About Me – On Creation

If you don’t know, this is a post that helps you the reader to become more acquainted with where I – the author of this site – stand on various topics and theological points. Keep reading to see where I stand on this topic.


All of creation is unquestioningly that, a creation, not a product of mere chance. God was clearly involved in the creation of everything – the universe, everything in it, humans too.

Now, I’ve spoken at some length on this topic under the “ologies and key terms” series. I deal with Creationism there in 4 parts but I’d recommend starting with the Introduction (Part 1).

Those articles give a great place to start on the topic but they do not truly tell you where I belong – where I stand.

I am certainly a creationist and I side more closely with the young-earth group. With that said, I am not anti-evolution. Let me explain.

In its simplest definition, evolution means change. There is an overabundance of evidence that organisms do in fact change over generations. However, much of the observed changes are deleterious in nature. In other words, evolution by loss of genetic information, not the addition of new. Evolutionary evidence thereby can explain speciation – as there is enough evidence for such drift. However, we haven’t truly been around long enough for evolution to be the deriving force of all the different types of life. Not to mention the fact that that sort of thinking is an assumption as it hasn’t and isn’t directly observed on such a macro level. I can certainly see how people would arrive at the conclusion but if most genetic changes (mutations) are deleterious, it doesn’t do well to explain new genetic innovations. Much more could be said here but I’ll leave it there for now.

I do know and have friends among the old-earth creationist camp (all of which are of the Framework hypothesis variety). Their position is interesting to me but I’m not convinced by it. That’s not saying my own is exactly air-tight though. Nevertheless, I see them as fellow believers that largely differ on time-frame, the extent of evolution’s part, and ultimately how to interpret the creation week. However, they hold much of the rest of Scriptures exactly the same as I do (same Christ, same Trinity, etc.).

Another position that often comes out in this topic is theistic evolution. In my youth, I had held this position. If you are not familiar with it, it effectively tries to hold as true both the Scriptures and everything naturalistic science claims. As you might imagine, this simply doesn’t work as you have to compromise somewhere – especially as naturalism is rather atheistic. These days this position doesn’t garner as much support as it once did though you will see some still use the term to describe their position. It has become a sort of “no man’s land” or catch-all term and I’d advise either asking further questions of the person who claims it to see where they actually stand or treat them as one who is still trying to figure things out.


Note: I do these posts not because I think I’m somehow superior in my views or anything absurd like that but out of a desire to be up-front and honest with my readers as to where I stand. Otherwise, you’d be left to figure things out by reading between the lines and/or guessing.

Old-Earth Creationism (Creationism part 3)

Old-Earth

 Is there unity among those who hold to this view?

There is in regards to what has been spoken in the following questions; however, there is greater variance within this camp when compared to young-Earth. Some common names that appear include:

Progressive creationism

Gap theory

Day-age theory

Framework Hypothesis

Some would also try to include theistic evolution here which I addressed in part 1 of Creationism as to why it makes no sense. Day-age theory tends to have many of the same issues as theistic evolution. What’s more, not everyone uses all of these terms consistently which makes things all the more murky to understand &/or keep straight.

How is the creation week in Genesis 1 to be read?

In general, those who take an old-Earth view do not take the Genesis account of creation completely literal. Differing angles will go about this each in their own way. Even so, they often claim the text is to be taken as symbolic in some form or another and to varying extent.

What is the time-scale for all history in this position?

Irrespective of the particular variant subscribed, old-Earth views are called such because they have accepted the extensive amount of time commonly seen in secular science. There is no issue, in old-Earth positions, in accepting the evidence given that point to an ancient planet and even cosmos. This would include accepting Earth to be some 4.5 billion years old.

What is the time-frame for the creation week?

It is not composed of six literal, 24-hour days – at least not six days alone anyway. Progressive creationism and day-age theory treat the days as long periods of time. Gap theory still has days but puts in a gap of time between the first and second day. Framework has “days” that are considered “artistic literary devices” and thus are not literal, allowing for large amounts of time in the creation week.

Any other particular points of note?

Progressive creationism, gap theory, and framework hypothesis consistently treat human creation separate from the naturalistic development of other life.

Day-age theory often falls into the same trappings of theistic evolution because it is often used as an explanation to validate those who claim theistic evolution. Its overuse of naturalism makes most that would espouse it to even deny the specific creation of man – relegating man to being no different from the rest of creation (subject to a single-celled beginning, macro-evolutionary path).

Among all the variants commonly associated with the old-earth camp, the framework hypothesis is the only one that seems to truly deal with the text. The other variants tend to assume or force a more symbolic/figurative approach on the text whether it makes sense to or not. Framework actually allows for literal interpretation as it sees Genesis 1 as a combination of historical narrative and poetry. The result is more of a historical “drama” that can be taken literally at points and metaphorical at others.


That was part 3 in a mini-series on Creationism within the -ologies & Key Terms series. There is a 4th and final part to come in this mini-series next week.

Have any questions? Need something clarified? Please leave a comment!

I'm part of Post A Week 2016