Peanut butter and jelly. Cookies and milk. Chocolate and just about anything. When you consider all the great food combinations of the world, perhaps the last grouping that comes to mind is chicken and waffles. But if you’ve tasted the two together, you understand why there’s always a wait outside of Roscoe’s.
Another combo that might seem peculiar is science and religion. The implication that the two go well together can be hard to swallow, especially because it’s served up in a variety of fashions.
Within the Christian faith alone, there are a number of different “biblical perspective” plates from which to choose. The view many believers (and skeptics) are familiar with is young-earth creationism. Often called simply “creationism,” this view asserts that the creation “days” were six consecutive 24-hour periods and took place between six and ten thousand years ago.
This week we’ll take a look at another option (though there are more, still) and see how it compares with old-earth creationism.
Often viewed as the ideal alternative between giving up science and giving up faith, theistic evolution (or evolutionary creation) has gained significant menu space in recent years. Big-name proponents include geneticist Francis Collins (founder of The BioLogos Foundation), theologian Alister McGrath, and paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris. Even Pope John Paul II gave evolution a thumbs-up, saying there is no opposition between Darwin’s theory and the doctrines of the faith.
According to the BioLogos website, evolutionary creation (or BioLogos, as they call it) “does not require that God miraculously intervened in the process of evolution in the sense of working outside the laws of nature, and because BioLogos also claims that biological evolution is the way by which God created the world, it is not a form of Old Earth Creationism.”
Advocates of evolutionary creation hold a nonliteral view of the Genesis 1–2 creation narrative, instead defining it as mythic text (that is, “it has cultural significance in explaining the hows and whys of human existence, using metaphorical language to express ideas beyond the realm of our five senses”).
With respect to Adam, evolutionary creation maintains that he was not the first man. Some theories propose Adam was not an actual historical person. Concerning the image of God, it seems the jury is still out as to how and when humans developed moral consciousness. BioLogos writes, “We also cannot know whether God directly intervened in the evolutionary process at this point [Genesis 2:7], or whether the unfolding evolutionary process produced the human soul.”
On the other hand, old-earth creation (specifically day-age creation) affirms that the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) can be translated to mean long but finite periods of time. They also assert that the creation miracles ought to be rightly interpreted as God intervening in various ways throughout His creation and that Genesis 1 chronicles real historical events.
This view supports a historical Adam and Eve as the first human pair, endowed with the image of God and therefore distinct from hominids. Theologian and RTB’s dean of online learning Krista Bontrager addresses the concept of a nonhistorical Adam,
The New Testament makes a strong case for a historical Adam. For example, Adam is among those listed as part of Jesus’ genealogy (see Luke 3:23–28). If Adam were not a historical person, then one of the many listed in Jesus’ genealogy is fictitious.
Moreover, Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 contrasts Adam with Christ, emphasizing that Adam’s sin brought death to humanity and Christ’s death brought the gift of grace. Perhaps some questions to ask an evolutionary creationist are:
- Do Jesus and the New Testament authors believe in a historical Adam?
- If Adam weren’t a real person, why then does Paul compare him to Jesus in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15?
- Does the lack of a historical Adam alter the meaning of humanity’s sin nature and, thus, the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross?
Yet before we engage those who hold differing views, it’s always good to find common ground. As old-earth or evolutionary creationists look across the table, here are a few points on which both perspectives can agree:
- There is biblical and scientific evidence in support of a billions-of-years-old Earth.
- There is biblical and scientific evidence in support of a local Genesis flood.
- A strictly naturalistic worldview cannot account for fine-tuning evidence in nature.
- Fine-tuning features are, instead, the result of an intelligent and personal causal Agent.
RTB philosopher/theologian Kenneth Samples adds,
Theistic evolutionists are deserving…of a place at the table in the marketplace of science-apologetics ideas and their…scientific model and theological interpretation are worthy of careful examination.
Chicken and waffles may not be for everyone, but we might all consider taking a seat at the science-and-faith table and perusing the menu. There’s plenty to chew on there.
