Last week Christianity Today posted an article discussing clergy and their views on origins. As the article reports, new Barna Group research (commissioned by BioLogos) “shows that a slight majority (54 percent) of Protestant pastors across all regions most likely identify with young-earth creation.” Those remaining are more likely to lean toward theistic evolution. The other two positions offered were “progressive creation” (an ambiguous term) and “uncertain” (meh).
In a sense it feels like there are only two clear options: young-earth creation and theistic evolution. It’s helpful to keep in mind that origins scenarios extend beyond an “either/or” option. Here’s where some clarification of these ever-changing terms might help. This list, which borrows from Hugh Ross’s book More Than a Theory, helps elucidate the options.
Evolution
Initially referring to “change over time,” this term has (ehem) evolved to describe a belief that all the changes observed in the record of nature (including the origin and history of the universe, Earth, and all life) can be attributed to natural causes alone.
Young-Earth Creation
According to this perspective, the Genesis creation days must be six consecutive 24-hour periods. Moreover, the Genesis genealogies contain few if any gaps, leading proponents of this perspective to calculate that all of creation is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. The general public tends to assume that “creationism” is synonymous with “young-earth creation” and intertwined with the evangelical belief system.
Intelligent Design Movement
Various cultural and religious backgrounds have proposed that an intelligent Designer is responsible for the origin and history of life. The distinction with the Intelligent Design Movement is their aim to get this concept into the classrooms. However, the movement refrains from identifying the Designer, making the concept untestable and therefore deficient as a scientific model.
Old-Earth Creation
In general, those who hold this view accept the biblical account of creation as a historical event (the creation days being long but finite periods of time) as well as the findings of mainstream science (including a billions-of-years-old universe and Earth). Views on the creation days and genealogies, bipedal primates, and Noah’s flood vary.
Theistic Evolution
This view maintains that God miraculously intervened at the origin of the universe. From there, perspectives on God’s involvement vary. Fully gifted creation, for example, asserts that God is responsible only for the initial creation of the universe. Evolutionary creation, on the other hand, suggests that God created the universe and all life through evolution.
Framework Theory
Framework theory upholds the biblical creation account yet doesn’t assign chronological order to the details of the creation week. The creation account provides pictures or metaphors for God’s creative activity in the kingdom of heaven.
Progressive Creation
The Barna Group describes this view as belief that God created life in its present form over a period of time, but not via evolutionary process. We would clarify that some who call themselves progressive creationists accept that all life stems from a common ancestor. (Our point is that the term is vague, sometimes referring to old-earth creation and other times to theistic evolution.) Variations on this view accept an old universe and Earth but concur that life has been present on Earth for only thousands of years. RTB is often misidentified as adherents of progressive creation.
Concordism
This view asserts that God’s Word (the Bible) and God’s world (the record of nature) are in harmony. Any conflict or discordance between the two arises from a faulty interpretation or incomplete understanding of the data. (Hugh articulates our concordist position here.)
As you can see, there are plenty more origins scenarios to consider. Ideally we’d like to see more colors (representing more perspectives) added to Barna’s graph. Moreover, it would be nice to see the percentages for those in the “uncertain” camp diminish. (Uncertain was defined by Barna as those who believe that God created life but are uncertain how.) Delving into the science might seem daunting, but understanding where the universe and humans came from (and where both are headed) helps answer some of life’s big questions. “Ultimately, what’s at stake is who or what determines the meaning of life,” Hugh explains.
Looking back to my first year of faith, I recall falling into the “uncertain” camp. But in the years since, I’ve come to cherish how God reveals himself through nature. Science (yes, science—the subject I dreaded in high school) continues to affirm the Bible—therefore it must be the inspired word of God.
So which of the above options do you lean toward? Perhaps you already hold firmly to your selection or perhaps you’re still trying to nail it down. In either case, it’s helpful to give careful thought to the other perspectives. As Hugh puts it,
Understanding the variety of choices for origins’ scenarios supplies a context for testing which positions are indeed the most viable. Any hope of understanding creation/evolution issues requires a comprehension of the various positions.
From there we can begin to engage in conversation with those from varying perspectives and offer informed (and gentle and respectful) responses.
