Summary Statements - 17 of X - Theistic Evolution & Critique - 2
There are multiple theories of theistic evolution, all of which accept an old universe/earth (categorized as 2/3 evolutionists per Mortenson), which attempt to reconcile/harmonize evolution and the Biblical narrative, summarized as follows:
Old-Earth Creationism – Allows for an ancient universe and earth … but insists that God created the various “kinds” directly, including Adam & Eve. It includes no macroevolution, no worldwide flood, and allows death before Adam and the fall.
Gap Theory – An interpretive device held by some OEC's, which allows a gap between Gen 1:1 – 1:2 to accommodate modern geological deep time. Its theology is refuted today by nearly all Old Testament scholars.
Theistic Evolution – Allows macroevolution, death before Adam & Eve, an ancient universe and earth (deep time), and doesn't allow for a global flood. This is also known as evolutionary creation.
Literary Framework – Popular interpretive device used in a broad spectrum of non-young earth creationism views. It assumes that Gen 1 is figurative or symbolic, accepts deep time and macroevolution, and differs little from theistic evolution. There are many types: revelatory, Ancient Near East, cosmic temple, analogical, etc.
Deistic Evolution – God started everything amd then let the cosmos operate in accordance with fixed natural laws. Very similar to theistic evolution.
See esp. J Byl/T Goss “How Should Christians Approach Origins” Appendix
Example compromisers: BioLogos/Tim Keller - BioLogos Foundation was founded by Dr. Francis Collins after he released his 2006 book “The Language of God.” BioLogos holds to the idea of “evolutionary creationism.” BioLogos participants insist that God used the undisputed facts of evolution as the mechanism for creation. Although BioLogos claims that they take the Bible seriously as the inspired and authoritative word of God, they allow (historical) science as they understand it (the “fact” of evolution) to lead Scripture on the subject of creation, and thereby jettison the tradition understanding of Gen 1-11 accordingly. John Otis, in his book, “Theistic Evolution: A Sinful Compromise,” has a chapter critiquing the BioLogos Foundation, and another chapter critiquing Tim Keller. As Pastor Otis does a much better job of critiquing the BioLogos Foundation and Tim Keller positions on creation than me, I will refer you to his material for greater detail.
Intelligent Design movement: The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is an interesting movement. It has much good information for Christians, but it does not start with the Bible. It starts with the naturalistic science that is accepted as “fact” today, and attempts to make a philosophical and scientific critique of naturalistic evolution on it’s own terms. The Wikipedia summary for Intelligent Design can be found at this link (just remember you are reading Wikipedia!). The movement contains a mixture of Christian (both fundamentalist and progressive) and non-Christian scientists (primarily) who make the argument that naturalistic evolutionary theory has serious problems, and that the scientific evidence (i.e., irreducible complexity, lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, etc.), in contrast to naturalistic evolutionary proponents, points to an Intelligent Designer vs. chance creation of life/humans by “evolution.” It does not take a (Biblical) presuppositional approach to origins, but rather a scientific and philosophical approach to origins. Some of its members hold to cosmological and geological evolution, but not biological evolution (as do theistic evolutionists). You will rarely find a Bible reference in their materials. Phillip Johnson is the recognized originator of the movement.
As Christians, we can use the intelligent design materials (especially their theological, philosophical, and scientific critiques) of evolution to demonstrate the weaknesses of naturalistic evolutionary theory. Please note that evolutionary theory is a religious theory at its core (see esp. C Hunter’s book, Darwin’s Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science for more information on this).
The Intelligent Design movement, in addition to the Creation-Science movement, offers good and useful negative critiques of evolutionary theory. A presuppositional approach to Scripture (where the Bible is presupposed to be true), though, will accept by faith that God spoke plainly and clearly in the Bible (esp. in Gen 1-11), and will accept that God created the universe, man, and all living things in six days without having to “prove” this from a (Christian) scientific perspective! Indeed, how does anyone “prove” their theory of origins? All theories of origins are at their core religious, are based on unprovable presuppositions, and must be accepted by faith. Please see the Resources page for other good ID resources.
[All of our science(s) should be consistent with a Biblical perspective [more on this later]]
[Expand the discussion on Intelligent Design to include discussion of the “Creator or Blind Watchmaker” article in First Things by Phillip Johnson.
