Five Views of Creation955
Atheistic Evolution
Statement of the view
Everything in the universe has come into existence and has evolved into its present form as a result of natural processes unaided by any supernatural power.
Positive aspects of the view from the perspective of those who hold it
1. It appears to explain the origin of everything.
2. It offers a single explanation for everything that exists: it evolved.
3. It offers the only real alternative to creation by God.
4. It eliminates God and exalts man.
Problems with the view and answers by its advocates
1. It cannot explain the origin of matter. Answer: Matter is eternal.
2. It cannot explain the complexity of matter. Answer: Billions of years of evolution are responsible for the complexity of matter.
3. It cannot explain the emergence of life. Answer: Primordial life evolved from bio-polymers that evolved from inorganic compounds.
4. It cannot explain the appearance of God-consciousness in man. Answer: This too was the product of evolution.
Evaluation of the view
1. It rests on a hypothesis that cannot be proven to be true; it is essentially a faith position.
2. Its support rests on little historical evidence (only the fossil record) which has many gaps in it and is open to different interpretations.
3. It relies on mutations as a mechanism for change. However mutations have not produced new species.
4. It is extremely improbable statistically.
5. It repudiates special revelation concerning creation.
Modern advocates of the view
Almost all non-Christian scientists and many Christian scientists hold this view.
Theistic Evolution
Statement of the view
Everything in the universe has come into existence and has evolved into its present form as a result of natural processes guided by the God of the Bible.
Positive aspects of the view from the perspective of those who hold it
1. It unites truth known by special revelation with truth known by general revelation in nature and truth discovered by science.
2. God seems to work according to this pattern in history interrupting and intervening in the course of events only rarely.
Problems with the view and answers by its advocates
1. It presupposes the truth of evolution, which scientists have not been able to validate beyond doubt. Answer: Evolution is a fact or at least an accepted theory.
2. God has intervened in history many more times than the theistic evolutionist posits. Answer: In the early history of the universe He intervened less frequently.
3. Divine intervention in the evolutionary process is contradictory to the basic theory of evolutionary progress. Answer: The evolutionary process does not rule out divine intervention.
4. This method of creation does not do justice to the biblical record of creation. Answer: We should interpret the biblical record nonliterally when it conflicts with evolution.
Evaluation of the view
1. It cannot do justice to both the tenets of evolution and the teaching of Scripture.
2. It is ultimately destructive of biblical religion.
Modern advocates of the view
Some scientists and theologians who have respect for but a weak view of Scripture hold this view, for example, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,The Phenomenon of Man(1959).
Progressive Creation
Statement of the view
God created the world directly and deliberately, without leaving anything to chance, but He did it over long periods of time that correspond roughly to the geological ages.
Positive aspects of the view from the perspective of those who hold it
1. It provides a reasonable harmony between the Genesis record and the facts of science.
2. The translation of "day"as "age"is an exegetically legitimate one.
3. It is a tentative conclusion and acknowledges that not all the scientific evidence is in and our understanding of the text may change as biblical scholarship progresses.
Problems with the view and answers by its advocates
1. There are discrepancies between the fossil record and the order in which Genesis records that God created plants, fish, and animals. Answer: Science may be wrong at this point, or Genesis may have omitted the earliest forms of life.
2. Taking the six days of creation as ages is unusual exegetically. Answer: This interpretation is possible and best here.
3. "Evenings"and "mornings"suggest 24-hour periods. Answer: The sun did not appear until the fourth day.
4. Death entered the world before the Fall. Answer: It took on its horror at the Fall but existed before that event.
Evaluation of the view
This view takes the biblical text quite seriously but adopts some unusual interpretations of that text to harmonize it with scientific data.
Modern advocates of the view
Many evangelicals who have been strongly influenced by science hold this view including Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood(1977). James Boice, Bernard Ramm, Robert Newman, Herman Eckelmann, and Hugh Ross also hold this view.
Six-Day Creationism
Statement of the view
Genesis 1 describes one creative process that took place in six consecutive 24-hour periods of time not more than 6,000 to 15, 000 years ago.
Positive aspects of the view from the perspective of those who hold it
1. It regards biblical teaching as determinative.
2. It rests on a strong exegetical base.
3. It is the most literal (normal) meaning of the text.
Problems with the view and answers by its advocates
1. Data from various scientific disciplines (i.e., astronomy, radioactive dating, carbon deposits, etc.) indicate that the earth is about 5 billion years old and the universe is about 15-20 billion years old. Answer: God created the cosmos with the appearance of age.956
2. A universal flood cannot explain the geologic strata fully. Answer: It can explain most if not all of it, and the remainder may have been a result of creation.
3. Creation with the appearance of age casts doubt on the credibility of God. Answer: Since God evidently created Adam, plants, and animals with the appearance of age He may have created other things with the appearance of age too.
4. There is no reason why God would have created things with the appearance of age. Answer: He did so for His own glory, though we may not fully understand why yet.
Evaluation of the view
This view rests on the best exegesis of the text, though it contradicts the conclusions of several branches of science.
Modern advocates of the view
Many conservative evangelicals hold this view. See also Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Seagraves, The Creation Explanation(1975).
The Gap Theory
Statement of the view
Between Genesis 1:1 and 2 there was a long, indeterminate period in which we can locate the destruction of an original world and the unfolding of the geological ages.
Positive aspects of the view from the perspective of those who hold it
1. It rests on an exegetical, biblical base.
2. It is consistent with the structure of the creation account itself.
3. It is possible to translate the Hebrew verb translated "to be"in verse 2 "become."
4. "Formless and void"in verse 2 may be a clue to God's pre-Adamic judgment on the earth.
5. It provides a setting for the fall of Satan.
Problems with the view and answers by its advocates
1. It is an unnatural explanation since the text implies only an original creation in Genesis 1:2 and following (cf. Exod. 20:11). Answer: This interpretation is a superficial conclusion.
2. The exegetical data that supports this view is far from certain. Answer: These interpretations are possible.
3. This theory does not really settle the problems posed by geology. Answer: The universal flood may have produced some to the geological phenomena.
Evaluation of the view
While this view grows out of a high view of Scripture, several of the interpretations required for it rely on improbable exegesis.
Modern advocates of the view
Many conservative evangelicals including Arthur Pink, C. I. Scofield, C. S. Lewis, M. R. DeHaan, and D. G. Barnhouse held this view. See also Arthur C. Custance, Without Form and Void(1970).
