Revision as of 10:53, 25 December 2007 editGusChiggins21 (talk | contribs)910 edits →Gap Creationism: added ref for Gap creation.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:24, 3 December 2024 edit undoButlerblog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers122,852 editsm →HistoryTag: Visual edit | ||
(574 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Form of creationism}} | |||
{{Unreferenced|date=February 2007}} | |||
{{creationism2}} | {{creationism2}} | ||
'''Old Earth Creationism''' ('''OEC''') is an umbrella of theological views encompassing certain varieties of ] which may or can include ], ], ], and sometimes ]. | |||
'''Old Earth creationism''' is a variant of the ] view of the origin of the ] and ]. As a theory of origins it is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of ], ] and the ], in comparison to ]. However, it still generally takes the ] more literally than ] (or evolutionary creationism). | |||
Broadly speaking, OEC usually occupies a middle ground between ] (YEC) and ] (TE). In contrast to YEC, it is typically more compatible with the scientific consensus on the issues of ], ], ], and the ].<ref>, ], ] Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.</ref> However, like YEC and in contrast with TE, some forms of it reject ], claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the ],<ref>Bocchino, Peter; Geisler, Norman "Unshakable Foundations" (Minneapolis: Bethany House., 2001). Pages 141-188</ref> and the concept of universal descent from a ]. | |||
Old Earth creationism is in fact an umbrella term for a number of perspectives, including ] and ]. | |||
For a long time ] creationists generally subscribed to Old Earth Creationism until 1960 when ] and ] published the book '']'', which caused the Young Earth creationist view to become prominent.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Not Young-Earth, but Still Creationist {{!}} National Center for Science Education |url=https://ncse.ngo/not-young-earth-still-creationist |access-date=2022-08-12 |website=ncse.ngo |language=en}}</ref> | |||
==Types of Old Earth Creationism== | |||
=== Gap Creationism === | |||
{{main|Gap creationism}} | |||
One type of Old Earth creationism is ]. This view states that life was immediately and recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. One variant rests on a rendering of ] 1:1-2 as: | |||
== History == | |||
: "In the beginning ... the earth '''became''' formless and void." (It is argued that the word 'was', ''hayah'', can also be correctly translated as 'became'.) | |||
] postulated an instantaneous creation and interpreted the days of Genesis allegorically, whose view also influenced ], ] and ]. Augustine was not alone in viewing the days of Genesis as allegorical, others include: ], possibly ], ], ] and ], who interpreted the days of the Genesis narrative allegorically. However, this should not be understood as rejecting the literal interpretation, which patristic commentators believed could stand side by side with the allegorical.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ortlund |first=Gavin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FCnNDwAAQBAJ&dq=Augustine+days+of+Genesis&pg=PA147 |title=Retrieving Augustine's Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy |date=2020-07-14 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-5325-0 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers' Perspective on Genesis, Part 1 (of 5) |url=https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/coming-to-grips-with-the-early-church-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-1-of-5 |access-date=2022-12-27 |website=Reasons to Believe |language=en-US}}</ref> | |||
] argued that each of the days of Genesis symbolically represented 1000 years of the world’s history, believing the world would endure for 7000 years.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What the Early Church Believed: Creation and Genesis |url=https://www.catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis |access-date=2022-07-29 |website=Catholic Answers |quote=The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 ).}}</ref> ] and ] also suggested that the days of Genesis could prefigure 6000 years of earth history, quoting Psalm 90:4 and perhaps 2 Peter. <ref>{{Cite book |last=Lennox |first=John C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tQIlEAAAQBAJ&dq=Irenaeus+days+of+Genesis&pg=PA46 |title=Seven Days that Divide the World, 10th Anniversary Edition: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science |date=2021-10-12 |publisher=Zondervan |isbn=978-0-310-12782-6 |language=en}}</ref> | |||
This is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being "shaped anew"<ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/ageold.html</ref>. This view is more consistent with mainstream science with respect to the age of the Earth, but still often resembles Young Earth creationism in many respects (often seeing the "days" of Genesis 1 as 24-hour days). This view was popularized in 1909 by the ]. | |||
According to ], ] supposedly denied the Genesis account as being literal with six 24 hour days.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
