Creation Vs. Theistic Evolution

[Gabriel]

This poll is open to Reformed/Calvinist believers only. Not that we don't value other opinions, but for the purpose of this poll we would like Reformed/Calvinist opinions only.

 

[Holy Warrior]

Well, being of a somewhat scientific ilk, I used to believe in theistic evolution. However, I have grown in my faith over the past few years, and now lean towards a literal interpretation of Genesis. Why? Because I believe God is powerful enough to have done so, so it doesn't seem right to limit him to an unproven scientific theory.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter to me HOW God went about creating the universe; the important thing is that He DID.

Just my $0.02

 

[Gabriel]

Well said.

 

[theFijian]

Because I believe God is powerful enough to have done so....

This is surely not the issue, he is powerful enough to have done it in six seconds. No one here would dispute this.

At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter to me HOW God went about creating the universe; the important thing is that He DID.

I agree 100%. This debate takes up far too much time and space amongst Christians.

Andy

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Gabriel...Im Reformed in Denomination....so hope I was allowed to answer - cause I did.

Anyways, I believe in the literal translation...6 days. Why couldn't God do it? He coulda done it 6 hours had he chose to. We humans are so focused on 'time' we tend to hold God to our concept of it. I actually wonder why anyone who believes God is All Powerful - would question the literal translation...summing it up to be a 'parable' of some sort.

 

[Gabriel]

Gabriel...Im Reformed in Denomination....so hope I was allowed to answer - cause I did.

Anyways, I believe in the literal translation...6 days. Why couldn't God do it? He coulda done it 6 hours had he chose to. We humans are so focused on 'time' we tend to hold God to our concept of it. I actually wonder why anyone who believes God is All Powerful - would question the literal translation...summing it up to be a 'parable' of some sort.

Your 2 cents are always welcome!

 

[jazzbird]

I voted 'no.' I lean toward old earth creationism because I believe there is a lot of evidence in our world that suggests the earth is much older than 10,000 years. A literal six day creation isn't out of the question in my mind though. My belief has nothing to do with limiting God's power. He can create in whatever way He chooses.

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I don't think the argument is about limiting God's power, but do you take the creation story as laid out in Genesis to be literal, or figurative.

 

[jazzbird]

I don't think the argument is about limiting God's power, but do you take the creation story as laid out in Genesis to be literal, or figurative.

I only mentioned limiting God's power, because a couple posters in the thread seemed to imply that it is somehow putting a limit on God not to believe in a literal six days.

I believe that creation unfolded in the sequence described in Genesis. I'm just not convinced that it took place in six literal days.

 

[oworm]

I voted "dont know" But like Holywarrior its only important to me that He did!!!

 

[IHaveQuestions]

I voted no in the poll.

.
I believe that creation unfolded in the sequence described in Genesis. I'm just not convinced that it took place in six literal days.

The above statement does not disagree with scientific theory, evolution does indeed follow the story in Genesis (the order in which things happened)

Science describes how it happened, but Genesis describes why it happened

 

[ArchaDl]

I voted yes. I believe God could and did make it in the literal six days. However, all things being relative, so is a day. So i believe that God did make the earth, the universe and everything in it in literally six spaces of time He named a day. That way both the scientific and the creationist views of the problem can be explained.

 

[theFijian]

I voted No. The poll was unrepresentative of my views. A literalist framework and an old-earth are not mutually exclusive. Many people hold to an old-earth creationist view. ie. the world was created in 6 literal days but is not younger than 10,000 yrs old.

Andy

 

[Holy Warrior]

Fijian, I apologise, I didn't phrase myself very well earlier, so allow me to clarify.

Of course I believe that God could have created the universe in an instant if He chose to. What I meant was that if He chose to record it in the Bible as being done in six days, who are we to say otherwise?


I accept that the word translated 'day' here may mean an indefinite period, and I in no way want to offend anyone who doesn't hold to the literal six day creation, I'm merely giving my views on the subject. I just find it easier to go with the literal 'day,' as I don't see us ever finding conclusive proof that it was otherwise.

Peace!

 

[Bulldog]

I voted no, because I am a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Cal]

Fijian, I apologise, I didn't phrase myself very well earlier, so allow me to clarify.

