Does evolutionary creationism fit within a conservative evangelical perspective?

[Splayd]

One of the big problems for literalists is that they've positioned evolution as diametrically opposed to christianity. The problem arises when their children recognise the science and consequently reject their faith.

Personally, the creation story has never been a big issue for me. While I have always believed it to be an inerrant account of history... I still saw many ways to interpret it without questioning the validity of the account, so I've never bothered investing much into the issue of whether or not the earth is young or old and/or whether or not evolution had a part to play. I just figured it was better to accept the literal understanding, but allowed room for alternate explainations.

Until this week i would have argued for the "possibility" of evolution "within a species" but against the possibility of evolution from one species to another and especially not to man. I don't see room for that from a plain reading. As I said, I was never particularly invested in the issue, so I just assumed there was room for my perspective within religion and science.

Now... I've actually had a look at the science and I can see that disputing it is just silly. The science is pretty solid and I suspect we're really doing our children and the church a serious disservice by insisting they ignore it.

So... my question is:

Are there others here that were able to reconcile the science with their conservative evangelical perspective or do I need to prepare myself for a major paradigm shift that might take me away from the church I call home?

 

[Papias]

Yes, what you've articulated is the why I think that creationism is the single greatest gift atheism has ever been given.


I think evangelical Christianity fits very well with evolution, and that evolution strengthens the Christian message. You might enjoy the biologos foundation: The BioLogos Forum


Papias

 

[Splayd]

Thanks papias! I am enjoying the link.

 

[gluadys]

One of the big problems for literalists is that they've positioned evolution as diametrically opposed to christianity. The problem arises when their children recognise the science and consequently reject their faith.

Personally, the creation story has never been a big issue for me. While I have always believed it to be an inerrant account of history... I still saw many ways to interpret it without questioning the validity of the account, so I've never bothered investing much into the issue of whether or not the earth is young or old and/or whether or not evolution had a part to play. I just figured it was better to accept the literal understanding, but allowed room for alternate explainations.

Until this week i would have argued for the "possibility" of evolution "within a species" but against the possibility of evolution from one species to another and especially not to man. I don't see room for that from a plain reading. As I said, I was never particularly invested in the issue, so I just assumed there was room for my perspective within religion and science.

Now... I've actually had a look at the science and I can see that disputing it is just silly. The science is pretty solid and I suspect we're really doing our children and the church a serious disservice by insisting they ignore it.

So... my question is:

Are there others here that were able to reconcile the science with their conservative evangelical perspective or do I need to prepare myself for a major paradigm shift that might take me away from the church I call home?

Some of these issues have been discussed from an evangelical perspective on Evangelical Evolution Blog. You might find them interesting.

An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: Welcome to the Dialogue

I agree with Papias. I think young-earth creationism has been a gift to atheism. We need to remove this millstone from the church's neck.

As to whether you will need to change churches, that will depend more on how tolerant others in your congregation are than on you. I love the vibrant worship in evangelical churches. And most of the time evolution is not an issue.

 

[myshkin]

I agree with you and Papias about YEC theology. It can be so uncompromisingly held up against "science", and if or when children of YECs attend schools or universities of higher learning they either shy away from what is accepted, or are pushed into the arms of agnosticism or atheism.

I will recommend one book for you. Co-authored by a Lutheran and a biologist and Catholic, so it may not be exactly what you are looking for, but still it might point you in the right direction.

The book is called: Can You Believe in God and Evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed

It is a short book and I can recommend it. You can find it on amazon (I'm not able to provide you with a link)

God bless,

 

[Satt]

There was an angelic earth age before this one that was laid waste before the YEC creation account. It was probably around for millions or billions of years.

 

[Mr Dave]

There was an angelic earth age before this one that was laid waste before the YEC creation account. It was probably around for millions or billions of years.

I've not heard that one before, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[Satt]

I've not heard that one before, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

There would be so much to talk about, but here is a link to a site I like...

24. The Pre-Adamic Age – The Age of Angels

 

[shernren]

Even in The Fundamentals (yes, the series that fundamentalism was named for) James Orr says this:

You say there is the "six days" and the question whether those days are meant to be measured by the twenty-four hours of the sun's revolution around the earth — I speak of these things popularly. It is difficult to see how they should be so measured when the sun that is to measure them is not introduced until the fourth day. Do not think that this larger reading of the days is a new speculation. You find Augustine in early times declaring that it is hard or altogether impossible to say of what fashion these days are, and Thomas Aquinas, in the middle ages, leaves the matter an open question. To my mind these narratives in Genesis stand out as a marvel, not for its discordance with science, but for its agreement with it.
​

Evangelical Christianity has not had issue with the antiquity of the Earth for the past century and a half. It has been only slightly more jittery with the idea of biological evolution.

