterday. While the scientific method still holds, our tolerance of "quackery" (just look at cold fusion) is much, much lower. As a result, I think you'll find less "fantastic" theories today than in the past.

2 (Retractions are not offered.) Retractions imply that some authority issued an official statement that ended discussion. This is not the way science works. People argue over competing theories. Experimenters try to replicate others' experiments. No one issues retractions to theories because there is no single entity that issues them. People DO issue retractions when papers or experiments are found to be fabricated, full of significant errors, and so forth. Your argument is a straw man because the arguments, papers, experiments and so forth are part of a continuum. It's not some cut-and-dried activity.

3 (Evolutionists are athiests, essentially). This is a guilt-by-association argument.

4 (Theological problems of evolution) Well, yeah, this is true, but many facts and theories through history have caused problems with theological beliefs. Radiological dating flies in the face of young earth beliefs or a strict interpretation of the timeline of the Old Testament. Mere logic flies in the face of the flood story. (How'd kangaroos get from the Ark to Australia?) Even recent research on the workings of the human brain call into question concepts such as free will. These "problems" are nothing new.

[40. Suraj said the following at 8:13 PM on Jun 21:]

40

It was a great read, thanks for putting it together.

Makes a lot of sense, and I agree to the notion that our views should be based on the bible, and not the other way around.

God Bless '_^

[41. Katie said the following at 8:16 PM on Jun 21:]

41

Well. That's a lot of reading to get through. A lot of stuff that makes my stomach boil. Hold on while I calm my easily-roused temper.

Alright. That's better. Now, evolution. Man, I have to go calm down again.

This is such a touchy subject for people on both sides of the issue. If you care about the side you've chosen, you tend to get angry really quickly when somebody disagrees with you. Anyway, that's what I've seen, and that's what I've experienced myself. Allow me to expound my own beliefs (not opinions or thoughts, beliefs!).

1. Firstly, if you mentioned believing in evolution or anything to do with it prior to Darwin, people would have laughed at you. This is a modern-day question. Personally, I believe it's something that came about when Darwin had insomnia one night and he chose to dwell on Creation or something. In other words: idol hands (or heads) make for the Devil's workshop. Savvy? If you think too hard or too much about something, you're bound to confuse yourself, and you're also bound to come up with some theory or something to unconfuse yourself. Again, I'm speaking from experience. Ask me about animals in Heaven, angels, demons, the Devil--deep stuff, and I probably came up with something one sleepless night to explain it.

2. As has been stated prior to this post, Darwin didn't come up with the modern-day idea of evolution. He talked about natural selection and animals changing through natural selection, and other scientists took the ball and ran with it. Darwin actually regretted his work with evolution on his deathbed (or so I've heard) and renounced evolution as foolishness. That last sentence might not be true; lots of things are spread by word of mouth. If anybody wants to look that one up and test it, you're more than welcome to do so.

3. Natural selection is ok. There, I said it. Natural selection is not only scientific, but it's also common sense (a pity those two can't go together more often). I've got four examples in my house right now, and they're all cats. My cat, Patty, is the most obvious choice for examination. I went to a farm to pick her up when she was just a kitten. All of the cats on the farm were gray tabbies. All of them. And I'm not talking about gray-that-kind-of-looks-like-brown-in-different-lights gray, I'm talking gray. Like dull silver. It's a gray that blends in with ANYTHING--even a bright purple rug. That, my friends, is natural selection. And it's not just in color, either. Patty and her kin are also great hunters--how many declawed cats have you seen killing birds, squirrels, mice, etc.? Now, natural selection does not involve changing species. That's...I'll leave that for my next point.

4. Evolution is scientifically impossible. That's a direct jab at the "evolution is fact" argument. Firstly, evolution isn't even called a fact in science. It's a theory--although the 'theory' part is too often left off of the title. Theories are well-tested hypotheses that are accepted as law but can be changed--they're a step below fact. And, honestly, I don't see how evolution made it to 'theory'. For whoever it was that said evolution is well documented in fossil records, sorry, but that's false also. They have the bone of a T-rex and the bone of a chicken, but they don't have the bones that go inbetween. They have the bone of the dog and the bone of the porpoise, but they don't have the bones showing the dog turning into a porpoise. They have huge gaps in those areas.

5. Evolution lacks common sense. Put it this way: what are the chances that my cat, Patty, will be exposed to some radiation or something and her DNA will mutate and her kittens will have not-quite-cat DNA? Further, what are the chances that those mutated kittens will be able to reproduce? Mutations are often sterile and die out quickly because they go against natural selection, which is a FACT, thank you very much. Now, even though those kittens have the same mother, they aren't identical--that is, if any of them are mutated at all, they'll have a different mutation than any of the other kittens. So say one of those kittens CAN reproduce--just not with a normal cat. What are the chances that one of the other kittens has the same mutation, or that somewhere another kitten was born with the same mutation? And even if two of the kittens can reproduce together, their offspring will be inbred and mutated, which doesn't make for a pretty sight. Mother cats will not nurse sickly kittens, and that's exactly what mutated/inbred kittens would be. And I know from experience: if you try to nurse a kitten that was rejected by its mother, you will fail. It was rejected for a reason: it can't live, no matter how much you try to keep it alive. So, anyway, leaving the cat example, do you see how hard it would be for a mutation to be passed down if it altered the species?

6. There are such things as mutations that don't alter the species. Returning to the cat example, there are the Manx, Japanese Bobtail, American Bobtail, Scottish Fold, American Curl, Devon Rex, Cornish Rex, Persian, Munchkin, Sphynx...the list goes on and on. And if you took any of those breeds of cats and put them out on a farm--or even in a house--and allowed them to breed naturally, without human interference, the mutations would likely disappear. No tails or inch long tails are not good for balancing, which is something cats regularly do. Ears that fold in or back don't help hearing. Fur that is curly or wavy doesn't hold in body heat. Noses that are squashed limit breathing. Extremely short legs don't allow jumping. No fur causes sunburn and makes it hard to regulate body temperature. And the only reason these breeds are around today is because somebody saw a cat with that mutation and thought, "Oh, that's so cute/rare/cool, I think I want all of my cats to look like that!" Before any of these cats became breeds, people saw the mutations pop up here and there, but when nobody interfered, they disappeared. And you see, even with all of those mutations, they are all still cats! They aren't dogs or ferrets or rabbits or cabbits or anything like that. They're cats.

7. If evolution were real, we would be able to see it happening around us. Take mice, for instance. Mice produce so many new mice in such a short period of time, that would cut the billion year requirement for evolution, now wouldn't it? Surely they would have evolved into a new species by now, seeing as they've had at least 4,000-10,000 years to do so, 2,007 of which has been very well documented. But...they're still...mice. And if mice aren't prolific enough for ya, how about insects and spiders and bugs? Nothing new there. Other than new spiders that we'd never seen before and stuff like that, things that were there before but we hadn't discovered.

8. If, by chance, two creatures with the same mutations were able to breed and diverge from their species, the old species would still be around. If my cat had kittens that bred cabbits, there would still be cats. It's not like, "Uh oh, looks like a new species has diverged off of us, I guess we're gonna have to die now." The old species would most likely overrun the new because there are so many more old.

9. 7 days. As has been stated before, the word for 'day' used in Genesis means, literally, 24 hours. If God were to take longer than that, He would have told us. He's a perfect God and doesn't confuse us for fun or on purpose. When it comes right down to it, we confuse ourselves and decide that He's confusing us--this goes back to the 'thinking too deeply' topic. Now, if you don't believe that your god is big enough and powerful enough to create the entire universe in 7 days, all at once, no pre- forms necessary, that's your problem. My God IS the I Am, and He had absolutely no trouble with creation. He didn't sweat or strain with it and decide, "Well, maybe I should spread this out over a few billion years." No, my God said, "Let there be light," and there was, and He saw that it was good. He SPOKE and light appeared. He SPOKE and the earth divided from the sea. He SPOKE and plants appeared. He SPOKE and the sun and the moon and the stars appeared. He SPOKE and--you get what I'm saying? When I speak, the dog ignores me and keeps barking. When I speak, it often seems like nobody's listening. But when my God speaks, you better watch out--He's doing something amazing, something perfect, and something more glorious than any of us can imagine. That is the power of I Am, as best as I can describe it, which I can't, because it's indescribable.

10. I believe God created a young earth about 10,000 years ago, give or take a bit. I'm currently compiling a list of ALL of the names mentioned in the Bible; when I'm through with that, which should be the end of this year, I'm going to start making a Biblical timeline. I'll let you know how that turns out. Anyway, back to the 'young earth' idea, if you can call it that--10,000 years is older than anybody or anything I know, saving God, who is forever. I believe God made the earth the way it is, and silly humans who like to think too hard into things say it looks like it's old! No duh. It's older than any of us. But not as old as people like to think--carbon dating isn't very reliable. A plane that crashed in WWII was carbon dated, and the carbon dating said it was WAY old. I can't remember the exact details, but I think it was dated to 1,000-2,000 years old. Or maybe just a few hundred years. Still, that's not very accurate at all, now is it? I don't see how we can trust something that unreliable. And what about all the layers of earth or the fossils and stuff? Can you say "The Flood?" The earth opened up and released all of its water; the skies opened up and released all of theirs; and when the skies cleared, the whole earth was underwater. That, my friends, is a LOT of water. Just about enough to move dirt from one place to another, given currents and winds. Just about enough to deposit dead fish on mountain tops. Just about enough to do a LOT of things I probably can't even think of. Like now, when my mind has gone blank. But maybe that's a good thing--I've typed so much, my fingers will probably be numb for a week.

Sorry for the extraordinarily long post. Sorry if I seem self-righteous or holier-than-thou or I'm-right-and-you're-wrong. I don't mean to seem any of those. What I do mean is to tell people my beliefs, obtained through a lot of debates with fellow Christians and unsaved people, and obtained through science classes, and obtained through the Bible and faith in God. If you disagree with any of my logic, that's fine--by all means, tell me; human logic and wisdom is often flawed. However, if you disagree with any of the Biblical stuff--the Flood, the Creation--you'll have to take that one up with God. I'm just His messenger (amazing how He can use people, isn't it?).

God bless all of you; I hope this has given you a lot to think about. Just don't think too deeply or too hard about it. Take it with a grain of salt and remember: Jesus calls us to have a childlike faith. Again, speaking from past experience, evolution does not make sense to children in the least. Creation does.

[42. Tomi said the following at 8:17 PM on Jun 21:]

42

I'm curious about what prompted you to write this post!

I'm a theistic evolutionist myself, and while I see where your post is coming from and what you're trying to say, your arguments and scripture references seem like a bit of a stretch. Its obvious you're trying really, really hard. You also come off as speaking with absolute authority as to the interpretation of what Jesus 'meant' and scripture in general. Basically a "sure you can interpret it other ways and still be a Christian, but barely." Why are we even arguing over this in the first place--believing in evolution doesn't make me love my neighbor more or less. Why is it that only people who interpret the Bible literally are the only ones who can never "agree to disagree?"

**I think I found an applicable quote
To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it.**
- Olin Miller

[43. Melody said the following at 10:22 PM on Jun 21:]

43

Katie - thanks for your post, it was awesome and covered things I didn't have time to go into.

As I mentioned in my previous post I don't believe you won't be saved if you don't believe in creation, you will just have some non-Biblically supported beliefs.

Tomi- The evidence given in this post is by no means complete but there is a lot more evidence for Creation than you may know about, and I mean scientific evidence - just check out Answers in Genesis or Khouse.org to see what I mean.

As far as why people who take the Bible literally who won't "agree to disagree" is because many of these literal things in the Bible are foundational to modern day ethical problems such as abortion, euthanaisa, etc.I am not just holding onto my opinion, I know I get wrong ideas, I just won't agree with someone on something that is clearly taught in no uncertain terms in Scripture. We need to recognize false teachings when they occur and point them out as such as gently as possible for the benefit of all. The reason I don't back down from these beliefs is many, but mainly because I don't want to see misinformation causing bad doctrine and harming people - not just about evolution either. The truth sets people free but lies or half truths entangle and cause pain and confusion.

[44. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:41 PM on Jun 21:]

44

Thanks for the reply Chris. I like your intelligent, logical approach to the discussion:

Some responses to the responses

1) The response was mainly in response to Hannah Yelin's words, "Evolution is true. That's a fact." You stated, "I'd like to also point out that science's basic "skills", as it were, have improved drastically over the past few hundred years..."

Definitely. And our methodology of science is certainly better than it was 10, 50, or even 100 years ago. But the point is that we as humans tend to be believe that "this is as good as it gets". Meaning that it is true that any conclusions drawn today are under more rigorous testing than in the past. But that in my opinion doesn't let modern day science off the hook. I'm sure that 100 years or so from now scientists will think certain "theories" we've had now were quacky. Of course I can't say which ones they are. But I don't like such bold claims regarding evolution, especially about something that cannot be replicated and relies heavily on circumstantial evidence. That is my biggest beef with the presentation of evolution. We start out more with the conclusion (assume evolution is true) and try to "fit" our data into it rather than look at the data itself and wonder what it means.

2) Regarding retractions, I was not trying to say that retractions are "never" done as in there are not counter publications in journals. But the point was that at least in the mainstream, one rarely, if ever hears of the possible fallacies of an argument. For example, I have NEVER seen in any science textbook verbage that says "oh by the way, evolution is ASSUMED to be correct unless proven otherwise". It ALWAYS comes off as, "evolution is a scientific FACT, end of story". There is never any open discussion of the objections to evolution because it's a known fact, so what's there to discuss? Anyone who questions it in most scientific communities are branded as either religious ignorants or worse. The scientific community, at least the way they present it to the masses, loves "breakthroughs" because quite frankly, it's often tied to research money (science is not immune from politics as is religion). And who wants to present a breakthrough with the caveat that, "yeah, there might be some hand waving here"?

3) "(Evolutionists are athiests, essentially). This is a guilt-by-association argument." It is, but still not completely invalid simply because the problem here is that if one assumes from the get-go that "miracles do not occur" and that everything has a scientific explanation you will just throw out the baby with the bath water. No miracles mean not only no Creation, but also no 10 Plagues, no virgin birth, and most importantly to Christian faith, no resurrection of Jesus. So naturally most who are die-hard scientists will reject Creation, and pretty much everything else that goes with Christianity, not to mention all other religions since just about all of them have some divine intervention in them. So I don't think this an unfair characterization.

4) I agree that at times Christians have been skeptical of science to the point of denying facts. Heliocentricity (sun revolving around the earth) comes to mind. And also demon possession for certain mental disorders (but to be sure, if you believe what the Bible says, demon posession is very real). But understand too Chris, that just because something is not explained in the Bible explicitly doesn't mean that the "scientific" answer is necessarily true. Take the Flood. How did Noah get kangaroos and koalas? God brought them. Yes, that's a clique answer and other Christians have theorized that perhaps the Flood wasn't global but merely regional. But the point is that just because something doesn't seem to jive with what the Bible says doesn't automatically make the Bible wrong.

[45. Kelsey said the following at 11:29 PM on Jun 21:]

45

I wrestle with this issue often. Though there are certainly unanswered questions, there exists an overwhelming amount of congruous evidence that points to an old universe and an old earth.

Most remarkable about this discovery is that these ages are finite. The universe had a definite beginning. Time had a definite beginning.

At that moment, something that transcends time and space, something not bound to obey the natural laws which have governed unabated since, introduced those very laws to a hopelessly paralyzed singularly of matter-energy in such a spectacularly fine-tuned fashion that time has been allowed to run its course ever since.

Though that something remains forever hidden from direct observation behind the curtain of the Planck epoch (the very first moment of existence), could it have shown itself more clearly to be God?

Ask yourself, is there any distinction between 6 days and 13.7 billion years to a timeless God? Does it even make sense to ask whether he caused certain things to be created at certain points on a linear timeline, or that he interacted with his creation constantly and continually, or that he simply set it up and let it operate? Is there any difference to a God transcendent and with complete authority over spacetime, or is the distinction one that our so obviously impotent minds must invent just to attempt to grasp the awe of creation?

Regardless, would we see the universe and its history any other way than the way that we do in fact see it?

I see a universe that is old, but not infinite. An infinite God intertwined the very tools we use to see this in the necessary functioning of the world itself, such as radioactivity, and gave us the assurance that the physical rules that control them have and never will change (Jeremiah 33:25).

He placed us here, now, at such a time that we can still peer out into the night sky and see the trillions of stars and galaxies as they are and as they once were. We can still see the cosmic microwave background radiation, a fading shadow of the birth of an expanding universe. All signs point to that beginning. All signs point to him.

Given this astounding picture of creation alone, am I not without excuse (Romans 1:20)?

Is it not clear that it is he who has breathed the breath of life into me? And have I not rebelled against him and earned his taking it away? Oh, I am so very grateful that God's creation was just the beginning and not the end of the story.