–Sandra
***
IT’S GIVEAWAY TIME! Comment on the blog and we’ll select one winner at random. Winners will receive their choice of one of the following resources: More Than a Theory, Who Was Adam?, RTB Live! vol. 5: Divine Design, or The Bigger Picture on Creation. Happy commenting! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
May 24, 2013 at 10:28 am
I would be interested to know a few more pieces of information regarding the pastors such as: region of the US, highest level of education obtained and views of creation taught when younger. Are there prior studies indicating a shift, however subtle, to one view from another?
May 24, 2013 at 2:43 pm
There’s a link to the graph in the article, but here it is again: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/upload/2013/05/biologos%20survey%202.jpg. The graph breaks down the numbers according to region of church, denomination, etc.
Here’s a link to the BioLogos report on the study (thus far). They’ll delve deeper into the results in the coming months: http://biologos.org/news/apr-2013/clergy-and-their-views-on-human-origins-a-survey.
May 24, 2013 at 10:31 am
I don’t think any of these views are 100% correct but there are elements of truth in all of them. Moreover, I have come to NOT identify myself with any one viewpoint. Seems like people tend to latch on and defend particular viewpoints when they should be latching onto and defending Scripture – not a viewpoint. I am just finishing The End of Christianity by William Dembski and he introduced yet another view of creation.
May 24, 2013 at 10:37 am
I’m O.E. creationism.
Have you heard William Lane Craig’s comment on this survey? It was something to the effect of this being an embarrassment. It can be found pretty easy by searching his name and old earth or young earth on youtube.
May 24, 2013 at 2:44 pm
I haven’t heard William Lane Craig’s comment. I’ll have to check it out. Thanks for the info!
May 24, 2013 at 11:13 am
Old Earth Creationists are not necessarily Theistic Evolutionists. The belief is on an old created earth with God intervening in stages to bring about creation – and that includes Adam and Eve. So I’m glad that while you have differentiated between Old Earth Creation and Theistic Evolution later in the article, in the beginning, you said the polls reflected young earth followers and theistic evolutionists. Old Earth people are not there and I suspect (having personally talked to many young earth proponents) that often the two are clubbed together.
May 24, 2013 at 2:54 pm
You’re correct. It seems fair to say that old-earth creation and theistic evolution are often grouped together. In fact, the Barna Group survey didn’t even offer old-earth as an option–the only options were young-earth creation, progressive creation, theistic evolution, or uncertain. One can only wonder what the results might have been if more options were given to those surveyed.
May 24, 2013 at 11:15 am
I agree, they options offered by the survey are inadequate. That may have pushed some people into answering Y.E.C. who might otherwise not have.
I like your list better. But it seems to me that Concordism is nonparallel to your other options. It’s a step up the ladder toward macro. People from a variety of differing positions could describe themselves as believing that the scriptures and science only conflict at points where we are misinterpreting at least one of them. E.g., at the 2012 Ligonier National conference, speakers from four very different sides of the issue all agreed with each other on that point.
My position, which is patterned on that of evangelical Hebrew scholar John Sailhamer, doesn’t fit quite neatly into any of the categories. In terms of what happened historically, my position is fully compatible with RTB’s. But I’m convinced that Genesis 1:3 ff recounts a solar week. If that sounds like a contradiction, you’ll just have to read Sailhamer’s book, Genesis Unbound, for yourself to see why it’s not. 🙂
May 24, 2013 at 11:45 am
True, RTB’s position is one that I also happen to agree with most
May 24, 2013 at 11:29 am
Today, I was talking with a local pastor that holds to a Young Earth view. As we were discussing, I mentioned that the reason for having that view was based on the genealogies of the Bible. He agreed, to which I responded with the observation that the genealogies were not complete – and gave the reference to Joseph (Matthew’s) and Mary’s (Luke’s) genealogies going back to David. Joseph’s had 14 generations and Mary’s had 21. His response was that Luke’s was complete, versus Matthew’s which wasn’t meant to be complete. This was an interesting approach to the abridgement of Joseph’s genealogy, but I brought up this question to him, “How do we know that Luke’s genealogies are complete?” He stopped for a minute and said that I had asked a question that he hadn’t thought of before. He assumed that Luke was being thorough, and thus Mary’s genealogy was accurate and complete.
May 24, 2013 at 11:29 am
This is always a hot topic, but as I’ve thought about it…and gone into the science, I really don’t have the “uncertain”views I used to have..but I’m also not a “young earth creationist”. The definitions of the different groups feel too ambiguous to be stand-alone sets. It feels like some bleed into others, and still leave me confused as to where I stand. Though I do lean towards Old Earth..
