Progressive creationism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of a series on |
| Creationism |
|
|
| Types of creationism |
|
Young Earth creationism |
| Other religious views |
| Creation theology |
|
Creation in Genesis |
| Creation science |
| Controversy |
|
Politics of creationism |
| Creationism Portal · |
Progressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually, over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively over the planet's history represent instances of God directly intervening to create those new types by means outside the realm of science. Progressive creationists generally reject macroevolution because they believe it to be biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, and they generally reject the concept of universal descent from a last universal ancestor.
Contents |
[edit] Historical development
The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) was founded in the early 1940s as an organisation of orthodoxly Christian scientists.[1] Although its original leadership favoured Biblical literalism and it was intended to be anti-evolutionary, it rejected the creationist theories propounded by George McCready Price (young Earth creationism) and Harry Rimmer (gap creationism), and it was soon moving rapidly in the direction of theistic evolution, with some members "stopping off" on the less Modernist view that they called "progressive creationism." It was a view developed in the 1930s by Wheaton College graduate Russell L. Mixter.[2] In 1954 evangelical philosopher and theologian Bernard Ramm (an associate of the inner circle of the ASA) wrote The Christian View of Science and Scripture, advocating Progressive Creationism which did away with the necessity for a young Earth, a universal flood and the recent appearance of humans.[3]
[edit] Modern progressive creationism
Progressive creationism is distinct from theistic evolution, in that God is seen to regularly involve himself in the process of species development through special creative acts.[4]
Proponents of the Progressive creation theory include astronomer-turned-apologist Hugh Ross, whose organization, Reasons To Believe, accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth but seeks to disprove Darwinian evolution.[4] Answers in Creation is another organization, set up in 2003, which supports progressive creationism. The main focus of Answers In Creation is to provide rebuttals to the scientific claims of young earth creationism which are widely regarded as a pseudoscience.
[edit] Interpretation of Genesis
 |
This section needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (January 2009) |
Some progressive creationists accept a literal interpretation of Genesis, such as Day-Age creationism, and believe that the Earth is significantly older than 6,000 years. Other progressive creationists reject a literalist approach to Genesis chapter 1, and prefer interpretative options such as the the literary framework view. A range of views regarding the literal historicity of Genesis chapters 2-11 exists. The majority of progressive creationists would contend that Noah's flood was a regional rather than global event, although differences of opinion might exist concerning its precise geographical extent.[citation needed]
Progressive creationist and astrophysicist Hugh Ross adheres to a literal translation of Genesis 1 and 2 and holds to the principle that "Scripture interprets Scripture” to shed light on the context of the Creation account.[5] Using this principle, Progressive Creationist Alan Hayward cites Hebrews 4, which discusses in the context of the creation story, a continued Seventh Day of creation. [6] Ross ties this literal view of a lengthy seventh day to the Creation account in which he describes the Hebrew word "yom" to have multiple translation possibilities, ranging from 24 hours, year, time, age, or eternity/always.[7] Ross contends that at the end of each Genesis "day", with the exception of the seventh "day", the phrase, “…and there was evening and there was morning,” is used to put a terminus to each event.[8] The omission of that phrase on the Seventh Day, is in harmony with the literal translation of Hebrews 4’s continuing Seventh Day. [9] Ross argues that this continued creative rest of God is further supported by the physics laws of Conservation of Mass and Conservation of Energy, which state that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed.[10] According to Ross’ position, these physics laws would not have been in effect during the creation account, nor would they be in effect when the Seventh Day ends, as detailed in the apocalyptical Book of Revelation.[11] By extension, when the events of Revelation come to pass, Ross would expect an end to God’s creative rest and encounter an 8th day with the destruction of all matter and energy, followed by a genesis of a new Heaven and Earth.[12]
From a theological perspective, Robert Newman addresses a problem with this particular model of lengthy Genesis days, in that it puts plant and animal death before the fall of man. Another problem with Progressive Creationism is due to the complicated nature of a model that arises from an attempt not to favor science over Scripture and vice versa, potentially angering both schools of thought with this compromise [13].
From a scientific perspective, Robert Jastrow addresses a problem with this model in that, “This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control.” [14]
[edit] Notes
- ^ Numbers(2006) p181
- ^ Numbers(2006) p194-195
- ^ Numbers(2006) p208
- ^ a b Eugenie C. Scott (December 7, 2000). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". National Center for Science Education. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp. Retrieved on 2007-11-19.
- ^ Ross(2004) p71
- ^ Hayward(1995) p177
- ^ Ross(1994) p46
- ^ Ross(2004) p76
- ^ Ross(2004) p81
- ^ Ross(2004) p79-84
- ^ Ross(2004) p93-95
- ^ Ross(2004) p83-84
- ^ Newman(September 1995) p172
- ^ Jastrow(2000) p113-14
[edit] References
- Hayward, Alan (March 1995). Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible. Bethany House Publishers. ISBN 1-55661-679-1.
- Jastrow, Robert (2000). God and the Astronomers: Second Edition. W. W. Norton & Company; 2 edition. ISBN 0393850064.
- Newman, Robert (September 1995). Scientific and Religious Aspects of the Origins Debate. The American Scientific Affiliation.
- Numbers, Ronald (November 30, 2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press. p. 624 pages. ISBN 0674023390.
- Ross, Hugh (March 2004). A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy. Navpress Publishing Group. ISBN 1-57683-375-5.
- Ross, Hugh (March 1994). Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Navpress Publishing Group. ISBN 0891097775.