The doctrines you will have to work through the most are the doctrines of original sin and (not as drastically) of inspiration. On the second count, it has been understood for quite a while even among conservatives that God accommodates the giving of Scripture to the fallible understanding of man, so it is really only the question of man's biological origins that you have to struggle with.

 

[artybloke]

Some of these issues have been discussed from an evangelical perspective on Evangelical Evolution Blog. You might find them interesting.

An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: Welcome to the Dialogue

I agree with Papias. I think young-earth creationism has been a gift to atheism. We need to remove this millstone from the church's neck.

As to whether you will need to change churches, that will depend more on how tolerant others in your congregation are than on you. I love the vibrant worship in evangelical churches. And most of the time evolution is not an issue.

I found this fascinating. As a non-evangelical, I found the occassional flashes of evangelical superiority complex somewhat irritating, but on the whole, very interesting.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Does evolutionary creationism fit within a conservative evangelical perspective?

No.

 

[Schroeder]

One of the big problems for literalists is that they've positioned evolution as diametrically opposed to christianity. The problem arises when their children recognise the science and consequently reject their faith.

Personally, the creation story has never been a big issue for me. While I have always believed it to be an inerrant account of history... I still saw many ways to interpret it without questioning the validity of the account, so I've never bothered investing much into the issue of whether or not the earth is young or old and/or whether or not evolution had a part to play. I just figured it was better to accept the literal understanding, but allowed room for alternate explainations.

Until this week i would have argued for the "possibility" of evolution "within a species" but against the possibility of evolution from one species to another and especially not to man. I don't see room for that from a plain reading. As I said, I was never particularly invested in the issue, so I just assumed there was room for my perspective within religion and science.

Now... I've actually had a look at the science and I can see that disputing it is just silly. The science is pretty solid and I suspect we're really doing our children and the church a serious disservice by insisting they ignore it.

So... my question is:

Are there others here that were able to reconcile the science with their conservative evangelical perspective or do I need to prepare myself for a major paradigm shift that might take me away from the church I call home?

i did the research and it only confirmed my view that the theory of evolution wasnt plausible, so i guess its all in how you see it. evolution is fact the theory is not. the two are not the same at all. the theory uses evolution and many other ideas to make the plausibility of life from one ancestry. but no science has made the conclusion or proven that one class could evolve into another. as in a fish to amphipian to reptile to mammal. (class might not be the right term) been awhile since i spoke of this stuff.

 

[Schroeder]

Some of these issues have been discussed from an evangelical perspective on Evangelical Evolution Blog. You might find them interesting.

An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: Welcome to the Dialogue

I agree with Papias. I think young-earth creationism has been a gift to atheism. We need to remove this millstone from the church's neck.

As to whether you will need to change churches, that will depend more on how tolerant others in your congregation are than on you. I love the vibrant worship in evangelical churches. And most of the time evolution is not an issue.

this is a dumb argument. Got nothing to do with why one does or doent accept Christ. Our faith has not a thing or barely a thing to do with how things came to be. only way it would be a millstone is using stupid arguments as this to make one side right or wrong. MORALS is what is important to the Church. and love and Christ is the way the truth and the life and there is no other way to God. the millstone is denying this. this argument is just what it is an argument or disagreement, not the important in the long run.

 

[Schroeder]

There would be so much to talk about, but here is a link to a site I like...

24. The Pre-Adamic Age – The Age of Angels

hey went to site pretty interesting. agree with a lot of it. i could liver with there creation idea. dont think any of these theistic folks could though. their faith only goes so far. science trumps all then they fit theology in. though their idea of a pre-adamic age could be wrong. it could be right. some things we just dont know nor need to at this time. But it doesnt sound to far fetched to me. But anyways the book i will read. interesting if anything. nothing wrong with looking into different ideas and views. thats how we grow in knowledge.

 

[shernren]

hey went to site pretty interesting. agree with a lot of it. i could liver with there creation idea. dont think any of these theistic folks could though. their faith only goes so far. science trumps all then they fit theology in. though their idea of a pre-adamic age could be wrong. it could be right. some things we just dont know nor need to at this time. But it doesnt sound to far fetched to me. But anyways the book i will read. interesting if anything. nothing wrong with looking into different ideas and views. thats how we grow in knowledge.

Yeah, heaven forbid that Schroeder be a theist!

 

[rgpeach10]

I've been having a considerable problem recently reconciling my belief in evolution with my strong Christian faith. I've been a theistic evolutionist for years now but for some reason this year it hit me again, that evolution makes a belief in a literal Adam and Eve VERY hard. I'm fine with Genesis 1, there is ton of skepticism around that passage over the centuries. However, Adam and Eve are important theologically it seems to me. Without original sin, how do we explain Jesus' ministry and Paul's interpretation of Adam vs Jesus?

