The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[lmnop9876]

What if the big bang were explained?

i read a signature which explains the big bang (or rather 'big bangs') really well. God said it, and BANG, it happened!

 

[elijah115]

All the titles on page 1 are like useless vines; what my going to do with it? and what do i care?



What's my position? I believe in the beginning, God created. The bible says my grace is sufficient for you. If you lust for knowledge persistently, it'll become an idol in your heart.

 

[shernren]

Actually, there is quite a bit of impact. For example, a militant YEC will say that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, a militant TE will say that ID shouldn't be taught in schools, and moderate ones will say both should be taught in the proportions they deserve. So what you believe about origins does make quite a bit of difference. But I believe that if we truly listen to the Holy Spirit, He will help us agree on what we ought to do, through everything else we agree on, even if we don't agree on what we ought to believe in this small area of our faith. Peace.

 

[CaiperLane]

I believe that perhaps the 6-day creation period was a timeframe of Heaven rather than earth. 2 Peter 3:8-"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".

Perhaps the "days" were a day in Heaven which equaled a thousand earth years.

So in earth time the Creation "week" was Six Thousand years and the last thousand years (day) God rested.

I also think there may be a gap between the time that God created Adam and Eve and the Fall. They may have "walked with the Lord" for thousands of years before they were tempted by Satan. We don't know, the scriptures don't say. So, I believe in a literal creation by God the Creator of everything in the universe and Heaven. But how long it took, the time-frame is not known.

 

[dillpickle]

I agree^^^^. A day doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours, or a thousand years, it may just be describing a period of time; an age, era or the next step in the process. Regarding the life of Adam, you raise a very good point. Sin brought death, along with every other suffering, so Adam may have lived a very long time before the Fall. But the most important question, did Adam have a belly-button?

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm a solid, hard-core 8. If we rely solely on the Bible to understand creation, we are led astray. I we rely solely on our senses and our reason to understand creation, we are led astray. It is only when we use both, in conjunction with the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit that we can begin to really see and appreciate just what a miracle creation is. And it is only then that we can join God in becoming co-creators with Him in His on-going miracle.

 

[PreacherMan4U]

Personally , I'm a gapper. I fully realize that other theories are possible. This is simply my opinion. After all, we will not really know until we ask the LORD face to face in heaven.

 

[Jebediah]

I'm sort of a 5, except I believe that due to time/space dilation at big bang, the vast time occured in 6 real earth-time days, just from different frames of reference, like in the book The Science of God. So old and young earth at same time. Sorta.

I also agree with Mathematician's statements...I am in formal logic and computability myself and the Information Theory Argument is extremely convincing from my perspective.

 

[revdave]

I don't seem to have a comfortable fit in any of the above. I am sort of "spread out".Alas in more ways than one,I fear!


I am strongly for an old Universe,which would include an old earth. The best estimates now are that the "Big Bang" happened somewhere around 15 billion years ago. I am also firmly in the creationist corner and believe the evidence clearly shows that God had His hand in creating various animals.Certainly there was micro evolution within the species. The rocks also indicate that God created many living things that died out.The idea that there were heroic leaps from one specie to another (say a cat into an elephant,or its prototype) is lacking.
Although much of the evidence shows intelligent design it is never shared in print.As to the creation"days",my information indicates that the Hebrew word for "day" is much like our word and can mean a 48 hour period of time or a epoch of time.

 

[chaoschristian]

Revdave:

Welcome to the forum. I hope your time here will be both joyful and prosperous.

 

[eyesofmystery]

I guess "theistic evolutionist" would be the best way to describe me. I believe that Earth and the universe are old like science says. I believe that all was created by God and that each species was created individually at the time of Earth's creation, but that they were in primitive states - Adam and Eve were "cavemen". Over time, each species evolved to adapt to its changing environment. I don't believe that different species evolved out of each other (such as ape-to-human), but I do believe that each went through its own evolution to adapt to its surroundings, and that evolution played a big part in planet Earth's history. I also believe that species are still evolving because our environment is still changing.

