Jump to content

Old Earth creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.144.120.119 (talk) at 11:44, 19 August 2010 (→Global Flood versus Local flood in Old Earth Creationism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Creationism
Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" on the Sistine Chapel ceiling
History
Types
Biblical cosmology
Creation science
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
Religious views
Non-creation
Evolution

Old Earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella term for a number of types of creationism, including Gap creationism and Progressive creationism. Their worldview is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology and the age of the Earth, in comparison to Young Earth creationism; however, they still generally take the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than theistic evolution (also known as evolutionary creationism) in that OEC rejects the scientific consensus accepting evolution.[1]

Types of Old Earth Creationism

Gap Creationism

Main article: Gap creationism

Gap creationism states that life was immediately and recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. One variant rests on a rendering of Genesis 1:1-2 as:

"In the beginning ... the earth was formless and void."

This is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being "shaped anew". This view is more consistent with mainstream science with respect to the age of the Earth, but still often resembles Young Earth creationism in many respects (often seeing the "days" of Genesis 1 as 24-hour days). This view was popularized in 1909 by the Scofield Reference Bible.

Progressive Creationism

Main article: Progressive creationism

Progressive Creationism is the religious belief that God allows certain natural process (such as gene mutation and natural selection) to affect the development of life, but has also directly intervened at key moments in life’s history to guide those processes or, in some views, create new species altogether (often to replenish the earth).

This view of creationism allows for and accepts fluctuation within defined species but rejects transitional evolution as a viable mechanism to create a gradual ascent from unicellular organisms to advanced life. Progressive creationists point to multiple destructive events in the Earth's history (such as meteoric impacts and large-scale global volcanic activity) and geological evidence for rapid subsequent speciation as evidence for distinct, typically limited intervention by a Creator. This view can be applied (as it often is) to virtually any of the other Old Earth views.

Approaches to Genesis 1

Old Earth creationists may approach the creation accounts of Genesis in a number of different ways.

The Framework interpretation

Summary of the Genesis 6-day creation account, showing the pattern according to the framework hypothesis.
Days of creation Days of creation
Day 1: Light; day and night Day 4: Sun, moon and stars
Day 2: Sea and Heavens Day 5: Sea creatures; birds
Day 3: Land and vegetation Day 6: Land creatures; man
Main article: Framework interpretation (Genesis)

The framework interpretation (or framework hypothesis) notes that there is a pattern or "framework" present in the Genesis account and that, because of this, the account may not have been intended as a strict chronological record of creation. Instead, the creative events may be presented in a topical order. This view is broad enough that proponents of other old earth views (such as many Day-Age creationists) have no problem with many of the key points put forward by the hypothesis, though they might believe that there is a certain degree of chronology present.

Day-Age Creationism

Main article: Day-Age Creationism

Day-Age Creationism is an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the Day-Age Theory can be found among theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.

The Day-Age Theory tries to reconcile these views by arguing that the Creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. Most advocates of Old Earth creationism hold that the six days referred to in the creation account given in Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, as the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) can be interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time (thousands or millions of years) rather than a 24-hour day.[2] According to this view, the sequence and duration of the Creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.

In a variant of this old Earth view of Creationism, Jehovah's Witnesses stated in a 1985 book that Genesis shows the correct order against enormous odds. TalkOrigins archive states that this shows an incorrect order of events, the odds are incorrectly calculated, and the order shown contradicts what Genesis says.[3]

Cosmic Time

Gerald Schroeder puts forth a view which tries to reconcile 24-hour creation days with an age of billions of years for the universe by noting, as creationist Phillip E. Johnson summarizes in his article What Would Newton Do?: "the Bible speaks of time from the viewpoint of the universe as a whole, which Schroeder interprets to mean at the moment of 'quark confinement,' when stable matter formed from energy early in the first second of the big bang."[4] Schroeder calculates that a period of six days under the conditions of quark confinement, when the universe was approximately a trillion times smaller and hotter than it is today is equal to fifteen billion years of earth time today. This is all due to space expansion after quark confinement.[5] Thus Genesis and modern physics are reconciled. Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe claims that Schroeder puts the creation of the Earth approximately eight billion years earlier than modern scientific theories and it may be incorrect with respect to the viewpoint of creation.[6] Schroeder, though, states in an earlier book, Genesis and the Big Bang, that the Earth and solar system is some "4.5 to 5 billion years" old[7] and also states in a later book, The Science of God, that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old.[8]

