Quick Question

[AngieBaby77]

Is there a difference between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution? And if so, what is it?

Thanks!

Angela

 

[Jase]

Yes, Old Earth Creationists fall under the typical "Creationist" category. They believe the Earth is very old ( as opposed to the less than 10,000 year Young Earth Creationist view), but they are just as opposed to evolutionary theory.

Theistic evolutionists basically accept all of mainstream scientific theories, while still maintaining a belief in God and religious doctrine.

 

[gluadys]

Is there a difference between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution? And if so, what is it?

Thanks!

Angela

Very much so. Depending on whether they are Day-Agers or Gappers, Old EArth Creationists will either spread the "days" of Genesis over the whole period of geological history or consider that what happened prior to the days of Genesis is basically unknown to us other than that it ended in some sort of catastrophe that ruined the earth.

In the latter view, the creation in Genesis did occur recently just as in the Young-Earth view.

In the Day-Age version, the creation of plants and animals could have occurred over a long stretch of time, but it would involve the direct creation of species, not evolution, and the creation of humanity would also be direct and recent, not a matter of evolution over the last 2-5 million years.

A view which combines a bit of both of these is catastrophism which holds that God has created species several times, with each age ending in a catastrophe that destroyed most, if not all life forms.

So theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists agree on the age of the earth, but not much else.

 

[shernren]

In terms of biology, the most obvious difference is that OECs will posit fundamental biological discontinuities where TEs don't. For example, they would propose that "an amphibian cannot evolve into a reptile" or "a bird cannot evolve from a dinosaur" or something such. They also tend more towards the ID style of argumentation than YECs.

 

[Assyrian]

I think there are fundamental differences within OEC. I have much more time for Hugh Ross who sees his role as teaching the church about how wrong YEC is, and People like Dembski who feel called to fight evolution.

I really don't understand what Old Earthers have against evolution other than a gut level cultural reaction that it is an evil atheist conspiracy. Once you understand the age of the earth does not contradict the bible there is nothing in the bible that says God could not have used evolution to create all the different species.

 

[AngieBaby77]

I guess my question isn't just a "quick question." I am a bit confused as to where I fit in.

I believe in an old earth, and in micro (not macro) evolution. As in, creatures can evolve within their kind. I don't know if that makes me a TE or on OEC but perhaps it doesn't matter, I think I'm still in the right area!

Thanks
Angela

 

[Mallon]

I believe in an old earth, and in micro (not macro) evolution. As in, creatures can evolve within their kind. I don't know if that makes me a TE or on OEC but perhaps it doesn't matter, I think I'm still in the right area!

Welcome, Angela!
You sound like an old earth creationist to me. Evolutionary creationists (theistic evolutionists) are accepting of evolution, including common decent. We don't recognize the existence of "kinds" because there is nothing to suggest such things exist.

 

[Assyrian]

While in the bible, the word only seems to mean different sorts of animals, it doesn't have the meaning of fixed biological categories that were commanded to 'reproduce according to their kind' as some creationist websites put it. That is not in the bible

 

[shernren]

I guess my question isn't just a "quick question." I am a bit confused as to where I fit in.

I believe in an old earth, and in micro (not macro) evolution. As in, creatures can evolve within their kind. I don't know if that makes me a TE or on OEC but perhaps it doesn't matter, I think I'm still in the right area!

Thanks
Angela

Don't worry, it's not like we're some kind of Mafia where we have different guerilla wings of the same faith with different initiation rites ...

If you're a TE, you will put your hand on your head and promise three times daily never to deny the resurrection.

If you're an OEC, you will cross your heart and hope to die if you ever think one day in Genesis 1 literally means one thousand years.

If you're a YEC, you will swear upon the Bible to check Talk.Origins for a rebuttal every time you post a creationist argument.

If you're a gap theorist, you will hide all the scissors in your house so that you don't actually make a real cut between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

If you're a geocentrist, go outside and stare at the sun until your eyes bleed.

And if you ever find yourself in the wrong wing, you must do a hundred push-ups, recite Romans 7 ("For I know not what I do") twenty times from memory, and ask for absolution at the nearest church of a different denomination to the one you're currently visiting.

Doesn't work like that, dear. We're all here to talk about what we believe and what we accept about the origins of certain things, even if we're not exactly sure where we fall. (And believe me, we fall quite often. ) But yes. Don't be too concerned about what exactly you are, we won't ask you to wear a silly name tag every time you say something. Just read everything posted here - whether you agree with it or not - with an open mind, and have a bit of a thick skin if you ever step up to the plate to disagree with someone, and continually pray for the strength to survive here and the grace to post well even when everyone else isn't.

Then you'll be in the right place!

 

[gluadys]

I guess my question isn't just a "quick question." I am a bit confused as to where I fit in.

I believe in an old earth, and in micro (not macro) evolution. As in, creatures can evolve within their kind. I don't know if that makes me a TE or on OEC but perhaps it doesn't matter, I think I'm still in the right area!

Thanks
Angela

Well the whole macro-evolution thing is a red herring anyway, since it is badly misrepresented in anti-evolution literature.