Fortunately, your view of creation isn’t a determining factor in your salvation. So I’m glad I don’t have to worry about any position messing up my eternity. Though, there may be consequences on your worldview.
May 24, 2013 at 11:40 am
After reading posts about Fuz’s upcoming appearance and debate, I think Barna’s research also shows how easily the debate has already been framed in other people’s mind by those who wish to reduce this to an “us vs. them” debate. It’s sad, really. I’ve taught home school speech clubs in Apologetics for the past few years and it comes from that side, too. I don’t know how often my faith has been called into question by students when the discussion comes around to creation and I describe my stance as an OEC/Two Book man. Thanks.
May 24, 2013 at 1:48 pm
It sounds like a flawed survey and hence the outcome is skewed. One has to wonder if those terms were chosen intentionally to steer towards that outcome, if whoever prepared the survey is lazy and didn’t do enough research to even know what options to offer or if they are just ignorant?
May 24, 2013 at 2:35 pm
The numbers for young earth creation were actually a bit less than I would have thought. Be interesting to see what the answer would be with the other choices.Would also be interesting to see broken down by data points, such as region, age, denomination,
May 24, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Hi, John. Thanks for commenting. Here’s a link to the graph (which includes a breakdown of data points): http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/upload/2013/05/biologos%20survey%202.jpg. It was included in my article above, but perhaps got lost in the words. 🙂
And here’s a link to the BioLogos report on the study (thus far). They’ll delve deeper into the results in the coming months: http://biologos.org/news/apr-2013/clergy-and-their-views-on-human-origins-a-survey.
May 24, 2013 at 3:57 pm
I’m a little confused about the definition of progressive creationism: “God created life in its present form over a period of time, but not via evolutionary process. We would clarify that this view accepts that all life stems from a common ancestor.” Doesn’t a common ancestor imply some kind of theistic evolution/evolutionary creation, even if it was God stepping in – was he using pre-existing stuff for the next creature on the schedule? How would RTB’s view differ – did God use similar designs among creatures, but not pre-existing stuff? Is there any way to tell the difference?
May 29, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Hi, Virginia. Thanks for your question. I’ve reworded the Progressive Creation description to clarify that *some* who call themselves progressive creationists accept that life stems from a common ancestor (which is virtually indistinguishable from theistic evolution). In other words, the term can be confusing without clarification. I hope the revised description helps clear that up. Thanks again for your feedback–it helped me see where I was being unclear. 🙂
May 24, 2013 at 4:40 pm
The fact that Barna even includes an alternative to YEC and TE is encouraging. Hugh/RTB may prefer to define PC more narrowly, but I think it is great to have that 3rd view, even if it is broadly meant to include OEC, PC-with-CA, and some brands of ID. If PC is used in common parlance to cover this range of perspectives, maybe Hugh/RTB should just “go with the flow” and, when called for, specify that their version holds to immediate rather than mediate means.
IMHO, there are really two major questions. The first has to do with a general approach to origins, and there are 3 main options: YEC, OEC/PC, TE. Then, you can further break it down into how to interpret Genesis 1 and the Creation Days: e.g., Calendar Days, Day-Age, Framework Hypothesis, Analogical Days, Sailhamer’s Focus on Palestine, etc. So, I get frustrated when I see things like Framework Theory, ID Movement, & Corcordism thrown in with the rest. Seems like more apples-n-oranges confusion to me.
May 24, 2013 at 9:10 pm
It would be great if the origins of the universe/age of the earth could be separated from biological origins in surveys. RTB podcasts and writings are nice in that these very different realms are treated individually by a variety of scholars. It’s a pity when it is all lumped in together!
Even just a simple four way grid would be informative ie. old universe/life evolved, old universe/life created, young universe/life evolved, young universe/life created.
Still simplistic, but not that much harder to survey!
May 24, 2013 at 9:39 pm
In seminary, one of my Profs made a quote that I haven’t forgotten and wonder if it is representative of many of the pastors but not validated by those who were “uncertain.” The quote in response to the Prof’s view of creation was, “I am Old Earth four days a week and New Earth three days a week.” I think I lived in that camp till just a few years ago, sad to say.
May 25, 2013 at 12:23 am
Thanks to RTB, I’m not in the “uncertain” anymore. I like RTB’s view. My christian friends have other views. I think when Jesus is here everyone will realize that they have small or big misunderstanding about God’s word, but by that time, it probably wouldn’t matter too much anymore.