Of course I believe that God could have created the universe in an instant if He chose to. What I meant was that if He chose to record it in the Bible as being done in six days, who are we to say otherwise?

I accept that the word translated 'day' here may mean an indefinite period, and I in no way want to offend anyone who doesn't hold to the literal six day creation, I'm merely giving my views on the subject. I just find it easier to go with the literal 'day,' as I don't see us ever finding conclusive proof that it was otherwise.

Peace!

Holy Warrior,

Please forgive me for butting in for a quick post. I just saw your post and I wanted to pass on a few thoughts that I have compiled on this subject.

Ok, I think the Word of God states plainly that God created everything in six day’s by simply commanding it to come into existence. “Excluding Genesis 1, whenever the word day is used in the bible with a number (over 400 times) it always means an ordinary day—there are no exceptions.”

“Whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used outside of Genesis 1 without the word day in the bible (38 times) it always means an ordinary day—no exception. Whenever the words ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are used individually with the word day in the bible (in fact 23 times each) outside of Genesis 1, the word day always means an ordinary day.”

“Whenever the word ‘night’ is used with the word day in the bible (52 times outside of Genesis 1) the word day always means an ordinary day. In other words, whenever the word day is used with a number, or with the words evening or morning, or with the word night, or whenever the phrase ‘evening and morning’ is used, outside of Genesis 1 in the bible the Hebrew word for day always means an ordinary day, or the phrase evening morning means an ordinary day.” Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020208_104.asp

In an effort to fear God by respecting His Word I find it very difficult to try to fit the Genesis account of creation of six morning and evening days into millions of years. I mean the millions of year’s concept was a concept of someone who did not fear God and had no respect for the Word of God.

Darwin said:

"...During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian....


....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine...." From the autobiography of Charles Darwin

Now why would I want to deviate from the Word of God in order to struggle to squeeze into the Word of God concepts originating from a man like this?

Scriptures call him a fool.

Have you heard of Answers In Genesis ministries? It's a great Creationist ministry made up of hundreds of PhD's from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. who say there is no evidence for evoultion and a lot of evidence for a literal six day young earth creation.

Pls check out the web link I provided, I think you might find it very interesting.

 

[Knight]

I voted yes.

I favor YEC because I believe it involves the least amount of conjecture on the part of Scripture. I'm not fanatical about it though.

 

[Holy Warrior]

Thanks Cal, that's what I was meaning. What you've said there is pretty much why I've revised my point of view to a creationist perspective. Looking at that site at the moment- very interesting!

 

[myutmost4him]

...evolution does indeed follow the story in Genesis (the order in which things happened)

Science describes how it happened, but Genesis describes why it happened

I agree with Genesis being heavy on the "why" and lighter on the "how" but there are facts and clues within the "why". Properly applied science can help describe how our world came into being and how it works, but not science based upon assumptions or clouded by bias. Part of the problem is that we are shown Evolution to be fact and touted to be well proven by sound scientific methods... this is taught from our schools, books, and other media. It's totally understandable that we grow up thinking Evolution to be a fact. The fact however is that Evolution is a theory which isn't getting any closer to being proven, in fact it's due for another big Neo-Darwinism re-think to fit more square pegs into round holes. More and more scientists are questioning Evolution's assumptions, many coming from an Evolutionist background who see the many faults in the theory they had assumed to be true. Does this mean everything Evolution teaches is false? By no means, there is a lot of high quality science within the theory and a lot of truth, but don't accept the whole just because of some of the parts.

As to whether or not the earth was created in 6 days ... I'm not sure. I don't know if we can fully comprehend creation, or time for that matter. How does God deal with time? I concur with the majority in that if God can create a universe then questioning the time frame seems a little bit trivial, although it's interesting to think about. I would lean towards a literal 6 days just because that's what the Bible says.

 

[hesalive]

I voted, but I do not acknowledge a denomination aside from a disciple of Christ. Hope my input is welcome. I feel that a literal reading of the Bible is the logical 1st choice until by the scriptures it is clearly shown to be figurative. To bypass the literal reading staight into figurative reading seems a slippery slope to me. Most of the opinions I have heard on this seem to suggest evidence outside of scripture to support the choice of a figurative reading. My convictions lead me to place Gods word as the only absolute truth we have available to us. Mans opinions are just that. They are not reliable.