There is one thing I’ve learned from going up in a church.  Christians like to argue a lot.  We argue about predestination.  We argue about what political party is “God ordained”.  Since coming to school this year, I’ve heard a lot of arguing about creation.  Was it created in 6 literal days or in 6 time periods?  Was it even created in any sort of order?  Did God simply begin a total evolutionary process?  Questions having to do with creation don’t stop there.

For a recent assignment I had to interview people about their views on creation.  The first person I interviewed was a family friend who has their Doctorate from Cambridge University in Old Testament Exegesis.  If anyone had creation figured out it was going to be this guy.  But when I interviewed him, he admitted that he could not tell me which creation view was correct.  He even said that he didn’t think it really mattered how God created the world.  This blew my mind.

The next person I interviewed was a family member who has studied the Bible but not at the college level or anything.  When I asked her what she thought about reconciling creation and science she answered, “The Gap Theory”.  I admitted to not knowing what the gap theory was.  She explained, “When you read Genesis 1:2 it says, “Now, the Earth was formless and empty…” I think the “now” emphasizes the idea that it hasn’t always been formless and empty.”  I asked her if she had looked up the original Hebrew and she said, “No.”  Then I pointed out that my translation did not use the word “now”.  She got very defensive and frustrated.

I don’t know if my family member’s view even accurately represents the Gap Theory.  However, I think an important lesson can be taken from these two interviews.  Knowledge and learning are important not so that we can simply know more and have “smarter” opinions on things but so that we can be humbled.  From my title you may think that I’m saying we shouldn’t ever discuss creation or strive to learn more about it.  That’s not it.  What I am saying is that we Christians spend way too much time focusing on minor differences when we should be coming together as a community, honoring our Lord.  The more we learn the more we realize how little we know.

52 comments
  1. Emily, great first post!

    I think that having spirited discussion /debate in the Church is ok provided it is respectful.

    I do have my stand on creationism (young earth) and some good reasons as to why I am. I originally, while in college and just starting off in ministry had an old earth stand. Where debate can be harmful in this arena is when we people from different camps can’t come together to speak with one voice that God did create.

    I think that is the strength of the Intelligent Design theory – it doesn’t go to the details of who it happened exactly just that God did it.

    The Case for a Creator is a great tool for both camps, as is, Expelled the Movie.

    Augustine of Hippo had a saying that applies here – “In the essentials unity. In the non-essentials liberty. In all things charity.”

  2. Emily, great first post!

    I think that having spirited discussion /debate in the Church is ok provided it is respectful.

    I do have my stand on creationism (young earth) and some good reasons as to why I am. I originally, while in college and just starting off in ministry had an old earth stand. Where debate can be harmful in this arena is when we people from different camps can’t come together to speak with one voice that God did create.

    I think that is the strength of the Intelligent Design theory – it doesn’t go to the details of who it happened exactly just that God did it.

    The Case for a Creator is a great tool for both camps, as is, Expelled the Movie.

    Augustine of Hippo had a saying that applies here – “In the essentials unity. In the non-essentials liberty. In all things charity.”

  3. Evolution is a natural process and your magic fairy didn’t have anything to do with it.

    Intelligent design is nothing more than an idiotic childish belief in magic.

    When a religious belief like magical creation conflicts with science, the religious belief must be thrown out because science will never accommodate Dark Ages stupidity.

    When religious people refuse to throw out a religious belief that conflicts with modern scientific discoveries, those people should not be surprised if scientists laugh at them.

  4. Evolution is a natural process and your magic fairy didn’t have anything to do with it.

    Intelligent design is nothing more than an idiotic childish belief in magic.

    When a religious belief like magical creation conflicts with science, the religious belief must be thrown out because science will never accommodate Dark Ages stupidity.

    When religious people refuse to throw out a religious belief that conflicts with modern scientific discoveries, those people should not be surprised if scientists laugh at them.

  5. The scientists are fortunate to have “religious” people praying for them instead of laughing at them. May God answer the prayers and open the eyes to see what has been evident since the Creation, and that is that there is a Creator.