Is there anyone here who can tell me how to cope with this? I like to believe that my calling is to evangelize to atheists and agnostics which I do with the BCM a lot at my college, but I feel like this hurts my ministry because all I can say is that I know the Bible to be literally wrong about the scientific account of creation, early history (Gen 1-11), and Adam and Eve (that doesn't help ones ministry very much).

Oh and I've studied arguments on this for years, but maybe I just haven't found any answers that were specific enough to my situation. And they all seem watered down. Not many of my friends are theistic evolutionists, and the ones that are aren't very educated on the topic. It seems like to me this requires a less stringent interpretation of the Bible, but I don't feel comfortable and wouldn't be accepted at my Baptist ministry if I said the Bible wasn't completely inerrant and infallible. Maybe a forum will help

 

[Keachian]

Have a look at the interpretation of Gen 1 in regards to temple creation, now on Adam it rewllybdepends on how you start to view how God interfered with humanity to set it up, one belief that I'm currently leaning towards God breathing out his spirit similar to what happened on pentecost, but as for original Sin, Adam is representative of humanity as a whole Paul speaks about this in Rom7. Sin apart from he Law lies dead, when the command came Sin took chance, Adam in my view is more of an Archetype of who we are and that is sinful as a whole

 

[Assyrian]

I've been having a considerable problem recently reconciling my belief in evolution with my strong Christian faith. I've been a theistic evolutionist for years now but for some reason this year it hit me again, that evolution makes a belief in a literal Adam and Eve VERY hard. I'm fine with Genesis 1, there is ton of skepticism around that passage over the centuries. However, Adam and Eve are important theologically it seems to me. Without original sin, how do we explain Jesus' ministry and Paul's interpretation of Adam vs Jesus?

Is there anyone here who can tell me how to cope with this? I like to believe that my calling is to evangelize to atheists and agnostics which I do with the BCM a lot at my college, but I feel like this hurts my ministry because all I can say is that I know the Bible to be literally wrong about the scientific account of creation, early history (Gen 1-11), and Adam and Eve (that doesn't help ones ministry very much).

Oh and I've studied arguments on this for years, but maybe I just haven't found any answers that were specific enough to my situation. And they all seem watered down. Not many of my friends are theistic evolutionists, and the ones that are aren't very educated on the topic. It seems like to me this requires a less stringent interpretation of the Bible, but I don't feel comfortable and wouldn't be accepted at my Baptist ministry if I said the Bible wasn't completely inerrant and infallible. Maybe a forum will help

Personally I prefer inspired rather than inerrant, but I don't think that is the issue here. The problem theologically with Adam, is that when our theology was being thought out by people like Augustine, the explanations and understandings were built around their literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, and his literal understanding of what Paul said about Adam. This is where Augustine got his idea of Original Sin, a phrase that isn't actually mentioned in the bible. And of course Luther and Calvin got their ideas of Original Sin and the Fall from Augustine. What if instead of discussing the history of the fall, Paul was actually speaking allegorically, Adam was a figure of the one who was to come Rom 5:14, using the story of Adam as an allegorical illustration of Christ rather than teaching Jesus came to save us from the sin of Adam?

Alternatively you can keep the theology of the fall and go with Adam as federal head, not the first human being but the first human God made a covenant with.

 

[artybloke]

You know something? In the end, I couldn't care less if it does or it doesn't. Conservative evangelicalism is but a tiny insignificant part of Christianity.

 

[Schroeder]

I've been having a considerable problem recently reconciling my belief in evolution with my strong Christian faith. I've been a theistic evolutionist for years now but for some reason this year it hit me again, that evolution makes a belief in a literal Adam and Eve VERY hard. I'm fine with Genesis 1, there is ton of skepticism around that passage over the centuries. However, Adam and Eve are important theologically it seems to me. Without original sin, how do we explain Jesus' ministry and Paul's interpretation of Adam vs Jesus?

Is there anyone here who can tell me how to cope with this? I like to believe that my calling is to evangelize to atheists and agnostics which I do with the BCM a lot at my college, but I feel like this hurts my ministry because all I can say is that I know the Bible to be literally wrong about the scientific account of creation, early history (Gen 1-11), and Adam and Eve (that doesn't help ones ministry very much).

Oh and I've studied arguments on this for years, but maybe I just haven't found any answers that were specific enough to my situation. And they all seem watered down. Not many of my friends are theistic evolutionists, and the ones that are aren't very educated on the topic. It seems like to me this requires a less stringent interpretation of the Bible, but I don't feel comfortable and wouldn't be accepted at my Baptist ministry if I said the Bible wasn't completely inerrant and infallible. Maybe a forum will help

maybe just maybe the theory of evolution is wrong. evolution is true and a fact things change over time. BUT the theory of it all coming from one single ancestry is not true. so maybe look into this thinking again. you should guestion what you believe anyways to test its strength. So look at it from a completely different angle.