] popularized ], which is a form of Old Earth Creationism.<ref>{{cite book |last=Moore |first=Randy |title=More Than Darwin: An Encyclopedia of the People and Places of the Evolution-creationism Controversy |author2=Mark D Decker |publisher=Greenwood Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0313341557 |page=302}}</ref> Additionally it was advocated by the ], which caused the theory to survive longer.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Mangum |first1=R. Todd |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oRKA1w6TPPcC&dq=Gap+theory+scofield&pg=PA156 |title=The Scofield Bible: Its History and Impact on the Evangelical Church |last2=Sweetnam |first2=Mark S. |date=2009-12-10 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-5751-7 |language=en}}</ref> | |||
Probably the most famous day-age creationist was American politician, anti-evolution campaigner and ] prosecutor ]. Unlike many of his conservative followers, Bryan was not a strict biblical literalist, and had no objection to "evolution before man but for the fact that a concession as to the truth of evolution up to man furnishes our opponents with an argument which they are quick to use, namely, if evolution accounts for all the species up to man, does it not raise a presumption in behalf of evolution to include man?" He considered defining the days in Genesis 1 to be twenty-four hours to be a pro-evolution ] argument to make attacking creationists easier, and admitted under questioning at the Scopes trial that the world was far older than six thousand years, and that the days of creation were probably longer than twenty-four hours each.<ref>Numbers(2006) p58</ref> | |||
American ] preacher and anti-evolution campaigner ], "The Grand Old Man of Fundamentalism", founder of the ] and of the ] was another prominent day-age creationist in the first half of the 20th century, who defended this position in a famous debate with friend and prominent young Earth creationist ].<ref>Numbers(2006) p82</ref> | |||
==Types== | |||
===Gap creationism=== | |||
{{main|Gap creationism}} | |||
Gap creationism is a form of old Earth creationism which posits the belief that the six-'']'' creation period, as described in the ], involved six literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the ].<ref>''Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction'', ], pp61-62</ref><ref>''The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism'', Jon P. Alston, p24</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html|title=What is Creationism?}}</ref> This view was popularized in 1909 by the ]. | |||
===Progressive |
===Progressive creationism=== | ||
{{main|Progressive creationism}} | {{main|Progressive creationism}} | ||
Progressive creationism is the religious belief that ] created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream ] and ] estimates for the ] and ], some tenets of ] such as ] as well as ] to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "]" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of ] creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; appear all at once and "fully formed."<ref>Gould, Stephen J. ''The Panda's Thumb'' (New York: W.W. Norton & CO., 1982), page 182.</ref> Thus the evidence for macroevolution is claimed to be false, but microevolution is accepted as a genetic parameter designed by the Creator into the fabric of genetics to allow for environmental adaptations and survival. Generally, it is viewed by proponents as a middle ground between literal creationism and evolution. | |||
Progressive Creationism is the religious belief that ] allows certain natural process (such as ] and ]) to affect the development of life, but has also directly intervened at key moments in life’s history to guide those processes or, in some views, create new species altogether (often to replenish the earth). | |||
This view of creationism allows for and accepts fluctuation within defined species but rejects transitional evolution as a viable mechanism to create a gradual descent from unicellular organisms to advanced life. Progressive creationists point to multiple destructive events in the earth's history (such as meteoric impacts and large-scale global volcanic activity) and geological evidence for rapid subsequent speciation as evidence for distinct, typically limited intervention by a Creator. This view can be applied (as it often is) to virtually any of the other Old Earth views. | |||
==Approaches to Genesis 1== | ==Approaches to Genesis 1== | ||
Old Earth creationists may approach the ] in a number of different ways. |
Old Earth Christian creationists may approach the ] in a number of different ways. | ||
=== |
=== Framework interpretation === | ||
{{main|Framework interpretation (Genesis)}} | {{main|Framework interpretation (Genesis)}} | ||
{| align="right" border="0" cellpadding=" |
{| align="right" border="0" cellpadding="5" | ||
| | | | ||
{| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" |
{| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" | ||
|+ Summary of the Genesis 6-day creation account, showing the pattern according to the framework hypothesis. | |+ Summary of the Genesis 6-day creation account, showing the pattern according to the framework hypothesis. | ||
|- | |- | ||
! ''' |
! '''Days of creation''' | ||
! ''' |
! '''Days of creation''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Day 1:''' Light; day and night | | '''Day 1:''' Light; day and night | ||
| '''Day 4:''' Sun, moon and stars | | '''Day 4:''' Sun, moon and stars | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Day 2:''' Sea and |
| '''Day 2:''' Sea and heavens | ||
| '''Day 5:''' Sea creatures; birds | | '''Day 5:''' Sea creatures; birds | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 44: | Line 55: | ||