[46. Tomi said the following at 1:26 AM on Jun 22:]

46

Mike Theemling: I wasn't referring to arguments in support of Creation, I meant Ted's argument and scripture references about what he thinks Jesus "believes" to be a bit of an awkward stretch (understatement).

[47. Tomi said the following at 1:27 AM on Jun 22:]

47

Sorry Mike! I meant Melody instead of you.

[48. xeres said the following at 1:37 AM on Jun 22:]

48

What about genetic mutations? Majority (99%) of them are detrimential because they don't serve the body according to proper function. That's why cancer and radiation are bad, contrary to many superhero movies. People who support evolution or the evolution process believe mutations are ulumately benefical for the survival of the fittest.

Based on that fact, there is no way macroevolution (changing from one species to another) is plasible. Does anyone really think that humans are from apes? Humans have 46 chromosomes altogether. Goldfish has 104. Hare has 46. Gorilla has 48. Earthworm has 36. How macroevolution can explain all this?

[49. Craig David said the following at 3:29 AM on Jun 22:]

49

Thanks very much for this article. I am in total agreement with Ted on this. I get quite frustrated by the many in church who believe that God could have started evolution to compromise what 'science' says and what the Bible says. Like Ted said, when you look deeply into evolution and what the Bible says about creation, then it shows how impossible it is to believe in it. I studied ecology at university and I had to really battle with evolution and my faith because it was the basis for everything we were taught. Eventually I came to the conclusion that what the Bible says was literal and believable too. Its funny how the theistic evolutionary view is not common in Africa where I grew up,in fact, Ive heard that they view it as ridiculous, whereas we in the West get it taught from all angles and so take it in without thinking. Please lets be careful about what our culture tells us!

[50. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:06 AM on Jun 22:]

50

People ask why this matters at all, and Ted outlines it in the original post, but doesn't highlight it.

Theistic evolution, and old earth creationism both date certain fossils from before 6000 years ago. Even old earth creationists agree that the fall occurred c. 4000 BC (assuming they believe it actually occurred)

Ted outlined above what Paul explains in Romans: Adam's sin caused physical death (of animals) to enter the world, so when Jesus defeats that original sin, death goes as well. If there was animal death before the fall, then Jesus' death saves us only from spiritual death at best, not the physical death that predated sin. Intellectually, this undermines some key stuff.

That said, all the creeds say about creation is that a Christian must believe that God is the maker of heaven and earth. The details are flexible as far as salvation is concerned, and I am great friends with an old earth creationist. He loves God, and is an incredible worship leader. I disagree with him, but he is still my brother.

[51. Elena said the following at 8:58 AM on Jun 22:]

51

Why do we say Jesus believed? Didn't Jesus KNOW? I mean, not just ontologically but epistemologically.

[52. JB said the following at 9:26 AM on Jun 22:]

52

I guess it's a comparatively minor point, but I don't see the warrant for the argument that Jesus spoke of events like Jonah and the burning bush as historical and not metaphorical. The passages linked to could easily be read as metaphor without harming the meaning of what Jesus is saying.

You might not like interpretations of the Bible that leave room for evolution, but I don't think it's the case that these interpretations eliminate any of the meaning of scripture. We're still in the same place when we talk about Jonah, for example, and what it tells us about the nature of God. The fact that you believe that a man was actually swallowed by a whale thousands of years ago and I don't doesn't really affect that much more meaningful discussion at all. So it is with the story of Creation.

[53. Cath said the following at 11:31 AM on Jun 22:]

53

Auuugghhhh! This is a really good and interesting original post and following string of comments. I'm screaming/sighing because I am convicted. Before I was blissfully unaware that such good points existed for Creationism. This whole issue obviously DOES matter.

The problem is that as I read the points for creationism they sound good to me... but I know that I don't have a firm enough grasp on them to be able to explain them to anyone else yet. And this is a BIG issue for me because I teach Religion in high school. The predominant idea, and the one that I've mentioned in every class so far, is that of Theistic evolution. I guess it's an attempt by an under-informed teacher to not make it look like the Church is against society on absolutely *everything*. Like, 'hey guys, don't worry, you won't think that Christians are out to lunch on this one! Here's where we're not a bunch of idiots and actually listen to tangible beings like scientists!" ha. Since I didn't know what was true [and still, I'm mostly convinced but need to understand it better] I just went with teaching the 'easier to stomach' method of creation. So, [sigh] I need to keep learning and possibly repent.

How on earth, though, did this idea get around that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are a particular literary genre known as "myth"? I have this in my teaching notes from somewhere and I cringed every time I mentioned it this past year. I know, I know, I've probably been a heretic, but I didn't know it... and so now since I do I guess this has got to change.

So, uhh, thanks Ted! I guess I've got some reading to do this summer! Praise God for brothers and sisters in Christ that challenge each other. = )

[54. Jeff said the following at 11:36 AM on Jun 22:]

54

I have always found it interesting when talking with a Christian about this subject that their line of reasoning/questioning always starts with science not with Scripture. In Proverbs we are taught that all knowledge begins with a loving reverence for the Lord (Proverbs 1:7) yet when the latest “scientific evolutionary discovery” is published we place our evolutionist-tinted reading glasses on and start reading “In the beginning…” Does this not seem backwards? Should we not be putting our biblical glasses on and reading the world through them? If we did, I think more of us would see that evolution is nothing more then the new world faith (naturalism). It is not science; it can not be proven or repeated. It is a theory put forth to allow people not to believe in God! We must understand that very smart, gifted, non-Christian scientists are pushing this faith because it allows them to live an individualistic, unmoral, self-centered lifestyle. I read an article from a former evolutionary scientist who stated that the only reason he believed in evolution was because the only other logical option is creation. And if he believes in creation, he would then need to believe in a Creator and would have to change his sexual lifestyle. He was not willing to do so; therefore he continued to preach evolution. Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). “[Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21). The Bible is our ultimate authority by which science should be evaluated, not the other way around.

[55. Soren said the following at 12:20 PM on Jun 22:]

55

I've been in debate with an Atheist this past quarter at college. It has been a truly eye opening experience. One of his recent conclusions is that he is incapable of believing in God. For him, that is where the evidence points. I think that's why there is a debate between evolution and creation: We're looking at the evidence and drawing different conclusions. I'm wondering if the evidence, when looked at honestly, will actually point to the best conclusion. The theory of evolution is constantly changing, although it is moving forward just like any other theory in the past or present within the scientific community of peer reviewed journal articles. This gives me some hope that the truth will be brought to light since I believe the scientific community to be good. I do recognize it has a bias, just like any other community comprised of people (naturally biased), yet I think it is more rigorous than other fields.

I look at the universe and I believe in a Creator. I have a list of topics for why I believe in God and why I'm a Christian:

Good (I see good things)
Evil (I see evil things)
Personal experience
Complexity (Scientific discoveries)
Evolution can’t explain everything
Application of the Bible to my life
Evidence points towards Jesus being who he said he was
Love
Peace
Joy
Answers my “Why?” questions
Gives me purpose
A relationship with God
Emotions
Answered prayer/Unanswered prayer
UPBRINGING
The people who truly represent Jesus Christ (as a whole)
The affects of Jesus on people (as a whole)
Essence
Existence itself (Consciousness)
Information itself
Guilt and Redemption
The change that has occurred in my heart and in my life
Freedom
All these things have given me A DEEP DESIRE TO WORSHIP GOD

These are my reasons for believing, but I wonder if I was just meant to believe or "predestined." Maybe that explains why I believe and my friend the Atheist doesn't. If so, then why would God do this? It doesn’t seem fair. My only answer is that he is just and will judge accordingly. This requires an afterlife though, which my atheist friend doesn’t believe in.
I'm also wondering what the best use of my life is. I feel I have certain God given abilities and passions, yet I wonder if I should even be writing. Maybe I should be out feeding the poor and helping anyone who is in need, allowing God to provide the means. Maybe I should just GO!
What is truth? What makes it true? Is God bound by truth? Where did God come from? I can see the argument that it doesn't matter where God came from, yet if God created us then something created God, right? I think that's logical. If we just look to the Bible and believe what it says, then we believe God always existed.
Should truth resonate within you? Is that a test of truth? "God always existed" resonates inside of me, yet is that just a result of my upbringing? I ask this, because this is not the case with my friend the Atheist. Right now I believe that God put me in his life for a reason and I'm doing my best to fulfill the purpose God has. Maybe Apologetics do have a purpose for getting people to a place where they believe in God. Of course they have other purposes as well.
Believing the Bible is inerrant resonates inside of me, but not my friend the Atheist.
The idea that we have evolved from Bacteria like ancestors does not resonate within me, yet it does resonate within my friend the Atheist.
I have grown up in the Church, although I have had other strong influences towards other faiths, yet I have grown up with spirituality nonetheless.
I have grown up with the Bible (I lead a Bible study), and if it is truth, then I have let that truth permeate my mind and soul. Is that why certain things resonate inside of me and I accept them as truth. How can I be sure that it's the truth? Maybe I can't. It's hard to deny my personal experience and relationship with God. It's been so emotional sometimes, so real. Could I have created it myself...I don't really think I'm capable or that all the events that I have seen and experienced are mere coincidences.
I don't believe the Bible is a coincidence (the conjuring of man from sleepless nights). I believe it's from God. Why? When I get right down to it, because all the evidence seems so mottled, I really just believe. I have faith.

So, by all means, we should continue this debate. (I say this to the world and you) I hope we can lay down some SOLID evidence to back up our faith. You are all intelligent people and I have learned a great deal from reading. I think a lot of you have asked the same questions as I have and possibly have grown up in similar situations. Therefore I think it is important to ask yourself, as I have been trying to do, these few questions:
Why do I believe in God?
Why do I believe in Jesus?
Why do I believe in Sin?
Why do I believe in Evolution?
Am I doing what God purposed for my life?
How can I love people if I do not intimately know them?

I have come into some spare time and have been able to ask these questions. The answers don't come easy. I think together we can figure out what the truth is, God willing.

I pray that God removes any pride that I have in writing this and that he humbles me. I pray that he gives me a greater heart for the lost to care for all their needs. I pray that he increases my love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and that he increases my love for the lost. I pray that he uses me in his mighty power. I thank him that I believe and that He has changed my life and taught me how to love.

[56. Beth L. said the following at 12:36 PM on Jun 22:]

56

Here the thing, the Creation story as it is recounted in Genesis, was not written to counter Darwinism or any of the subsequent theories of Evolution. It was written to counter the Mesopotamian & Egyptian Creation stories, which were the starting point for the pagan world views of the day. Nor was it is not written as a historical account or as a scientific account. When you really look at it, it is a beautiful poetic account of Creation. That does not make it any less true, it just does not answer Darwinism.

The basic structure of the Mesopotamian myth says that there was a war between the gods & the parents of the gods. Out of the chaos the world was formed. The head god wins by killing his dad, and everywhere the blood landed a person grew up. The Egyptian story is a bit different, but starts with chaos, and primordial ooze. The themes we see are, 1) order out of disorder, 2) disunity between the gods and their parents, 3) man is an accident.

Genesis speaks to these themes.

Genesis 1: 1-3a
“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said,…”

There is order in the beginning – God created. We see the unity of the Triune God…”In the beginning God” (Father), “the Spirit of God” (Holy Spirit), “and God said” (Son). They are in perfect agreement about every aspect of creation, and it is good. The Hebrew phrase that is translated “formless and empty” speaks of chaos and darkness. We see that God is outside of these things and speaks order & light into them. Interesting side note, the mother of the gods in the Mesopotamian story is “Teamont” (sp?). She is a sea monster. In Day 5 of creation, it says that God created the sea monster, (in the NIV it skips that, and in the King James it says “the great whale”). Chapter 2of Genesis is a beautiful story of God taking time and putting care into Man’s creation. Showing that as men & woman we have authority & identity – there is NOTHING accidental in our beginning.

[57. NeedACatchyName said the following at 1:34 PM on Jun 22:]

57

BethL,

Your post on June 22 at 12:36 PM is really interesting. Do you have a link where I could read more about this idea?

[58. JLC said the following at 2:00 PM on Jun 22:]

58

I think that it would be inconsistent for a person to simultaneously claim to be a Christian and theistic evolutionist. In John 1:3, it says that “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”—in essence, God didn’t sort of make the universe and sort of let things kind of come together, rather everything was carefully, thoughtfully designed. To say that humanity is a product of evolution flies in the face of fact that we were created in God’s image, it would be as though saying we came from a lower life-form (i.e. a protozoa) that was somehow in God’s image but it was possible to improve upon that image. Just doesn’t make any sense. Humanity was intended to be a reflection of God’s glory by bearing His image.
One particularly compelling scientific argument made against evolution is derived from the Laws of Thermodynamics, namely the 2nd law, which states that all systems tend towards the increase of entropy (or disorder). In light of this, the contention that nature is becoming more advanced does not hold because to do so would violate the physical laws of the universe. Natural processes where more order results, such as the organization of amino acids into peptide chains that associate to form proteins, are only possible because they are accompanied by an increase of entropy (energetically speaking).
As a chemistry major at a secular research university, I have found that, more often than not, professors attempt to convince students of evolution rather than just teaching evolutionary theory (as though it could not stand on its own). If anything, that only weakens their case.

[59. Beth L. said the following at 2:20 PM on Jun 22:]

59

NeedACatchyName –

Sorry, no links…just the benefit of being home-schooled by a mom who is both a Bible Major & and English Major.

I will see if I can get the names of some of books we used…

[60. Joseph said the following at 4:52 PM on Jun 22:]

60

Here I was getting the vibe that Boundless wasn't too privy to such discussions. It is nice to see an AiG reference.
I brought up some interesting points of faith on this http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=28234128&blogID=177006816&Mytoken=B5CD3301-BA6C-4F52-ADC31216CB333DFB31073783>blog of mine.

[61. Alan said the following at 12:40 AM on Jun 23:]

61

Good discussion, and lots of interesting information. I had recently read Wayne Grudem's comments on creation/age of the earth and found them very thought-provoking.

Regarding Darwin's supposed recantation on his death-bed, see this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/689/

The First chapter of Genesis as a poetic account is what I believe. I've heard one interpretation as there being three retellings of the creation story in Genesis 1-2: Genesis 1.1, then the seven days, then the creation of man. General to specific. The most important point is in the first verse: "God created". The central character of it is "man in God's image".

God's ownership of creation has to be established before he can redeem it. If we don't have Genesis 1.1 then John 3.16 is ridiculous -- why would God sacrifice himself for something random, and what good would it do? But if he created the universe, then his sacrifice means something and has power to do something about the state of the universe.

[62. Alan said the following at 12:51 AM on Jun 23:]

62

I am remiss in failing to note the number of good articles cited at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/
on "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use". In my opinion a good example of scientific studies in support of creation (however you want to phrase that -- solid science in any case).

[63. Ellie said the following at 12:28 PM on Jun 23:]

63

Hey Ted, did you see this weekend's Human Nature article in Slate on recombining human and animal DNA? That grossed me out...

[64. Megan said the following at 12:48 PM on Jun 23:]

64

Here is why I believe the Bible literally means what it says: because if I don't believe one piece of the story is true, it's like having a calculator that occasionally adds 2 + 2 and gets 5.

If I can't trust the calculator to get the right number on something simple where I can correct it in my head, what happens when I put in something more complicated I can't just automatically add together? I have no basis for truth, so I can't trust anything it comes up with.

If I don't believe it's true that God literally formed Creation in seven days, where do I draw a line and say, "Well, that wasn't quite true but THIS is?"

I would have no foundation left. Either I must believe all or nothing. And I have chosen to believe all.

[65. Flippy314 said the following at 12:51 PM on Jun 23:]

65

Took some work to get through all that reading, but some good ideas were thrown into play. first I would like to tackle the main purpose of the original posting, theistic evolution.

To quote JamesUK: "I am, by trait, a theistic evolutionist and not in any way an advocate of intelligent design. The reason being is that ID, as some have come to name it, implies that every so often throughout the course of the history He has intervened to shape creation the more to His own liking. The conclusion? God makes mistakes, is therefore fallible and hence not worth trusting. So intelligent design is out. Theistic evolution, in which the LORD created the universe in the pre known knowledge of the result with no action being necessary."

Theistic evolution basically starts with, God created the Big Bang then he started the evolutionary process (that is how it has been explained to me, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Problem? God *initiating* the evolutionary process tends to lean toward the idea that God created something incomplete and therefore IMPERFECT. The conclusion? "God makes mistakes, is therefore fallible and hence not worth trusting." Oops...