  6. The scientists are fortunate to have “religious” people praying for them instead of laughing at them. May God answer the prayers and open the eyes to see what has been evident since the Creation, and that is that there is a Creator.

  7. Bob,

    Your verbiage is coming across a bit disrespectful. One thing to consider in this is the fact that historical fact/truth is not proven by repeatable scientific experimentation. Also, there have been “scientifically” proven theories that with more time and perspective have been completely debunked. The world is more complex than we often assume. Also, to be truly intellectually logical, honest, unbiased, and open minded one must not assume that the world is a completely closed system, which cannot be acted on from outside itself. Gotta go;)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  8. Bob,

    Your verbiage is coming across a bit disrespectful. One thing to consider in this is the fact that historical fact/truth is not proven by repeatable scientific experimentation. Also, there have been “scientifically” proven theories that with more time and perspective have been completely debunked. The world is more complex than we often assume. Also, to be truly intellectually logical, honest, unbiased, and open minded one must not assume that the world is a completely closed system, which cannot be acted on from outside itself. Gotta go;)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  9. Whatever you think of Bob’s words, the reality is that he is right. In more “normal” countries churches have learned to accept scientific truths. Somehow soem American Christians still believe in taking the bible literally, 6-day creation, flat earth etc… Without trying to be disrespectful, is this your education (or lack thereof)?

  10. Whatever you think of Bob’s words, the reality is that he is right. In more “normal” countries churches have learned to accept scientific truths. Somehow soem American Christians still believe in taking the bible literally, 6-day creation, flat earth etc… Without trying to be disrespectful, is this your education (or lack thereof)?

  11. You are missing the point of Emily’s article (by the way, good job, Emily!). I think she is trying to get us to remember the concept “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity”.

  12. You are missing the point of Emily’s article (by the way, good job, Emily!). I think she is trying to get us to remember the concept “In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity”.

  13. Noah brings up some good points. I do not believe blindly in creation, I do so because of science. Modern scientists sculpt alot of experiments and results to fit their theories. The same has been true of historians that have attempted to prove the Bible false saying that certain Biblical people/cities never lived only to have the remains of that city or some document unearthed to find the Bible was correct. In 1992 scientists unearthed dianosaur bones that contained red blood cells in them. Problem – couldn’t be as they wouldn’t be millions/billions (they still can’t agree onthat one) years old. They have since discovered this has been true with their finds from digs since. Why not before? They weren’t looking for it. Why don’t most people know? It blows their theories completely out the window and they can’t explain why they have what they have. I can – dinosaurs haven’t been gone as long as modern scientists think and if that bone was only a thousand years old the red blood cells are no problem. The bottom line is modern science is just as much a belief system as the science we held to be true for thousands of years prior. To think someone is uneducated because they believe in creationism is unjust and quite ignorant (in the literal way). It requires critical thinking to understand why you believe what you believe. Discussions like this are great for Christians because it forces us to give an arguement (not argue) for why we believe what we believe (to always have an answer ready). God doesn’t ask to us believe “blindly”. On the contrary, He gives us ever reason to be certain of what we believe. History and science classes are not enemies of God. As Christians we should not be afraid of discussions like these – it’s our opportunity to be salt and light for Him. Emily, great post.

  14. Noah brings up some good points. I do not believe blindly in creation, I do so because of science. Modern scientists sculpt alot of experiments and results to fit their theories. The same has been true of historians that have attempted to prove the Bible false saying that certain Biblical people/cities never lived only to have the remains of that city or some document unearthed to find the Bible was correct. In 1992 scientists unearthed dianosaur bones that contained red blood cells in them. Problem – couldn’t be as they wouldn’t be millions/billions (they still can’t agree onthat one) years old. They have since discovered this has been true with their finds from digs since. Why not before? They weren’t looking for it. Why don’t most people know? It blows their theories completely out the window and they can’t explain why they have what they have. I can – dinosaurs haven’t been gone as long as modern scientists think and if that bone was only a thousand years old the red blood cells are no problem. The bottom line is modern science is just as much a belief system as the science we held to be true for thousands of years prior. To think someone is uneducated because they believe in creationism is unjust and quite ignorant (in the literal way). It requires critical thinking to understand why you believe what you believe. Discussions like this are great for Christians because it forces us to give an arguement (not argue) for why we believe what we believe (to always have an answer ready). God doesn’t ask to us believe “blindly”. On the contrary, He gives us ever reason to be certain of what we believe. History and science classes are not enemies of God. As Christians we should not be afraid of discussions like these – it’s our opportunity to be salt and light for Him. Emily, great post.

