Ceci n'est pas un blog
Creation and evolution: my current thinking
I've been pondering the issue of creation and evolution for years, and I thought it was about time to set out my current thinking on the area. This is all provisional and subject to change, but the points below are things that I'm fairly sure about.
If you desperately want to label me with one of the common labels, then "young-earth creationist" or "six-day creationist" would probably be most appropriate. Except that I don't think the earth is young or that God created everything in six days.
Theological issues
- The basic narrative of the Bible is creation–fall–redemption. The "physical" history of life, the universe and everything is inseparably part of that narrative. The creation was good, was corrupted at the fall, and is being restored and renewed following the redemptive work of Christ. (Listen to this talk by Steve Lloyd on Creation and the Story-Line of the Bible.)
- Human death, and other things such as cancer, agony and violent death in humans or animals, are not good, were not present before the fall, and will be abolished when all things are renewed in the resurrection. (See the Steve Lloyd link above, and his points in a debate on creation and evolution.)
- All human beings are descended biologically from Adam and Eve (and only Adam and Eve), who were created thousands (not millions) of years ago. (See this book chapter by Michael Reeves on Adam and Eve. That almost rhymed.)
- It was necessary for Jesus to undergo human physical death in order to deal with the problem of sin, because human physical death is a consequence of sin.
- It follows from points 2 and 3 that all fossil-bearing rocks (or at least the vast majority of them) were laid down after the fall, probably during or soon after the flood, thousands (not millions) of years ago.
- Compared with the above points, the age of the universe and of planet earth are issues of little significance for Christian theology and biblical interpretation. Even if the universe and planet earth are old, that doesn't necessarily mean that the biosphere is old, or that the fossil-bearing rocks are old. My working hypothesis is that God created plants and animals on earth a few thousand years ago, prior to which the earth had existed without life for billions of years.
Scientific issues
- "Faith" and "science" cannot be isolated from each other. There is a deep interaction between the two, which is relevant at every level.
- Evolutionary models for biology and geology have significant unresolved issues. This perhaps hints that there are scientific grounds (and not just theological grounds) for exploring alternatives. However, these unresolved issues do not imply that those models are wrong, or that they are bad science. (See my post on Evidence for young-age creationism.)
- Scientific models built on young-age views have major unresolved issues. But they also seem to show some signs of possessing explanatory power in certain areas in which the evolutionary models are weak. This perhaps hints that there are scientific grounds (and not just theological grounds) for continued research into young-age models. But, even if those models have strengths, they are currently far from compelling. (Again, see my post on Evidence for young-age creationism.)
- The truth about the origins of everything cannot be determined simply by looking up the definition of the word "science" in a dictionary.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Anthony on 8 Jun 2012 at 12.09 pm, and is filed under Science & Faith. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |


I live in York and I
about 11 months ago
A helpful post. Perhaps the more generic term "young-age creationist" could be used to encompass those who think the universe and/or earth is old, but the biosphere and fossil record young?
about 11 months ago
Thanks, Paul. That would be my preferred term, and I use it when I can. But I think it will only become a mainstream term when the focus of the debate shifts from the days of Genesis 1 to the theological issues above in points 1-4. For many creationists, that will be a big shift to make.
about 9 months ago
Hi Anthony!
The flaw in your scientific argument is that evolutionary models have some tiny tiny unresolved issues (exactly how the big toe evolved maybe), and that scientific models based on young-age view have major major issues (the entire fossil record etc etc).
I also disagree with you on number 1 -- as soon as you start using faith to do science, you're doing bad science as the point is to deduce theories based on experiments -- which Christian faith is directly incompatible with, "thou shalt not test the Lord" or similar? I don't think faith and science are incompatible views of the world for a human, but muddling them together causes problems for both.
about 9 months ago
Sorry, I said "flaw" when I actually meant "bias"
about 9 months ago
Hi Edwin!
Thanks for the comments, appreciated. I think evolutionary models probably have more than a few tiny tiny unresolved issues. Otherwise there would be no need for more research in evolution...
You've lost me a bit on the faith/science thing. I'm not saying they are the same, but that there is a meaningful interaction. My faith might suggest that the world is (or is not) an ordered place, and that I should (or should not) consider the possibility that it is governed by certain laws. My faith might lead me to believe that my senses can (or cannot) be trusted. Or my faith might lead me to believe that the material world is (or is not) evil and that I should not (or should) perform experiments to try and understand it. Or my faith might lead me to think that God has said certain things about the created order, which might be relevant for my scientific investigations. That kind of thing - I don't think there's any area of science that is "neutral" and independent of any "faith" considerations.
about 9 months ago
Hi Anthony!
I mean "issues" in the sense of being a fundamental problem with evolutionary theory, to the extent that alternative explanations such as creationism are required. I really can't see any of the gaps in science to date are grounds for "exploring alternatives" to evolution -- they're all about finding more out about evolution.
I guess if you extend "faith" to be the "human perception of the world" then I agree there's no separation -- e.g. consciousness vs quantum mechanics. But if you start letting the writings in ancient manuscripts bias what you observe in the natural world, there is a problem with the "science" you're doing. I guess there's line somewhere in between, and it's not easy to see exactly where it lies!
about 9 months ago
Edwin - thanks for the comment. I'd say it's always worth exploring alternatives in principle, but the amount of effort/time/money you invest in exploring alternatives would depend on lots of factors (and faith considerations!).
Bias is fine, especially if it can be recognised and expressed openly. It's the unrecognised biases that are really dangerous.