By macro-evolution, scientists mean the production of new species. This has been observed so we know it happens. But if you go to a site that describes some of these observed speciations you will find they are talking about things like
--a new species of fruit fly
--a new species of sunflower
--a new species of mouse
--a new species of salamander
--a new species of flavobacteria
etc.

The new species is always a new species within an already established group of living things. It doesn't change into something from another group, like a sunflower changing into a buttercup or a mouse changing into a bat.

Most creationists call this micro-evolution, but from a scientist's point of view, since it is a new species, it is macro-evolution.

What anti-evolutionists are really concerned about is common descent that straddles larger groups--like ancient reptiles being ancestors of mammals and dinosaurs being ancestors of birds.

But this is only a problem if you decide in advance that there is a "kind" barrier separating them. In fact, to show that this is crossing some sort of barrier between kinds, you first have to show evidence that they are different kinds. And no one has established where such dividing lines between "kinds" exist. Or even that they exist at all.

I agree that common descent is the sticking point that differentiates theistic evolutionists from creationists whether young or old earth. But I would highly recommend looking at the evidence for common descent before making up your mind.

 

[keyarch]

I guess my question isn't just a "quick question." I am a bit confused as to where I fit in.

I believe in an old earth, and in micro (not macro) evolution. As in, creatures can evolve within their kind. I don't know if that makes me a TE or on OEC but perhaps it doesn't matter, I think I'm still in the right area!

Thanks
Angela

The answer to "where you fit in" really depends on what you mean by "old earth".
Based on your original post, you might agree with the following model which shares most of the YEC model with the exception of the age of the universe and primitve planet earth:

YBC: Young Biological Creation. (also called Two-Stage Creation by the SDAChurch) This is another literal interpretation model that interprets Genesis 1:1-2 as a prior creation of the universe and the core elements of the earth. That the earth was in an unfinished state (covered with water and cloud layer) after which the events of the six literal day creation week took place. It holds that all biology was created and the shaping of the earth and atmosphere for habitation took place appx. 6,180 ya.


This model is allowed within the "Creationism" sub-forum.

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't that Gap theory?

 

[keyarch]

Isn't that Gap theory?

The Gap Theory. This theory proposes that there was a ‘gap’ of time, of billions of years, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This theory claims that the earth of old somehow became ruined (some blame Satan and his fallen angels), and was later repaired by God as described during the six 24-hour days of creation. The model accepts the ancient fossil record as the evidence of the creatures that inhabited the earth before it was corrupted by Satan and his demons.
-------

The YBC model does not accept a creation/re-creation nor a ruined and repaired scenario.

 

[Assyrian]

There is a range of Gap views on what went on before Gen 1:2 and not all are into the angelic rebellion idea, Schofield wasn't.

How is YBC that different? You don't accept the ruin and repair part, but isn't it the same Gap?

 

[shernren]

What I get from what keyarch is trying to say is that:

Gap Theory says that the heavens and the earth were created a really long time ago in Gen 1:1, and became formless and void in Gen 1:2 because a heavenly war devastated them.

YBC says that the heavens and the earth were created a really long time ago in Gen 1:1, and are formless and void in Gen 1:2 just because they are.

Am I right, keyarch?

 

[keyarch]

What I get from what keyarch is trying to say is that:

Gap Theory says that the heavens and the earth were created a really long time ago in Gen 1:1, and became formless and void in Gen 1:2 because a heavenly war devastated them.

YBC says that the heavens and the earth were created a really long time ago in Gen 1:1, and are formless and void in Gen 1:2 just because they are.

Am I right, keyarch?

Essentially your right, but please notice that the Gap Theory goes beyond what Scripture says and postulates that there was life created on earth prior to the destruction and that this is what accounts for most of the fossil record. The YBC model does no such thing, and in fact would hold that all biology (including all fossils) are of a young creation some 6 kya.

The YBC model would say that the "formless and void" state is merely a primitive planet such as Venus is now and covered entirely with water. It would be unrecognizable to an observer because there were no land forms to see. It would be desolate and thereby "void". That state does not imply any war or devastation; it's just not finished yet.

 

[Assyrian]

I have a lot of respect for the Gap theory, especially when it drops the rather imaginative preAdamic civilisation stuff. I don't see it as the answer to the clash between the traditional interpretation of Genesis and the emerging Geology in the 18 and 19th centuries, but I do see it as a really good attempt by Christian theologians to begin to get to grips with the problems of interpretation.

 

[Jadis40]

Is there a difference between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution? And if so, what is it?

Thanks!

Angela

I was formally a OEC, but within the past month or so changed to TE. I think it was because I realized that I had a pretty narrow understanding of what evolution actually was. I hung out here on the Origins Theology boards, and through reading different posts and research on my own I eventually obtained a better grasp on what evolution was actually about. I'm the type of person who loves doing research on my own when I understand my own limited knowledge of a subject.

I guess you could say I was sitting on the fence when it came to evolution. I've never doubted that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, thanks to my study of astronomy beginning when I was in elementary school. Just to throw out some acknowledgements, I need to mention Mallon in particular whose numerous posts on the topic of evolution and paleontology helped me "connect the dots" so to speak, along with Assyrian.

Sorry, left out one important point: there are different "flavors" of OEC, like Gap theory, ruin-reconstruction for two. I really didn't understand the difference between these ideas until, as I mentioned before, I did my homework.