Jan 15 2008
A Spectrum of Beliefs on Evolution, Creation and Literalism
Michael Patton at Reclaiming the Mind channels Vance McAllister at Submerging Influence regarding the way we look at the Creation account. This is one of those divisive themes that periodically splits believers, each accusing the other of misinterpreting the text.
I would also recommend RubeRad’s post on the topic at Blogorrhea if you’re interested in the discussion.
Vance’s view is that there exists a continuum of belief regarding creation and origins of life of earth. He proposes eight positions. Generally speaking, the list runs from an extreme literalist view of the Creation account to an extreme allegorical view, and from a extreme negative view of the authority of science to extreme positive view.
Where do you fit? Is this an accurate description of the positions?
Vance presents them in this order:
1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold onto this belief.
2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around a fixed and unmoving earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although it suffered a major setback after the late 60’s. They have a plethora of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism.
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 (with a huge “gap” in between. Some believe this is a “re-creation”, 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 an historically and scientifically literal account (using that alternate form of the word “day”), 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, and 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 work, entirely naturally, as God intended. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc. So, here the “abiogenesis” would not mean that life arose without God, only that God built how life would first arise right into the “program”. This is not “deism”, however, since it says nothing at all about God interacting with and even directly intervening in His creation at any point in time (such as a particular event 2000 years ago, for example).
January 17th, 2008 at 14:13 pm
Well… you know that I’m most likely a #3.
The only problem I have with this list is that it, by its nature, boxes everyone into a stance. I mean, I’m 97% a #3, but I’ll allow for pretty much anything that includes God in the mix. I wasn’t there. The only one who was there, “in the beginning,” was God. All I can do is examine as much evidence as I have time and inclination for, and come to the best conclusions I can.
So much of political life and religious life in America right now is all about defining what divides us, and that rankles me.
January 17th, 2008 at 14:20 pm
P.S. I know you get highly annoyed, Steve, when a YECist proclaims — in ignorance — his blind acceptance of the stance, and is dogmatic, but stupid. What do you think of anti-creationists who do the same?? Check out the comments by “onein6billion” on this post: http://onlysometimesclever.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/wow-fantastic-a-major-anti-evolution-movie/. He’s “graced” my blog elsewhere with anti-Christian, anti-creation rants. I’m trying to let him have a voice, especially since he’s not “hitting-and-running”; he’s provided his true e-mail addy, and has corresponded a bit, privately. But, the problem I have is that while I’m all for debate, simply mocking the other side just doesn’t sit well with me… though I think he might be getting to me a wee bit, because I’ve started dishing it back to him.
January 17th, 2008 at 14:36 pm
Karen,
I’ve been watching his comments unfold, and I think you’ve shown amazing grace in your responses. (More than I probably would have.) As you pointed out in your other comment to this post, it’s about dividing people into neat boxes. ‘You’re not in my box, so obviously you’re wrong and I must ridicule you.’
You responded well.
Yesterday, I was in a parking lot at the mall with the boys waiting for a spot to open up. I saw someone get into their car and waited for them to pull out. As soon as they did, someone from the next row pulled through and took the spot. The boys wanted me to crash into their car and push them out of the way, or at least honk at them for taking ‘our spot.’ Too often I miss teachable opportunities, but it was a chance to show two pre-teen boys that we don’t always have to respond in kind.
Now if I could just do that on this blog…
January 17th, 2008 at 14:55 pm
But, the problem I have is that while I’m all for debate, simply mocking the other side just doesn’t sit well with me… though I think he might be getting to me a wee bit, because I’ve started dishing it back to him..
Someone suggested that, as a Christian, I shouldn’t be blogging at all, because it puts me in the ’septic tank of rotten ideas, and sooner or later I’ll be swimming in it.’
There are certainly other things that we could be doing with our time and talents to further the kingdom than blogging. Our obvious task, if we do blog, is to show Christ in our content. Not that every post should contain the Romans Road, but it should be obvious from our content and our responses to critical comment just whom we belong to. Alas, easier said than done…
January 19th, 2008 at 13:27 pm
Our obvious task, if we do blog, is to show Christ in our content.
