Creationism, Darwinism and Natural History

[mark kennedy]

Francis Bacon has been called the father of modern inductive methodology, warned of a natural theology based on Scripture.

Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. (New Organon, Francis Bacon 1620)​

Darwinism and Creationism are both focused largely on natural history. Darwinism is one long argument against special creation, substituting 'natural law' rather then 'miraculous interposition' in his preface to On the Origin of Species:

In these works he (Lamarck) upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

The conflict for Christian's who believe the Bible to be the revelation of God concerning the true history of man this creates a real problem. The Scriptures are clear for instance that God created ex nihilo, that is by divine fiat the universe (Gen. 1:1); all living creatures (Gen. 1:21); and man (Gen. 1:27).

1) to create, shape, form

a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations​

(Strong's H1254 - bara')

My interest in the subject matter started shortly after becoming a Christian. I became interested in evidences for the Christian faith and by what means a believer could confirm the testimony of Scripture. I would eventually decide on the evidential approach to Christian Apologetics. I found this criteria used for the rules of evidence in courts for half a century

1. Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.
2. In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.
3. In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.
4. A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.
5. In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.
6. The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances.

(The Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf, 1783-1853)

The truth of the matter is that Creation is essential doctrine that no professing Christian is at liberty to deny. The question then become how much of natural history can be found in the pages of Scripture and what should we say to the Darwinian arguments against 'special creation'. I have deliberately left the discussion open ended because i know that these threads take on a life of their own. I will just start things off with this, the rules of evidence used by Simon Greenleaf were foundational to my approach to Christian Apologetics. I have long regarded Creation science as an experiment in evidential apologetics. I propose here to discuss how natural history is made clear based on the clear testimony of Scripture and informed by the Scientific Discoveries of the modern world.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Hi mark-

As a Theistic Evolution supporter, I will also affirm that God is the one doing the creating, hence the term "Evolutionary Creationism", which is interchangeable with Theistic Evolution. In fact, many Christians point out that they prefer terms with "Creationist" in them for "Theistic Evolution" because those terms make it explicit that it is God doing the creating. Another example is in the Zonderman book "Three views on Creation and Evolution", in which the Howard Van Till, in putting forth the Theistic Evolution side of the discussion, explains that he prefers and uses the term "Fully-Gifted Creationism". At the same time, I think it was good idea for you to use "Theistic Evolution" in your poll because that is a much more widely known term.

I mention all that to both support your choice of term as well as to support your point that to be Christian you have to see God as the one doing the creating (hence the "creationist" containting terms for theistic evoluiton.

I voted. It's good to see that as Christians we can disagree and still all come together in Christ.

Papias

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

'middle earth', progressive creationist. the earth is 10,000-200,000 years old, not YEC 6000 years old, and not OEC 4.6 billion years.

 

[mark kennedy]

'middle earth', progressive creationist. the earth is 10,000-200,000 years old, not YEC 6000 years old, and not OEC 4.6 billion years.

I agree that the earth may be very old, then again I'm not entirely convinced. Creation week doesn't start until Genesis 1:2, technically we don't know if the creation of the heavens and the earth happened 6,000 years ago or 10 billion, not that I think it's all that significant. No essential doctrine is associate with the age of the earth.

 

[miamited]

Hi Mark,

You stated: No essential doctrine is associate with the age of the earth.

I would add: Well, none other than the doctrine of believing God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark,

You stated: No essential doctrine is associate with the age of the earth.

I would add: Well, none other than the doctrine of believing God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I don't understand. The literary style is such that Genesis 1:1 is one account, the rest of Genesis 1 is the account of creation week and Genesis 2 is an expansion of the sixth day of creation, specifically the creation of man.

I am by no means convinced that Geology and Cosmology have made their case of an old earth or old universe. I have always been and will remain a young earth creationist by default. All I'm really saying is that even if the universe was created billions of years ago no doctrinal or theological issues are raised. With creation week it's a different story and with regards to the creation of Adam the doctrine of original sin is compromised beyond recognition.

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here but rest assured I am a young earth creationist who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture. I support and defend Genesis as the infallible Word of God, my point is simply that an old earth cosmology is irrelevant to origins theology. If you think otherwise I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey guys,

I wanted to let you all know that I have started a thread in the secular forum on the subject of Chimp/Human DNA.

Chimpanzee Genome

Thought I would mention it here in case some of you wanted to explore the scientific literature on the subject.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I agree that the earth may be very old, then again I'm not entirely convinced. Creation week doesn't start until Genesis 1:2, technically we don't know if the creation of the heavens and the earth happened 6,000 years ago or 10 billion, not that I think it's all that significant. No essential doctrine is associate with the age of the earth.

except that the TEs and evos need 4.6 billion years for evolution to work.
it cant happen on a young earth.

 

[Erth]

I do not see a Darwinist alternative on the poll. Did the maker of the poll automatically assume that anything involving the word "evolution" has to imply Darwinism, yes or no?

 

[mark kennedy]

except that the TEs and evos need 4.6 billion years for evolution to work.
it cant happen on a young earth.