Second, on the point of a literal interpretation of Genesis, as has already been pointed out if we can't take the Bible at its word from the beginning, how can we trust the rest of it? To the best of my study, every time something in the Bible has been allegorical, it has been plainly presented as such (NT example: whenever Jesus told a parable, the section starts out with "and Jesus told them this parable"... fairly plain, no?). Furthermore, Jesus made many references to these supposedly "allegorical" stories and accounts (a point which I realise has already been brought up). While I do recognise that if these stories are allegorical Jesus could have use them to connect with popular belief, I think that since He was already putting Himself forward as the Son of God (and thus God and thus the Creator) He probably could have just said "hey guys, this is what went down with creation/ the flood/ the burning bush/ Jonah/...", which is what I believe he did.

To broach what may seem a side track, the Big Bang is also something which needs to be consideded here. The Big Bang (also a theory) has spent this whole time hiding behind the thory of evolution. But really, evolution (except in evolutionary creation/theistic evolution, and even then...) does not exist without the Big Band and cannot be validated before the Big Bang. Logic: no creator > life comes out of explosion of nothing (Big Bang) > random particles defy all natural laws as we know them and form stars, planets, etc. > more ranodom particles further break all known natural laws and create basic life forms, which proceed to evolve from slime to humans (and let us not forget plants evolved from the same things... hey, why aren't scientists trying to prove that we are related to trees??? we *did* evolve from the same things after all...). Point: Cut out the Big Bang and the whole shebang (no pun intended) collapses.

Just my two cents.

[66. Kelsey said the following at 11:45 AM on Jun 24:]

66

Flippy314,

The Big Bang all but necessitates a creator, and a careful look at the evidence points to that creator being none other than the God of the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ.

With all brotherly love, your presentation of the Big Bang is, from a scientific standpoint, flatly inaccurate.

There was nothing "random" about it. Before there was time, there was only matter-energy that existed in an infinitesimally small point and thus had infinite density. The known laws of physics simply do not function under these conditions. Something external to this "singularly" _must_ have caused the Big Bang and set into effect the physical laws which have governed the universe since.

That something is very clearly God, because, as I've said, there was simply nothing "random" about what happened under the Big Bang model of cosmology. The sequence of events that led from that moment some 13.7 billion years ago to this moment now depends entirely on the fundamental forces of nature being so carefully fined tuned (how strong they are, when their symmetry breaks, etc.) that the likelihood of such precision emerging randomly stretches the limits of reason and imagination even for atheists.

There is a paper written by a group of atheist scientists called "The Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant" in which the authors describe in detail the mind-boggling precision to which the constants of physical laws must be tuned in order for the universe to exist the way it does now. The cosmological constant, in particular, requires a precision of 1 part in 10^120, in other words if it differed at all out to 120 decimal places, this universe either would no longer exist or it would consist of nothing but hydrogen and helium gas spread out hopelessly alone everywhere, even under the model of secular scientists.

Why were these atheists "disturbed?" Because in the face of this kind of evidence, they are "without excuse!"

One fact is certain to them and to us. Here we are, staring into the cosmos, searching for Truth. What can explain _that_ but OUR God?

Secular scientists do all they can to find an answer to our existence that does not require God, and the deeper and farther they dig, all they discover is him staring them right in the face.

[67. Kelsey said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 24:]

67

JLC,

You said above "One particularly compelling scientific argument made against evolution is derived from the Laws of Thermodynamics, namely the 2nd law, which states that all systems tend towards the increase of entropy (or disorder)."

With respect, this is simply not true. The second law of thermodynamics states that all _closed_ systems tend towards the increase of entropy.

"Closed" is a crucial piece of the statement. Life does _not_ constitute a closed system. There are a number of more detailed rebuttals of this typical fallacy, even written by fellow believers, out on the internet.

I say these things in all love and just to urge you and all Christians that your knowledge of scripture and theology are one thing (and a necessary thing at that), but that if you wish to engage scientists on matters of science, please make every effort to understand the science so you can meet them at a common point. If you do so you will be pleasantly surprised how many are more than willing to hear you out when you present Christ as the reason for the hope that is within you.

[68. Alan said the following at 2:48 PM on Jun 24:]

68

Flippy314 mentions the Big Bang, which I think is a wonderful picture of Genesis 1.1... Ironic that when the "Big Bang" hypothesis was first introduced, scientists rejected it as being too "theistic". Now many Christians reject it because it has been accepted by evolutionists! Complete about-face.

To me, the Big Bang is one of the few places that Science has accepted that there is something greater than us. The Big Bang started from a "mathematical point" -- a point of no dimension, i.e., nothing. "Ex nihilo", out of nothing. There was a tremendous release of energy, which became mass (e=mc^2). "Let there be light!" This was God at work.

And to JamesUK: if interventions by God are an admission that what God did was not perfect, what do you do with the incarnation of his son as Jesus? Or miracles -- both in the Old Testament and the New? Those are interventions of God in creation, changing the natural order which he created. God is always intervening in this world: Paul says that "in him all things hold together", and that if it were not for his restraining power on "the man of lawlessness" evil would be, for lack of a better word, unrestrained.

Interventions of God are orthodox theology. And to my logic, "theistic evolution" requires even more interventions of God to subvert or overcome the natural order that he originally created (contra entropy, for example).

[69. JRB said the following at 5:58 PM on Jun 24:]

69

Just a couple of comments
1) Big bang - Initially the Big Bang was not liked by the scientific community because of its religious overtones - it implied a beginnin to the universe. My understanding of the Big Bang is that it posits that everything came from a singularity (ie nothing). The Bible itself says that God created everything out of nothing and as far as I know does not give a timeframe. Thus I really do not see a major conflict between the Big Bang and the Bible.

2) God and timing - If you look in the Bible, the God rarely does things as fast as most people involved should be done. For example in sending the Saviour, based on the names of their children, Adam and Eve thought it might be in their lifetime. It turned out to be quite a bit later.

3) What does God do versus others - In the Bible God is often assigned credit for things that He may not have done directly but allowed to happen or had circumstances come together that caused something to happen. For example take David's numbering the people. In the two different accounts in Scripture one says God tempted David, and the other says Satan tempted David. Which is it? Another example: Jesus says that God sends rain on the just and the unjust. Does that mean that God always supernaturally sends rain and we no longer should believe in the hydrological cycle and dismiss our weather predictors? Or does it mean that God created the oceans, the clouds, water, the laws of physics, etc that allow it to rain? In Exodus it says that God makes the blind, the deaf, and the mute. Is God then direct cause of all birth defects? Or did God make DNA and the natural laws that define how it interacts with a myriad of substances that in some cases result in birth defects. In Exodus also it states that God hardened Pharoah's heart. It also says Pharoah hardened his heart. One of the old Hebrew prayers is "Blessed art though O Lord our God who bringeth forth bread from the earth." Does this mean that the Hebrews believed that God always supernaturally caused bread to spring forth from the earth and all agricultural knowledge is bogus. Another is that it is God who gives children. Yet in all the Bible - there is only 1 virgin birth mentioned. All the other births in the Bible involved a sperm and egg uniting when a man and women came together sexually. Does that mean that if we believe that, that we are not taking the Bible literally? The point to this is that when the Bible says that God does something, it does not exclude His working (possibly behind the scenes) through human or natural agents. Since He created everything, it does not mean that He cannot claim credit for working through His creation according to the laws He made.

4) Faith - If faith is just believing something without any input from reason, then you have absolutely nothing to say to anybody who believes something else. This seems to be the view of the tolerance movement. This also sets up science as the only determiner of truth for all people everywhere whereas all religion is a matter or entirely personal opinion. If you are Christian who believes the Bible then you have to believe that the same God who made the universe wrote the Bible. Thus science properly interpretted will never contradict the Bible properly interpretted. In doing so you have to understand the context. Sometimes the Bible speaks phenomenologically. For example - saying that the sun rises or the sun sets in no way confirms that the Bible supports a geocentric veiw of the universe. It is rather a phenomenologic description of an experience.

5) Adam and Eve - I think if you do not believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve you run into many theological complications. Taking the whole context of scripture, it definitely appears that Jesus and Paul view it as a literal fact. For example, it is used to justify the permanence of marriage and the application of Christ's one perfect life and death to all humanity. A parable is never used as the basis of a doctrine but to illustrate a doctrine.

6)Finally, in regards to the usefulness of these debates - the worldview of evolution (ie random chance produced everything) is the intellectual crutch of atheism. If evolution goes - you do not have a logical way of avoiding God. Therefore, when dealing with people it is often useful to deal with the impediments that get in the way. In addition, we are commanded to be able to give a reason for the hope we have.

[70. JackP said the following at 12:19 AM on Jun 25:]

70

You claimed that Jesus said that believing Jesus implies that you must believe Moses, and quoted scripture. The passage you quoted says the opposite, however, that if you believe Moses then you must believe Jesus.

[71. Ted Slater said the following at 9:05 AM on Jun 25:]

71

JackP -- I was wondering when someone would bring that up. Here are the two verses we're talking about, John 5:46-47:

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

The first verse supports your contention. The second verse, though, does support what I wrote in my original post; you just need to use a little logic to get there. "Logical contraposition" can be diagrammed as follows:

A -> B = ~B -> ~A

In other words, "If A, then B" is the same as "if not B, then not A."

The second verse, then, can read, "If you do believe my words, then you will believe [Moses's] writings."

Thanks again for drawing attention to these verses, JackP.

[72. Aaron Wells said the following at 11:34 AM on Jun 25:]

72

There is a disconnect between the account in the Scriptures and the evolutionary timeline for species development that no one I have talked to thus far has been willing to answer for: in the evolutionary timeline, birds represent as sophisticated an animal as mammals, and therefore developed after amphibians and reptiles. So how can the Genesis account detail in condensed form what we were taught by Darwin and his processors? Birds and fish were created on the same day. All beasts of the land were created afterward. Theistic evolution is a complete contradiction to the account we have in the Bible for this reason.

[73. RMB said the following at 10:09 PM on Jun 26:]

73

If anyone has an interest in a scholarly journal focusing on this topic, http://www.grisda.org/origins/ndx-yr.htm provides some thought-provoking scientific,philosphical, and theological articles.

[74. Lisa said the following at 1:38 AM on Jun 27:]

74

I find it interesting that it seems to be mostly the theistic evolutionists who ask why debate this. Honestly, one of the most exciting things about being a Christian to me (of course after the grace and mercy of salvation itself) is seeing how God put it all together and revealed it to us in His Word.
Salvation itself makes more sense when you see how God planned it out through the ages and literally revealed it in His Word.

[75. Mandi said the following at 9:29 AM on Jun 27:]

75

Haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but just wanted to say that at the Roman Catholic schools I went to growing up, they taught that the Scriptural account of creation was a myth. Even as a 12-year-old when I was first taught this, I understood that the Incarnation of Christ -- and the purpose for which He took on human flesh, to save us -- was baseless if Adam and Eve did not sin in the Garden of Eden. My teachers wouldn't have anything to say to the very basic question of why the Son of God would bother to come, die, and rise for us if Genesis was not true. The whole story of our salvation falls apart if the original events that triggered the need for access back into God's Kingdom never occurred.

It also reflects a disturbing attitude towards Scripture -- and towards our own "wisdom". Just because we don't understand something in Scripture by our limited logic, or can't see it, or have no paper trail for it, it doesn't mean it's not true. Some divine actions should just be left as mystery. Do we really understand how the mystery of how the Holy Spirit unites a man and woman to each other and God in marriage? Do we really understand how God could take on human flesh? Do we really understand how someone can rise from the dead by His own power, or raise others? Do we really understand how seas can part, bread can fall from the sky, 5 loaves and 2 fish can feed thousands (and have leftovers!)? Do we really understand how bread and wine can change to be the true Body and true Blood of our Lord, as He told us (note that this is very different from trying to de-mystify this by believing in the "transubstantiation")? We don't really understand any of these things. But if we believe the Scriptures to be God's Word, we shouldn't insist on "understanding" that which is above our limited logic because God is waaaay above and beyond our logic, and His acts reflect that.

Besides, Scripture itself tells us that the days weren't 24-hour days because the sun wasn't created on the first day, so we can have no problem believing the world to be millions of years old and that God created Adam from dust, and Eve from his side.

[76. alex said the following at 4:12 PM on Nov 7:]

76

dear ted

i very much appreciate your essay on this topic but must respectfully disagree. many christians feel that a beliefcreation and evolution CANNOT coexist. THIS IS NOT SO. i believe that God created the world and used evolution as one of his many tools. If you read the ACTUAL Evolutionary theor, not darwin, you will find that it does not talk about humans spontaneously evolving. it merely states the concept of the survival of the fittest; which is a hard scientific fact.

Also, the evolutionary theory coincided Perfectly with the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old does not allow room for dinosaurs and the ice age. (Both of which have been proven through fossils)

[77. natasha said the following at 6:20 PM on Nov 7:]

77

Hi Alex,

Hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I noticed your comment & on an impulse decided to respond. :)
Your comment contained a few problems & unclear bits.

1). You mentioned the "ACTUAL Evolutionary theor[y]". I was wondering what you would be referring to, since as far as I'm aware, there isn't a once-and-for-all absolute definition of evolution book that (all or even most) evolutionists agree on.

2). You said that this actual evolutionary theory doesn't say humans 'spontaneously evolved' but just
"merely states the concept of the survival of the fittest; which is a hard scientific fact."
Just so you know, even YECs (Young Earth Creationists) don't have a problem with natural selection, which is what I assume you're referring to. Actually natural selection fits in better with the creation model than it does with the evolutionary model because natural selection tends to be 'conservative'. What I mean by that is that the process of natural selection tends to eliminate anything that is less fit or different from the majority. This means that even if there were an information-gaining mutation that made an animal more fit to survive, it wouldn't be likely to pass on to further generations (and it would have to be a mutation that affected the chromosomes since that would be the only way it would be passed on)because it would be watered down & absorbed by the general population.
In other words, natural selection in itself isn't inherently pro-evolutionary evidence.

3). You said that "evolutionary theory coincided Perfectly with the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old does not allow room for dinosaurs and the ice age. (Both of which have been proven through fossils)"
a).Actually, you're putting the cart before the horse here. Evolutionary theory postulated that the earth was very very old & then tried to prove it. The methods used are extremely inaccurate (look up radiometric dating methods on Answers in Genesis & there are several good articles describing their faults) & are dependent on the presuppositions of the scientists using them.(I'm not saying that making a hypothesis and then trying to prove it is bad science- actually it's typical- but it wasn't like people went Oh look, we've discovered that the earth is really old- what could be the reason? I know! Evolution! It was evolutionary presuppositions that coloured the evidence. Evidence doesn't really speak for itself, it must be interpreted)
b). Also, a young age for the earth does not rule out the existence of dinosaurs or an ice age. YECs simply believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, instead of living ages before them and then dying out and then humans eventually appearing on the scene. As for the ice age, while evolutionists tend to state that there were several ice ages, there is only clear-cut evidence for one. That one ice age could very well have been a side effect of the global flood talked about in Genesis.

I don't mean to offend you or make you feel threatened in any way, so sorry if my post read that way to you.
I would suggest that you might want to do a bit more research on these topics, though. :)

[78. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:05 PM on Oct 6:]

78

Good topic. Jesus indeed accepted the Genesis creation and flood as real history.

Small point: since the organization I work for is now called Creation Ministries International, would you please cite the version of any of my articles from the CMI site, i.e. Variation and natural selection versus evolution.

[79. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:15 PM on Oct 6:]

79

Beth L (#56) has is back to front. Genesis was the original, and the pagan myths were the copies. See Genesis and ancient Near Eastern stories of Creation and the Flood: an introduction and Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic.

Genesis is most definitely not poetry, since it lacks parallelism. Rather, it has all the earmarks of history, such as the prevalence of waw-consecutive verbs. See Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? Critique of the Framework Hypothesis.

It is also not a polemic, except that the truth is a polemic against error. Early church fathers used the real history of the sun being created on the fourth day after the vegetation as a polemic against sun worship. E.g. in the second century, Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, wrote in an apologetic work to the learned pagan magistrate Autolycus:

‘On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.’

[1. Jeremy said the following at 9:56 AM on Jun 21:]

1

Amen! I'm so glad to hear you take such a stance on this issue - it's a favourite topic of mine, and it really bothers me when I hear other Christians in my church having theistic evolutionist views, and clearly not believing the bible as it stands - they come up with all sorts of excuses and reasonings to try and make the Creation story fit with secular "science", rather than the other way around! And sadly there's little reasoning with such people.

[2. Mark said the following at 9:59 AM on Jun 21:]

2

Thank you, Ted. It's good enough for me too.

[3. SamC said the following at 10:09 AM on Jun 21:]

3

This is an excellent reminder, particularly for those of us stuck in a scientific environment and surrounded by existentialist peers.

[4. Laur said the following at 10:59 AM on Jun 21:]

4

amen!

