Image Hosted by

Monday, July 02, 2007

Creation, Evolution, and Theology

It's a grand sounding title, but the coverage will be limited. Two and a half years ago I wrote a series of posts about evolution, concluding here.

My position hasn't changed from what is stated - your stance on evolution does not have an impact upon your spiritual condition. What has changed is this - why you have your stance speaks volumes about your spiritual condition.

While Jeremy posted one of the better defenses of old-earth theory, a required component of theistic evolution I have seen here, based upon literary styles, I found it still pretty unconvincing. I don't deny the presence of poetic elements, I simply acknowledge (and I'm guessing Jeremy does, too) that they do not demand a rejection of a more literal interpretation of the days as days. (I do think the whole 'sevens' issue is of little value to the argument).

Yet, in recent months I have come across the two most compelling arguments for both old-earth and new-earth creationism. Stay tuned and decide for yourself!


  • Hi Hammer,

    I’m looking forward to your comments.

    Your link seemed to be a defense of why the Bible is not inconsistent with an old earth understanding, but it didn’t defend evolution at all. Doesn’t theistic evolution require a belief in evolution and a Bible consistent with a belief in evolution?

    Christianity and evolution seem to have some similarities: Both require evidence, both require an interpretation of the evidence, and both require a step of faith after evaluating the evidence.

    The more I learn about evolution, the more I realize how important and how big the step of faith required to believe humans evolved from non-humans is. I simply don’t have enough faith to believe.

    Perhaps your arguments could convince me! : - )

    By Blogger David M. Smith, at 7/04/2007 02:59:00 PM  

  • David,
    Actually, I won't be defending evolution, per se, just old-earth theory, which permits a belief in evolution. Since I don't buy into evolutionary theory, you won't find a defense of it here! I am not committed entirely to either earth-age theory, so I feel I can honestly present both aspects.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 7/05/2007 10:41:00 AM  

  • Hi Hammer,

    Why are you using the term “Theistic Evolution” to describe an old earth defense? Doesn’t theistic evolution require a belief in [God] directed evolution?

    By Blogger David M. Smith, at 7/05/2007 01:20:00 PM  

  • It does. Clearly I misspoke! I'll make the adjustment.

    Simply put, a "new-earth" theology of creation automatically disqualifies evolution. Thus, a reasonable "old-earth" theory, based upon Scripture and not assumptions from current scientific theory, would be the first step in accepting theistic evolution.

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 7/05/2007 11:15:00 PM  

  • For the record, I don't think the genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is strong evidence for an old-earth view. I was defending mainly the consistency of an old-earth view with the biblical text. I do think there are some indications that the text isn't reporting events in a chronological order, so the poetic aspects aren't the only textual evidence. But it's not textual evidence that really does it for me. Since you can fit the biblical text with either view, I think we ought to decide between them based on science, and I think our best science is overwhelmingly in favor of an old-earth view to the point of young-earth views being completely irrational.

    By Blogger Jeremy Pierce, at 7/06/2007 08:39:00 AM  

  • Completely irrational, Jeremy? Wait until I post my new-earth view, then decide if it is so...

    By Blogger Hammertime, at 7/08/2007 06:24:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home