  15. i am currently exploring this issue as objectively as a less scientifically-educated as possible. i have MANY questions and agree w/ Shane’s conclusions of being humbled as we explore these things.

    i am personally baffled by comments like your’s Bob. not by “magic fairy” or “childish belief” but by comments such as, bobxxxx says “People who believe in magical creation deserve no respect. Most of these uneducated people who call themselves creationists brainwash their children with their medieval nonsense, and if they had their way they would force biology teachers to brainwash everyone else’s children. ”

    why this is shocking to me is because you are doing the same thing. you are not idiotic and deserve respect but if you had your way you would force biology teachers to “brainwash” (to use your term–a better one may be indoctrinate) everyone else’s children. it is striking to me how religious your “scientific” language sounds! we must realize the reason we all wish to “brainwash” (or instruct/indoctrinate/teach) is because it is what we passionately believe.

    i honestly do not know my position on these issues right now and would welcome a few book suggestions from you as i seek to establish my belief, Bob.

    your science does seem lacking in these posts…as an admitted non-scientist, i would like u to scientifically explain to me your sensationalized, emotional defense of this issue please. it seems like you have as much faith in the processes of science, biology, genetic research, and geology as the many relious individuals zealously defending their positions. so can we be honest and put our presuppositions on the table when we come to it?

    i am a Christian and i am not ashamed to admit this while i am often ashamed at my failed expressions of what it means to be a follow of Jesus Christ. i have a lot of questions and doubts on this issue but i will continue to seek truth no matter how surprising it is to me.

    Bob, i empathize with your questions about Christianity, the Bible, God, “creation,” and science. it seems however that your foundational presupposition is less scientific, you can not imagine anyone having authority (let alone Supreme Authority) over your life other than yourself.

  16. i am currently exploring this issue as objectively as a less scientifically-educated as possible. i have MANY questions and agree w/ Shane’s conclusions of being humbled as we explore these things.

    i am personally baffled by comments like your’s Bob. not by “magic fairy” or “childish belief” but by comments such as, bobxxxx says “People who believe in magical creation deserve no respect. Most of these uneducated people who call themselves creationists brainwash their children with their medieval nonsense, and if they had their way they would force biology teachers to brainwash everyone else’s children. ”

    why this is shocking to me is because you are doing the same thing. you are not idiotic and deserve respect but if you had your way you would force biology teachers to “brainwash” (to use your term–a better one may be indoctrinate) everyone else’s children. it is striking to me how religious your “scientific” language sounds! we must realize the reason we all wish to “brainwash” (or instruct/indoctrinate/teach) is because it is what we passionately believe.

    i honestly do not know my position on these issues right now and would welcome a few book suggestions from you as i seek to establish my belief, Bob.

    your science does seem lacking in these posts…as an admitted non-scientist, i would like u to scientifically explain to me your sensationalized, emotional defense of this issue please. it seems like you have as much faith in the processes of science, biology, genetic research, and geology as the many relious individuals zealously defending their positions. so can we be honest and put our presuppositions on the table when we come to it?

    i am a Christian and i am not ashamed to admit this while i am often ashamed at my failed expressions of what it means to be a follow of Jesus Christ. i have a lot of questions and doubts on this issue but i will continue to seek truth no matter how surprising it is to me.

    Bob, i empathize with your questions about Christianity, the Bible, God, “creation,” and science. it seems however that your foundational presupposition is less scientific, you can not imagine anyone having authority (let alone Supreme Authority) over your life other than yourself.