Ouch. I don’t think I’ve done that. In fact, I’m pretty sure that, even if I haven’t totally crossed the line, I want to. I find myself wanting him to post more stuff just so I can put him down. Uh oh. While that’s somewhat funny, it’s not actually Christ-like. I don’t think my attitude is along the “righteous indignation” lines of Jesus in the temple driving out the moneychangers. I’d like to think it is, but it’s probably not. ~sigh~ I think I foresee a post in which I apologize for my attitude… I’ve been thinking about it all of today. “Easier said than done” indeed. I want to be Christ-like, but not doormat-like. I don’t to give him more reasons to think Christians are idiot-pushovers, but at the same time, I can’t be bashing him whilst congratulating myself that I’m not like him. Eek.
(Sorry for rambling. It’s because I respect your opinions and your feedback!!!)
January 19th, 2008 at 22:44 pm
I look at the genuinely godly people that I know and don’t see angry bone in their bodies. And then I look at my own reaction when someone slams me for a particular post or a comment. Man, I have a long way to do. I want that sanctification thing, and I want it now!
July 8th, 2008 at 15:46 pm
9. None of the above. No “supernatural entity” is necessary.
Everyone who is not in this “box” is ridiculous.
July 8th, 2008 at 16:02 pm
onein6billion:
Welcome back. To be fair, we probably should have added the atheistical evolutionist category, but Patton was addressing the spectrum of belief within a more or less Christian context.
Everyone who is not in this “box” is ridiculous.
That’s a pretty uncharitable view, but at least you’re consistent!
July 9th, 2008 at 08:31 am
Karen Joy commented:
“the problem I have is that while I’m all for debate”
There is NO scientific debate. There may be a religious debate between items 1 to 8 on this list, but none of these views can possibly be called scientific.
“because I’ve started dishing it back to him”
With the statement “talk origins is crap”?
And then she gave up and banned me of course.
“you’re consistent”
It’s easy to be consistent when you follow the scientific evidence and forget about religion. And now there is more and more science exploring theories of abiogenesis.
A quote from a comment by Vance at the post you linked to:
“Here is the atheistic lie:
1. Evolution is correct view of the development of life.
2. Evolution does not require God.
3. Therefore, God was not involved in the development of life.
This is such a scary proposition, that Christians have inherently attacked number 1, and you might be saying that the danger of TE is to water down that attack.
I say that the proper fight is not with 1, but with 3.”
End quote.
Later comment by Vance:
“So, it does not “explicitly” rule out God, it just provides the explanation without a supernatural aspect, exactly as we would explain photosynthesis or gravity.”
My comment:
There can never be any scientific evidence that a supernatural entity has had any effect on the real world. Natural and supernatural are mutually exclusive. So the scientific conclusion should be: science will never detect whether or not a supernatural entity had any influence on the development of life.
So any claims of “intelligent design” can never be scientific. But claims that “evolution cannot explain this” can be scientific (and such claims have always been refuted). But such a claim (which is what “Academic Freedom” laws like what just passed in Louisiana really are) can never conclude that “since evolution cannot explain this, therefore a religious conclusion must be correct”.
July 9th, 2008 at 09:24 am
onein6billion:
Your bias is showing.
There can never be any scientific evidence that a supernatural entity has had any effect on the real world. Natural and supernatural are mutually exclusive. So the scientific conclusion should be: science will never detect whether or not a supernatural entity had any influence on the development of life.
The flaw in your logic is your supposition that science and faith are mutually exclusive. There are any number of Christians (and other faiths) in the hard sciences, and, believe it or don’t, many in the faith community who hold that the sciences confirm that which is held by faith. It’s a continuity of belief and understanding, with those at the far extremes denying any compatibility.
Take a look at David Heddle’s work at He Lives. David is a nuclear physicist at Newport University and has a very clear view of the interplay of faith and science. (He doesn’t have much good to say about the ID movement, by the way.)
Another great resource is Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe. Ross is an astrophysicist and has cosmologists, anthropologists, molecular biologists (and many others from the hard science community) on staff.
None of these folks have trouble balancing scientific observation with faith.
The first part of the list (flat earthers, geocentrists, and young-earth creationists) tend - from my view - not to care about physical evidence and get creative when it comes to fitting physical observation into their interpretation of creation. I have a problem with that. You don’t need to change the speed of light or put dinosaurs and humans on earth together in order to validate the Genesis creation account. But that’s another discussion….
Your bias blinds you to any possibility that faith and science can coexist and interact, and by saying, “There is NO scientific debate,” you’re being disingenuous. Take a look around beyond the narrow bounds of Talk Origins and you’ll find a lively, and sometimes civil, discussion going on.
At heart, though, you’re argument isn’t with me, or with Karen, but with God. Work on that one a bit and then reconsider your statements.