[5. Gordon Hackman said the following at 11:04 AM on Jun 21:]

5

Ted,

I'm curious as to whether or not you accept it as possible for Christians to differ about such matters as the age of the earth. Your post here seems to indicate that you are advocating a young earth position over against theistic evolution, but there is a broad spectrum of positions on this issue that fall between those two extremes (ie. people who think the earth is old but do not believe in evolution).

Also, your quoting of Romans 5:12 is incomplete. The last part of the verse affirms that "thus death spread to all men, because all sinned," making it clear that the death refered to here is human death. that says nothing about whether or not there was animal or plant death before the fall. In fact, there had to be some kind of plant death, since humans and animals would have eaten living plant matter.

[6. Ted Slater said the following at 11:31 AM on Jun 21:]

6

Gordon -- great questions.

I've heard convincing arguments on both sides of the "old earth / young earth" equation. While I tend to believe that "all this" was created in literal days (perhaps with a lengthy "gap" of time after the initial creation of the earth, something inferred by Genesis 1:1-2), I'm fine with folks saying that each "day" of creation was in fact a period of time longer than 24 hours.

Regarding your second point, I think Scripture is clear that Adam's sin affected all of creation. Romans 8:18-25 notes how "the whole creation" had become subject to futility and decay because of the effects of sin.

I think I've heard that plant "life" and the "life" of other creatures (such as insects) isn't really considered "life" in ancient Hebrew. So that when Adam and Eve ate fruit and such, or stepped on a bug, or had bacteria in their bellies, they weren't technically "killing" anything. Maybe someone else can speak to that.

It does seem that the first "death" was caused by the Creator of life Himself. Genesis 3:21 speaks of the first animal sacrifice, something that covered the consequences of sin, something that spoke of a Lamb who would someday die to offer cover for the sins of all of humanity.

[7. Mark Willard said the following at 11:46 AM on Jun 21:]

7

Ted, Gordon -- great points.

I used to be dogmatically YEC. Now I'm not really sure. Answers in Genesis has some fairly convincing arguments for YEC. Wayne Grudem has a very interesting discussion on why he leans toward progressive creationism in his Systematic Theology, and since reading that, I'm much more inclined to his viewpoint. Honestly, I'm not sure if it's something we can know for sure this side of Heaven.

Regardless, you're right Ted, that we must reject theistic evolution. It's completely incompatible with Biblical theology on many levels as you pointed out.

[8. Gordon Hackman said the following at 11:48 AM on Jun 21:]

8

Ted,

Thanks for your thorough response. I'll have to go back and look over the relevant passages in Genesis and other places and reflect on the connection between the fall and animal death.

One of the things that is interesting to me in this regard is the question of animal predators and where they fit into it all, especially since they seem so well designed for being what they are (in Psalm 104:21 they are observed as part of the creation order that is sustained by God). Were they like this before the fall or did God change them afterwards?

Anyway, thanks again for your response. The relationship between Christianity and science is a topic of ongoing interest to me, and there are a lot of interesting questions that arise. I'm actually reading Vern Poythress's "Redeeming Science: A God Centered Approach" as we speak, which so far is a very good book.

Peace.

[9. k. said the following at 12:27 PM on Jun 21:]

9

I actually fall into the theistic evolution camp. If people like Billy Graham and C. S. Lewis don't tie themselves up in knots over the idea, then I'm not going to, either. :)

From Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man (1999): "I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

[10. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:34 PM on Jun 21:]

10

Without stating my positions I wanted to give readers some differing viewpoints that Christians have regarding accounts in Genesis:

- Young Earth vs. Old Earth
There are some that argue that God created the earth "already old" meaning that many geological formations which would've taken millions of years to form were already made that way.

- 1 Day = 24 hours?
Some Christians believe that when the Bible says "on the nth day God created..." a 'day' refers to a literal 24 hours. They cite that in every use of the Hebrew word for 'day' in the OT it refers to a literal 24-hour timespan so why would there be an exception here. Others believe that a 'day' was symbolic to represent a time period citing the passage in 2 Peter 3:8 . They also point out that the sun, which our day is based upon was not created until the 4th day.

- Regional vs. Worldwide Flood
According to accounts of Noah and the Flood the entire earth was flooded. Some argue that it did not include the entire earth (Australia, East Asia, etc) but merely covered the area where all humans were at the time (Tigres-Euphrades and the surrounding area). Those for that argument site things such as the sheer number of animal species not native to any areas but in remote locations. Those saying that the Flood happened worldwide point to the promise that God would not use a Flood to destroy all life and that regional floods would break that promise. And that the Hebrew word for "animal" wasn't as strict and defined as it is today (meaning that invertebrats might not have been called "animals")

Ted,

What I find myself wondering is how animals interacted with each other before the Fall. Today there are animals which are carnivores, but does that mean that was not the case before the Fall (also interesting to note that before the Fall God did not give them explicit permission to eat animals, just plants)?

I do believe that before the Fall, things were much different. For example, there is no indication that Eve was freaked out by a talking snake (as most of us would be today). I've heard theories which state that humans were much more in harmony with animals and the enviornment.

But I agree that we ought not to dismiss the stories of Genesis as myth and that Jesus was merely reciting them back. It's true that there is some room for debate (e.g. Old vs. Young earth) but if Adam and Eve weren't actual individuals (not mere representations of mankind), a Flood didn't destroy all but 8 people on the Earth, etc. you run into a lot of theological problems. And remember that some of the same people who claim that there was no Creation would also say Jesus did not perform all those miracles recorded in the Gospels, nor rose from the dead on the 3rd day. And if that's the case, our entire faith is in vain.

[11. Samuel PG said the following at 12:58 PM on Jun 21:]

11

K,
You are right about Billy Graham not taking a position, and Lewis did in fact seem to accept theistic evolution. Believe it or not, I was relieved to read that position from Lewis because I was worrying that I was reading too casually because until that point I had agreed with everything he had written.

[12. Dave said the following at 1:01 PM on Jun 21:]

12

Ive wondered if Adam lived 900 something years(cant remember exactly how many is says in Genesis) or does that mean since he was created. If it was since the fall he could have been in the garden billions of years but the natural decay we see now would not have occurred. Maybe Im way off....

[13. Canadian Boy said the following at 1:19 PM on Jun 21:]

13

Now, I'm no evangelical, especially no conservative American evangelical. So maybe I'm just not capable of understanding. But, I have to ask, what is with this "Us vs. them" mentality? I'm seeing it in many of the entries on this blog, including this one.

Why do you have to be against fellow believers, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, who believe that God used evolution to create us? I'm one of those people, and I've yet to find anything wrong with it. I am, in no way, questioning, or mocking, or blaspheming God by saying that evolution shows how He made us. Nor am I undermining Genesis- the creation story shows how powerful God is to be able to create this world, regardless of what amount of time it took Him or how He did it. And Adam and Eve, literal or not, is true- it shows what happens when we disobey God and then do not repent. Just because a Christian does not take the Bible to be literal does not mean they do not still accept it as truth.

Both Jesus and God gave commandments to believers to love their neighbours, make disciples, etc- but I've never read "Now go and make sure that everyone believes I created the world in six days- it is CRUCIAL to the faith!" because, really, it isn't. We're not doing any good by trying to convince each other to believe our interpretation of creation, or in saying that God is "disappointed" in each other because we don't believe the same thing. In fact, I'd so far to say that this bickering is probably what the "Enemy" wants.

Oh, and Ted, I'm not in any way being "ashamed" of the Bible by not taking it literally. Though I feel kinda bad that a fellow believer is twisting the words of the Good Book to make it appear that I do.

And Jeremy?
"And sadly there's little reasoning with such people."
We could say the same about you. Don't forget that. ;)

[14. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:23 PM on Jun 21:]

14

Firstly, for the initialed "K.":

"If people like Billy Graham and C. S. Lewis don't tie themselves up in knots over the idea, then I'm not going to, either."

Ah, but even Christian greats such as these are not right on every issue -- not even Lewis, one of the few people I will search for first on the New Heavens and New Earth. Furthermore, Lewis himself became a tad skeptical of evolutionary arguments in his later years, finding that there wasn’t so much a division between the biological and philosophical aspects of the Humanism-driven view of science as he had thought. A six-page article detailed Lewis’s views and excerpts from his letters to longtime friend Bernard Acworth is at http://www.apologetics.org/acworthletters1.html and proves quite interesting.

Meanwhile, I’m quite thrilled as well to find such an interesting topic being tackled at the Boundless blog, and wonder what recent circumstances may have prompted your posting it, Ted.

As per Mark Willard’s above suggestion that “progressive creationism” may have validity, thus far I have not heard any convincing arguments that separate this view from that of Theistic Evolution.

Both views seem to involve “stretching” the clearly denoted days of Genesis in order to accommodate longer ages. And that, in turn, would *have* to accommodate geologic ages of some duration, which in turn would compel one to accept the institution of death before the Rebellion — a theological difficulty to say the least, as Ted and others have already pointed out.

Though I remain open to hearing more about how “progressive creation” differs from “theistic evolution” regarding the views of Creation-day length and the nature of the Flood, I somewhat expect to hear only a few surface differences between the two ideas.

Meanwhile, in case the subject arises, it is worth noting that Answers in Genesis is now involved in a legal tussle of sorts with its corresponding group in Australia — former allies in the global origins-worldview battle. At issue are organization funds, a strange situation involving possibly thousands of magazine subscribers, and a few personal accusations tossed back and forth. Whoever is “right” in that debacle, it has little regard on the issue of God’s word and whether we can trust it from its very first verse, or else attempt to harmonize Scripture with views of science and origins that result from naturalism-biased guesses about the unobservable past — which fall outside of pure, operational science anyway.

[15. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:38 PM on Jun 21:]

15

A brief P.S. for Gordon Hackman, who wrote:

"One of the things that is interesting to me in this regard is the question of animal predators and where they fit into it all, especially since they seem so well designed for being what they are (in Psalm 104:21 they are observed as part of the creation order that is sustained by God). Were they like this before the fall or did God change them afterwards?"

To me the best explanation, especially considering the fact that God foreknew the Fall and always knew He would use its occurence somehow to achieve His own glory, is that the Creator built into His creatures' DNA the information that would eventually be "sorted" -- that is, by natural selection; reference Ted's link for how this is *not* the same as interspecies "evolution" -- throughout the generations, until the body features and instincts necessary for being a predator, for example, were fully functional.

Scripture mentions no divine re-engineering of animals after the Fall, and to think that they contained body features designed for a post-Fall world, which may have been used for less nefarious means before (think pandas' sharp predator-type teeth functioning fine for bamboo stalks), seems consistent with what we know of God and of genetics.

For further, fascinating reading with Biblically informed speculation on this issue, visit http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/death_suffering.asp and scroll down nearly to the end, to the section marked "Is it possible for animals that are carnivorous in our world today to have survived in a pre-sin world without eating meat?"

[16. Keisha said the following at 1:46 PM on Jun 21:]

16

I find it ironic that we as Christians try (through logical inference, argument, deduction and the like) to reason our way to faith, to professing that everything in the Old Testament is literally true. Believing in the Scriptures is supposed to be just that - an act of belief and faith, not a mathematical proof. What is the point of logically or scientifically convincing someone that the earth was created in 7 days or that the flood was meteorologistically possible? Would it make this person a Christian if they were scientifically convinced of it? I think not.

That's why I find logical argumentation against theistic evolution somewhat amusing. If you believe as an act of faith that the Bible is literally true, then why do you have to scientifically convince yourself of it? Why not leave that to people (like myself) who believe that the Bible is true, but also that evolution is accurate - who have to reconcile two differing accounts of creation? Trust me, it would be a lot easier if I thought that Darwin made it all up. But I start with believing in the Bible and trying to make sense of logic, not the other way around.

[17. Adam said the following at 2:18 PM on Jun 21:]

17

I just did a paper on this subject for a biblical hermeneutics class I was taking. With a few noteworthy exceptions, most interpreters throughout history have taken the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hour days, though even in the second century they knew there was a problem with there being "days" before the sun was created. It was only around the time of Darwin that old earth views like the gap theory and the day-age theory were developed. A couple of new theories besides the young earth and old earth views are the framework view and the analogical view. Anyone who is interested in this subject should research these options as well...both of them are neutral about the age of the earth, instead interpreting Genesis 1 to be emphasizing the "who" and the "what" of creation rather than the "when." Of course caution is warranted any time a "new" interpretation of scripture is suggested, but these views are interesting all the same. For a summary of all of the positions, here is a good resource:

http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

[18. Ted Slater said the following at 2:24 PM on Jun 21:]

18

Canadian Boy -- I laid out a proposition, based on Scripture. Rather than merely responding emotionally, the way you have, can you specify what you find fault with in my argument? It would make for a healthy discussion.

Keisha -- I specifically indicated that not everything in the Old Testament is to be taken literally. Only those things that present themselves as literal historical truth should be interpreted as literally having happened. Poetry, for example, shouldn't necessarily be taken literally.

Also, you implied that I'm requiring belief "that the earth was created in 7 days" be a necessary precursor to faith in Christ. I said nothing of the sort, and to my knowledge nobody else has either. Seems to me that that is a weak attempt at building up, and then knocking down, a Straw Man. Not something I'd expect from someone like you who respects logic so much.

I'd say to you the same thing I said to Canadian Boy: Rather than attacking my reason in general, please specify where I misinterpreted Scripture or where my logic is faulty. Doing so will help everyone who visits this blog.

[19. Ted Slater said the following at 2:42 PM on Jun 21:]

19

Adam -- that seems to be an excellent resource. I found the arguments pretty strong. After providing many supporting references, one relevant section concludes:

There is no doubt then, that the New Testament treats Genesis 1-3 as real history. This is hermeneutically decisive for the church, because we acknowledge the inspiration and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. But there is more than the historicity of Genesis 1-3 at stake in the New Testament’s interpretation of these texts. The very structure of the covenant plan of redemption is found in Genesis 1-3. Bound up with the biblical revelation in the first chapters of Genesis are the New Testament’s teaching on the work of Christ as the eschatological Adam, and its implications for soteriology and the consummation, as well as ethical requirements for the institution of marriage and church order. History is not only born here but sovereignly determined by the prophetic Word of God.

In Genesis 1-3 Moses wrote a faithful, pristine version of the actual facts of history. Genesis 1-11 can not be historically rejected without destroying Christianity. These events and persons must be affirmed, whatever other differences we may entertain in the details of the exegesis of the “days” of Genesis 1.

Whew! Strong!

[20. JMarie said the following at 3:13 PM on Jun 21:]

20

Keisha - For what it's worth, I don't consider myself to be a Christian right now. I got burnt out, considered myself to be agnostic for a while, and in the past year or so have begun tentatively exploring spirituality again. You could argue that reason won't save me, and I would have to agree; if Christianity is true, then faith is needed. However, I learned some of the science behind Creationism years ago, and it made sense to me. It might not save me, but it does keep me hanging on, unable to dismiss Christianity entirely. I figure if Christianity has found truth in some matters, it may have the truth in other matters as well. For those of you looking to convince non-believers, I would think that's worth something; a start, at least. Granted, if you start ranting at a die-hard evolutionist about a young earth, he might come to the opposite conclusion: that if you're wrong about this one thing, you're wrong about it all. I think you have to tread carefully and treat each situation differently, but don't dismiss the use of logic altogether.

[21. Kellie said the following at 3:18 PM on Jun 21:]

21

As someone with a background in biology, I recommmend the book "Coming to Peace with Science" by Darrell Falk. It's an excellent book, and explains the perspective of a Christian biologist. Even if you don't agree with theistic evolution, it's an intersting book.

[22. Keisha said the following at 3:21 PM on Jun 21:]

22

Hi Ted,

I apologize for implying that you were "requiring belief that the earth was created in 7 days [to] be a necessary precursor to faith in Christ" - that was certainly not my intent, I don't think that that is what you think, and I don't think that that is what you were trying to say in your article! I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in what I said and implied. (I think I must have been too confused from trying to turn the word "meteorology" into an adverb.)

I was just trying to say that I think it's funny that we get ourselves all wrapped up in logistical knots when we read Genesis. I think the line "someone like you who respects logic so much" is especially hilarious - being Orthodox, there are so many times when my faith tradition just humbly bows its grey head and simply says "It's a mystery". Of course, in my chosen career path (economics), logical inference is indispensible. However, if I approached my faith the same way that I approach my theoretical model, I think I would just get further and further away from the incredible truth of the Cross. (And I mean incredible in both uses of the word - unbelievable to our muddled human minds, and unbelievably wonderful to our eternal souls!)

As for specifying where you might have misinterpreted Scripture or where your logic is faulty... I don't think your logic is at all faulty. I don't agree with you in rejecting theistic evolution because I think that believing the words that Moses wrote (as Jesus commands us to do) doesn't preclude the truth of God-centered evolution. That's the shortest version of what I think, and I don't think about this particular topic too much. Usually too many other logs in my eye at the moment...