The framework interpretation (or framework hypothesis) notes that there is a pattern or "framework" present in the Genesis account and that, because of this, the account may not have been intended as a strict chronological record of creation. Instead, the creative events may be presented in a topical order. This view is broad enough that proponents of other old earth views (such as many Day-Age creationists) have no problem with many of the key points put forward by the hypothesis, though they might believe that there ''is'' a certain degree of chronology present. | The framework interpretation (or framework hypothesis) notes that there is a pattern or "framework" present in the Genesis account and that, because of this, the account may not have been intended as a strict chronological record of creation. Instead, the creative events may be presented in a topical order. This view is broad enough that proponents of other old earth views (such as many Day-Age creationists) have no problem with many of the key points put forward by the hypothesis, though they might believe that there ''is'' a certain degree of chronology present. | ||
===Day- |
===Day-age creationism=== | ||
{{main|Day- |
{{main|Day-age creationism}} | ||
Day-age creationism is an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the universe, the Earth, life, and humans. It holds that the ] referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic ], providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among ] and ]. | |||
The day-age theory tries to reconcile these views by arguing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. Most advocates of old Earth creationism hold that the six days referred to in the creation account given in Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, as the Hebrew word for "day" ('']'') can be interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time (thousands or millions of years) rather than a 24-hour day.<ref>, Greg Neyman © 2007, ], Published 16 March 2005</ref> According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.{{citation needed|date=January 2021}} | |||
There are a variety of ways in which the events in the creation account are interpreted. Some closely resemble the order of events as held by ]. In this view on the first "day" God is said to have created light; on the second, the firmament of heaven; on the third, the separation between water and land, and the creation of plant life; on the fourth the sun, moon, and stars; on the fifth created marine life and birds; on the sixth land animals, and man and woman. | |||
===Cosmic time=== | |||
The order of light, then the firmament, then stars, might be taken as a simplified description of modern theories of ], namely the ], followed by ], followed by ]. Similarly, modern ] believes that marine animals preceded land animals. | |||
] puts forth a view which reconciles 24-hour creation days with an age of billions of years for the universe by noting, as creationist ] summarizes in his article "What Would Newton Do?": "the Bible speaks of time from the viewpoint of the universe as a whole, which Schroeder interprets to mean at the moment of '],' when stable matter formed from energy early in the first second of the big bang."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9811/articles/johnson.html|title=What Would Newton Do?|author=Phillip E. Johnson}}</ref> Schroeder calculates that a period of six days under the conditions of quark confinement, when the universe was approximately a trillion times smaller and hotter than it is today is equal to fifteen billion years of earth time today. This is all due to space expansion after quark confinement.{{cn|date=August 2022}} Thus Genesis and modern physics are reconciled.<ref>Response to ''Genesis and the Big Bang: A book authored by Gerald Schroeder'', ] and Miguel Endara</ref> Schroeder, though, states in an earlier book, ''Genesis and the Big Bang'', that the Earth and solar system is some "4.5 to 5 billion years" old<ref>''Genesis and the Big Bang'', ], p. 116</ref> and also states in a later book, ''The Science of God'', that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old.<ref>''The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom'', p. 68, Broadway Books, ] 1998, {{ISBN|0-7679-0303-X}}</ref> | |||
== The Biblical Flood == | |||
Critics of this old Earth view of Creationism comment{{Fact|date=February 2007}} that the order of the days of creation are inconsistent with modern scientific interpretation. For example, the Earth is unlikely to have existed before the Sun and all other stars, plant life could not have survived millennia without sunlight, flowering plants could not have been pollinated without insect life, and most birds could not survive long without terrestrial life. Another possible argument against the old Earth view of Creationism is that after each creation, the Bible states "And there was morning and night-the (corresponding) day." | |||
{{see also|Local flood theory|}} | |||
