1. Is the earth old?
2. Do we have a common ancestor?
(i) Extreme creationists reject the scientific evidence and hold onto a literal six-day creation, they claim that the earth is young and we don’t have a common ancestor e.g Henry Morris (ed.) Scientific Creationism (1974).
(ii) Progressive creationists adopt some sort of age-day or revelatory-day view of Genesis 1 and thus accept an old earth but reject a common ancestor, e.g. Pattle P. T. Pun Evolution (1982).
(iii) Theistic evolutionists would accept that while God created matter and natural laws, life evolved, the earth is old and we do have a common ancestor e.g R. J. Berry (1988).
The nineteenth and early twentieth century saw a number of ways of relating the early chapters of Genesis with science.
Position | Advocates | Work | Date |
| E.G. White | Spiritual Gifts | 1864 |
George McReady Price | The New Geology | 1923 | |
Byron Nelson | The Deluge Story in Stone | 1931 | |
A.M. Rehwinkel | The Flood in the Light of the Bible | 1951 | |
H.W. Clark | The New Diluvialism | 1946 | |
Henry M. Morris & John C. Whitcomb | The Genesis Flood | 1961 | |
Local creation | John Pye Smith | On the Relation Between the Holy Scriptures and Certain parts of Geological Science | 1839 |
Ideal time view | Philip Henry Grosse | Omphalos | 1857 |
| Buckland | | 1837 |
Adam Sedgwick | Discourses on the Studies of the | | |
Robert Chalmers | The evidence and authority of the Christian Revelation | 1817 | |
John H. Pratt | Scripture and Science not at variance | 1857 | |
J.H. Kurtz | Bible and astronomy | 1842 | |
G.H. Pember | Earth’s Earliest Ages | 1876 | |
C.I. Scofield | Scofield Bible | 1909 | |
Harry Rimmer | Modern Science and the Genesis Record | 1937 | |
| G. S. Faber | Genius and object | 1823 |
Buffon | Epoques de la Nature | 1778 | |
James Dana | Manual of Geology | 1863 | |
J.W. Dawson | Origin of the World According to Revelation and Science | 1877 | |
Edwin K. Gedeney | in Modern Science and Christian Faith | 1948 | |
Pictorial day | J.H. Kurtz | Bible and Astronomy | 1857 |
Hugh Miller | Testimony of the Rocks | 1849 | |
A.H. Strong | Systematic Theology | 1907 | |
Canon Dorlodot | Darwinism & Catholic Thought | 1923 | |
L.F. Gruber | The Six Creative Days | | |
J. Pohle | God: The Author of Nature and the Supernatural | 1942 | |
P.J. Wiseman | Creation Revealed in Six Days | 1948 |
Flood geology or creationism, subsumes science with a literal six-day creation reading of scripture.
Local creation. The special act of creation by God was limited to a small area of the ancient near East.
Ideal time view. How old was Adam when God created him? He was apparently created with the appearance of age. The earth could likewise be created with the appearance of age, so this view purports.
Gap theory. In order to reconcile the geologists’ old earth view with the prima facie young earth view of Genesis a gap was inserted in Gen 1:2. God created in Genesis 1:1, this was followed by a catastrophe in Gen 1:2, and was followed by a re-creation in 1:3; 1:2 could provide the geologists with as much time as they required!
Age day. This view holds that the days of creation were periods of time representing the development of the earth.
Pictorial day. The days of creation in Genesis 1 are the days of revelation by God to 'Moses' of the successive acts of creation.
Adapted from Steve Bishop ‘A typology for science and religion’ Evangelical Quarterly 72 (1) (2000) 35-56. When I get time I'll put on some links.
2 comments:
What about our friend Roy Clouser?
And what about Steve Bishop?
(I have no idea what I am!)
I'm none of the above! I like the approach of Paul Seely: God accommodates himself in Genesis to the worldview of the ancient near east.
Roy likes the hypothesis framework for Genesis.
Post a Comment