–Sandra
RESOURCES:
For a presentation and defense of old-earth creationism, see Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana and More than a Theory by Hugh Ross. Also see “Thinking about Theistic Evolution,” by Kenneth Samples.
For a presentation and defense of theistic evolution, see Francis S. Collins’ The Language of God and the BioLogos website.
Francis Collins and Simon Conway Morris were featured on RTB’s former webcast Creation Update. Click on the links to hear the Francis Collins interview (October 17, 2006) and the Simon Conway Morris interview (February 24, 2005).
IT’S GIVEAWAY TIME! Be among the first 20 commenters to this entry and receive a free copy of “Christian Approaches to Interpreting Genesis 1” by Krista Bontrager. In this 40-minute audio message, Krista discusses theistic evolution, young-earth creationism, and four varieties of old-earth creationism. Ready, set, go!
July 9, 2010 at 9:27 am
Thank you so much for this article. I’m passing it along to a young friend who is studying to be a biology teacher.
July 9, 2010 at 10:18 am
Thanks, David. I’d love to hear how your friend responds. My hope is that it opens up some good dialogue.
Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 9:28 am
The thing that bugs me most about YECs is that they tend to be so dogmatic. I’m fine with their beliefs, though they may cause non-believers to think all Christians think that way (i.e., ignore the obvious) and there’s the problem of them suggesting that unless you believe their way, you don’t really believe the bible. I’m even cool with evolutionary creationists, as long as they believe that Christ is the Messiah and that God created everything.
Yes, we should be able to gather around a table and discuss the issue in a manner worthy of Christianity.
BTW, a while back I read about a theory that basically went like this:
The days are 24-hour days but not consecutive, instead spanning billions of years. It’s like saying that it took me 7-days to fix my car. But, the days spanned over several months.
I can’t find the website or any information on that theory. Do you are anyone reading this have a link? Thanks!
July 9, 2010 at 10:30 am
Hi, Ramon. Thanks for the comment. The view you’re referring to is called the intermittent-day view. I’m not sure of the link you found, but Robert C. Newman has written on the subject in his booklet Genesis One and the Origin of Life. A PPT is available here: http://www.newmanlib.ibri.org/NewmanPpt/GenOne.ppt.
This view, as explained to me by Fazale Rana, asserts that the days are 24-hours followed by vast periods of time. The days serve as announcements of what God has or is about to do.
Hope that helps!
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 11:22 am
Thanks for the info. It led to some googling and the term I was looking for was “Fiat Days.” But I wasn’t able to find the article I read around two years ago. I’ll keep looking.
July 9, 2010 at 9:29 am
I can see Biblical support for either Young Earth or Old Earth, but Theistic Evolution is a major stretch in light of Romans 5. But I think it’s worth talking about no matter what side of the table you’re on. That’s how we learn & grow.
July 9, 2010 at 10:39 am
Agreed. Being open to dialoguing with others helps us grow and should compel us to seek deeper understanding of God’s Word and world.
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 9:34 am
Thank you for this brief examination. It is always important to accurately understand others points of view. Too bad a number of Young Earth Creationist doesn’t often do the same with regard to those on the other side. I look forward to receiving the giveaway and thank you for that.
July 9, 2010 at 10:40 am
You’re very welcome, Stephen. Thank you for the comment. I hope you enjoy the audio message!
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 9:35 am
I have always wanted to know how someone explains, eighter, for or against the idea of a universe that was created to look full grown like creating Adam as an adult. I also have wanted to know some viewpoints of those whom believe in an old universe and a young earth. I enjoy viewing all the evidence.
July 9, 2010 at 10:37 am
Rich, I hope you’ll enjoy the audio message by Krista. She’s excellent at explaining technical concepts with ease, and she explains various perspectives on Genesis 1-2 in a fair and balanced manner.
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 9:44 am
I’ve never tried Chicken and Waffles (but it does sound good!), but I have given theistic evolution a try. Language of God was a pretty good book. My biggest problem is, as you mention, Adam as a real person. The NT presents him as a real person in too many ways to disregard, in my opinion. That said, I agree — the theory is worthy of discussion, as is RTB’s model. I just wish more young-earthers were open to checking out the menu. Soul food, indeed!