May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I can see the distinction between young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism. And I can certainly see the difference between old-earth creationism (which, of course, denies macro-evolution) and theistic evolution. But can anyone explain what differences, other than nuance, distinguish between theistic evolution, intelligent design, or progressive creationism? Aren’t these all basically the same thing?
May 29, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Hi, Dean. Thanks for your comment. Theistic evolution is essentially God-directed evolution but with various understandings of how that happened. Progressive creation can sometimes mean theistic evolution but it can also mean old-earth creation. Our point is that the term is vague. The Intelligent Design Movement is not officially connected to a particular religion or holy book and does not specify who the Designer is. I hope that helps clarify those three positions. 🙂
May 31, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Thanks to all who commented! A winner was selected at random and has been notified by email. For those curious about who the winner is, check out a video of the drawing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ35aW3F0lE.
June 1, 2013 at 3:22 am
How about this. If you define earth in the soil sense (or as all of the elements that you find in the earth) and heavens as gases which you would find in our atmosphere, then Genesis 1:1 could read “In the beginning, God created the gases and the elements which are found in earth.” That would describe the big bang. The bible doesn’t mention how much time passes between verse 1 and verse 2, so for all we know it could have been billions of years. In that amount of time the elements are gravitating together forming earth and the other planets. Then the next verse in Genesis says the earth was without form and void, and when God provided light and started its rotation, that was the first day. The gases dispersed all over the universe at the big bang came together on the 3rd day and formed the stars (since stars are made of gases.)
Its just a theory and could be way off. But it does seem to harmonize the bible with the current scientific theories of the moment.
June 1, 2013 at 3:45 am
Basically its a literal 6 days of creation that begins billions of years after the initial creation of all the elements.
June 11, 2013 at 4:11 pm
So many positions, each one blindfolded and touching one part of the elephant. That’s one reason I composed my theory on the origin of life—to resolve this quarrel and confusion. That theory reveals that Everything is One; if that ain’t close to God, I don’t know how much more proof one can get.
July 1, 2013 at 11:15 am
God said He spoke everything into existance,and created Man and breathed the breath of life into him,and caused him to sleep and formed Woman from his side..The animal kingdom was given to Adam to name every creature..He did specific things on specific days,exactly how He did this,is left as a mystery..but we are all here,because of God’s creation…His eternal plan to ensure there will never be sin in Heaven or earth again….A new Heaven and a new Earth will result from His plan,no more pain no more sorrow,no more corruption,or death….why do those that profess God’s Word as truth,have such a difficult time with these facts,or any other facts of the Biblical account of life,and living upon this earth…if we cannot be in one accord,concerning creation,and geological truths that have been proven as to age of the earth,After all Brothers And Sisters,we are to live by faith,that God is who He says He is..The Great I Am.
July 3, 2013 at 8:34 am
“exactly how He did this,is left as a mystery..[snip] if we cannot be in one accord,concerning creation”
You answered you own question, there, yes? God left it a mystery as to how He did it. In doing so, He left us free to have differing opinions about it. But I think the main reason that it has become so difficult for us today is that we’re so far removed from the setting in which the text was written that it’s nearly impossible for us to interpret it literally. The foundation of literal interpretation is taking into account the kind of literature in view. For a modern Westerner to interpret an ancient Near-Eastern text well, he must somehow learn how the ancient Near-Easterners used language and how accounts like Genesis functioned in their culture. Such an understanding has become exceedingly rare, and is woefully incomplete even among the experts. That leaves us with a whole lot of room for charitable disagreement about the meaning of the facts.
November 4, 2013 at 3:31 am
It is sad that some pastors will not take the all-powerful Word of God literally. The Word can be trusted and should be. There is evidence of a young earth.
January 26, 2014 at 4:14 pm
I’m 56 years old, the son of a minister. Although I see the definitions of each and each has merits, we must focus on a reference point in these proposed methods of research. Is the Bible historical in nature. Is the Holy Bible testaments written by the authors, or manipulated by other authors. Can we establish the source material of the Bible’s origin, even use the scientific method for its authenticity? I believe with all my heart that Christ is the son of the living God, through testament. But to adaquately have the information that confirms God’s meaning, and explanation to non believers that it excels in explanation of all of the proposed above listings, must be validated in order to argue any of them