First, we looked at how God reveals himself through both scripture and creation. Since he is the author of both, these two “books” will not ultimately contradict each other, but complement each other. With this in mind, we also saw that scripture doesn't teach modern science, but ancient science. However, I would like to stress that there is one major point in which the bible and modern science converge. That point is that both scripture and science teach that there was a beginning to the universe and a beginning to life.
Second, we have seen that there are better options for interpreting the early chapters of Genesis other than in the rigid, literalistic way that the YECs do. Just to be clear, there is a difference between interpreting scripture literally and interpreting it literalistically. We should interpret scripture literally, meaning, that we should look for the plain meaning of the text as the original audience would have understood it. This means that we are not going to interpret each genre of scripture the same, but as it is meant to be under stood. For more on this, see the post I have written on biblical interpretation here and here and here. To interpret a passage in a literalistic manner basically means to ignore metaphors, symbolism, genre, literary style, etc. We want to be literal in our interpretation, not literalistic. The YEC interpretation is very literalistic.
Third, we have seen that historical development of YEC is on very shaky ground when it comes to the reliability of its source. Finally, we have seen that creation science fails miserably when dealing with the scientific data.
After reading these articles, I hope you see why I cannot embrace this system of thought, nor teach it with a clear conscience. As I said earlier, I do think that this is an open handed issue, and that Christians should not break fellowship over it. With that said, I also mentioned that I see great dangers in Christians continuing to hold on to this system. One of those dangers is that this system of thought brings into question the intellectual integrity if Christianity. As we have seen, creation science is dishonest; it refuses to deal with the real data, attacks outdated material, and only presents half truths when it is attacking a claim. Such tactics are a grievous turn off to those outside the faith. How do I know? Because I talk with atheists, agnostics, and others who will not embrace the Christian message. A lot of times, it’s not because they are offended by Christ, but because of the intellectual dishonesty of Christians who believe and teach YEC. If people are to stumble, let them stumble over the gospel. Let them stumble over the holiness of our life. Let them stumble over Christ crucified, not our blatant denial of facts and dishonest handling of them.
When this is brought up to me by those outside the faith, how do I respond? I try and show them the same things that I have just showed you: that there is a better, and more faithful and honest way to deal with the bible and with science.
At this point, let me transition back to how I present some things to my own children. One of the things I tell them is “think critically, but don’t be critical.” What I mean by that is twofold: I try to teach my kids to be critical thinkers. I try to teach them to examine teachings and arguments for its strengths and weakness; where it is right and wrong. Yet in this process, I am also instructing them to act in love. When it comes to the area of science, I relay to them that there are other Christians who believe different than daddy and what daddy is teaching you, but that doesn't mean that we treat them any differently. We love, cherish, and respect other Christians, even if they believe differently than we do in this area. I tell them to be critical of ideas, not of people. I try and teach them that if a person becomes mean, argumentative, and condescending, they will never be able to teach anyone anything. Finally, I teach them to be teachable. I tell them that not all of us are right about everything. We need to be open to where the evidence leads us, even if it means changing what we believe. My prayer is that as they grow, they will constantly come before scripture with an open heart and teachable spirit, so that the Spirit may lead them into all truth.
So, if YEC isn't a good system of thought, what are some other options? We have already looked at other ways of interpreting Genesis, but what about bringing some of these interpretations of Genesis together with some other interpretations of science? There are other systems that do this, and that I think are better options for Christians.
1. Progressive Creationism/Old Earth Creationism. This view is a combination of the Day-Age theory, Framework interpretation, or ANE Historical Myth with Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design claims that it is a viable alternative to Darwinian evolution and creation science. ID adherents accept cosmological evolution and an old earth. As far as biological evolution goes, the camp is divided. There are some who adhere to it, but reject natural selection as the mechanism. Others, however, say that natural selection can account for most of the biological world, but not all of it. There are some structures and processes that evolution cannot account for. The only explanation is God. In essence, some things are so complex, that natural selection could not have designed them; they require the hand of an intelligent designer. Then, there are those who reject all forms of biological evolution. ID says that based on our current knowledge base, we cannot understand how x evolved. Therefore, something other and than what is presently known is needed to describe what we see. The explanation is God. ID has been criticized because it takes on a “God of the gaps” argument. Also, it argues that God only miraculously intervenes at certain points, while everything else is mechanical. Some proponents of this view argue that God created life in sequential stages during the 4.5 billion year history of the earth. With their belief that the creation days in Genesis 1 are periods of millions of years, they also claim that there is general alignment between the order of creative events in the Bible and the development of the universe and living organisms. Some IDs argue that God miraculously formed basic groups of plants and animals at different points during the past. Yet these kinds adapted and modified over the years. Many claim that their interpretation of Genesis 1 is consistent with how life developed from simple to more complex. Finally, some claim that there are gaps in the fossil records between groups, and that this reflects God’s intermittent interventionist action in the origin of basic groups.
OEC’s also defend that humanity descended from a single human couple as the bible depicts. They do, however, accept that death and decay happened before the sin of Adam and Eve. Thus, their sin did not bring physical death into the world, only spiritual death. Thus, they reject a cosmic fall. For more on death, see the article I wrote here.
2. Evolutionary Creationism. This view is specifically Christian, and is held by those who are more conservative in their theology. It combines either a non-historical myth or a historical myth view with evolutionary science. Evolution claims that things developed over time. Evolution is cosmological, geological, and biological. They argue that cosmological evolution is proven 1) Constant of the speed of light- light traveling from distant objects takes millions, and even billions of years to reach us. 2) Big bang- The expanding of the universe indicates that it started at some point in the past. The age of the universe is determined by re-running the expansion, by using the rate of expansion and the Doppler effect. Geological evolution is proven 1) Radioactive dating method. 2) Measurement of lead isotopes 3) Dating of meteorites. Finally, biological evolution is proven by 1) Paleontology- organisms have changed gradually over time as reflected in the fossil records. Despite the false claims of YEC, many transitional forms exists.2) Biogeography- New species only arise near very similar species. Similar species share a common time and place. 3) Developmental biology- organisms build on ancestral features as it develops from a single cell. 4) Morphology- organisms adapt ancestral features to new uses, even when there are more efficient solutions in nature. 5) Genetics- species are grouped by similar genes. These groups even share unused DNA.
The name of the title is meant to emphasize that God is indeed active in creation, but through the evolutionary process. This view believes that God accommodated his message to the science of the day to make a theological point. Therefore, modern science should not be read into the Genesis text, or even the rest of scripture.
There is also a little disagreement between many ECs about the nature of biological evolution. Some indeed hold to a high view of natural selection, while others say it is a very small piece of the evolutionary picture. In all actuality, there is very little difference between some IDs and ECs. It is all a matter of what camp they claim.
One of the other disagreements among ECs has to do with God’s providence. Some believe that God is only intervening at certain points to keep creation on course. Others, who are more Reformed/Calvinistic in their theology, see God’s providence as engulfing the entire process. Furthermore, there are those who believe that God supernaturally intervened to infuse man with the image of God, while others believe this developed as a natural process, and still others believe it was a combination. Currently, this is one of the biggest topics of discussion among ECs.
In closing this series out, I hope you have been challenged and encouraged. There are many more issues that are raised when discussing these things; more than I have the time or space to address. My prayer is that you will continue to investigate these things. If you have any questions, please, don’t hesitate to ask.
In the comments below, I have listed some resources for further study.