The History of Creationism and what it can tell us about science and faith
Page 5 of 5
Appendice: Varieties of ‘Creationism’
Evolutionary Theism (essentially not creationism at all) (eg. Asa Gray, B.B. Warfield, Teilhard de Chardin, Kenneth Miller)
• God guided evolution to form human beings and the world as we know it.
• Noah’s flood unlikely to be global or possibly not literal at all.
• Garden of Eden may be poetic not literal language.
• An ancient earth.
| Pre-history evolution & geology according to mainstream science. |
Recorded history going back tens of thousands of years.
Humans became ‘spiritual beings’ either through evolutionary processes or by divine creation of soul.
|
Creationist Day-Age Theory (eg. G.F. Wright, W.J. Bryan)
• ‘day’ in Genesis 1 is non-literal and each day represents aeons of time, which allows for evolutionary processes to have occurred.
• An ancient earth.
• Noah’s flood not necessarily worldwide.
Day 1
Matter created
|
Day 2
|
Day 3
|
Day 4
Fossils laid down
|
Day 5
Fossils laid down
|
Day 6
Humans appear in present form
|
Day 7
Recorded history →
|
present
|
Creationist Gap-Theory (also called ‘Ruin & Restoration’) (eg. C. Hodge H. Rimmer)
• Evolutionary processes occurred prior to creation of human beings.
• An ancient earth.
• Noah’s flood not necessarily worldwide.
Pre-history of millions of years, formation of earth, fossils laid down
|
6,000 years ago, Eden ‘restored’ to earth and Adam & Eve created.
|
Recorded History - present |
‘Strict’ Creationist Literal Six Day Creation (based on ‘Deluge / Flood Geology’) also called “Scientific Creationism” (eg. Ken Ham, George McCready Price, J. Whitcomb)
• Genesis 1 refers to literal 24 hour days.
• A young earth, not older than 10,000 years.
• Cataclysmic global flood destroyed Edenic earth, laid down fossils and changed climate (hence the Ark’s dinosaurs perished).
• No evolution of one species into another (macro-evolution), only micro-evolution within species.
Possible pre-existence of matter in lifeless, chaotic state
|
6,000 – 10,000 years ago, all life created over six 24-hour periods.
|
Recorded History - present |
Intelligent Design advocates can be in any of the above camps. Intelligent design rejects macro-evolution as a ‘natural’ process (ie. undirected by an intelligent being). Its advocates generally claim they are only seeking to assert that ‘design’ is scientifically verifiable. Eg. Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski.
Page 1|2|3|4|5
| 25-Jan-2009 09:40 PM Dr Bruce Watts |
 |
| There is an unspoken assumption in this article. It is that Neo-Darwinism is scientific. When examined critically it seems to me that from a vigorous scientific perspective, nearly all the 'evidence' for evolution falls apart. Peppered moths don't turn into anything else. Galapagos finches show oscillating stasis. Mutations do not produce new information. One cannot possibly arrive at the information content of a human brain by sequential fortuitous mutations from an ape-like brain over a billion years, let alone a few million. The fossil record primarily shows stasis and sudden appearance that is not consistent with gradual evolution. I am a former theistic evolutionist eventually persuaded by the data that evolution is not really scientific at all. The possibilty that evolution may be unsupported and, in fact, an incorrect description of origins seems not to have been seriously considered by the author of this article. |
| 24-Feb-2009 04:25 PM TL |
 |
| Very good article. I would currently describe my position as a "theistic evolutionist", a position that seems to be quite popular amongst prominent Christian scientists such as Keith Ward and John Lennox. From what I have read so far, there does seem to be evolutionary explainations for most natural phenomena (which of course does not disprove a Creator).I would be interested if Dr Watts could point me to some material that he feels has disproven evolution as a mechanism for creation? |
| 24-Mar-2009 07:35 PM Trav |
 |
| John Lennox is not a theistic evolutionist. His book Gods Undertaker goes into much detail about the weaknesses of evolution. He talks about DNA being information, how information doesn't arise from nothing and how information doesn't just adjust according to natural means. However he obviously believes in an old earth, so you'd call him an advocate of intelligent design.
On the topic of the article here, it's very informative. |
| 01-Jul-2009 03:05 PM Nick |
|
| Interesting to go over the history of views a little. For the benefit of people like myself who are reading this article months later, here are some links to interesting scientific material. TL has asked for it above, so I'm sure someone else will eventually want to find it.
My area is computer science, so I found the argument for design from irreducible complexity (particularly as it relates to the information system which builds proteins from DNA sequences) amazingly compelling. This ruled out for me the possibility of any evolution driven by mutation and natural selection alone.
This concept is articulated well in Jonathon Sarfati's book "By Design": https://store.creation.com/au/product_info.php?sku=10-2-524
I've just started reading Duane Gish's book "Evolution: the fossils still say no!", to learn more about the debate as it relates to the fossil record. Seems interesting so far (but I'm only 60 pages in). |
| 27-Jul-2009 05:53 PM John Heininger |
|
| If you are of the opinion that God used evolution (theistic evolution); or of the opinion that the days of Genesis are not literal days; or of the opinion the day age theory holds up; or of the opinion it doesn't matter much, I suggest you read Refuting Compromise, by Dr Jonathan Sarfati (CMI). You will discover why you are wrong on all counts. |
| 13-Mar-2010 10:29 PM Philip Coller |
|
| To quote, "where the perspectives of faith are respected and valued alongside those of empirical science". Do we also need to respect and value empirical science when discussing the virgin birth and the resurrection. Empirical science would tell you that a virgin birth is impossible and so is a man rising from the dead after three days.Where is the consistency? |
| 28-Jul-2010 07:26 AM PGT |
|
| To Philip. You are confusing empirical science with ideology. The study of 'sensory phenomena' (the world as known to us via our senses) doesn't make the philosophical claim that virgin births or resurrections are impossible. Such claims are beyond the scope of the methods of empirical science and unless one decides (philosophically) that (empirical) scientific methods can test the veracity of any and every claim, they cannot resolve whether Jesus rose from the dead or is the Messiah. Claims of faith may well take account of sensory phenomena but ultimately stretch beyond them. |
Comment