July 9, 2010 at 10:35 am
I’m glad you agree that we should be open to checking out the menu. Speaking of menus, I recommend you order chicken and waffles off of one soon. 🙂
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 10:16 am
David, Ramon, Pastor Dale, Stephen, Rich, and Robert:
Thanks for your comment. Be sure to send your mailing address to publicity@reasons.org for the giveaway!
Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 10:20 am
As you stated, there are many options on the menu, and all should be considered in a rational discussion. However, that same rational discussion should rule out a few that have significant contradictions with either the facts (not theories) of science or the facts (not interpretations) of the Bible. I feel that all disagreements between faith and science boil down to a misunderstanding of the facts of science or the facts of the Bible – that’s my take.
July 9, 2010 at 10:44 am
Thanks for the comment, Allen. We at RTB would agree–that the facts of nature will never contradict the words of the Bible when both are properly interpreted.
By the way, don’t forget to send your mailing address to publicity@reasons.org to receive the free audio message.
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 10:29 am
This article is a good primer for those that have never heard of Theistic Evolution or Day-Age Creationism. Many of our fellow Christians have been led astray by well meaning evangelical leaders that tell their congregations not to believe in the lies of an old Earth. Knowledge is power and misusing it can lead to the destruction of many…
July 9, 2010 at 10:48 am
Thanks for your comment, Joseph. I hope you’ll enjoy the audio message from Krista. She does a wonderful job at explaining the various perspectives on Genesis 1-2. Please send your mailing address to publicity@reasons.org and we’ll get it out to you soon.
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 11:29 am
Watch Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?. It’s by a biologist at Trinity Western University who also contributes at Biologos.
July 9, 2010 at 11:32 am
Kevin, thanks for the link. I’ll check it out. And be sure to send your mailing address to publicity@reasons.org for the free audio message. (By the way, Rachel Held Evans, whose book I reviewed on my last post, has contributed on BioLogos as well.)
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Thank you for this article – I’m not sold on chicken and waffles just yet! – but as a science student I really appreciate articles like this 🙂
July 13, 2010 at 8:27 am
I’m glad you liked the article, Claire. And I happy to read that you’re not sold on chicken and waffles “just yet.” That means there’s still hope. 🙂
-Sandra
July 9, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Looks like I made it in under twenty. ( would love to read Krista’s book) As a newer student of ID and old earth interpretations, I wonder how you address the effects of the Fall. ( I bet if I read around the site I will find out.)
Ps. I have just started a blog given to Origins themes. It is still very unfinished, but I will put a link up to your blog so as to follow on a routine basis. Thank you.
July 13, 2010 at 8:24 am
Thanks for the comment, Kirk. Please send your mailing address to publicity@reasons.org and we’ll get the audio message out to you. Krista hasn’t written a book…yet. But I’d love to read it too, if/when the time comes. You can check out her blogs at http://www.theologymom.com and http://oldearthcreationism.blogspot.com.
Regarding the effects of the fall, you can read RTB’s perspective here: http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/animal-death-before-adam. The gist of it is that the fall resulted in spiritual (and, eventually, physical) death to all humanity (see Romans 5). Animal death, on the other hand, existed prior to the fall.
Hope that helps. And thank you for the blog link!
-Sandra
July 13, 2010 at 10:02 am
Sandra,
I can’t believe I haven’t been to this site before. How fantastic that you run blog about openness with biblical history (and themes) and science. Wow! Coolness, guts, and ninja grace bestow you.
I’m linking this up on my site (if you don’t mind being on a horror writer’s site).LOL.
July 13, 2010 at 10:03 am
This is Jodi btw- for some reason wordpress keeps flopping between my name and imaginationzombie. Keeps things interesting I guess. 😉
July 13, 2010 at 10:09 am
There are a hundred different reasons why I love this. Mostly because it’s from you, but also because you dig the blog enough to link it on your lovely site. (Lovely can apply to undead things, right?) Speaking of the undead, if you haven’t seen it yet, here’s my blog on zombies: http://bit.ly/asog9R. Now pass the brains. 😉