That's simply not true, it's rare for evolution not to happen. As a matter of fact if you take all the birds, reptiles and mammals from the Ark about 4,000 years ago and they span out across the earth to be the millions of species that inhabit the globe, it requires adaptive radiation on a massive scale. Thus, evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

I do not see a Darwinist alternative on the poll. Did the maker of the poll automatically assume that anything involving the word "evolution" has to imply Darwinism, yes or no?

The poll isn't going to include all possible alternatives, it's not going to offer an option for structuralism or intelligent design either. Usually when those views emerge the individual will identify themselves in the post.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

That's simply not true, it's rare for evolution not to happen. As a matter of fact if you take all the birds, reptiles and mammals from the Ark about 4,000 years ago and they span out across the earth to be the millions of species that inhabit the globe, it requires adaptive radiation on a massive scale. Thus, evolution.

i dont believe in the biblical flood, or evolution.

 

[Calminian]

'middle earth', progressive creationist. the earth is 10,000-200,000 years old, not YEC 6000 years old, and not OEC 4.6 billion years.

10,000 is pretty darn young. You may be a closet YEC.

 

[Calminian]

I agree that the earth may be very old, then again I'm not entirely convinced. Creation week doesn't start until Genesis 1:2,....

I think the creation week starts in Genesis 1:1. 1:2 merely explains that they were created unformed and unfilled and then explains the process day by day of God forming and shaping them. But the creation of them is in verse 1.

Earth (or more precisely, land) is singled out as that is man's abode. But the process of the forming the heavens is also explained in verses 6-8. Specifically the stretching out of space (the expanse). Afterward, you have the formation of our planet, spoken in terms of land and sea. Makes sense, since our planet needed space to exist in its current form.

Then you have the filling of that space with heavenly bodies (stars, etc.), then came the filling of the earth.

But the key for me is the filling of the heavens with the stars on day 4. That followed the creation of space on day 2.

This is why, even if there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 it's meaningless and can't be characterized by time in any sense that we can comprehend, as it was prior to the creation of space.

IOWs, a gap between those two verses does't reconcile any scientific difficulties, as the expanse of heaven didn't even exist until day 2, and the galaxies until day 4.

Seems God created the universe is such as ways, that a miracle is the only possible explanation.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

10,000 is pretty darn young. You may be a closet YEC.

i don't rule out the many thousands of years, i think the older earth is more likely, but i reject the 4.6 billion years because i dont think the dating methods are reliable, and it would seem to be more of a philosophical reason to have that sort of age.
you can find that 'answers in genesis' have tested tree fossils in sedimentary rocks, and get carbon dates of about 20,000 years. they have also got carbon dates for dino bones of about 10,000 years.

i know that carbon dates aren't that reliable, but it seems to be more reliable than the other dating methods.. at least for fairly recent age material.

i think there's more going on with genesis 1. god separating the light from the darkness is talking about the separation of two separate realms; this universe and the abyss.

 

[Calminian]

i don't rule out the many thousands of years, i think the older earth is more likely, but i reject the 4.6 billion years because i dont think the dating methods are reliable, and it would seem to be more of a philosophical reason to have that sort of age.
you can find that 'answers in genesis' have tested tree fossils in sedimentary rocks, and get carbon dates of about 20,000 years. they have also got carbon dates for dino bones of about 10,000 years.

i know that carbon dates aren't that reliable, but it seems to be more reliable than the other dating methods.. at least for fairly recent age material.

I think we'd agree, that some of these methods are based on certain assumptions that may not be true, or at least not true all the time. And I would agree that philosophy plays a huge role.

i think there's more going on with genesis 1. god separating the light from the darkness is talking about the separation of two separate realms; this universe and the abyss.

Yeah, but that what justification do we have for applying such an arbitrary meaning? I mean it basically says as straightforward as possible that these days consisted of day/night morning/evening.

Concepts of realms would have been easy enough to convey if the writer wanted to.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Yeah, but that what justification do we have for applying such an arbitrary meaning? I mean it basically says as straightforward as possible that these days consisted of day/night morning/evening.

to me, separating the light from the darkness dosn't sound like having a day and then a night. i think the basic idea behind genesis 1 is the sumerian cosmology, but there is like an overlay of ideas. i don't read it as being accurate and literal, but rather ideas framed around the cosmology that was familiar to the ancients.
the separation of water is part of the sumerian cosmology, and there's no way to try and place that into what really happened, and i havn't heard anyone try to do that.
unless perhaps some people saying that it's the water canopy above. which might be true, as they found that air got from amber is more dense than air today; a hyperbaric atmosphere, which explains why so much was supersize at one time.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think the creation week starts in Genesis 1:1. 1:2 merely explains that they were created unformed and unfilled and then explains the process day by day of God forming and shaping them. But the creation of them is in verse 1.

I studied Genesis years before I got into these debates. What I was getting is that the entire narrative is from the perspective of the 'face of the earth' or the surface of the world as the events transpired:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)​

When God is creating the land masses and the separation of water from sky, land from water...etc, God is still creating but it's not the 'bara' creation, it's from some previously existing material. This is used in the creation account only of the original creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), the creation of living creatures (Gen. 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:27). The only doctrinal relevance is God as Creator obviously since he is the primary mover (first cause) of all creation (Romans 1:18-21, Hebrews 1:1, John 1:1).