Some old Earth creationists reject ],<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607014037/http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1950/JASA3-50Kulp.html |date=2011-06-07 }}, ], Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 2, 1(1950): 1-15.</ref><ref>, Copyright © 2001 by Glenn Morton, ] ], Last Update: February 17, 2001</ref> a position which leaves them open to accusations that they thereby reject the ] of scripture (which states that the Genesis flood covered the whole of the earth).<ref>, ], Creation 12(2):48–50, March 1990</ref> In response, old Earth creationists cite verses in the Bible where the words "whole" and "all" clearly require a contextual interpretation.<ref>, Carol A. Hill, '']'', p. 170-183, Volume 54, Number 3, September 2002</ref> Old Earth creationists generally believe that the human race was localised around the Middle East at the time of the Genesis flood,<ref>, Glenn R. Morton, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (December 1997): 238, ] ] | |||
Other Old Earth creationism camps hold that the Sun, Moon and Stars were only given their mission or status by God on the fourth day, not literally created ex nihilo. Some believe that the phrase "Let there be light" implies only that light was made visible from the context of the surface of the earth (where the Spirit of the Lord was said to be moving upon the face of the waters) due to the removal of an opaque atmosphere. The Sun, Moon and stars were only made completely visible "for signs and for seasons and for days and years" in the fourth period when the atmosphere was made fully transparent and that the Sun was in existence well before the Earth. The "earth" mentioned in the first verse would be the cosmos as it existed in before the Big Bang, not literally the Earth itself in its modern form. The Hebrew phrase "shamayim erets" (Heavens and the earth) always refers to the entire Universe. It is also possible that the first verse "In the beginning ..." was only a summary of the account that would follow. The exact placement of particular creatures within the creation account such as insects and other forms of life are not necessarily mentioned in the text. The exact length and equality or overlap of "days" may vary from model to model. | |||
</ref> a position which is in conflict with the ]. | |||
===Cosmic Time=== | |||
] puts forth a view which tries to reconcile 24-hour creation days with an age of billions of years for the universe by noting, as creationist ] summarizes in his article "What Would Newton Do?": “the Bible speaks of time from the viewpoint of the universe as a whole, which Schroeder interprets to mean at the moment of "] confinement," when stable matter formed from energy early in the first second of the big bang.” Schroeder calculates that a period of six days under the conditions of quark confinement, when the universe was approximately a million times smaller and hotter than it is today, is equal to fifteen billion years of earth time. Thus Genesis and modern physics are reconciled. One problem with this approach is that it puts the creation of the Earth approximately eight billion years earlier than modern scientific theories and it may be incorrect with respect to the viewpoint of creation. | |||
== Broader Reasoning == | |||
There are a number of other scriptural reasons that Old earth creationists cite for belief in an old Earth that are often (though not always) held commonly by Gap, Day-Age and other old earth views. One argument is that there are a number of passages which seem to indicate the antiquity of Earth (many of which are poetic) for example , although they are also compatible with a 6,000-year-old earth which is likewise "old" from the perspective of a human lifetime. Others seem to relate the age of the Earth (or some aspects of Earth) to the eternal nature of God (implying great antiquity), although strict interpretation would prove too much, as old-earth creationists don't believe that the earth is eternal, Old Earth creationists argue that antiquity much greater than a few thousand years is implied. One claimed passage is (which is said to demonstrate that the passage of time can be considerably different from God’s perspective, although others claim it shows that God is outside time). | |||
Many (Roman Catholics especially){{Fact|date=February 2007}} also see a belief in an old Earth as predicated upon the view of ], that the words of the ] (]) ought to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the record of nature (]). | |||
By far the most compelling reason for Old earth creationists to believe in an old Earth is scientific evidence. | |||
== The Biblical Flood according to Old Earth Creationism == | |||
Old Earth Creationists have many scientific reasons for rejecting ].<ref>http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1950/JASA3-50Kulp.html</ref><ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/</ref> | |||
The accusation often levelled at Old Earth creationists in rejecting a global deluge is that they reject the infallibility of scripture which suggests that the Genesis flood covered the whole of the earth.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/noah.asp</ref> In response, Old Earth Creationists cite references in the Bible where the words "whole" and "all" clearly require a contextual interpretation.<ref>http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html</ref><ref>http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf</ref>Old Earth creationists generally believe that the human race was localised around the Middle East at the time of the Genesis flood. <ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* ], an affiliation of Christians who are also scientists | |||
* ], supports old earth creationism | |||
* ], a competing viewpoint | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
== |
==Notes== | ||
{{reflist}} | |||