The Creation Science / Scientific Creationism movement: The Creation Science movement is an interesting movement and has done much good work in encouraging Christians. I live near the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter and have been encouraged by visiting both places. The Wikipedia listing for Creation Science can be found at this link (just remember you are reading Wikipedia!) and the AIG search response for Creation Science is at this link. The Creation Science movement is made up of Christians who accept the plain and ordinary reading of the Bible (esp. Gen 1-11) and accept that God created the universe, man, and all living things in six days. Scientific creationists hold to the various ORTHODOX beliefs about creation listed here and they would disavow the UNORTHODOX Christian beliefs listed on the same page.
Many Creation Scientists hold to a uniformitarian view of how God "runs” the universe through His grace, faithfulness, and providence via “natural laws.” Creation Scientists do allow for exceptions to God’s “natural laws” to accommodate God’s miracles/signs. I argue elsewhere (link to be provided) that this is not a Biblical way to view God’s working in the world. Creation Scientists defending “God’s six-day creation have constantly appealed to the second law of thermodynamics (the “law” of entropy - everything tends toward disorder) in order to demonstrate the absurdity of believing that the autonomous operations of an impersonal, increasingly random and disorderly universe could have led to an increase of order and coherence, meaning the conditions necessary for the supposed evolution of life” (see North, “Is the World Running Down”, p. 189). Note that this is one of the Scientific Creationist’s key points for a (scientific) critique of evolutionary theory.
Later on (p. 195), North states “this is also why the apologetic method (empiricism, the appeal to supposed common facts) of the Scientific Creationist movement is flawed. It appeals to a hypothetical common logic of man as if such a common ground existed. But men interpret all facts in terms of their religious presuppositions. The inability of either side to convince its opponents testifies to the futility of the search for common facts, common theories, or common anything else. The futility of the attempt to get Creation Science into the public schools has not been recognized by these dedicated men, despite twenty years [50+ years - PB] of failure in the courts and the state textbook committees, precisely because they still really believe in the myth of scientific neutrality: the appeal to a commonly shared body of scientific opinion. There is no shared body of opinion. There is only warfare over whose all-or-nothing system will be used in the classroom. The Darwinists, being more consistent, have triumphed. They will not tolerate equal time for God.”
Note that Gary North is asserting that the Scientific Creationists are not arguing with the evolutionists/Darwinists using a (Biblical) presuppositional approach. While much, if not most, of the Scientific Creationist’s work in (flood) geology, biology, archeology, and cosmology (mature creation) is to be commended and is useful for Christians, Scientific Creationists err in trying to persuade “atheistic” evolutionary scientists that they are wrong about their interpretation of the so-called “neutral” facts or theories.
Both groups are looking at the same data - but are coming up with opposite conclusions. Why is that? Because they start with differing presuppositions. There are no neutral facts; all facts are interpreted. The presuppositional viewpoint has profound implications for so-called public education, and is one of the reasons that I created this website.
Add additional comments about North’s quote above
Add discussion about the Scopes trial
Add discussion about the Louisiana & Arkansas court decisions against Creation Science
Add discussion about the creation-science movement (that is, the attempt to present young earth creation as scientific without reference to the Bible (see Hummel p. 243/others). This will include a discussion about the significant tactical decision (in the 1980's) by the young earth creationists to gain equal time for their view of creation in the public schools (as opposed to lobbying to get the teaching of evolution removed from public schools, which they knew would not happen). Rather than appealing to the authority of the Bible, they downplayed the Genesis account in favor of what they termed creation-science. They pressed only for the teaching of the scientific aspects of creationism – (scientific) arguments for a recent worldwide catastrophe and against evolution – leaving out reference to the Genesis days and Noah's ark. This approach was ultimately challenged in court and in 1982 was ruled unconstitutional by Judge William Overton, who concluded that the law was an attempt by creationists to characterize what is essentially a religious statement as science, when in fact it is not accepted by a credible portion of the scientific community.
Comments:
All statements about origins have a personal/religious component to them.
There are no neutral facts/theories.
The scientific community has its own religious commitments (there is no personal God, ) and they control what is taught in the public educational systems.
Is it a good strategy to try to teach a Biblical view of origins without referencing the Bible?
Questions to be answered:
What is the theistic evolutionary story of creation?
What is cosmological evolution? Geological evolution? Biological evolution?
Why did the geologists and biologist assume an old earth?
Where did the idea of an ancient earth (deep time) come from?
How does one reconcile chance with God?
Other questions ….
