The majority of fundamentalists NOT committed to a young earth?

[Andy D]

And I agree with you fully on this point regarding the blood and body.

But, as for the study of the origins issues, since this is a subject dealing with the development of life, and the age of the earth, these necessarily involve scientific, and not just theological, issues. So, no study of these areas can be complete without a thorough review of both the scientific evidence AND the Scripture.

Good point. I do agree that many issues in the Bible such as 'real presence' are more theological issues and creation is something that has a scientific element to it whether we believe YEC, TE or GT. I do beleive however that Genesis was written to be read a certain way...but has the debate on how it was meant to be read come about because of evolutionary theory?

 

[Vance]

Good point. I do agree that many issues in the Bible such as 'real presence' are more theological issues and creation is something that has a scientific element to it whether we believe YEC, TE or GT. I do beleive however that Genesis was written to be read a certain way...but has the debate on how it was meant to be read come about because of evolutionary theory?

Actually, no. The debate over whether those Scriptures should be read literally or non-literally started almost immediately within the Church body, within the first century AD, and has been with us continually. So, even before there was a scientific reason to consider the allegorical, typological or symbolic reading, many thought that was the most likely approach. Personally, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I came to decide that the non-literal interpretation was most likely correct before I had read much on evolution and while I still believed in young earth creationism. It was much more this change in interpretation which led me to consider and old earth, and then evolution, rather than the other way around.

 

[artybloke]

I do beleive however that Genesis was written to be read a certain way...but has the debate on how it was meant to be read come about because of evolutionary theory?

To answer your question, Andy, no:

As early as 410 A.D., then, the greatest of the Western Church Fathers was telling us that the Book of Genesis is not an astrophysics or geology textbook. Augustine himself was a kind of evolutionist, speculating that God’s creation of the cosmos was an instantaneous act whose effects unfolded over a long period. God had planted “rational seeds” in nature which eventually developed into the diversity of plants and animals we see today. St. Thomas Aquinas cites this view of Augustine’s more than once in the course of the Summa Theologiae. St. Thomas, author Etienne Gilson writes,

was well aware that the Book of Genesis was not a treatise on cosmography for the use of scholars. It was a statement of the truth intended for the simple people whom Moses was addressing. Thus it is sometimes possible to interpret it in a variety of ways. So it was that when we speak of the six days of creation, we can understand by it either six successive days, as do Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom and Gregory, and is suggested by the letter of the text . . . Or we can with Augustine take it to refer to the simultaneous creation of all beings with days symbolizing the various orders of beings. This second interpretation is at first sight less literal, but is, rationally speaking, more satisfying. It is the one that St. Thomas adopts, although he does not exclude the other which, as he says, can also be held.
In this century, Cardinal Bea, who helped Pius XII draft Divino Afflante Spiritu, wrote that Genesis does not deal with the “true constitution of visible things.” It is meant to convey truths outside the scientific order.

From the Catholic Education Centre.

 

[Andy D]

So what is the outcome then as to answering the question of fundamentalists believing in a young earth creation?