 

[gluadys]

I guess "theistic evolutionist" would be the best way to describe me. I believe that Earth and the universe are old like science says. I believe that all was created by God and that each species was created individually at the time of Earth's creation, but that they were in primitive states - Adam and Eve were "cavemen". Over time, each species evolved to adapt to its changing environment. I don't believe that different species evolved out of each other (such as ape-to-human), but I do believe that each went through its own evolution to adapt to its surroundings, and that evolution played a big part in planet Earth's history. I also believe that species are still evolving because our environment is still changing.

It is interesting to see how differently even people who chose the same "label" describe what they believe. If you had given that description without naming it theistic evolutionist, I would have labeled it old-earth creationist.

Just goes to show we all think differently. And labels don't mean all that much.

 

[chaoschristian]

I guess "theistic evolutionist" would be the best way to describe me. I believe that Earth and the universe are old like science says. I believe that all was created by God and that each species was created individually at the time of Earth's creation, but that they were in primitive states - Adam and Eve were "cavemen". Over time, each species evolved to adapt to its changing environment. I don't believe that different species evolved out of each other (such as ape-to-human), but I do believe that each went through its own evolution to adapt to its surroundings, and that evolution played a big part in planet Earth's history. I also believe that species are still evolving because our environment is still changing.

Welcome to CF! You articulate a very interesting point of view on Creation.

 

[shernren]

Boxes and labels are for things, not people. I remember once when a Christian in the field of comparative religions was teaching us (in a camp) about Hinduism, and he said that it's more appropriate to call it "Hinduisms" because each Hindu believes what s/he believes. He warned us that we can't take our preconceived ideas: we must listen very carefully for what s/he believes and not just assume that someone with a label "Hindu" thinks so-and-so-and-so.

I hope I'm not being offensive when I compare views of origins to a false religion, but I think maybe that comment is the same here. There are young-earth-creationisms, old-earth-creationisms, and theistic evolutionisms. The only movement which seems to have any semblance of a creed (an official statement to be adhered to by all) seems to be the YECs, and even then there are substantial differences e.g. in the area of the light-transit-time problem, the origins of the Floodwaters, canopy theory, etc. Which just goes to show, again, that God knew what He was doing when He created (evolved? ) us with two ears and one mouth. We've gotta listen before we talk or we'll end up not saying what needs to be said ...

 

[twoedge]

There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of God’s Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.

1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold on to this belief.

2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around the earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although the movement suffered a major setback after the late 60's. They have lots of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism. Ironically, they hold young earth creationists (below) in the same light as theistic evolutionists: those who have let secular science alter their view away from a plain, literal reading of Scripture. A recent shake up over at ICR (or possibly it was AiG) occured when the group finally denounced geocentrism and a number of their contributing members quit because they were geocentrist.

3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the "young earth" time frame. Some believe this is a "recreation", God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

5. Progressive Creationists (aka "Day-Age Creationists", another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each "day" in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is a historically and scientifically accurate account, just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) - believe in an old earth and universe, but accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as "representatives", etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) - believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to God’s plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of "kinds" around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) - God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc.

A bit of a side category is the Intelligent Design movement of recent years. This asserts that *whatever* you accept about creation, there is firm evidence that the universe and the earth in particular were designed with specific intelligence, by a designer, and not happening randomly. Those holding this opinion come in each of the flavors mentioned above, although the most recent and influential of these have been Theistic Evolutionists (ie, they accept that species evolved over billions of years, including man, but that God directed the process all the way, it was not random or wholly naturalistic).

So, where do you fit in? I don’t necessarily want everyone to post their "number", but it is interesting to see it all laid out like this. If any have suggestions or tweaks to make to the this list, go ahead and say so.

I marvel at the expression that you and others use ' science says '. What do you mean by this? A lot of science, especially origins and abiogenesis is as open to interpretation, subjectivity and personal incredulity as scripture is ! How many Christians do you know ( this forum is a perfect example ) that only have the truth! There are many Christians that hold either of these views that are real scientists practising in fields of biology, medicine, geology, astronomy, physics etc ! Do you mean by science only the science of Godless men?!. Do you prefer their opinion as your default position above those of Christians? Or have you made an exhaustive study in all of these fields that qualifies you to hold such an opinion?!