July 9th, 2008 at 09:58 am
“At heart, though, you’re argument isn’t with me, or with Karen, but with God. Work on that one a bit and then reconsider your statements.”
You’ve hit the nail on the head Steve. At the height of my frustration with the “conversation” I was having with onein6, the one where he would scream and rant and insult, then cover his ears to any response, I did a bit of Googling, and came to find out that Mr. McCants had been very involved in a couple of churches in the Austin area, his hometown. Something happened, though, a relatively short time ago, which caused that involvment to cease. I have often observed that when someone has an issue with a church, it often — though, thankfully, not in your particular case — causes them to turn their back on God. I asked onein6/Mr. McCants to expand on that event, but he declined with his now-familiar rancor, ridiculing me for even suggesting such a connection.
And then, he wonders why he’s been given the boot from blogs such as mine.
I’m not even sure I want to get involved in this particular tar pit (with this particular person, I mean — not the creation/evolution discussion in general), but I had to comment on the similarity of conclusions which we both drew.
On another note, sort of, you said, “The first part of the list (flat earthers, geocentrists, and young-earth creationists) tend - from my view - not to care about physical evidence and get creative when it comes to fitting physical observation into their interpretation of creation.” Ummm… lumping YECs with flat-earthers? You can’t be serious. Though I’m not a scientist, I do consider myself relatively intelligent (though not, certainly, in the upper eschelon of intelligentsia), and relatively reasonable (though that can slip, too), and, as you know, I’m a YEC’er. However, it’s never my modus operandi to try to make evidence fit within my particular viewpoint. It’s not as if I’m trying to shove a square peg in a round hole, and upon utilizing a sledgehammer to say, “See?? It fits!!!” It’s just that, in my on-going investigation and education in the matter, it seems to me entirely reasonable that the earth could be young. I’m not dogmatic about my stance, but I am, as I noted above in the first comment, 97% certain of it. And… I make sure my kids (especially my oldest, Ethan, who is now 11) know that, of course, there’s room for error in any scientific theory, especially unprovable ones. And when it gets down to it, the details of the creation of the world are unprovable, because we’re only left with the evidence; no one was actually present at the event itself. The evidence is clearly left open to interpretation, which both sides have clamped down upon as “proof” which support their own biases.
I’m actually not looking for “proof.” Don’t misunderstand me. (That was directed more at other commenters than you, Steve.) I’m not saying I’m not intellectually curious; I’m saying that when it gets down to it, it really doesn’t matter how it happened. What matters most to me is Whom it happened by. The details of the events surrounding creation and life before man can satisfy a curious mind, but in the end, they’re of trifling significance, compared with the reality of the God of creation.
Karen Joys last blog post..GFCF Wholegrain Sandwich Bread
July 9th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Karen:
Ummm… lumping YECs with flat-earthers?
I knew that one was going to bite me… That statement might have been a bit uncharitable, and as I think about the original Patton/Vance post, it’s probably not fair to characterize all eight positions as a continuum. Each has its distinctive features that it may or may not share with other positions. My point was that geocentrists and the like don’t appreciate the value General Revelation (God revealed in his creation). I suppose my real gripe is that many YECs, for instance, tend to see General Revelation as flawed. It is certainly inferior to Special Revelation (i.e., Scripture), and Creation was cursed by Adam’s fall, but how can God’s revealed nature be flawed?
And your bottom line is right on -
What matters most to me is Whom it happened by. The details of the events surrounding creation and life before man can satisfy a curious mind, but in the end, they’re of trifling significance, compared with the reality of the God of creation.
I see it all as an interesting academic and theological exercise and it is important, but not so important as our Commission to share the Gospel.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:49 am
And, us agreeing with each other’s identical bottom line is why, I think, we can discuss our disagreements civilly. Even better than civil, actually. It fosters mutual respect. I think. I hope. Mutual… umm… something friendly, anyways.
BTW, I was unaware of “many” YEC’ers discounting General Revelation. I myself am a HUGE fan of it. One of my favorite Biblical passages is Romans 1:20 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, having been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that they are without excuse.” I see this bit of scripture as entirely hopeful; through what He’s made, God reveals Himself to everyone, even those who have never heard the name of Jesus, and who will never lay eyes on a Bible. But, that might be another topic altogether.