  17. Bob,

    Being the administrator of this blog if you would like to continue to make comments here you will be respectful.

    What you don’t seem to understand Bob is that behind the “belief” in evolution comes a philosophy. Namely that there is no God who creates. Richard Dawkins for instance acknowledges intelligent design, but he credits instead crystals and possibly even aliens.

    Evolution falls short when it comes to our origins. All they can do is guess and they do so with their own presuppositions.

    Intelligent design looks at astronomy, molecular biology, etc. and through those means (and others) you see design. The premise that we went from amnio acids to protein to bacteria to complex structures doesn’t make sense and you have no proof either.

    I’ll be interested to hear the first time a scientist replicates something being made “ex nihilio”. Let me know if that ever happens.

    I think it takes more faith to belief a typical evolutionist’s ideas about our origins than it does to believe that there is intelligent design.

  18. Bob,

    Being the administrator of this blog if you would like to continue to make comments here you will be respectful.

    What you don’t seem to understand Bob is that behind the “belief” in evolution comes a philosophy. Namely that there is no God who creates. Richard Dawkins for instance acknowledges intelligent design, but he credits instead crystals and possibly even aliens.

    Evolution falls short when it comes to our origins. All they can do is guess and they do so with their own presuppositions.

    Intelligent design looks at astronomy, molecular biology, etc. and through those means (and others) you see design. The premise that we went from amnio acids to protein to bacteria to complex structures doesn’t make sense and you have no proof either.

    I’ll be interested to hear the first time a scientist replicates something being made “ex nihilio”. Let me know if that ever happens.

    I think it takes more faith to belief a typical evolutionist’s ideas about our origins than it does to believe that there is intelligent design.

  19. p.s. Shane thanks for your post–we do like to fight (amazingly, with everyone–on “our side”, on the “other” side, even with those who have no “side,”–crazy and sad!)

  20. p.s. Shane thanks for your post–we do like to fight (amazingly, with everyone–on “our side”, on the “other” side, even with those who have no “side,”–crazy and sad!)

  21. Wow, Bob thanks for your response. It seems you’re a bit upset, maybe I am wrong.

    How does that data prove that because more than one species holds identical DNA markers in identical locations in the genome of more than one species that they all derived from the same ancestor species? Knowledge of the average rate of mutations per generation gives “accurate estimates” of how long ago two species diverged from their common ancestor? Wait a second. First of all you are leaving room for time-table error as the language “average” and “accurate estimates” seem to suggest. Also, there is human error to take into consideration. Also, we must consider that this is not a closed system that cannot be acted on from outside itself. You have to admit it is a possibility even if in your view the possibility is slim. Also, there is a non sequitur taking place in your reasoning. Just because the average rate of mutations per generation gives us an estimated date…this is not evidential or “repeatable scientific experimental” proof that they find their origin in the same ancestor…or ancestor species. Also, there is a possibility that the data is flawed or not taking another factor or variable into consideration (which could throw your time proof completely out the window). Also, how does mutation take place…what provides the right condition and variables for a mutation to take place? Where did the matter come from to have genomes? Where did the genome come from? Seems there has to be some “magic” deep down inside your theory somewhere as well.

    Maybe I am too simple minded but it made me chuckle to read “average” and “accurate estimates” followed by 100% certain. First, you made a bit of a case for dating and time (which an old earth creationistic evolutionist like the layman C. S. Lewis or the thorough theologian B. B. Warfield would be very comfortable with), but you didn’t make a strong case for common ancestry which seems to leave room for God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Also, you have to admit if you are unbiased, that your data may actually be wrong. It’s a possibility.

    As a Christian I make dogmatic claims not “average” or “accurate estimate” claims. This is because I believe the Bible is the Word of God based on how historians verify historical fact, reliability of eye-witness testimony (there’s much more to this, however). The Bible teaches that the triune God had no beginning and He created all things out of nothing. There are young earth and old earth Christians…and based on your data you would fit well in the old earth camp if you believed the gospel and repented of your sin. If you could stop operating on a hermeneutic of suspicion consider these questions honestly. Just a bunch of thoughts;^)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  22. Wow, Bob thanks for your response. It seems you’re a bit upset, maybe I am wrong.

    How does that data prove that because more than one species holds identical DNA markers in identical locations in the genome of more than one species that they all derived from the same ancestor species? Knowledge of the average rate of mutations per generation gives “accurate estimates” of how long ago two species diverged from their common ancestor? Wait a second. First of all you are leaving room for time-table error as the language “average” and “accurate estimates” seem to suggest. Also, there is human error to take into consideration. Also, we must consider that this is not a closed system that cannot be acted on from outside itself. You have to admit it is a possibility even if in your view the possibility is slim. Also, there is a non sequitur taking place in your reasoning. Just because the average rate of mutations per generation gives us an estimated date…this is not evidential or “repeatable scientific experimental” proof that they find their origin in the same ancestor…or ancestor species. Also, there is a possibility that the data is flawed or not taking another factor or variable into consideration (which could throw your time proof completely out the window). Also, how does mutation take place…what provides the right condition and variables for a mutation to take place? Where did the matter come from to have genomes? Where did the genome come from? Seems there has to be some “magic” deep down inside your theory somewhere as well.

    Maybe I am too simple minded but it made me chuckle to read “average” and “accurate estimates” followed by 100% certain. First, you made a bit of a case for dating and time (which an old earth creationistic evolutionist like the layman C. S. Lewis or the thorough theologian B. B. Warfield would be very comfortable with), but you didn’t make a strong case for common ancestry which seems to leave room for God’s creation of Adam and Eve. Also, you have to admit if you are unbiased, that your data may actually be wrong. It’s a possibility.

    As a Christian I make dogmatic claims not “average” or “accurate estimate” claims. This is because I believe the Bible is the Word of God based on how historians verify historical fact, reliability of eye-witness testimony (there’s much more to this, however). The Bible teaches that the triune God had no beginning and He created all things out of nothing. There are young earth and old earth Christians…and based on your data you would fit well in the old earth camp if you believed the gospel and repented of your sin. If you could stop operating on a hermeneutic of suspicion consider these questions honestly. Just a bunch of thoughts;^)

    In Christ,
    Noah

  23. All of Bobxxxx’s comments have been marked as spam, so if you see people referring to him that is why. He did have comments here.

    It is ok if you disagree, but on this blog we will disagree respectfully.

  24. All of Bobxxxx’s comments have been marked as spam, so if you see people referring to him that is why. He did have comments here.

    It is ok if you disagree, but on this blog we will disagree respectfully.

  25. I have a hard time believing that evolution is any more of an “educated” view than intelligent design. Those believe that an intelligent design creation is like believing in magic, I pose a question to. Does it not make more sense to believe in an orderly creation by an intelligent designer or the Big Bang, a chance expansion from a hot, dense initial condition? And are not those who believe in a completely god-less, “scientific” view making exceptions to other scientific laws like the law of ‘Conservation of Energy’. There had to be something outside of time, larger than the universe that originally put into place the scientific laws and therefore created the universe.

    A quote from Blaise Pascal:
    “Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth. “

  26. I have a hard time believing that evolution is any more of an “educated” view than intelligent design. Those believe that an intelligent design creation is like believing in magic, I pose a question to. Does it not make more sense to believe in an orderly creation by an intelligent designer or the Big Bang, a chance expansion from a hot, dense initial condition? And are not those who believe in a completely god-less, “scientific” view making exceptions to other scientific laws like the law of ‘Conservation of Energy’. There had to be something outside of time, larger than the universe that originally put into place the scientific laws and therefore created the universe.

    A quote from Blaise Pascal:
    “Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth. “

  27. I simply loved this Emily:

    “The more we learn the more we realize how little we know.”

    It often is a reflection of humility to not always espouse a position or hold to narrow interpretations of scripture on things like how God created all things.. not that I would know anything about that – lol.

  28. I simply loved this Emily:

    “The more we learn the more we realize how little we know.”