I hope that this is less of ..."a weak attempt at building up, and then knocking down, a Straw Man" (your words). I'm no philosopher, but I hope that my comments aren't as foolish as you seem to think they are.

[23. Canadian Boy said the following at 3:22 PM on Jun 21:]

23

Ted-

Whole thing is, I'm not trying to argue against what you have to say. If you believe God created the Earth in six days and then rested on the seventh, I'm cool with that.

See, I used to believe the same- in fact, I took a biology course just so I could argue with my teacher about evolution. Well, once we got to the subject, I was blown away by the evidence for evolution. It wasn't something I could argue against. I talked to my minister about it, and he said that I didn't have to think about Creation OR Evolution, but moreso Creation THROUGH Evolution.

But what I believe doesn't matter here- and that's what I'm trying to say. Why are you making such a large ordeal about theistic evolution? Why is it such a bad thing for Christians to believe in? What were you hoping to achieve with this blog entry, and why? As I said in my previous comment, just because I don't believe God created the Earth as Genesis says does not mean I am undermining the Bible or that I am "ashamed" of it. I believe in and worship the same God as those Christians who believed He created the world just a few thousand years ago.

So Ted, I'm not here to refute your points (though, if you're not satisfied with this comment, I will)- I'm wondering why we need to be having this argument in the first place.

[24. Keisha said the following at 3:33 PM on Jun 21:]

24

To JMarie:

"I figure if Christianity has found truth in some matters, it may have the truth in other matters as well."

I think you have made a totally valid point about apologetics in your post. Many non-Christians are responsive to the more logical and 'sensible' aspects of the faith (e.g. if everyone loved their neighbor as themselves, the world would be a much better place... and similar arguments). I just think we run into problems when we try to use clever logic to wiggle our way out of Scriptural truths that conflict with our worldly prejudices.

Of course, like you said, reason won't save you. But if it piques your curiosity and inspires you to learn more, than it is a blessed thing. I will pray for you, and I hope that you're able to meet some intelligent Christians and have a face-to-face conversation about your doubts. I think that a lot of the time doubting doesn't show that you're not a Christian - it just shows that you're thinking and struggling and challenging yourself to true belief.

[25. Chris Krycho said the following at 3:41 PM on Jun 21:]

25

You all might also take a look at some of the resources presented at Reasons to Believe, which is run by Hugh Ross, a strong supporter of OEC, and a nice counter to Answers in Genesis.

As for Hugh Ross, the guy's testimony is incredibly compelling, to say the least: He became a Christian never having met a Christian on the basis of the historical and scientific validity of Scripture. Now that's what I'm talking about ... double-edged sword, living and active and powerful indeed!

[26. JamesUK said the following at 3:48 PM on Jun 21:]

26

The story of creation is just that. It is an allegory, the point of which is to imform us of two important facts. First and foremost that our Heavenly Father created the world and everything in it and that secondly though we humans though created to be stewards of this earth in His image and that at some point we turned away. I am, by trait, a theistic evolutionist and not in any way an advocate of intelligent design. The reason being is that ID, as some have come to name it implies that every so often throughout the course of the history He has intervened to shape creation the more to His own liking. The conclusion? God makes mistakes, is therefore fallible and hence not worth trusting. So intelligent design is out. Theistic evolution, in which the LORD created the universe in the pre known knowledge of the result with no action being necessary.

The statement that “Jesus trusted as historical fact” is incorrect. The literal interpretation of the creation story has no roots in Jewish tradition, where it was again seen as an expression of Gods sovereignty (and on an aside the doctrine of the Yahudim was always less demanding than contemporary Christian thought). Rather, it stems from the nineteenth century and unfortunate reactionary response of many Christians to the publication of Darwinian ideas with the emergence of the Origin of Species. The response was due in part to the Atheistic rallying cry to such ideas as a means of disproving the existence of God (and intriguingly, in a recent exhibition of the original manuscripts, many letters from Christians were also presented, praising Darwin for his appraisal of Gods creation). As Christians we are guilty of many reactionary responses, most recently with the publication of the Da Vinci code. God is big enough to handle it and I think that it would have been wise to see this as an evangelistic opportunity and not as a call to arms.

But all such argument is unwarranted and unnecessary. These things are not to concern us. Our primary responsibility is not to debate or rubbish how creation came into being. Our job is to accept it is here, thank Him and preach the Gospel of Jesus/Yeshua by life and lip. Keep that in mind.

[27. Hannah Yelin said the following at 3:54 PM on Jun 21:]

27

Evolution is true. That's a fact. (If you don't believe me, read Darwin's "The Origin of Species.") Whether or not you choose to believe in evolution is up to you. The Bible was not meant to be a biology book, so why treat it as such, especially since scientists back then didn't know even half of the stuff that they know now? Your viewpoint makes no sense to me. But, I respect your right to hold that viewpoint, just like I hope you respect my right to believe in theistic evolution.

God bless.

[28. Ted Slater said the following at 3:59 PM on Jun 21:]

28

Kellie -- I did a bit of research into this book, and it looks like it simply propagates the "theistic evolution" argument. The title strikes me as pretty presumptuous, implying that evolution is the only scientific/reasonable explanation for "all this," and that the Christian community needs to just accept that.

Two thumbs down from me.

While there are numerous glowing reviews by laymen on Amazon etc., this one, written by a smart guy with a cool beard, provides a very thorough critique of the book.

Here are but two positions that the Falk holds:

• It is beyond challenge that animals have evolved over millions of years. The fossils have a clear sequence. The early fossils are quite different from later fossils. The transitions are well documented (fish to land, turtle, whale, elephant).

• It is beyond challenge that humans have evolved from apes. Genetics shows that chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 joined up to form human chromosome 2, and we can still see the join in the middle part where there are two telomeres and one centromere.
  

Falk wrote, "Adam and Eve would simply have been the first humans to experience what it really means to live in the image of God."

This is simply a heretical position to hold, that Adam and Eve each had human parents, but that those human parents weren't created in the image of God. Try to get your mind around that heresy and you'll experience some pretty painful cognitive dissonance.

Beyond the theological implications, it's ridiculous to posit that while both Adam's parents and Eve's parents were "ungodly" humans (or "apes," as he writes elsewhere), by some coincidence Adam and Eve were both "godly" humans. And that no human had yet sinned. Talk about immaculate conception!

It's just a mess when you don't accept the plain teaching of Scripture, something that's not at all inconsistent with science.

I'd frankly recommend that none of our readers waste their money on this book.

[29. Matt Huffman said the following at 3:59 PM on Jun 21:]

29

What people seem to be missing is that evolution itself - despite the false claims of naturalists - is not supported by science. After researching the theory of evolution, I'm convinced that it takes MORE faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does in creation! When you open-mindedly study the evidence of each position, it is unfathomable to me how anyone can choose to believe in theistic evolution. The facts don't even support the theory!

[30. Julia Beange said the following at 4:10 PM on Jun 21:]

30

Regarding the debate about the 24 hour days of creation:

If we take the idea that the days were not literal 24 hour days, when did the days then become 24 hour periods? Day 4, 5, 6, 7, 8?

According to Gen 5:3, 5:4, and 5:5, Adam died at the ripe old age of 930. If the creation days were not literal, and were, perhaps, 10, 100, or 1,000 years long, that makes it difficult to account for Adam's age when he died.

If we extend the idea of "longer than 24 hour period days" to one day of creation, we must logically extend it to all 7 days of creation. Doing so would make Adam much older than 930.

[31. Sam said the following at 4:14 PM on Jun 21:]

31

Perhaps I'm cooky, but I refuse to "die on this hill". If others want to, go for it. In the end, only a few things actually matter and the most important is what you do with the claims of Jesus Christ. Outside of that, all I gotta know is that God created everything and He's in control.

Continue "debating".

[32. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:54 PM on Jun 21:]

32

Just food for thought:

Notice how nowadays many people (Christians included) accept evolution as "fact" simply because they've been taught that in school or have heard it over and over and over again. Or maybe they just don't want to be branded as a "fundamentalist, uneducated Bible thumper" so they go with the status quo.

I would argue that scientists and those in academia are today's version of priests. By that I mean we consciously or subconsciously believe what these people say simply because they "are smarter" or "are experts" in their field.

I applaud those on either side of the fence who do not take things at face value and dig deeper to verify the claims, but most do not.

Personally, I have problems with evolution as a valid scientific theory for a number of reasons:

1. Many scientific theories of years past were believed as "true" only to be debunked many years later. Aristotlian physics (heavier objects fall faster, if something is moving there must be a force moving it, etc), the infeasibility of heavier than air flight (before the 20th century the most brilliant minds thought this was impossible and would ridicule you if you thought otherwise), the theory of "humors" (body fluids) governing the body, bloodletting was considered "good medicine" until the last 150 or so years, the list goes on. Thus evolution should not be viewed as "infallible" as any of these other beliefs which were not quackery but widely agreed upon principles.

2. Evolution itself has gone through many, many revisions in its history. First of all, the word "evolution" occurs only once in Darwin's book Origin of the Species. Darwin himself disliked that word as we've turned it into today relying more upon principles such as Natural Selection. Secondly, many don't remember a lot of these revisions because you rarely, if ever, see a retraction. First evolution stated that change took "many generations and millions of years" to jump from species to species. Yet in the last 20 or so years the theory has changed to "changes took place quickly within a relatively short span". Oops. Or how about this one. I remember a Time magazine article years ago whose front cover title was "Suprise! Everything you thought about dinosaurs are wrong". In it, the article stated how scientists now believe that many dinosaurs were warm-blooded, were more involved in the care for their young, etc. If that's not the case anymore you never saw a retraction. The point is that the scientific community does not want to send the message that evolution may be wrong or at least not totally figured out because they don't people to feel that evolution COULD be wrong.

3. I've noticed (yet don't have any hard data to back this up so it's not the strongest argument) that many hard-core evolutionists are also very anti-miracle. By that I mean if they dismiss Creation, they dismiss all the other miraculous events listed in the Bible (the Flood, crossing the Red Sea, Jesus' healings, etc). And if that's the case, most in this camp are atheists, agnostics who act like atheists, or at best are Diests. To me that says that evolution is just a symptom of a greater issue: That belief that there is no God or that if there is one, He/she/it/they aren't involved in human history as the Bible says.

4. Traditional evolution produces a lot of theological problems. For example, who were Adam and Eve? Were they the first homosapiens? Or could they possibly be some earlier pre-humans like Cromagnum, etc. Another issue: If Adam and Eve weren't real individuals then how did the Fall occur (which begs the question at what point did man need salvation?)? What about all the other specific names in early Genesis? Cain and Abel? Noah (and the Flood)? Were those real people too or just fictional characters to make a point? At what point in the Bible did myth become reality? I don't think that Christians who are evolutionists aren't real Christians, but wonder if they've thought through the problems that traditional evolutionary theory presents for their faith?

Interesting discussion indeed though. Thanks for all the great links and contributions on both sides.

[33. Bethany said the following at 5:04 PM on Jun 21:]

33

Ted, please let me defend Canadian Boy. Regardless of any emotionalism there may be in his response, I think he has a legitimate comment to make. If I may jump off from what I think is his point, we all need to be careful when discussing issues in which honest Christians disagree. At the end of the day, we are all on the same team. Which is why I, too, was a little taken aback by Jeremy’s line that “sadly there’s little reasoning with such people.” “Such people”? Forgive me if I am reading a condescending tone where there is none.
I am often convicted of my own brand of “reverse self-righteousness” --- in which I as a more liberal evangelical roll my eyes at all “such people” that believe in young earth creationism, with whom there is “little reasoning.” Whatever my intellectual reasons, I must admit and honor that “such people” have upright intentions, and certainly I, too, stake my life on the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. I am encouraged and challenged by your willingness to take a stand, despite the eye-rolling you will no doubt receive, and I seek to emulate that courage in my own life.
I recommend John Walton’s NIV Application Commentary on Genesis, a very good source that has influenced my thinking on the matter. I agree we should stand against the nihilistic philosophy often hidden in theories of evolution, but I also don’t think our entire faith depends on the veracity of young earth creationism.
Canadian Boy, this feeling of being an outsider is the risk you run when you read people with whom you do not agree. I have read this blog for years, differ with it on multiple fronts, but keep coming back precisely because we are all fellow Christians. We can learn from each other. I’m glad to have you here.

[34. Peter said the following at 5:10 PM on Jun 21:]

34

I think it's good to talk about this, but it is very important not to let extra-biblical speculation become part of the gospel to us.

[35. Kellie said the following at 5:19 PM on Jun 21:]

35

Ted, creation vs. evolution is a hotly debated topic even among Christians, and while I can respect your views, not every Christian believes in a literal six day creation. Some of us do believe that God may have used evolution to create the world. And just for the record, I was actually a student of Dr. Falk's at one time, and he is an excellent, Christian man.

[36. Abby said the following at 6:32 PM on Jun 21:]

36

Quickly skimming through these posts prompted me to reply:

1. I have a B.A. in Natural Science, and even though all my studies had a focus on evolution, I couldn't help but more fully see how evolution could not have developed the creation around us today.
2. I have listened to and attended many workshops and lectures given on the evolution vs. Creation (or Intelligent Design) and the more and more I listen, the more and more I can't ever accept the claims made by evolutionists.
3. The big issue with Evolution for me, is that it's degrading. Human Life is a by-product--there is nothing special about it. If we continue with the mentality that we evolved, how easily will we begin to accept the message that many in our societies are pushing: life isn't valuable--go ahead and use it for your own selfish purposes. (Stem Cell research using embryos is a good example).
4. God created the heavens and the earth.... and he made man in HIS image. What a wonderful concept. We are made to look like God, to have God's heart-- God values each and every one of us. If we don't accept and believe that, we will fall down the slippery slope: If a body wasn't formed perfectly, why not destroy it (according to survival of the fittest, we should leave those behind who are hindering others...) We don't do these types of things, because we value life, it's stands above all of God's other creation-- he created the world for us, and humans for himself.

Be careful what you say you believe... you never know what consequences your "beliefs" may have on other ideas.

[37. Melody said the following at 6:45 PM on Jun 21:]

37

I am a big fan of Answers in Genesis and a biology major as well as a Christian and I absolutely believe that God created the earth in 6 literal days - 24 hour periods. The Greek uses the words Erev and Boker which mean morning and evening in English respectively. I don't know about you but evening and morning sure sound like one ordinary, 24 hour day to me.

The fact that the sun wasn't created until day 4 should not be a problem, on day 1 God created light - and plants need light, it doesn't have to be sunlight - after all they grow plants on spaceships and in basements with only artificial light! Besides which in the new Jerusalem there won't be any sun, God will be the light and the Tree of Life is there, so I don't think that should be an issue. And yes the tree of life is a real, literal tree, it grew fruit etc.

As I see it the problem with not taking the Biblical account of Genesis literally is that if you can't take the first verses of the Bible as written, who is to say what else may not be true? Where does it stop? Is the story of the fall allegorical as well just because we don't like it? No, Jesus supports that in Scripture as well. Nowhere in Genesis is there any form of allegory, it is all written as a historical account, allegories are clearly identified in the Bible and anyway you can't make theology out of one allegory unless it is many places in Scripture to support it, that would be bad hermenuetics.

Creation is the base on which the rest of the story of life and redemption rest, if it wasn't important, God wouldn't have mentioned it. It is essential to good doctrine! I am not saying that you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in a literal as written Creation account, but the logic doesn't follow when you try to explain the gospel from the beginning to yourself or others. Why did Christ need to die if the fall didn't occur? If death occured before the fall, would God have called it good? NO!Death was only introduced after the fall when God provided animal skins for clothing.

And as others have said science is constantly changing what it believes and furthermore consistently supports what the Bible says about many other scientific topics such as a round earth etc - read Job.
Oh and by the way that passage in 2 Peter 3:8 should not be used to allegorize time, it is simply referring to the fact that God created time and is outside its dimensions and is thus not bound by it. However, when God is talking to us he uses time as literal because that is what we are bound by, we cannot grasp eternity. Also, the context in which it is located is talking about creation and the flood, which the author obviously took as written.

Don't be fooled by just accepting what scientists claim is true, stick with the Truth that never changes and you will be on solid ground.

[38. Brooke said the following at 6:53 PM on Jun 21:]

38

First of all, I want to state that I do tend towards believing in theistic evolution or Intelligent Design theory, whatever you want to call it. I do also believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Remember, God can do anything...maybe he created the world through evolution and then created man. I would also point out to the YEC, that you alientate the secular scientific community if you claim that to be a Christian you must believe in a literal six day creation. I don't recall that being part of salvation....

[39. Chris said the following at 7:16 PM on Jun 21:]

39

Mike Theemling makes several points about evolution that I'd like to address.

1 (Evolution, like many other theories, should not be viewed as infallible).