Global Flood versus Local flood in Old Earth Creationism

A global Flood is used by both Old Earth and Young Earth Creationists. The Old Earth Creationists merely construct a different flood geology than Young Earth Creationists who insist on the six Creation days of 144 hours before Adam requiring most geology to be of global Flood nature. This divides Old Earth Creationists into those who believe in a global Flood, and those who believe the whole world was local, [9][10] a position which leaves Old Earth open to accusations that they thereby reject the infallibility of scripture (which states that the Genesis flood covered the whole of the earth).[11] citing verses in the Bible where the words "whole" and "all" clearly require a contextual interpretation.[12][13] Old Earth creationists generally believe that the human race was localised around the Middle East at the time of the Genesis flood,[14] a position which is in conflict with the Out of Africa theory.

Old Earth creationist organizations

Criticism

Many secularists and theistic evolutionists criticize Old Earth Creationism for rejecting evolution while Young Earth Creationists believe Old Earth creationists do not take the Bible literally enough.

See also

References

  1. ^ The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.
  2. ^ Old Earth Creation Science Word Study: Yom, Greg Neyman © 2007, Answers In Creation, Published 16 March 2005
  3. ^ Claim CH801, created 2001-6-11, Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2004, TalkOrigins archive
  4. ^ What Would Newton Do?, Phillip E. Johnson, Access Research Network
  5. ^ Age of the Universe, Gerald Schroeder
  6. ^ Response to Genesis and the Big Bang: A book authored by Gerald Schroeder, Hugh Ross and Miguel Endara
  7. ^ Genesis and the Big Bang, Gerald Schroeder, p. 116
  8. ^ The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, p. 68, Broadway Books, Gerald Schroeder 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X
  9. ^ Deluge Geology, J. Laurence Kulp, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 2, 1(1950): 1-15.
  10. ^ The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood, Copyright © 2001 by Glenn Morton, TalkOrigins website, Last Update: February 17, 2001
  11. ^ Did Noah’s Flood cover the whole earth?, John D. Morris, Creation 12(2):48–50, March 1990
  12. ^ Noah's Flood: Global or Local?, Donald Hochner
  13. ^ The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?, Carol A. Hill, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, p. 170-183, Volume 54, Number 3, September 2002
  14. ^ The Mediterranean Flood, Glenn R. Morton, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (December 1997): 238, American Scientific Affiliation website
  15. ^ About Answers In Creation?
  16. ^ Answers in Creation

Further reading

  • Schroeder, Gerald, Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible, 1991, ISBN 0-553-35413-2 (articulates Old Earth Creationism)
  • A comprehensive critique of Genesis & the Big Bang by Yoram Bogacz, entitled Genesis & the Big Bluff, can be found at the Torah Explorer website [1].
  • Ross, Hugh, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy, 2004, ISBN 1-57683-375-5 (Details why Old Earth Creationism is the literal Biblical view)
  • Ross, Hugh, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis, 2001, ISBN 1-57683-230-9 (Details the agreement of science with Old Earth Creationism]
  • Elder, Samuel A., The God Who Makes Things Happen: Physical Reality and the Word of God, iUniverse, 2007, ISBN 0-59542-236-5 (Harmonization of the Biblical six 24-hour days of creation and the estimated 13.7 billion years observed in nature; quantum mechanics theory demonstrates God's sovereignty over chance; law of entropy identifies Jesus Christ as "anchor of time" bringing salvation "once for all").
  • David G. Hagopian, editor, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, 2000, ISBN 0-9702245-0-8 (Three pairs of scholars present and debate the three most widespread evangelical interpretations of the creation days)
  • Refuting Compromise (ISBN 0-89051-411-9) 2004 (critique of old-earth creationism, in particular that of Ross, Hugh)
Introductory chapter and some reviews
  • Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible, 1995, ISBN 1-55661-679-1 (by a Christadelphian old-earth creationist)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_Earth_creationism&oldid=379762290"