 

[gluadys]

I marvel at the expression that you and others use ' science says '. What do you mean by this? A lot of science, especially origins and abiogenesis is as open to interpretation, subjectivity and personal incredulity as scripture is ! How many Christians do you know ( this forum is a perfect example ) that only have the truth! There are many Christians that hold either of these views that are real scientists practising in fields of biology, medicine, geology, astronomy, physics etc ! Do you mean by science only the science of Godless men?!. Do you prefer their opinion as your default position above those of Christians? Or have you made an exhaustive study in all of these fields that qualifies you to hold such an opinion?!

The phrase "Science says" does not refer to opinions of individual scientists, and certainly not to the science of godless men. (or women---what makes you think only men are scientists?)

It refers to a scientific consensus agreed to by the vast majority of scientists of all beliefs. When well over 95% of all scientists, especially those in the particular field of science that deals with the matter in hand, agree that the evidence leads in one and only one direction, that is generally considered the last word on the matter: for the time being.

For the time being. An important proviso, because no matter how solid a scientific consensus is, it can be overturned by new evidence which the current theory does not account for. (This is why nothing in science is considered "proven" beyond doubt.)

There are many questions in science for which there is no consensus on the solution. Different scientists have different interpretations of the evidence. Usually these differences do not reflect the religious position of the scientists. The group supporting interpretation A may include atheists, Christians, Hindus, agnostics and those of other religious viewpoints. So may the group supporting interpretations B, C and D. It is extremely rare (non-existent?)for scientific controversies to reflect the religious beliefs of various parties.

As long as there is no consensus, the phrase "science says" does not apply. One would have to say "some scientists say A, while others say B or C or D."

Even when there is consensus, it sometimes happens that there are a few scientists who do not agree with it. A good example today would be the paleontologist, Alan Feduccia, who does not agree with a dinosaurian ancestry for birds, but thinks the evidence shows a crocodilian ancestry, instead. He is pretty well the only scientist who has not joined the majority consensus. This does not necessarily mean he is wrong. But for the time being, it is fair to say that "science says" the ancestors of birds were therapod dinosaurs, not ancient crocodiles. Because that is what 99.99....% of paleontologists today do say.

You speak of some Christian scientists who disagree with the majority consensus on origins. They do exist, but they are a small minority even among Christian scientists. Most Christian scientists do uphold the scientific consensus. Why is their opinion not just as valid as that of Christian scientists who don't? (It would probably be a good idea to start a new thread if you wish to continue discussing this, and leave this one for its stated purpose.)

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I'm a young earth creationist. however I've never heard geocentrists view YECs as TEs. I do support geocentrism. (I read the first post wrong?)
geocentrism can't be falsified scientifically if General Theory of Relativity is true.

I guess each theism evolution option can be split into 2 sub options: one states God guide the process of formation of human body and made a human soul, the other states God took no role in the formation of human body, only made human soul.

 

[chaoschristian]

I guess each theism evolution option can be split into 2 sub options: one states God guide the process of formation of human body and made a human soul, the other states God took no role in the formation of human body, only made human soul.

I don't know if that is actually the case. Regardless of where they fall on the spectrum of creation theology, I believe everyone here holds to the opinion that God had/has and active role in Creation and that His Will and Intent were/are present in the forces of creation.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I've dealt with some of that God-took-no-role Catholic TEs at another forum. their view is exactly the same as Darwinism atheists except God made a human soul.

 

[eyesofmystery]

It is interesting to see how differently even people who chose the same "label" describe what they believe. If you had given that description without naming it theistic evolutionist, I would have labeled it old-earth creationist.

Just goes to show we all think differently. And labels don't mean all that much.

My beliefs don't really fit into any specific label, but I figured "theistic evolutionist" is one of the closest ones. I believe in a mix of several theories, but I didn't know about the theories until after I had already worked out my own beliefs on origins. I guess you can say I believe in the best of both (or several) worlds!