True, and absolutely required by the scientific method. Evolution, like every other theory, must be falsifiable. No good scientist would claim otherwise. That's no reason, however, to not defend it or not claim it's the best thing we have at this point. When someone comes up with a better, falsifiable theory, then the scientific community will fight over it and the better theory will eventually win out. Just look at the arguing going on over string theory. Some used to claim it was the best thing since sliced bread when it came to explaining the universe. Now many feel it's just fancy mathematics that don't really cut it. When a better theory than evolution comes along (and, no, ID ain't it), it will eventually win out.

I'd like to also point out that science's basic "skills", as it were, have improved drastically over the past few hundred years. We can conduct experiments that before hand would have been merely thought experiments. Our methods have become naturalistic in that we examine things in terms of natural laws we can observe and theorize about. To construct a theory today is not as easy as it once was. You can't just chaulk up phenomenae to some unexplained fluids or unobserved forces. Just look at dark matter. There's some heavy mathematics and thought processes behind it. That's a far cry from the "quackery" of yesterday. While the scientific method still holds, our tolerance of "quackery" (just look at cold fusion) is much, much lower. As a result, I think you'll find less "fantastic" theories today than in the past.

2 (Retractions are not offered.) Retractions imply that some authority issued an official statement that ended discussion. This is not the way science works. People argue over competing theories. Experimenters try to replicate others' experiments. No one issues retractions to theories because there is no single entity that issues them. People DO issue retractions when papers or experiments are found to be fabricated, full of significant errors, and so forth. Your argument is a straw man because the arguments, papers, experiments and so forth are part of a continuum. It's not some cut-and-dried activity.

3 (Evolutionists are athiests, essentially). This is a guilt-by-association argument.

4 (Theological problems of evolution) Well, yeah, this is true, but many facts and theories through history have caused problems with theological beliefs. Radiological dating flies in the face of young earth beliefs or a strict interpretation of the timeline of the Old Testament. Mere logic flies in the face of the flood story. (How'd kangaroos get from the Ark to Australia?) Even recent research on the workings of the human brain call into question concepts such as free will. These "problems" are nothing new.

[40. Suraj said the following at 8:13 PM on Jun 21:]

40

It was a great read, thanks for putting it together.

Makes a lot of sense, and I agree to the notion that our views should be based on the bible, and not the other way around.

God Bless '_^

[41. Katie said the following at 8:16 PM on Jun 21:]

41

Well. That's a lot of reading to get through. A lot of stuff that makes my stomach boil. Hold on while I calm my easily-roused temper.

Alright. That's better. Now, evolution. Man, I have to go calm down again.

This is such a touchy subject for people on both sides of the issue. If you care about the side you've chosen, you tend to get angry really quickly when somebody disagrees with you. Anyway, that's what I've seen, and that's what I've experienced myself. Allow me to expound my own beliefs (not opinions or thoughts, beliefs!).

1. Firstly, if you mentioned believing in evolution or anything to do with it prior to Darwin, people would have laughed at you. This is a modern-day question. Personally, I believe it's something that came about when Darwin had insomnia one night and he chose to dwell on Creation or something. In other words: idol hands (or heads) make for the Devil's workshop. Savvy? If you think too hard or too much about something, you're bound to confuse yourself, and you're also bound to come up with some theory or something to unconfuse yourself. Again, I'm speaking from experience. Ask me about animals in Heaven, angels, demons, the Devil--deep stuff, and I probably came up with something one sleepless night to explain it.

2. As has been stated prior to this post, Darwin didn't come up with the modern-day idea of evolution. He talked about natural selection and animals changing through natural selection, and other scientists took the ball and ran with it. Darwin actually regretted his work with evolution on his deathbed (or so I've heard) and renounced evolution as foolishness. That last sentence might not be true; lots of things are spread by word of mouth. If anybody wants to look that one up and test it, you're more than welcome to do so.

3. Natural selection is ok. There, I said it. Natural selection is not only scientific, but it's also common sense (a pity those two can't go together more often). I've got four examples in my house right now, and they're all cats. My cat, Patty, is the most obvious choice for examination. I went to a farm to pick her up when she was just a kitten. All of the cats on the farm were gray tabbies. All of them. And I'm not talking about gray-that-kind-of-looks-like-brown-in-different-lights gray, I'm talking gray. Like dull silver. It's a gray that blends in with ANYTHING--even a bright purple rug. That, my friends, is natural selection. And it's not just in color, either. Patty and her kin are also great hunters--how many declawed cats have you seen killing birds, squirrels, mice, etc.? Now, natural selection does not involve changing species. That's...I'll leave that for my next point.

4. Evolution is scientifically impossible. That's a direct jab at the "evolution is fact" argument. Firstly, evolution isn't even called a fact in science. It's a theory--although the 'theory' part is too often left off of the title. Theories are well-tested hypotheses that are accepted as law but can be changed--they're a step below fact. And, honestly, I don't see how evolution made it to 'theory'. For whoever it was that said evolution is well documented in fossil records, sorry, but that's false also. They have the bone of a T-rex and the bone of a chicken, but they don't have the bones that go inbetween. They have the bone of the dog and the bone of the porpoise, but they don't have the bones showing the dog turning into a porpoise. They have huge gaps in those areas.

5. Evolution lacks common sense. Put it this way: what are the chances that my cat, Patty, will be exposed to some radiation or something and her DNA will mutate and her kittens will have not-quite-cat DNA? Further, what are the chances that those mutated kittens will be able to reproduce? Mutations are often sterile and die out quickly because they go against natural selection, which is a FACT, thank you very much. Now, even though those kittens have the same mother, they aren't identical--that is, if any of them are mutated at all, they'll have a different mutation than any of the other kittens. So say one of those kittens CAN reproduce--just not with a normal cat. What are the chances that one of the other kittens has the same mutation, or that somewhere another kitten was born with the same mutation? And even if two of the kittens can reproduce together, their offspring will be inbred and mutated, which doesn't make for a pretty sight. Mother cats will not nurse sickly kittens, and that's exactly what mutated/inbred kittens would be. And I know from experience: if you try to nurse a kitten that was rejected by its mother, you will fail. It was rejected for a reason: it can't live, no matter how much you try to keep it alive. So, anyway, leaving the cat example, do you see how hard it would be for a mutation to be passed down if it altered the species?

6. There are such things as mutations that don't alter the species. Returning to the cat example, there are the Manx, Japanese Bobtail, American Bobtail, Scottish Fold, American Curl, Devon Rex, Cornish Rex, Persian, Munchkin, Sphynx...the list goes on and on. And if you took any of those breeds of cats and put them out on a farm--or even in a house--and allowed them to breed naturally, without human interference, the mutations would likely disappear. No tails or inch long tails are not good for balancing, which is something cats regularly do. Ears that fold in or back don't help hearing. Fur that is curly or wavy doesn't hold in body heat. Noses that are squashed limit breathing. Extremely short legs don't allow jumping. No fur causes sunburn and makes it hard to regulate body temperature. And the only reason these breeds are around today is because somebody saw a cat with that mutation and thought, "Oh, that's so cute/rare/cool, I think I want all of my cats to look like that!" Before any of these cats became breeds, people saw the mutations pop up here and there, but when nobody interfered, they disappeared. And you see, even with all of those mutations, they are all still cats! They aren't dogs or ferrets or rabbits or cabbits or anything like that. They're cats.

7. If evolution were real, we would be able to see it happening around us. Take mice, for instance. Mice produce so many new mice in such a short period of time, that would cut the billion year requirement for evolution, now wouldn't it? Surely they would have evolved into a new species by now, seeing as they've had at least 4,000-10,000 years to do so, 2,007 of which has been very well documented. But...they're still...mice. And if mice aren't prolific enough for ya, how about insects and spiders and bugs? Nothing new there. Other than new spiders that we'd never seen before and stuff like that, things that were there before but we hadn't discovered.

8. If, by chance, two creatures with the same mutations were able to breed and diverge from their species, the old species would still be around. If my cat had kittens that bred cabbits, there would still be cats. It's not like, "Uh oh, looks like a new species has diverged off of us, I guess we're gonna have to die now." The old species would most likely overrun the new because there are so many more old.

9. 7 days. As has been stated before, the word for 'day' used in Genesis means, literally, 24 hours. If God were to take longer than that, He would have told us. He's a perfect God and doesn't confuse us for fun or on purpose. When it comes right down to it, we confuse ourselves and decide that He's confusing us--this goes back to the 'thinking too deeply' topic. Now, if you don't believe that your god is big enough and powerful enough to create the entire universe in 7 days, all at once, no pre- forms necessary, that's your problem. My God IS the I Am, and He had absolutely no trouble with creation. He didn't sweat or strain with it and decide, "Well, maybe I should spread this out over a few billion years." No, my God said, "Let there be light," and there was, and He saw that it was good. He SPOKE and light appeared. He SPOKE and the earth divided from the sea. He SPOKE and plants appeared. He SPOKE and the sun and the moon and the stars appeared. He SPOKE and--you get what I'm saying? When I speak, the dog ignores me and keeps barking. When I speak, it often seems like nobody's listening. But when my God speaks, you better watch out--He's doing something amazing, something perfect, and something more glorious than any of us can imagine. That is the power of I Am, as best as I can describe it, which I can't, because it's indescribable.

10. I believe God created a young earth about 10,000 years ago, give or take a bit. I'm currently compiling a list of ALL of the names mentioned in the Bible; when I'm through with that, which should be the end of this year, I'm going to start making a Biblical timeline. I'll let you know how that turns out. Anyway, back to the 'young earth' idea, if you can call it that--10,000 years is older than anybody or anything I know, saving God, who is forever. I believe God made the earth the way it is, and silly humans who like to think too hard into things say it looks like it's old! No duh. It's older than any of us. But not as old as people like to think--carbon dating isn't very reliable. A plane that crashed in WWII was carbon dated, and the carbon dating said it was WAY old. I can't remember the exact details, but I think it was dated to 1,000-2,000 years old. Or maybe just a few hundred years. Still, that's not very accurate at all, now is it? I don't see how we can trust something that unreliable. And what about all the layers of earth or the fossils and stuff? Can you say "The Flood?" The earth opened up and released all of its water; the skies opened up and released all of theirs; and when the skies cleared, the whole earth was underwater. That, my friends, is a LOT of water. Just about enough to move dirt from one place to another, given currents and winds. Just about enough to deposit dead fish on mountain tops. Just about enough to do a LOT of things I probably can't even think of. Like now, when my mind has gone blank. But maybe that's a good thing--I've typed so much, my fingers will probably be numb for a week.

Sorry for the extraordinarily long post. Sorry if I seem self-righteous or holier-than-thou or I'm-right-and-you're-wrong. I don't mean to seem any of those. What I do mean is to tell people my beliefs, obtained through a lot of debates with fellow Christians and unsaved people, and obtained through science classes, and obtained through the Bible and faith in God. If you disagree with any of my logic, that's fine--by all means, tell me; human logic and wisdom is often flawed. However, if you disagree with any of the Biblical stuff--the Flood, the Creation--you'll have to take that one up with God. I'm just His messenger (amazing how He can use people, isn't it?).

God bless all of you; I hope this has given you a lot to think about. Just don't think too deeply or too hard about it. Take it with a grain of salt and remember: Jesus calls us to have a childlike faith. Again, speaking from past experience, evolution does not make sense to children in the least. Creation does.

[42. Tomi said the following at 8:17 PM on Jun 21:]

42

I'm curious about what prompted you to write this post!

I'm a theistic evolutionist myself, and while I see where your post is coming from and what you're trying to say, your arguments and scripture references seem like a bit of a stretch. Its obvious you're trying really, really hard. You also come off as speaking with absolute authority as to the interpretation of what Jesus 'meant' and scripture in general. Basically a "sure you can interpret it other ways and still be a Christian, but barely." Why are we even arguing over this in the first place--believing in evolution doesn't make me love my neighbor more or less. Why is it that only people who interpret the Bible literally are the only ones who can never "agree to disagree?"

**I think I found an applicable quote
To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it.**
- Olin Miller

[43. Melody said the following at 10:22 PM on Jun 21:]

43

Katie - thanks for your post, it was awesome and covered things I didn't have time to go into.

As I mentioned in my previous post I don't believe you won't be saved if you don't believe in creation, you will just have some non-Biblically supported beliefs.

Tomi- The evidence given in this post is by no means complete but there is a lot more evidence for Creation than you may know about, and I mean scientific evidence - just check out Answers in Genesis or Khouse.org to see what I mean.

As far as why people who take the Bible literally who won't "agree to disagree" is because many of these literal things in the Bible are foundational to modern day ethical problems such as abortion, euthanaisa, etc.I am not just holding onto my opinion, I know I get wrong ideas, I just won't agree with someone on something that is clearly taught in no uncertain terms in Scripture. We need to recognize false teachings when they occur and point them out as such as gently as possible for the benefit of all. The reason I don't back down from these beliefs is many, but mainly because I don't want to see misinformation causing bad doctrine and harming people - not just about evolution either. The truth sets people free but lies or half truths entangle and cause pain and confusion.

[44. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:41 PM on Jun 21:]

44

Thanks for the reply Chris. I like your intelligent, logical approach to the discussion:

Some responses to the responses

1) The response was mainly in response to Hannah Yelin's words, "Evolution is true. That's a fact." You stated, "I'd like to also point out that science's basic "skills", as it were, have improved drastically over the past few hundred years..."

Definitely. And our methodology of science is certainly better than it was 10, 50, or even 100 years ago. But the point is that we as humans tend to be believe that "this is as good as it gets". Meaning that it is true that any conclusions drawn today are under more rigorous testing than in the past. But that in my opinion doesn't let modern day science off the hook. I'm sure that 100 years or so from now scientists will think certain "theories" we've had now were quacky. Of course I can't say which ones they are. But I don't like such bold claims regarding evolution, especially about something that cannot be replicated and relies heavily on circumstantial evidence. That is my biggest beef with the presentation of evolution. We start out more with the conclusion (assume evolution is true) and try to "fit" our data into it rather than look at the data itself and wonder what it means.

2) Regarding retractions, I was not trying to say that retractions are "never" done as in there are not counter publications in journals. But the point was that at least in the mainstream, one rarely, if ever hears of the possible fallacies of an argument. For example, I have NEVER seen in any science textbook verbage that says "oh by the way, evolution is ASSUMED to be correct unless proven otherwise". It ALWAYS comes off as, "evolution is a scientific FACT, end of story". There is never any open discussion of the objections to evolution because it's a known fact, so what's there to discuss? Anyone who questions it in most scientific communities are branded as either religious ignorants or worse. The scientific community, at least the way they present it to the masses, loves "breakthroughs" because quite frankly, it's often tied to research money (science is not immune from politics as is religion). And who wants to present a breakthrough with the caveat that, "yeah, there might be some hand waving here"?

3) "(Evolutionists are athiests, essentially). This is a guilt-by-association argument." It is, but still not completely invalid simply because the problem here is that if one assumes from the get-go that "miracles do not occur" and that everything has a scientific explanation you will just throw out the baby with the bath water. No miracles mean not only no Creation, but also no 10 Plagues, no virgin birth, and most importantly to Christian faith, no resurrection of Jesus. So naturally most who are die-hard scientists will reject Creation, and pretty much everything else that goes with Christianity, not to mention all other religions since just about all of them have some divine intervention in them. So I don't think this an unfair characterization.

4) I agree that at times Christians have been skeptical of science to the point of denying facts. Heliocentricity (sun revolving around the earth) comes to mind. And also demon possession for certain mental disorders (but to be sure, if you believe what the Bible says, demon posession is very real). But understand too Chris, that just because something is not explained in the Bible explicitly doesn't mean that the "scientific" answer is necessarily true. Take the Flood. How did Noah get kangaroos and koalas? God brought them. Yes, that's a clique answer and other Christians have theorized that perhaps the Flood wasn't global but merely regional. But the point is that just because something doesn't seem to jive with what the Bible says doesn't automatically make the Bible wrong.

[45. Kelsey said the following at 11:29 PM on Jun 21:]

45

I wrestle with this issue often. Though there are certainly unanswered questions, there exists an overwhelming amount of congruous evidence that points to an old universe and an old earth.

Most remarkable about this discovery is that these ages are finite. The universe had a definite beginning. Time had a definite beginning.

At that moment, something that transcends time and space, something not bound to obey the natural laws which have governed unabated since, introduced those very laws to a hopelessly paralyzed singularly of matter-energy in such a spectacularly fine-tuned fashion that time has been allowed to run its course ever since.

Though that something remains forever hidden from direct observation behind the curtain of the Planck epoch (the very first moment of existence), could it have shown itself more clearly to be God?

Ask yourself, is there any distinction between 6 days and 13.7 billion years to a timeless God? Does it even make sense to ask whether he caused certain things to be created at certain points on a linear timeline, or that he interacted with his creation constantly and continually, or that he simply set it up and let it operate? Is there any difference to a God transcendent and with complete authority over spacetime, or is the distinction one that our so obviously impotent minds must invent just to attempt to grasp the awe of creation?

