Views on the Bible and Creation
Well, I think that last post on imputation was probably fairly incomprehensible, so I will proceed to the next topic I said some time ago that I would discuss. I wanted to mention some ideas about the creation / evolution controversy. I have been studying this issue seriously for a number of years, and the only real conclusion I have come to is that it is very complicated on every front. The science is complicated and so are the Biblical exegesis and theological discussions. Therefore, I advocate that churches allow discussion and a wide range of options as serious options for Evangelicals to believe, instead of only one. In many churches young earth creationism (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Duane Gish) is the only option. But we should recognize other options from old earth creationism (Gleason Archer, Hugh Ross) to theistic evolution (Howard Van Til, C. S. Lewis).
YEC’s (young earth creationists) are usually very intolerant of any other views. But one of the great ironies in theological writing comes in Henry Morris’s book the Genesis Flood which was largely responsible for the modern young earth creationism, flood geology movement. In the introduction to Genesis Flood, Morris speaks about how his scientific views are based on the Bible. He says, “We accept as basic the doctrine of the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, to which Benjamin B. Warfield has given admirable expression in the following words:”. And then he quotes a paragraph from Warfield about inerrancy. Why is this ironic? It is ironic because even with his belief in verbal inerrancy, Benjamin Warfield was a theistic evolutionist. He believed in macroevolution and the theory of Charles Darwin. He simply believed that God had created the process and worked providentially in making it happen.
Joshua Zorn is a missionary in
The ASA website in general is good and helpful. Another website that talks about different perspectives on science and the Bible is the Answers in Creation website:
http://www.answersincreation.org
posted by Donna at 11:49 PM
1 Comments:
Mark,
My brief thoughts (have spent about a month studying up on Gen 1-3 and the Creation Days debate)...
Honest YECs seem to admit that they believe their exegesis requires a young earth and 24-hr days and so seek to make the science 'fit'. (Some YECs have been quoted as admitting that no scientist they know would ever arrive at a young earth position on just the scientific evidence available.) IF the Scriptures do require such positions then, they are to be commended for their position - they are right that the the inerrant Word of God will ultimately stand any comparison to (uninspired/errant) theories from whatever source - however IF the Scriptures do NOT require a young universe or 24-hr days (which I believe they don't - there may be a long time between Gen 1:2 and Gen 1:3 and all the days of God's creation are related by analogy to man's work days (just like all admit that Ex20:11 requires an analogy between God's resting and ours (by the nature of the fact that God doesn't get sleepy - the rest cannot be identical with man's) and not identity), then the quirky science (as concensus seems to put it amongst most scientists, including believers) of the YECs in not actually doing anyone with a high view of Scripture any favours.
Of course any form of (macro)evolution or abiogenesis must be rejected as utterly incompatible with the whole of Gen 1-2 (2:7 by itself would be enough refute them), but when it come to the age of the universe, the Scripture does not give a figure though the creation of man cannot reasonably be much more than about 10-20,000 years according to the genealogies.) Likewise, for the length of the creation days - its hard to require days 1-6 to be 24-hrs when day 7 is everlasting (Heb 4:3-11) because his creation work is finished (Gen 2:1-2).
I think the analogical-days and Framework views (latter best on why you have a repeat of the separation of light and darkness on Day 4) offer the best explanations of the Creation week, though I don't completely rule out a 24-hr day view taken with the idea of a mature universe (which is possibly even strengthened by mainstream science's concept of the anthropic principle).
Most helpful on the subject for me have been Jack Collins' Science and Faith, (also available in Russian) and (even better I think) my own former professor's fairly new book: Vern Poythress' Redeeming Science (which is not only excellent but available free from his website http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/NAllPoythressRedeemingScience20061017.pdf He holds the analogical-day view like Collins but gives a strong case for mature creation.)
alister
Post a Comment
<< Home