* An Old-Earth, Day-Age site with a number of resources | |||
* An Old-Earth, Day-Age site with scriptural and scientific rebuttals to Young-Earth Creationism | |||
==References== | |||
* An Old Earth site purporting to demonstrate the flaws in young earth creationism | |||
{{refbegin}} | |||
* from ], A Young-Earth site purporting to demonstrate the theological flaws in old-earth creationism | |||
*{{cite book |last=Numbers |first=Ronald |author-link=Ronald Numbers |title=The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=2006 |url=https://archive.org/details/creationistsfrom0000numb |url-access=registration |page= |isbn=978-0-674-02339-0 }} | |||
* Old-Earth Creationism Site | |||
{{refend}} | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* , by Michael Butler | |||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
*], ''Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible'', 1991, ISBN 0-553-35413-2 (articulates Old Earth Creationism) | |||
*], ''A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy'', 2004, ISBN 1-57683-375-5 (Details why Old Earth Creationism is the literal Biblical view) | |||
*], ''The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis'', 2001, ISBN 1-57683-230-9 (Details the agreement of science with Old Earth Creationism] | |||
* Elder, Samuel A., ''The God Who Makes Things Happen: Physical Reality and the Word of God'', iUniverse, 2007, ISBN 0-59542-236-5 (Harmonization of the Biblical six 24-hour days of creation and the estimated 13.7 billion years observed in nature; quantum mechanics theory demonstrates God's sovereignty over chance; law of entropy identifies Jesus Christ as "anchor of time" bringing salvation "once for all"). | |||
* David G. Hagopian, editor, ''The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation'', 2000, ISBN 0-9702245-0-8 (Three pairs of scholars present and debate the three most widespread evangelical interpretations of the creation days) | |||
*''Refuting Compromise'' (ISBN 0-89051-411-9) 2004 (critique of old-earth creationism, in particular that of ]) | |||
:: | |||
* Alan Hayward, ''Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible'', 1995, ISBN 1-55661-679-1 (by a ] old-earth creationist) | |||
*], ''Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible'', 1991, {{ISBN|0-553-35413-2}} (articulates old Earth creationism) | |||
==References== | |||
* Hagopian, David G., editor, ''The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation'', 2000, {{ISBN|0-9702245-0-8}} (Three pairs of scholars present and debate the three most widespread evangelical interpretations of the creation days) | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
* ], ''Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible'', 1995, {{ISBN|1-55661-679-1}} (by a ] old-earth creationist) | |||
*], ''A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy'', 2004, {{ISBN|1-57683-375-5}} (Details why old Earth creationism is the literal Biblical view) | |||
*], ''The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis'', 2001, {{ISBN|1-57683-230-9}} (Details the agreement of science with old Earth creationism) | |||
* ], ''Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism" (Billions of Years), As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross'', 2004, 2011, ({{ISBN|0-89051-411-9}}) (critique of old-earth creationism, in particular that of ]. Sarfati released an updated book in 2011, the original book was published in 2004.) | |||
{{Creationism topics}} | |||
{{Portal bar|Bible|Christianity|Religion}} | |||
] | |||
] | ] |
Latest revision as of 03:24, 3 December 2024
Form of creationismPart of a series on | ||||
Creationism | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
History | ||||
Types | ||||
Biblical cosmology | ||||
Creation science | ||||
Rejection of evolution by religious groups | ||||
Religious views | ||||
|
||||
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) is an umbrella of theological views encompassing certain varieties of creationism which may or can include day-age creationism, gap creationism, progressive creationism, and sometimes theistic evolution.
Broadly speaking, OEC usually occupies a middle ground between young Earth creationism (YEC) and theistic evolution (TE). In contrast to YEC, it is typically more compatible with the scientific consensus on the issues of physics, chemistry, geology, and the age of the Earth. However, like YEC and in contrast with TE, some forms of it reject macroevolution, claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, and the concept of universal descent from a last universal common ancestor.
For a long time Evangelical creationists generally subscribed to Old Earth Creationism until 1960 when John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris published the book The Genesis Flood, which caused the Young Earth creationist view to become prominent.
History
Augustine postulated an instantaneous creation and interpreted the days of Genesis allegorically, whose view also influenced Gregory the Great, Bede and Isodor of Seville. Augustine was not alone in viewing the days of Genesis as allegorical, others include: Didumyus the Blind, possibly Basil the Great, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius, who interpreted the days of the Genesis narrative allegorically. However, this should not be understood as rejecting the literal interpretation, which patristic commentators believed could stand side by side with the allegorical.