Regardless, would we see the universe and its history any other way than the way that we do in fact see it?

I see a universe that is old, but not infinite. An infinite God intertwined the very tools we use to see this in the necessary functioning of the world itself, such as radioactivity, and gave us the assurance that the physical rules that control them have and never will change (Jeremiah 33:25).

He placed us here, now, at such a time that we can still peer out into the night sky and see the trillions of stars and galaxies as they are and as they once were. We can still see the cosmic microwave background radiation, a fading shadow of the birth of an expanding universe. All signs point to that beginning. All signs point to him.

Given this astounding picture of creation alone, am I not without excuse (Romans 1:20)?

Is it not clear that it is he who has breathed the breath of life into me? And have I not rebelled against him and earned his taking it away? Oh, I am so very grateful that God's creation was just the beginning and not the end of the story.

[46. Tomi said the following at 1:26 AM on Jun 22:]

46

Mike Theemling: I wasn't referring to arguments in support of Creation, I meant Ted's argument and scripture references about what he thinks Jesus "believes" to be a bit of an awkward stretch (understatement).

[47. Tomi said the following at 1:27 AM on Jun 22:]

47

Sorry Mike! I meant Melody instead of you.

[48. xeres said the following at 1:37 AM on Jun 22:]

48

What about genetic mutations? Majority (99%) of them are detrimential because they don't serve the body according to proper function. That's why cancer and radiation are bad, contrary to many superhero movies. People who support evolution or the evolution process believe mutations are ulumately benefical for the survival of the fittest.

Based on that fact, there is no way macroevolution (changing from one species to another) is plasible. Does anyone really think that humans are from apes? Humans have 46 chromosomes altogether. Goldfish has 104. Hare has 46. Gorilla has 48. Earthworm has 36. How macroevolution can explain all this?

[49. Craig David said the following at 3:29 AM on Jun 22:]

49

Thanks very much for this article. I am in total agreement with Ted on this. I get quite frustrated by the many in church who believe that God could have started evolution to compromise what 'science' says and what the Bible says. Like Ted said, when you look deeply into evolution and what the Bible says about creation, then it shows how impossible it is to believe in it. I studied ecology at university and I had to really battle with evolution and my faith because it was the basis for everything we were taught. Eventually I came to the conclusion that what the Bible says was literal and believable too. Its funny how the theistic evolutionary view is not common in Africa where I grew up,in fact, Ive heard that they view it as ridiculous, whereas we in the West get it taught from all angles and so take it in without thinking. Please lets be careful about what our culture tells us!

[50. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:06 AM on Jun 22:]

50

People ask why this matters at all, and Ted outlines it in the original post, but doesn't highlight it.

Theistic evolution, and old earth creationism both date certain fossils from before 6000 years ago. Even old earth creationists agree that the fall occurred c. 4000 BC (assuming they believe it actually occurred)

Ted outlined above what Paul explains in Romans: Adam's sin caused physical death (of animals) to enter the world, so when Jesus defeats that original sin, death goes as well. If there was animal death before the fall, then Jesus' death saves us only from spiritual death at best, not the physical death that predated sin. Intellectually, this undermines some key stuff.

That said, all the creeds say about creation is that a Christian must believe that God is the maker of heaven and earth. The details are flexible as far as salvation is concerned, and I am great friends with an old earth creationist. He loves God, and is an incredible worship leader. I disagree with him, but he is still my brother.

[51. Elena said the following at 8:58 AM on Jun 22:]

51

Why do we say Jesus believed? Didn't Jesus KNOW? I mean, not just ontologically but epistemologically.

[52. JB said the following at 9:26 AM on Jun 22:]

52

I guess it's a comparatively minor point, but I don't see the warrant for the argument that Jesus spoke of events like Jonah and the burning bush as historical and not metaphorical. The passages linked to could easily be read as metaphor without harming the meaning of what Jesus is saying.

You might not like interpretations of the Bible that leave room for evolution, but I don't think it's the case that these interpretations eliminate any of the meaning of scripture. We're still in the same place when we talk about Jonah, for example, and what it tells us about the nature of God. The fact that you believe that a man was actually swallowed by a whale thousands of years ago and I don't doesn't really affect that much more meaningful discussion at all. So it is with the story of Creation.

[53. Cath said the following at 11:31 AM on Jun 22:]

53

Auuugghhhh! This is a really good and interesting original post and following string of comments. I'm screaming/sighing because I am convicted. Before I was blissfully unaware that such good points existed for Creationism. This whole issue obviously DOES matter.

The problem is that as I read the points for creationism they sound good to me... but I know that I don't have a firm enough grasp on them to be able to explain them to anyone else yet. And this is a BIG issue for me because I teach Religion in high school. The predominant idea, and the one that I've mentioned in every class so far, is that of Theistic evolution. I guess it's an attempt by an under-informed teacher to not make it look like the Church is against society on absolutely *everything*. Like, 'hey guys, don't worry, you won't think that Christians are out to lunch on this one! Here's where we're not a bunch of idiots and actually listen to tangible beings like scientists!" ha. Since I didn't know what was true [and still, I'm mostly convinced but need to understand it better] I just went with teaching the 'easier to stomach' method of creation. So, [sigh] I need to keep learning and possibly repent.

How on earth, though, did this idea get around that the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are a particular literary genre known as "myth"? I have this in my teaching notes from somewhere and I cringed every time I mentioned it this past year. I know, I know, I've probably been a heretic, but I didn't know it... and so now since I do I guess this has got to change.

So, uhh, thanks Ted! I guess I've got some reading to do this summer! Praise God for brothers and sisters in Christ that challenge each other. = )

[54. Jeff said the following at 11:36 AM on Jun 22:]

54

I have always found it interesting when talking with a Christian about this subject that their line of reasoning/questioning always starts with science not with Scripture. In Proverbs we are taught that all knowledge begins with a loving reverence for the Lord (Proverbs 1:7) yet when the latest “scientific evolutionary discovery” is published we place our evolutionist-tinted reading glasses on and start reading “In the beginning…” Does this not seem backwards? Should we not be putting our biblical glasses on and reading the world through them? If we did, I think more of us would see that evolution is nothing more then the new world faith (naturalism). It is not science; it can not be proven or repeated. It is a theory put forth to allow people not to believe in God! We must understand that very smart, gifted, non-Christian scientists are pushing this faith because it allows them to live an individualistic, unmoral, self-centered lifestyle. I read an article from a former evolutionary scientist who stated that the only reason he believed in evolution was because the only other logical option is creation. And if he believes in creation, he would then need to believe in a Creator and would have to change his sexual lifestyle. He was not willing to do so; therefore he continued to preach evolution. Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). “[Scripture] never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21). The Bible is our ultimate authority by which science should be evaluated, not the other way around.

[55. Soren said the following at 12:20 PM on Jun 22:]

55

I've been in debate with an Atheist this past quarter at college. It has been a truly eye opening experience. One of his recent conclusions is that he is incapable of believing in God. For him, that is where the evidence points. I think that's why there is a debate between evolution and creation: We're looking at the evidence and drawing different conclusions. I'm wondering if the evidence, when looked at honestly, will actually point to the best conclusion. The theory of evolution is constantly changing, although it is moving forward just like any other theory in the past or present within the scientific community of peer reviewed journal articles. This gives me some hope that the truth will be brought to light since I believe the scientific community to be good. I do recognize it has a bias, just like any other community comprised of people (naturally biased), yet I think it is more rigorous than other fields.

I look at the universe and I believe in a Creator. I have a list of topics for why I believe in God and why I'm a Christian:

Good (I see good things)
Evil (I see evil things)
Personal experience
Complexity (Scientific discoveries)
Evolution can’t explain everything
Application of the Bible to my life
Evidence points towards Jesus being who he said he was
Love
Peace
Joy
Answers my “Why?” questions
Gives me purpose
A relationship with God
Emotions
Answered prayer/Unanswered prayer
UPBRINGING
The people who truly represent Jesus Christ (as a whole)
The affects of Jesus on people (as a whole)
Essence
Existence itself (Consciousness)
Information itself
Guilt and Redemption
The change that has occurred in my heart and in my life
Freedom
All these things have given me A DEEP DESIRE TO WORSHIP GOD

These are my reasons for believing, but I wonder if I was just meant to believe or "predestined." Maybe that explains why I believe and my friend the Atheist doesn't. If so, then why would God do this? It doesn’t seem fair. My only answer is that he is just and will judge accordingly. This requires an afterlife though, which my atheist friend doesn’t believe in.
I'm also wondering what the best use of my life is. I feel I have certain God given abilities and passions, yet I wonder if I should even be writing. Maybe I should be out feeding the poor and helping anyone who is in need, allowing God to provide the means. Maybe I should just GO!
What is truth? What makes it true? Is God bound by truth? Where did God come from? I can see the argument that it doesn't matter where God came from, yet if God created us then something created God, right? I think that's logical. If we just look to the Bible and believe what it says, then we believe God always existed.
Should truth resonate within you? Is that a test of truth? "God always existed" resonates inside of me, yet is that just a result of my upbringing? I ask this, because this is not the case with my friend the Atheist. Right now I believe that God put me in his life for a reason and I'm doing my best to fulfill the purpose God has. Maybe Apologetics do have a purpose for getting people to a place where they believe in God. Of course they have other purposes as well.
Believing the Bible is inerrant resonates inside of me, but not my friend the Atheist.
The idea that we have evolved from Bacteria like ancestors does not resonate within me, yet it does resonate within my friend the Atheist.
I have grown up in the Church, although I have had other strong influences towards other faiths, yet I have grown up with spirituality nonetheless.
I have grown up with the Bible (I lead a Bible study), and if it is truth, then I have let that truth permeate my mind and soul. Is that why certain things resonate inside of me and I accept them as truth. How can I be sure that it's the truth? Maybe I can't. It's hard to deny my personal experience and relationship with God. It's been so emotional sometimes, so real. Could I have created it myself...I don't really think I'm capable or that all the events that I have seen and experienced are mere coincidences.
I don't believe the Bible is a coincidence (the conjuring of man from sleepless nights). I believe it's from God. Why? When I get right down to it, because all the evidence seems so mottled, I really just believe. I have faith.

So, by all means, we should continue this debate. (I say this to the world and you) I hope we can lay down some SOLID evidence to back up our faith. You are all intelligent people and I have learned a great deal from reading. I think a lot of you have asked the same questions as I have and possibly have grown up in similar situations. Therefore I think it is important to ask yourself, as I have been trying to do, these few questions:
Why do I believe in God?
Why do I believe in Jesus?
Why do I believe in Sin?
Why do I believe in Evolution?
Am I doing what God purposed for my life?
How can I love people if I do not intimately know them?

I have come into some spare time and have been able to ask these questions. The answers don't come easy. I think together we can figure out what the truth is, God willing.

I pray that God removes any pride that I have in writing this and that he humbles me. I pray that he gives me a greater heart for the lost to care for all their needs. I pray that he increases my love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and that he increases my love for the lost. I pray that he uses me in his mighty power. I thank him that I believe and that He has changed my life and taught me how to love.

[56. Beth L. said the following at 12:36 PM on Jun 22:]

56

Here the thing, the Creation story as it is recounted in Genesis, was not written to counter Darwinism or any of the subsequent theories of Evolution. It was written to counter the Mesopotamian & Egyptian Creation stories, which were the starting point for the pagan world views of the day. Nor was it is not written as a historical account or as a scientific account. When you really look at it, it is a beautiful poetic account of Creation. That does not make it any less true, it just does not answer Darwinism.

The basic structure of the Mesopotamian myth says that there was a war between the gods & the parents of the gods. Out of the chaos the world was formed. The head god wins by killing his dad, and everywhere the blood landed a person grew up. The Egyptian story is a bit different, but starts with chaos, and primordial ooze. The themes we see are, 1) order out of disorder, 2) disunity between the gods and their parents, 3) man is an accident.

Genesis speaks to these themes.

Genesis 1: 1-3a
“1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said,…”

There is order in the beginning – God created. We see the unity of the Triune God…”In the beginning God” (Father), “the Spirit of God” (Holy Spirit), “and God said” (Son). They are in perfect agreement about every aspect of creation, and it is good. The Hebrew phrase that is translated “formless and empty” speaks of chaos and darkness. We see that God is outside of these things and speaks order & light into them. Interesting side note, the mother of the gods in the Mesopotamian story is “Teamont” (sp?). She is a sea monster. In Day 5 of creation, it says that God created the sea monster, (in the NIV it skips that, and in the King James it says “the great whale”). Chapter 2of Genesis is a beautiful story of God taking time and putting care into Man’s creation. Showing that as men & woman we have authority & identity – there is NOTHING accidental in our beginning.

[57. NeedACatchyName said the following at 1:34 PM on Jun 22:]

57

BethL,

Your post on June 22 at 12:36 PM is really interesting. Do you have a link where I could read more about this idea?

[58. JLC said the following at 2:00 PM on Jun 22:]

58

I think that it would be inconsistent for a person to simultaneously claim to be a Christian and theistic evolutionist. In John 1:3, it says that “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”—in essence, God didn’t sort of make the universe and sort of let things kind of come together, rather everything was carefully, thoughtfully designed. To say that humanity is a product of evolution flies in the face of fact that we were created in God’s image, it would be as though saying we came from a lower life-form (i.e. a protozoa) that was somehow in God’s image but it was possible to improve upon that image. Just doesn’t make any sense. Humanity was intended to be a reflection of God’s glory by bearing His image.
One particularly compelling scientific argument made against evolution is derived from the Laws of Thermodynamics, namely the 2nd law, which states that all systems tend towards the increase of entropy (or disorder). In light of this, the contention that nature is becoming more advanced does not hold because to do so would violate the physical laws of the universe. Natural processes where more order results, such as the organization of amino acids into peptide chains that associate to form proteins, are only possible because they are accompanied by an increase of entropy (energetically speaking).
As a chemistry major at a secular research university, I have found that, more often than not, professors attempt to convince students of evolution rather than just teaching evolutionary theory (as though it could not stand on its own). If anything, that only weakens their case.

[59. Beth L. said the following at 2:20 PM on Jun 22:]

59

NeedACatchyName –

Sorry, no links…just the benefit of being home-schooled by a mom who is both a Bible Major & and English Major.

I will see if I can get the names of some of books we used…

[60. Joseph said the following at 4:52 PM on Jun 22:]

60

Here I was getting the vibe that Boundless wasn't too privy to such discussions. It is nice to see an AiG reference.
I brought up some interesting points of faith on this http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=28234128&blogID=177006816&Mytoken=B5CD3301-BA6C-4F52-ADC31216CB333DFB31073783>blog of mine.

[61. Alan said the following at 12:40 AM on Jun 23:]

61

Good discussion, and lots of interesting information. I had recently read Wayne Grudem's comments on creation/age of the earth and found them very thought-provoking.

Regarding Darwin's supposed recantation on his death-bed, see this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/689/

The First chapter of Genesis as a poetic account is what I believe. I've heard one interpretation as there being three retellings of the creation story in Genesis 1-2: Genesis 1.1, then the seven days, then the creation of man. General to specific. The most important point is in the first verse: "God created". The central character of it is "man in God's image".

God's ownership of creation has to be established before he can redeem it. If we don't have Genesis 1.1 then John 3.16 is ridiculous -- why would God sacrifice himself for something random, and what good would it do? But if he created the universe, then his sacrifice means something and has power to do something about the state of the universe.

[62. Alan said the following at 12:51 AM on Jun 23:]

62

I am remiss in failing to note the number of good articles cited at http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/
on "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use". In my opinion a good example of scientific studies in support of creation (however you want to phrase that -- solid science in any case).

[63. Ellie said the following at 12:28 PM on Jun 23:]

63

Hey Ted, did you see this weekend's Human Nature article in Slate on recombining human and animal DNA? That grossed me out...

[64. Megan said the following at 12:48 PM on Jun 23:]

64

Here is why I believe the Bible literally means what it says: because if I don't believe one piece of the story is true, it's like having a calculator that occasionally adds 2 + 2 and gets 5.

If I can't trust the calculator to get the right number on something simple where I can correct it in my head, what happens when I put in something more complicated I can't just automatically add together? I have no basis for truth, so I can't trust anything it comes up with.

If I don't believe it's true that God literally formed Creation in seven days, where do I draw a line and say, "Well, that wasn't quite true but THIS is?"

I would have no foundation left. Either I must believe all or nothing. And I have chosen to believe all.

[65. Flippy314 said the following at 12:51 PM on Jun 23:]

65

Took some work to get through all that reading, but some good ideas were thrown into play. first I would like to tackle the main purpose of the original posting, theistic evolution.