    It often is a reflection of humility to not always espouse a position or hold to narrow interpretations of scripture on things like how God created all things.. not that I would know anything about that – lol.

  29. Good points Emily.

    I believe the discussions believers have amongst themselves is another form of “fellowship,” or at least can be as long as we show respect for the opinions of others and realize everyone can interpret scripture differently. And THIS is one subject where most participants do just that! 🙂 btw, I have NEVER seen anyone change sides regarding their stand coming in to a discussion on this subject. So discussions on this subject only tend to solidify our position and our opposition to the opposing view.

    Also, in ANY discussion of ANY subject, if the participants can’t agree on the BASIS of the subject, it is a waste of time. For example, if someone doesn’t believe in the Bible, it is useless using biblical references.

  30. Good points Emily.

    I believe the discussions believers have amongst themselves is another form of “fellowship,” or at least can be as long as we show respect for the opinions of others and realize everyone can interpret scripture differently. And THIS is one subject where most participants do just that! 🙂 btw, I have NEVER seen anyone change sides regarding their stand coming in to a discussion on this subject. So discussions on this subject only tend to solidify our position and our opposition to the opposing view.

    Also, in ANY discussion of ANY subject, if the participants can’t agree on the BASIS of the subject, it is a waste of time. For example, if someone doesn’t believe in the Bible, it is useless using biblical references.

  31. By accident I came across your post.
    I am always surprised when people are reluctant or even refuse to accept that some things are beyond our understanding. In your post(or anyway in this discussion)you are looking for an explanation and accept the writings from a book full of contradictions.
    Why don’t we/you accept that we don’t know. Full stop.

    Regards, Fred
    (agnostic and happy with it, The Netherlands, who has a preference for the mechanisms of the evolution)

  32. By accident I came across your post.
    I am always surprised when people are reluctant or even refuse to accept that some things are beyond our understanding. In your post(or anyway in this discussion)you are looking for an explanation and accept the writings from a book full of contradictions.
    Why don’t we/you accept that we don’t know. Full stop.

    Regards, Fred
    (agnostic and happy with it, The Netherlands, who has a preference for the mechanisms of the evolution)

  33. Emily,

    Where’s the love? You interviewed me too! Genesis 1 deals with functional existence baby! Not material matter! Check out John Walton’s NIV Application Commentary on Genesis everyone. I had Walton at Wheaton as part of my M.A. in Biblical Exegesis program.. He rocks the Anicient Near Eastern World and wows the exegetes. Text in the ANE context. That’s how we do it. (and oh, I gave up rabbit trail debates just so everyone knows, I learned that with a agrumentative undergrad degree in “Science and Religion”)

    Emily, maybe you were just waiting to pull out the big guns and the ace in the hole. Wise thinking kid. 😉

  34. Emily,

    Where’s the love? You interviewed me too! Genesis 1 deals with functional existence baby! Not material matter! Check out John Walton’s NIV Application Commentary on Genesis everyone. I had Walton at Wheaton as part of my M.A. in Biblical Exegesis program.. He rocks the Anicient Near Eastern World and wows the exegetes. Text in the ANE context. That’s how we do it. (and oh, I gave up rabbit trail debates just so everyone knows, I learned that with a agrumentative undergrad degree in “Science and Religion”)

    Emily, maybe you were just waiting to pull out the big guns and the ace in the hole. Wise thinking kid. 😉

  35. Nick!, Those two interviews were just soooo opposite extremes. Before I interviewed you, I had never thought about the idea that Genesis 1 was not just about material matter. It was wonderful. 🙂

    Fred,
    Actually, until about my sophomore year of high school I thought the same way as you. But I wrote a paper for a philosophy class and ended up going through all of the major world-views. Christianity was not only the one that gave me incredible purpose and deep peace but it was also the one I found to be most logical. Since I have put my faith in God, I am deeply reassured that it is true.

  36. Nick!, Those two interviews were just soooo opposite extremes. Before I interviewed you, I had never thought about the idea that Genesis 1 was not just about material matter. It was wonderful. 🙂

    Fred,
    Actually, until about my sophomore year of high school I thought the same way as you. But I wrote a paper for a philosophy class and ended up going through all of the major world-views. Christianity was not only the one that gave me incredible purpose and deep peace but it was also the one I found to be most logical. Since I have put my faith in God, I am deeply reassured that it is true.