Cyprian argued that each of the days of Genesis symbolically represented 1000 years of the world’s history, believing the world would endure for 7000 years. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr also suggested that the days of Genesis could prefigure 6000 years of earth history, quoting Psalm 90:4 and perhaps 2 Peter.
According to Hugh Ross, Thomas Aquinas supposedly denied the Genesis account as being literal with six 24 hour days.
Thomas Chalmers popularized gap creationism, which is a form of Old Earth Creationism. Additionally it was advocated by the Scofield Reference bible, which caused the theory to survive longer.
Probably the most famous day-age creationist was American politician, anti-evolution campaigner and Scopes Trial prosecutor William Jennings Bryan. Unlike many of his conservative followers, Bryan was not a strict biblical literalist, and had no objection to "evolution before man but for the fact that a concession as to the truth of evolution up to man furnishes our opponents with an argument which they are quick to use, namely, if evolution accounts for all the species up to man, does it not raise a presumption in behalf of evolution to include man?" He considered defining the days in Genesis 1 to be twenty-four hours to be a pro-evolution straw man argument to make attacking creationists easier, and admitted under questioning at the Scopes trial that the world was far older than six thousand years, and that the days of creation were probably longer than twenty-four hours each.
American Baptist preacher and anti-evolution campaigner William Bell Riley, "The Grand Old Man of Fundamentalism", founder of the World Christian Fundamentals Association and of the Anti-Evolution League of America was another prominent day-age creationist in the first half of the 20th century, who defended this position in a famous debate with friend and prominent young Earth creationist Harry Rimmer.
Types
Gap creationism
Main article: Gap creationismGap creationism is a form of old Earth creationism which posits the belief that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. This view was popularized in 1909 by the Scofield Reference Bible.
Progressive creationism
Main article: Progressive creationismProgressive creationism is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of Old Earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth and age of the Universe, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; appear all at once and "fully formed." Thus the evidence for macroevolution is claimed to be false, but microevolution is accepted as a genetic parameter designed by the Creator into the fabric of genetics to allow for environmental adaptations and survival. Generally, it is viewed by proponents as a middle ground between literal creationism and evolution.
Approaches to Genesis 1
Old Earth Christian creationists may approach the creation accounts of Genesis in a number of different ways.
Framework interpretation
Main article: Framework interpretation (Genesis)
|
The framework interpretation (or framework hypothesis) notes that there is a pattern or "framework" present in the Genesis account and that, because of this, the account may not have been intended as a strict chronological record of creation. Instead, the creative events may be presented in a topical order. This view is broad enough that proponents of other old earth views (such as many Day-Age creationists) have no problem with many of the key points put forward by the hypothesis, though they might believe that there is a certain degree of chronology present.
Day-age creationism
Main article: Day-age creationismDay-age creationism is an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the universe, the Earth, life, and humans. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but rather are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of the process of cosmic evolution, providing a broad base on which any number of theories and interpretations are built. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.
The day-age theory tries to reconcile these views by arguing that the creation "days" were not ordinary 24-hour days, but actually lasted for long periods of time—or as the theory's name implies: the "days" each lasted an age. Most advocates of old Earth creationism hold that the six days referred to in the creation account given in Genesis are not ordinary 24-hour days, as the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) can be interpreted in this context to mean a long period of time (thousands or millions of years) rather than a 24-hour day. According to this view, the sequence and duration of the creation "days" is representative or symbolic of the sequence and duration of events that scientists theorize to have happened, such that Genesis can be read as a summary of modern science, simplified for the benefit of pre-scientific humans.
Cosmic time
Gerald Schroeder puts forth a view which reconciles 24-hour creation days with an age of billions of years for the universe by noting, as creationist Phillip E. Johnson summarizes in his article "What Would Newton Do?": "the Bible speaks of time from the viewpoint of the universe as a whole, which Schroeder interprets to mean at the moment of 'quark confinement,' when stable matter formed from energy early in the first second of the big bang." Schroeder calculates that a period of six days under the conditions of quark confinement, when the universe was approximately a trillion times smaller and hotter than it is today is equal to fifteen billion years of earth time today. This is all due to space expansion after quark confinement. Thus Genesis and modern physics are reconciled. Schroeder, though, states in an earlier book, Genesis and the Big Bang, that the Earth and solar system is some "4.5 to 5 billion years" old and also states in a later book, The Science of God, that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old.
