Reformed Origin View

[ALoveDivine]

I greatly respect the reformed tradition both for its faithfulness to scripture and for its intellectual rigor and high regard for reason. So I've very curious, how do my fellow reformed brothers and sisters here view the question of origins?

I myself am somewhere between Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution.

 

[abacabb3]

I'm becoming a Ken Hamm type. I already believe in the supernatural. God can create in such a way in which things look older by our methods than they really are, as I hold Scripture to the highest regard, and logic and such secondary.

However, I am not convinced that certain books of the Bible are supposed to be read as literal history. For this reason, I am fine with thinking the universe is billions of years old. However, I find evolution for non-religious reasons to be a complete logical impossibility.

 

[robh59]

I have a lot more faith in scripture accuracy than carbon dating accuracy.

Carbon dating measures the amount of carbon 14 an organic material has remaining. Right now all organic materials absorb carbon 14 from the atmosphere at a steady rate while the material is alive and right now the carbon 14 decays at a steady rate when that organic material dies. Carbon dating relies on the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere to have always been at the same level. If, during the time of the dinosaurs there was very little carbon 14 in the atmosphere, dinosaurs would've absorbed much less and when a scientist carbon dates them it they would appear much older. What if the meteor that supposedly formed the Gulf of Mexico brought carbon 14 with it in abundance and changed the levels in the atmosphere to what they are now? Even scientists say that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has fluctuated since the industrial revolution.

Scientist said it took the Grand Canyon 5-6 million years to form, but in a recent study they say 17 million. Another study has it at 70 million. Still another at 80 million.

Scientist came up with the continental drift theory and taught it. During marine oil exploration they came up with proof that the theory was a pipe dream. As they developed the ability to drill deeper, they found evidence that the theory was in fact true. Within a few years, there was once again proof that it wasn't true and that was followed by further proof that it was true and to my knowledge they still believe it to be true - for the time being.

How can we believe scientists when what they believe doesn't remain constant. Its obvious they've "believed" things incorrectly over and over and over and over.

What's easier to have faith in...That a cloud of gases formed out of nothing, exploded, and suddenly there was this vast supply of elements, OR, that GOD is and always has been and that he created everything? Either takes a leap of faith. Make no mistake, before a big bang theory can get started the scientist must take a huge leap of faith.

 

[ALoveDivine]

Brother with all due respect I think your understanding of the relevant scientific disciplines is lacking. I would encourage you to do more thorough research in the areas of cosmology, geology and biology before you come to any definite conclusions.

Having done some serious study of these disciplines, and some serious study of scripture, I cannot in good faith and reason hold to a young-earth interpretation of creation. The evidence for an ancient universe and for the theory of evolution is absolutely overwhelming.

I also think the framework hypothesis is a very compelling and theologically rich interpretation of Genesis 1 and is well worth researching.

 

[stenerson]

I definitely believe evolution to be science fiction. Frankly I beleive it's base idolatry, giving to the chaotic cosmos, time and chance the ability to create. You're asking for polls and honest opinions/beliefs so that's mine.

 

[AndOne]

I definitely believe evolution to be science fiction. Frankly I beleive it's base idolatry, giving to the chaotic cosmos, time and chance the ability to create. You're asking for polls and honest opinions/beliefs so that's mine.

I agree with this guy.

 

[theFijian]

Brother with all due respect I think your understanding of the relevant scientific disciplines is lacking. I would encourage you to do more thorough research in the areas of cosmology, geology and biology before you come to any definite conclusions.

Having done some serious study of these disciplines, and some serious study of scripture, I cannot in good faith and reason hold to a young-earth interpretation of creation. The evidence for an ancient universe and for the theory of evolution is absolutely overwhelming.

I also think the framework hypothesis is a very compelling and theologically rich interpretation of Genesis 1 and is well worth researching.

There are pertinent two points to which I hold: 1) I believe the bible to be inerrant, 2) I believe that God ordains the means, as well as the ends.

Those, by and large, are the reasons I've come to hold to an evolutionary view of creation.

 

[prov1810]

Standing with Al Mohler and John MacArthur as a YEC.

I have two reasons for believing this: The plain, natural, obvious meaning of "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth" (Ex. 20). This statement is in a legal contract where the terms have to be clear or the contract isn't enforceable. There is no room here for artistic interpretive license or esotericism. The sabbath commandment is for a 24-hour day, just like the creation days, just like the text says.

"In six days" is a proposition. It is either true or false.

The second reason is theodicy. The deep time interpretation of geology is incompatible with the Bible because there are animal fossils in those rock layers, with evidence of disease, predation and obviously death. To have millions of years of natural evil existing before the creation of man means that a good God called that world "good". But these things did not exist until after the Fall. Natural evil is connected with our sin and the healing of the natural world (Isa. 11 and Rom. 8) is connected with our salvation. So if God is solving these problems in nature, He never would have called these problems "good". That means that there was no animal predation or death before the first man sinned.