The discussion in Romans 5 specifically identifies Adam as the one who brought sin into the human condition.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12)​

So their are two doctrines inextricably linked to the creation, life and original sin. When looking at evolution as natural history I found a strong contradiction between what the secular world was saying and what the New Testament establishes as sound doctrine. No where in the New Testament is there the slightest allusion to the age of the earth. That is what I mean when I say it's not important, the earth and the universe can be very old and it has no bearing on Christian theism whatsoever. Creation and original sin are entirely different matters.

Earth (or more precisely, land) is singled out as that is man's abode. But the process of the forming the heavens is also explained in verses 6-8. Specifically the stretching out of space (the expanse). Afterward, you have the formation of our planet, spoken in terms of land and sea. Makes sense, since our planet needed space to exist in its current form.

The picture is one of darkness and water covering the earth. God separates the sky from the land, land from the water...etc, to prepare the surface of the earth for life. Like I said, the perspective of the narrative is from the surface of the earth.

Then you have the filling of that space with heavenly bodies (stars, etc.), then came the filling of the earth.

But it doesn't say that, it simply says that, 'God made the stars also'. If God were creating the sun, moon and stars during creation week it seems reasonable that the writer would indicate that by using 'bara'. That's not what I think is going on there, I think they were already created just as the earth was already created. When the earth is prepared for life the sunlight as well as the moon and stars finally can be seen from the surface.

While I don't by the mantra of TEs and other critics that it's all figurative, the fact is that figurative language is the literary style. That is, at least, what I am getting from the text.

But the key for me is the filling of the heavens with the stars on day 4. That followed the creation of space on day 2.

If God has already created the heavens and the earth then they are already filled with celestial objects.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? (Job 38:6=11)​

This is another account of creation, the foundational construction of the earth in preparation for life. The picture is thick clouds and water covering the face of the earth. When the spirit hovers over the surface it's covered in water and darkness. On day 4 the stars emerge as we see them today, not that they didn't exist before day 4 but because they couldn't be seen clearly, if at all.

This is why, even if there is a gap between 1:1 and 1:2 it's meaningless and can't be characterized by time in any sense that we can comprehend, as it was prior to the creation of space.

Creation week is an expansion of the account in Genesis 1. Scholars are pretty much agreed that there are two accounts there, one is general and the other more specific so the distinction exists naturally in the text. The fact that no major doctrine is effected means that what cosmologists and geologists are telling us about the age of the earth is irrelevant to the clear testimony of Scripture.

It's like contradictions in the New Testament regarding the order of events, specifically, who entered the tomb first. In places the accounts contradict one another but it has no real bearing on the theology. Now if one account says he was found alive and the other says he was dead, well, there's a problem.

IOWs, a gap between those two verses does't reconcile any scientific difficulties, as the expanse of heaven didn't even exist until day 2, and the galaxies until day 4.

I'm simply telling you that for me it was never a problem to being with.

Seems God created the universe is such as ways, that a miracle is the only possible explanation.

Agreed

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, but that what justification do we have for applying such an arbitrary meaning? I mean it basically says as straightforward as possible that these days consisted of day/night morning/evening.

to me, separating the light from the darkness dosn't sound like having a day and then a night. i think the basic idea behind genesis 1 is the sumerian cosmology, but there is like an overlay of ideas. i don't read it as being accurate and literal, but rather ideas framed around the cosmology that was familiar to the ancients.
the separation of water is part of the sumerian cosmology, and there's no way to try and place that into what really happened, and i havn't heard anyone try to do that.
unless perhaps some people saying that it's the water canopy above. which might be true, as they found that air got from amber is more dense than air today; a hyperbaric atmosphere, which explains why so much was supersize at one time.

This whole concept of the Genesis account being derived from the Sumerian Cuneiform tablets, or from that culture seems absurd to me. One of the most significant evidences for the credibility and authenticity of the Scriptures is that they have been in the care of the cultures that produced them their entire history. The Cuneiform tablets and the language used is a dead language from a dead culture. The Hebrew and Christian cultures and communities have endured down through the centuries preserving them with meticulous care.

Any resemblance of ancient clerics of the creation or the flood simply reflect a common event, well known at the time and to this day.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

this is what i believe at the moment, until i get some better evidence. the creation myths are passed on from one culture to another, otherwise you'd have something more like modern cosmology; it could have been simplified down to its basics.
i see genesis 1 describing a disc that comes out of the primordial ocean, another disc of water, after the waters have been separated. there is a dome on top, of solid brass, and under the dome is placed the sun, moon and stars. above the dome is the upper waters, and in the dome are windows that let the rain out; the gates of heaven.

this model is still believed by the flat earth society. who knows, perhaps the earth is a flat disc surrounded by ice, but i doubt it. i think that bits of the NT and OT still have a flat earth understanding; Revelation and Daniel.

but much of the OT has God stretching out the heavens; that isn't part of the same genesis 1 model, as some atheist critics claim.