The Biblical Flood
See also: Local flood theorySome old Earth creationists reject flood geology, a position which leaves them open to accusations that they thereby reject the infallibility of scripture (which states that the Genesis flood covered the whole of the earth). In response, old Earth creationists cite verses in the Bible where the words "whole" and "all" clearly require a contextual interpretation. Old Earth creationists generally believe that the human race was localised around the Middle East at the time of the Genesis flood, a position which is in conflict with the Out of Africa theory.
See also
- Biblical cosmology
- Cosmogony
- Creation science
- Dating creation
- Directed panspermia
- Hindu creationism
- Jain cosmology#Time cycle
- Kalpa (time)
- Omphalos hypothesis
- Pre-Adamite
- Timeline of epochs in cosmology
- Yuga Cycle
Notes
- The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16-17, 23-25, July/August, 1999.
- Bocchino, Peter; Geisler, Norman "Unshakable Foundations" (Minneapolis: Bethany House., 2001). Pages 141-188
- "Not Young-Earth, but Still Creationist | National Center for Science Education". ncse.ngo. Retrieved 2022-08-12.
- Ortlund, Gavin (2020-07-14). Retrieving Augustine's Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-5325-0.
- ^ "Coming to Grips with the Early Church Fathers' Perspective on Genesis, Part 1 (of 5)". Reasons to Believe. Retrieved 2022-12-27.
- "What the Early Church Believed: Creation and Genesis". Catholic Answers. Retrieved 2022-07-29.
The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years" (Treatises 11:11 ).
- Lennox, John C. (2021-10-12). Seven Days that Divide the World, 10th Anniversary Edition: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science. Zondervan. ISBN 978-0-310-12782-6.
- Moore, Randy; Mark D Decker (2008). More Than Darwin: An Encyclopedia of the People and Places of the Evolution-creationism Controversy. Greenwood Press. p. 302. ISBN 978-0313341557.
- Mangum, R. Todd; Sweetnam, Mark S. (2009-12-10). The Scofield Bible: Its History and Impact on the Evangelical Church. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-5751-7.
- Numbers(2006) p58
- Numbers(2006) p82
- Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Eugenie Scott, pp61-62
- The Scientific Case Against Scientific Creationism, Jon P. Alston, p24
- "What is Creationism?".
- Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & CO., 1982), page 182.
- Old Earth Creation Science Word Study: Yom, Greg Neyman © 2007, Answers In Creation, Published 16 March 2005
- Phillip E. Johnson. "What Would Newton Do?".
- Response to Genesis and the Big Bang: A book authored by Gerald Schroeder, Hugh Ross and Miguel Endara
- Genesis and the Big Bang, Gerald Schroeder, p. 116
- The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom, p. 68, Broadway Books, Gerald Schroeder 1998, ISBN 0-7679-0303-X
- Deluge Geology Archived 2011-06-07 at the Wayback Machine, J. Laurence Kulp, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 2, 1(1950): 1-15.
- The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood, Copyright © 2001 by Glenn Morton, TalkOrigins website, Last Update: February 17, 2001
- Did Noah’s Flood cover the whole earth?, John D. Morris, Creation 12(2):48–50, March 1990
- The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?, Carol A. Hill, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, p. 170-183, Volume 54, Number 3, September 2002
- The Mediterranean Flood, Glenn R. Morton, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49 (December 1997): 238, American Scientific Affiliation website
References
- Numbers, Ronald (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press. p. 578. ISBN 978-0-674-02339-0.
Further reading
- Schroeder, Gerald, Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible, 1991, ISBN 0-553-35413-2 (articulates old Earth creationism)
- Hagopian, David G., editor, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, 2000, ISBN 0-9702245-0-8 (Three pairs of scholars present and debate the three most widespread evangelical interpretations of the creation days)
- Hayward, Alan, Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from Science and the Bible, 1995, ISBN 1-55661-679-1 (by a Christadelphian old-earth creationist)
- Ross, Hugh, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy, 2004, ISBN 1-57683-375-5 (Details why old Earth creationism is the literal Biblical view)
- Ross, Hugh, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis, 2001, ISBN 1-57683-230-9 (Details the agreement of science with old Earth creationism)
- Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism" (Billions of Years), As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross, 2004, 2011, (ISBN 0-89051-411-9) (critique of old-earth creationism, in particular that of Ross, Hugh. Sarfati released an updated book in 2011, the original book was published in 2004.)
Creationism | |
---|---|
General | |
Book of Genesis | |
Types | |
Controversies | |
Related | |