To quote JamesUK: "I am, by trait, a theistic evolutionist and not in any way an advocate of intelligent design. The reason being is that ID, as some have come to name it, implies that every so often throughout the course of the history He has intervened to shape creation the more to His own liking. The conclusion? God makes mistakes, is therefore fallible and hence not worth trusting. So intelligent design is out. Theistic evolution, in which the LORD created the universe in the pre known knowledge of the result with no action being necessary."

Theistic evolution basically starts with, God created the Big Bang then he started the evolutionary process (that is how it has been explained to me, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Problem? God *initiating* the evolutionary process tends to lean toward the idea that God created something incomplete and therefore IMPERFECT. The conclusion? "God makes mistakes, is therefore fallible and hence not worth trusting." Oops...

Second, on the point of a literal interpretation of Genesis, as has already been pointed out if we can't take the Bible at its word from the beginning, how can we trust the rest of it? To the best of my study, every time something in the Bible has been allegorical, it has been plainly presented as such (NT example: whenever Jesus told a parable, the section starts out with "and Jesus told them this parable"... fairly plain, no?). Furthermore, Jesus made many references to these supposedly "allegorical" stories and accounts (a point which I realise has already been brought up). While I do recognise that if these stories are allegorical Jesus could have use them to connect with popular belief, I think that since He was already putting Himself forward as the Son of God (and thus God and thus the Creator) He probably could have just said "hey guys, this is what went down with creation/ the flood/ the burning bush/ Jonah/...", which is what I believe he did.

To broach what may seem a side track, the Big Bang is also something which needs to be consideded here. The Big Bang (also a theory) has spent this whole time hiding behind the thory of evolution. But really, evolution (except in evolutionary creation/theistic evolution, and even then...) does not exist without the Big Band and cannot be validated before the Big Bang. Logic: no creator > life comes out of explosion of nothing (Big Bang) > random particles defy all natural laws as we know them and form stars, planets, etc. > more ranodom particles further break all known natural laws and create basic life forms, which proceed to evolve from slime to humans (and let us not forget plants evolved from the same things... hey, why aren't scientists trying to prove that we are related to trees??? we *did* evolve from the same things after all...). Point: Cut out the Big Bang and the whole shebang (no pun intended) collapses.

Just my two cents.

[66. Kelsey said the following at 11:45 AM on Jun 24:]

66

Flippy314,

The Big Bang all but necessitates a creator, and a careful look at the evidence points to that creator being none other than the God of the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ.

With all brotherly love, your presentation of the Big Bang is, from a scientific standpoint, flatly inaccurate.

There was nothing "random" about it. Before there was time, there was only matter-energy that existed in an infinitesimally small point and thus had infinite density. The known laws of physics simply do not function under these conditions. Something external to this "singularly" _must_ have caused the Big Bang and set into effect the physical laws which have governed the universe since.

That something is very clearly God, because, as I've said, there was simply nothing "random" about what happened under the Big Bang model of cosmology. The sequence of events that led from that moment some 13.7 billion years ago to this moment now depends entirely on the fundamental forces of nature being so carefully fined tuned (how strong they are, when their symmetry breaks, etc.) that the likelihood of such precision emerging randomly stretches the limits of reason and imagination even for atheists.

There is a paper written by a group of atheist scientists called "The Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant" in which the authors describe in detail the mind-boggling precision to which the constants of physical laws must be tuned in order for the universe to exist the way it does now. The cosmological constant, in particular, requires a precision of 1 part in 10^120, in other words if it differed at all out to 120 decimal places, this universe either would no longer exist or it would consist of nothing but hydrogen and helium gas spread out hopelessly alone everywhere, even under the model of secular scientists.

Why were these atheists "disturbed?" Because in the face of this kind of evidence, they are "without excuse!"

One fact is certain to them and to us. Here we are, staring into the cosmos, searching for Truth. What can explain _that_ but OUR God?

Secular scientists do all they can to find an answer to our existence that does not require God, and the deeper and farther they dig, all they discover is him staring them right in the face.

[67. Kelsey said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 24:]

67

JLC,

You said above "One particularly compelling scientific argument made against evolution is derived from the Laws of Thermodynamics, namely the 2nd law, which states that all systems tend towards the increase of entropy (or disorder)."

With respect, this is simply not true. The second law of thermodynamics states that all _closed_ systems tend towards the increase of entropy.

"Closed" is a crucial piece of the statement. Life does _not_ constitute a closed system. There are a number of more detailed rebuttals of this typical fallacy, even written by fellow believers, out on the internet.

I say these things in all love and just to urge you and all Christians that your knowledge of scripture and theology are one thing (and a necessary thing at that), but that if you wish to engage scientists on matters of science, please make every effort to understand the science so you can meet them at a common point. If you do so you will be pleasantly surprised how many are more than willing to hear you out when you present Christ as the reason for the hope that is within you.

[68. Alan said the following at 2:48 PM on Jun 24:]

68

Flippy314 mentions the Big Bang, which I think is a wonderful picture of Genesis 1.1... Ironic that when the "Big Bang" hypothesis was first introduced, scientists rejected it as being too "theistic". Now many Christians reject it because it has been accepted by evolutionists! Complete about-face.

To me, the Big Bang is one of the few places that Science has accepted that there is something greater than us. The Big Bang started from a "mathematical point" -- a point of no dimension, i.e., nothing. "Ex nihilo", out of nothing. There was a tremendous release of energy, which became mass (e=mc^2). "Let there be light!" This was God at work.

And to JamesUK: if interventions by God are an admission that what God did was not perfect, what do you do with the incarnation of his son as Jesus? Or miracles -- both in the Old Testament and the New? Those are interventions of God in creation, changing the natural order which he created. God is always intervening in this world: Paul says that "in him all things hold together", and that if it were not for his restraining power on "the man of lawlessness" evil would be, for lack of a better word, unrestrained.

Interventions of God are orthodox theology. And to my logic, "theistic evolution" requires even more interventions of God to subvert or overcome the natural order that he originally created (contra entropy, for example).

[69. JRB said the following at 5:58 PM on Jun 24:]

69

Just a couple of comments
1) Big bang - Initially the Big Bang was not liked by the scientific community because of its religious overtones - it implied a beginnin to the universe. My understanding of the Big Bang is that it posits that everything came from a singularity (ie nothing). The Bible itself says that God created everything out of nothing and as far as I know does not give a timeframe. Thus I really do not see a major conflict between the Big Bang and the Bible.

2) God and timing - If you look in the Bible, the God rarely does things as fast as most people involved should be done. For example in sending the Saviour, based on the names of their children, Adam and Eve thought it might be in their lifetime. It turned out to be quite a bit later.

3) What does God do versus others - In the Bible God is often assigned credit for things that He may not have done directly but allowed to happen or had circumstances come together that caused something to happen. For example take David's numbering the people. In the two different accounts in Scripture one says God tempted David, and the other says Satan tempted David. Which is it? Another example: Jesus says that God sends rain on the just and the unjust. Does that mean that God always supernaturally sends rain and we no longer should believe in the hydrological cycle and dismiss our weather predictors? Or does it mean that God created the oceans, the clouds, water, the laws of physics, etc that allow it to rain? In Exodus it says that God makes the blind, the deaf, and the mute. Is God then direct cause of all birth defects? Or did God make DNA and the natural laws that define how it interacts with a myriad of substances that in some cases result in birth defects. In Exodus also it states that God hardened Pharoah's heart. It also says Pharoah hardened his heart. One of the old Hebrew prayers is "Blessed art though O Lord our God who bringeth forth bread from the earth." Does this mean that the Hebrews believed that God always supernaturally caused bread to spring forth from the earth and all agricultural knowledge is bogus. Another is that it is God who gives children. Yet in all the Bible - there is only 1 virgin birth mentioned. All the other births in the Bible involved a sperm and egg uniting when a man and women came together sexually. Does that mean that if we believe that, that we are not taking the Bible literally? The point to this is that when the Bible says that God does something, it does not exclude His working (possibly behind the scenes) through human or natural agents. Since He created everything, it does not mean that He cannot claim credit for working through His creation according to the laws He made.

4) Faith - If faith is just believing something without any input from reason, then you have absolutely nothing to say to anybody who believes something else. This seems to be the view of the tolerance movement. This also sets up science as the only determiner of truth for all people everywhere whereas all religion is a matter or entirely personal opinion. If you are Christian who believes the Bible then you have to believe that the same God who made the universe wrote the Bible. Thus science properly interpretted will never contradict the Bible properly interpretted. In doing so you have to understand the context. Sometimes the Bible speaks phenomenologically. For example - saying that the sun rises or the sun sets in no way confirms that the Bible supports a geocentric veiw of the universe. It is rather a phenomenologic description of an experience.

5) Adam and Eve - I think if you do not believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve you run into many theological complications. Taking the whole context of scripture, it definitely appears that Jesus and Paul view it as a literal fact. For example, it is used to justify the permanence of marriage and the application of Christ's one perfect life and death to all humanity. A parable is never used as the basis of a doctrine but to illustrate a doctrine.

6)Finally, in regards to the usefulness of these debates - the worldview of evolution (ie random chance produced everything) is the intellectual crutch of atheism. If evolution goes - you do not have a logical way of avoiding God. Therefore, when dealing with people it is often useful to deal with the impediments that get in the way. In addition, we are commanded to be able to give a reason for the hope we have.

[70. JackP said the following at 12:19 AM on Jun 25:]

70

You claimed that Jesus said that believing Jesus implies that you must believe Moses, and quoted scripture. The passage you quoted says the opposite, however, that if you believe Moses then you must believe Jesus.

[71. Ted Slater said the following at 9:05 AM on Jun 25:]

71

JackP -- I was wondering when someone would bring that up. Here are the two verses we're talking about, John 5:46-47:

"If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

The first verse supports your contention. The second verse, though, does support what I wrote in my original post; you just need to use a little logic to get there. "Logical contraposition" can be diagrammed as follows:

A -> B = ~B -> ~A

In other words, "If A, then B" is the same as "if not B, then not A."

The second verse, then, can read, "If you do believe my words, then you will believe [Moses's] writings."

Thanks again for drawing attention to these verses, JackP.

[72. Aaron Wells said the following at 11:34 AM on Jun 25:]

72

There is a disconnect between the account in the Scriptures and the evolutionary timeline for species development that no one I have talked to thus far has been willing to answer for: in the evolutionary timeline, birds represent as sophisticated an animal as mammals, and therefore developed after amphibians and reptiles. So how can the Genesis account detail in condensed form what we were taught by Darwin and his processors? Birds and fish were created on the same day. All beasts of the land were created afterward. Theistic evolution is a complete contradiction to the account we have in the Bible for this reason.

[73. RMB said the following at 10:09 PM on Jun 26:]

73

If anyone has an interest in a scholarly journal focusing on this topic, http://www.grisda.org/origins/ndx-yr.htm provides some thought-provoking scientific,philosphical, and theological articles.

[74. Lisa said the following at 1:38 AM on Jun 27:]

74

I find it interesting that it seems to be mostly the theistic evolutionists who ask why debate this. Honestly, one of the most exciting things about being a Christian to me (of course after the grace and mercy of salvation itself) is seeing how God put it all together and revealed it to us in His Word.
Salvation itself makes more sense when you see how God planned it out through the ages and literally revealed it in His Word.

[75. Mandi said the following at 9:29 AM on Jun 27:]

75

Haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but just wanted to say that at the Roman Catholic schools I went to growing up, they taught that the Scriptural account of creation was a myth. Even as a 12-year-old when I was first taught this, I understood that the Incarnation of Christ -- and the purpose for which He took on human flesh, to save us -- was baseless if Adam and Eve did not sin in the Garden of Eden. My teachers wouldn't have anything to say to the very basic question of why the Son of God would bother to come, die, and rise for us if Genesis was not true. The whole story of our salvation falls apart if the original events that triggered the need for access back into God's Kingdom never occurred.

It also reflects a disturbing attitude towards Scripture -- and towards our own "wisdom". Just because we don't understand something in Scripture by our limited logic, or can't see it, or have no paper trail for it, it doesn't mean it's not true. Some divine actions should just be left as mystery. Do we really understand how the mystery of how the Holy Spirit unites a man and woman to each other and God in marriage? Do we really understand how God could take on human flesh? Do we really understand how someone can rise from the dead by His own power, or raise others? Do we really understand how seas can part, bread can fall from the sky, 5 loaves and 2 fish can feed thousands (and have leftovers!)? Do we really understand how bread and wine can change to be the true Body and true Blood of our Lord, as He told us (note that this is very different from trying to de-mystify this by believing in the "transubstantiation")? We don't really understand any of these things. But if we believe the Scriptures to be God's Word, we shouldn't insist on "understanding" that which is above our limited logic because God is waaaay above and beyond our logic, and His acts reflect that.

Besides, Scripture itself tells us that the days weren't 24-hour days because the sun wasn't created on the first day, so we can have no problem believing the world to be millions of years old and that God created Adam from dust, and Eve from his side.

[76. alex said the following at 4:12 PM on Nov 7:]

76

dear ted

i very much appreciate your essay on this topic but must respectfully disagree. many christians feel that a beliefcreation and evolution CANNOT coexist. THIS IS NOT SO. i believe that God created the world and used evolution as one of his many tools. If you read the ACTUAL Evolutionary theor, not darwin, you will find that it does not talk about humans spontaneously evolving. it merely states the concept of the survival of the fittest; which is a hard scientific fact.

Also, the evolutionary theory coincided Perfectly with the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old does not allow room for dinosaurs and the ice age. (Both of which have been proven through fossils)

[77. natasha said the following at 6:20 PM on Nov 7:]

77

Hi Alex,

Hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I noticed your comment & on an impulse decided to respond. :)
Your comment contained a few problems & unclear bits.

1). You mentioned the "ACTUAL Evolutionary theor[y]". I was wondering what you would be referring to, since as far as I'm aware, there isn't a once-and-for-all absolute definition of evolution book that (all or even most) evolutionists agree on.

2). You said that this actual evolutionary theory doesn't say humans 'spontaneously evolved' but just
"merely states the concept of the survival of the fittest; which is a hard scientific fact."
Just so you know, even YECs (Young Earth Creationists) don't have a problem with natural selection, which is what I assume you're referring to. Actually natural selection fits in better with the creation model than it does with the evolutionary model because natural selection tends to be 'conservative'. What I mean by that is that the process of natural selection tends to eliminate anything that is less fit or different from the majority. This means that even if there were an information-gaining mutation that made an animal more fit to survive, it wouldn't be likely to pass on to further generations (and it would have to be a mutation that affected the chromosomes since that would be the only way it would be passed on)because it would be watered down & absorbed by the general population.
In other words, natural selection in itself isn't inherently pro-evolutionary evidence.

3). You said that "evolutionary theory coincided Perfectly with the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old does not allow room for dinosaurs and the ice age. (Both of which have been proven through fossils)"
a).Actually, you're putting the cart before the horse here. Evolutionary theory postulated that the earth was very very old & then tried to prove it. The methods used are extremely inaccurate (look up radiometric dating methods on Answers in Genesis & there are several good articles describing their faults) & are dependent on the presuppositions of the scientists using them.(I'm not saying that making a hypothesis and then trying to prove it is bad science- actually it's typical- but it wasn't like people went Oh look, we've discovered that the earth is really old- what could be the reason? I know! Evolution! It was evolutionary presuppositions that coloured the evidence. Evidence doesn't really speak for itself, it must be interpreted)
b). Also, a young age for the earth does not rule out the existence of dinosaurs or an ice age. YECs simply believe that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, instead of living ages before them and then dying out and then humans eventually appearing on the scene. As for the ice age, while evolutionists tend to state that there were several ice ages, there is only clear-cut evidence for one. That one ice age could very well have been a side effect of the global flood talked about in Genesis.

I don't mean to offend you or make you feel threatened in any way, so sorry if my post read that way to you.
I would suggest that you might want to do a bit more research on these topics, though. :)

[78. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:05 PM on Oct 6:]

78

Good topic. Jesus indeed accepted the Genesis creation and flood as real history.

Small point: since the organization I work for is now called Creation Ministries International, would you please cite the version of any of my articles from the CMI site, i.e. Variation and natural selection versus evolution.

[79. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:15 PM on Oct 6:]

79

Beth L (#56) has is back to front. Genesis was the original, and the pagan myths were the copies. See Genesis and ancient Near Eastern stories of Creation and the Flood: an introduction and Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic.

Genesis is most definitely not poetry, since it lacks parallelism. Rather, it has all the earmarks of history, such as the prevalence of waw-consecutive verbs. See Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history? Critique of the Framework Hypothesis.

It is also not a polemic, except that the truth is a polemic against error. Early church fathers used the real history of the sun being created on the fourth day after the vegetation as a polemic against sun worship. E.g. in the second century, Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, wrote in an apologetic work to the learned pagan magistrate Autolycus:

‘On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.’