  37. Emily,

    Congratulations. Personally I am not disturbed by not knowing my purpose (if any, let us be modest…)and to me this attitude is the “most logical”.

    So we have something in common 😉

    Fred (for you info: 67 years old)

  38. Emily,

    Congratulations. Personally I am not disturbed by not knowing my purpose (if any, let us be modest…)and to me this attitude is the “most logical”.

    So we have something in common 😉

    Fred (for you info: 67 years old)

  39. bobxxxx, Paul & Fred,

    I’m praying for you. Of the 3 I’m most impressed with Fred, who came back again.

    The main point most fail to understand in this discussion on Creation, is apart from the Bible, science is “theories, guesses and could be’s.”

  40. bobxxxx, Paul & Fred,

    I’m praying for you. Of the 3 I’m most impressed with Fred, who came back again.

    The main point most fail to understand in this discussion on Creation, is apart from the Bible, science is “theories, guesses and could be’s.”

  41. Nick, thanks for your thoughts and references to Walton. Anyone else have some texts to point me towards? I’ve read a lot of the young earth stuff, a little deism/theistic evolution/gap theories/etc. I am starting to get into some of the day/age, old earth creationism and really enjoying Hugh Ross (anyone have thoughtful criticisms of him or his positions? I’d love to hear them-seriously).

    Here’s a question I have with old earth creation – if all species didn’t necessarily occupy the planet during the same day (age) how do could death have entered the world through sin?

    >>I’ve heard some explain this away as death was present before sin (i.e. Gen. 2:17) but through sin death is now a direct consequence of sin. Not sure how that sits with me right now though…

    Please, anyone who holds this view or has studied it and sees major biblical flaws direct me toward resources or even include some of your views. Heck, if you have papers written on it for theses I’d love those too, I’m just trying to establish my position biblically.

    Thanks!

  42. Nick, thanks for your thoughts and references to Walton. Anyone else have some texts to point me towards? I’ve read a lot of the young earth stuff, a little deism/theistic evolution/gap theories/etc. I am starting to get into some of the day/age, old earth creationism and really enjoying Hugh Ross (anyone have thoughtful criticisms of him or his positions? I’d love to hear them-seriously).

    Here’s a question I have with old earth creation – if all species didn’t necessarily occupy the planet during the same day (age) how do could death have entered the world through sin?

    >>I’ve heard some explain this away as death was present before sin (i.e. Gen. 2:17) but through sin death is now a direct consequence of sin. Not sure how that sits with me right now though…

    Please, anyone who holds this view or has studied it and sees major biblical flaws direct me toward resources or even include some of your views. Heck, if you have papers written on it for theses I’d love those too, I’m just trying to establish my position biblically.

    Thanks!

  43. Tyler, one book that I thought was helpful (although young earth creationist) was Douglas Kelly’s “Creation and Change” published by Christian Focus. If you are exploring the old earth creationist view check out B. B. Warfield’s collected shorter writings on it in “Evolution, Science, & Scripture: Selected Writings” edited by Mark Noll and David Livingstone. Just a few references.

  44. Tyler, one book that I thought was helpful (although young earth creationist) was Douglas Kelly’s “Creation and Change” published by Christian Focus. If you are exploring the old earth creationist view check out B. B. Warfield’s collected shorter writings on it in “Evolution, Science, & Scripture: Selected Writings” edited by Mark Noll and David Livingstone. Just a few references.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

The Coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-13)

2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in…

Liberal Theology Resorts to Elaborate Shrugs

I know zero about Taylor Branch, let alone his theology.  I agree…

Featured Sermon: The Ultimate Essence of Evil from John Piper

John Piper: The ultimate essence of evil is the loss of taste for God as our all-satisfying life and joy, and the preference for other things above God himself.

Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication (2 Chronicles 6:12-42)

12 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the…