Karen Joys last blog post..It sounds reasonable
July 9th, 2008 at 13:17 pm
Karen Joy:
Agreed. What I’ve seen in terms of YEC’ers discounting GR varies widely, but some have been blatant about it, taking sola scriptura to ridiculous extremes (i.e., if it isn’t specifically spelled out in Scripture, it’s not to be be trusted). The worst I’ve seen was on a Kent Hovind or Ken Hamm site awhile back. The reason given for the apparent great age of the earth (>6000 years) was that “God wanted to purposely mislead secular scientists.” God lies now?
By the way, I’ve been looking at that Romans passage in a different light recently. How sufficient is that revelation to salvation? If a person never hears the Gospel, does that passage imply another way to heaven? But as you said, that’s another topic altogether.
July 10th, 2008 at 18:45 pm
“The flaw in your logic is your supposition that science and faith are mutually exclusive.”
No, you misunderstand. Science is methodological naturalism. As such, it can never prove or disprove the supernatural. The scientific method cannot apply to the supernatural by definition.
“many in the faith community who hold that the sciences confirm that which is held by faith”
Well, I find that to be silly.
“None of these folks have trouble balancing scientific observation with faith.”
That’s fine. The fundamental question is: Is there any “conflict” between their religious beliefs and science? And, if so, do they reject science (like someone who believes in YEC)?
“Your bias blinds you to any possibility that faith and science can coexist and interact.”
And how would faith “interact” with science? How would a research scientist use his faith to guide his research? Silly, silly, silly.
“There is NO scientific debate,”
about the fact of evolution or the fundamental theory of evolution
or the age of the universe.
“Take a look around beyond the narrow bounds of Talk Origins and you’ll find a lively, and sometimes civil, discussion going on.”
Well, is it a political discussion about the Louisiana “Academic Freedom” law? About the firing of the TEA science director for forwarding an email? About the elected creationist dentist Chairman of the Texas Board of Education who said some really silly creationist things in a discussion with a Texas Monthly editor?
Or is it about the science backing evolution? Or the silly “teach the controversy” nonsense that creationists espouse? “Irreducible complexity”, “intelligent design”, or other nonsense?
Clue me in. Where is this discussion taking place and what is it about? If it is about religion espousing anti-science views, why should it be civil?
“At heart, though, you’re argument isn’t with me, or with Karen, but with God.”
How can I “argue” with a supernatural being that appears to be unnecessary? Silly, silly, silly.
July 10th, 2008 at 19:06 pm
Alright, McCants, you’re out of the pool. Civil discourse is one thing, but this is turning into an anti-faith diatribe. If you’re willing to participate in a rational discussion, that’s fine, but otherwise your rants aren’t welcome here.
As I said before, at heart you’re argument isn’t with me or anyone else, but with God.
July 11th, 2008 at 13:05 pm
“this is turning into an anti-faith diatribe”
Of course. Your “faith” wants to interfere with “science” and when you try to do that you run into a lot of insurmountable problems. So I ask questions about “what are you trying to do?” and you have no answers, so you interpret that as an “anti-faith diatribe”.
Science has no use for religion, so when religious people attack science, a scientific person points that out and is accused of attacking religion.
So, as usual, I am banned from a faith-based blog for pointing out the obvious.
July 11th, 2008 at 13:20 pm
McCants:
So, as usual, I am banned from a faith-based blog for pointing out the obvious.
No, you’re being banned for being boorish and inconsiderate. Science and faith are mutually compatible, unless you’re willfully blind to it.
You may be banned from blogs, but you’re never banned from the love of God. Consider it.
August 20th, 2008 at 08:54 am
“No, you’re being banned for being boorish and inconsiderate.”
Yes, I can see how pointing out the truth could be considered “inconsiderate” when you think is conflicts with your faith. Still, it moves.
“Science and faith are mutually compatible,”
Ok, fine. I never claimed that they could not be “compatible” as long as they do not “conflict”. What I said was:
“science will never detect whether or not a supernatural entity had any influence on the development of life.”
That means only that you cannot “prove” your “faith” using “science”.
August 20th, 2008 at 09:11 am
McCants:
I originally deleted your comment as it doesn’t add anything to the conversation, but I thought I’d pass along a thought. You claim to be an atheist, but I think you’re not being honest, with yourself or with others. You are a nihiltheist, a worshiper at the altar of nihilism, and quite a fundamentalist nihiltheist to boot. There’s very little difference in tone or intent between your snide comments and the worst of Jerry Falwell or Moqtada al Sadr’s remarks.
Take a look at Julie Burchill’s article at the UK Guardian. She is - or was - an honest atheist who came to see the vacuous nature of modern atheism. Here’s a taste: