Progressive creationism

Last updated

Progressive creationism (see for comparison intelligent design) 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, 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; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed." [1]

Contents

The view rejects macroevolution, claiming it is biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record, [2] as well as rejects the concept of universal descent from a last universal common ancestor. 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 theistic evolution.

Historical development

At the end of the 18th century the French anatomist Georges Cuvier proposed that there had been a series of successive creations due to catastrophism. Cuvier believed that God destroyed previously created forms through regional catastrophes such as floods and afterwards repopulated the region with new forms. [3] The French naturalist Alcide d'Orbigny held similar ideas; he linked different stages in the geologic time scale to separate creation events. At the time these ideas were not popular with strict Christians. In defense of the theory of successive creations, Marcel de Serres (1783–1862), a French geologist, suggested that new creations grow more and more perfect as the time goes on. [4]

The idea that there had been a series of episodes of divine creation of new species with many thousands of years in between them, serving to prepare the world for the eventual arrival of humanity, was popular with Anglican geologists like William Buckland in the early 19th century; they proposed it as an explanation for the patterns of faunal succession in the fossil record that showed that the types of organisms that lived on the earth had changed over time. Buckland explained the idea in detail in his book Geology and Mineralogy considered with reference to Natural Theology (1836), which was one of the eight Bridgewater Treatises . Buckland presented this idea in part to counter pre-Darwin theories on the transmutation of species. [5] The Scottish geologist and evangelical Christian Hugh Miller also argued for many separate creation events brought about by divine interventions, and explained his ideas in his book The testimony of the rocks; or, Geology in its bearings on the two theologies, natural and revealed in 1857. [6]

Louis Agassiz, a Swiss-American naturalist, argued for separate divine creations. In his work he noted similarities of distribution of like species in different geological era; a phenomenon clearly not the result of migration. Agassiz questioned how fish of the same species live in lakes well separated with no joining waterway. He concluded they were created at both locations. According to Agassiz the intelligent adaptation of creatures to their environments testified to an intelligent plan. The conclusions of his studies led him to believe that whichever region each animal was found in, it was created there: "animals are naturally autochthones wherever they are found". After further research he later extended this idea to humans; he wrote that different races had been created separately. This became known as his theory of polygenism. [7] [8]

Revival

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) was founded in the early 1940s as an organization of orthodox Christian scientists. [9] Although its original leadership favored Biblical literalism and it was intended to be anti-evolutionary, it rejected the creationist theories propounded by George McCready Price (young Earth creationism) and Harry Rimmer (gap creationism), and it was soon moving rapidly in the direction of theistic evolution, with some members "stopping off" on the less Modernist view that they called "progressive creationism." It was a view developed in the 1930s by Wheaton College graduate Russell L. Mixter. [10] In 1954 Baptist theologian and Christian apologist Bernard Ramm (an associate of the inner circle of the ASA) wrote The Christian View of Science and Scripture, advocating Progressive Creationism which did away with the necessity for a young Earth, a global flood and the recent appearance of humans. [11]

Modern progressive creationism

In contrast to young Earth creationists, progressive creationists accept the geological column of the progressive appearance of plants and animals through time. To their viewpoint it accurately reflects the order in which God sequentially created kinds of organisms, starting with simple, single-celled organisms and progressing to complex multicellular organisms and the present day. They do not however accept the scientific consensus that these kinds evolved from each other, and believe that kinds are genetically limited, such that one cannot change into another. [12]

Proponents of the Progressive creation theory include astronomer and apologist Hugh Ross, whose organization, Reasons To Believe, accepts the scientifically determined age of the Earth but seeks to disprove Darwinian evolution.

Interpretation of Genesis

Bernard Ramm adopted the view (developed by P. J. Wiseman) that "creation was "revealed [pictorially] in six days, not performed in six days", with God intervening periodically to create new "root-species" which then "radiated" out. This allowed geological formations such as coal to form naturally, so that they "might appear a natural product and not an artificial insertion in Nature", prior to the creation of mankind. [13]

Progressive creationist and astrophysicist Hugh Ross adheres to a literal translation of Genesis 1 and 2 and holds to the principle that "Scripture interprets Scripture” to shed light on the context of the Creation account. [14] Using this principle, Progressive Creationist Alan Hayward cites Hebrews 4, which discusses in the context of the creation story, a continued Seventh Day of creation. [15] Ross ties this literal view of a lengthy seventh day to the Creation account in which he describes the Hebrew word "yom" to have multiple translation possibilities, ranging from 24 hours, year, time, age, or eternity/always. [16] Ross contends that at the end of each Genesis "day", with the exception of the seventh "day", the phrase, “...and there was evening and there was morning,” is used to put a terminus to each event. [17] The omission of that phrase on the Seventh Day, is in harmony with the literal translation of Hebrews 4’s continuing Seventh Day. [18]

From a theological perspective, Robert Newman addresses a problem with this particular model of lengthy Genesis days, in that it puts physical plant and animal death before the fall of Man, which according to most Young Earth creationism is considered unscriptural. Old Earth creationists interpret death due to the fall of man as spiritual death specifically related to the context of man himself. Another problem with Progressive Creationism is due to the complicated nature of a model that arises from an attempt not to favor science over Scripture and vice versa, potentially angering both schools of thought with this compromise. [19] However, progressive creationists would argue that science and scripture are not conflicting, but rather supporting each other.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & CO., 1982), page 182.
  2. ↑ Bocchino, Peter; Geisler, Norman "Unshakable Foundations" (Minneapolis: Bethany House., 2001). Pages 141-188
  3. ↑ A Companion to Biological Anthropology, Clark Spencer Larson, 2010, p. 555
  4. ↑ Gabriel Gohau, Albert V. Carozzi, Marguerite Carozzi, A history of geology, 1990, p. 161
  5. ↑ Cadbury (2000) pp. 190–94
  6. ↑ Science and religion in the nineteenth century, Tess Cosslett, 1984, p. 67
  7. ↑ Scott Mandelbrote, Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700–Present, Volume 2, 2009, pp. 159–64
  8. ↑ A Companion to Biological Anthropology, Clark Spencer Larsen, 2010 p. 556
  9. ↑ Numbers (2006) p. 181
  10. ↑ Numbers (2006) pp. 194–95
  11. ↑ Numbers (2006) p. 208
  12. ↑ Eugenie C. Scott (December 7, 2000). "The Creation/Evolution Continuum". National Center for Science Education . Retrieved 2010-12-03. including text from Chapter 3 of Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, second edition, 2009, by Eugenie C. Scott.
  13. ↑ Numbers(2006) p210-211
  14. ↑ Ross(2004) p71
  15. ↑ Heyward(1995) p177
  16. ↑ Ross(1994) p46
  17. ↑ Ross(2004) p76
  18. ↑ Ross(2004) p81
  19. ↑ Newman(September 1995) p172

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creationism</span> Belief that nature originated through supernatural acts

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation. In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views, which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Creation science</span> Pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism

Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative. Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts, theories and paradigms of geology, cosmology, biological evolution, archaeology, history, and linguistics using creation science. Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omphalos hypothesis</span> Creationist hypothesis stating that the universe has been created to seem older than it actually was

The Omphalos hypothesis is one attempt to reconcile the scientific evidence that the Earth is billions of years old with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, which implies that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. It is based on the religious belief that the universe was created by a divine being, within the past six to ten thousand years, and that the presence of objective, verifiable evidence that the universe is older than approximately ten millennia is due to the creator introducing false evidence that makes the universe appear significantly older.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Young Earth creationism</span> Form of creationism

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by supernatural acts of the Abrahamic God between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. In its most widespread version, YEC is based on the religious belief in the inerrancy of certain literal interpretations of the Book of Genesis. Its primary adherents are Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six literal days. This is in contrast with old Earth creationism (OEC), which holds literal interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with the scientifically determined ages of the Earth and universe. It is also in contrast to theistic evolution, which posits that the scientific principles of evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, solar nebular theory, age of the universe, and age of Earth are compatible with a metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis creation account.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Old Earth creationism</span> Form of creationism

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 evolutionism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theistic evolution</span> Views that religion is compatible with science

Theistic evolution is a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature. It posits that the concept of God is compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but includes a range of views about how science relates to religious beliefs and the extent to which God intervenes. It rejects the strict creationist doctrines of special creation, but can include beliefs such as creation of the human soul. Modern theistic evolution accepts the general scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, the origin of the Solar System, the origin of life, and evolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Day-age creationism</span> Metaphorical interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is an interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods. The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution, and progressive creationists, who reject it. The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is also used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flood geology</span> Pseudoscientific attempt to reconcile geology with the Genesis flood narrative

Flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the Genesis flood narrative, the flood myth in the Hebrew Bible. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or from glaciers. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the biblical flood, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequences of rock strata.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gap creationism</span> Form of old Earth creationism

Gap creationism is a form of old Earth creationism that posits 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 the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods, and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rejection of evolution by religious groups</span> Religious rejection of evolution

Recurring cultural, political, and theological rejection of evolution by religious groups exists regarding the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. In accordance with creationism, species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation, but since the mid-19th century, evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of creationism</span>

The history of creationism relates to the history of thought based on the premise that the natural universe had a beginning, and came into being supernaturally. The term creationism in its broad sense covers a wide range of views and interpretations, and was not in common use before the late 19th century. Throughout recorded history, many people have viewed the universe as a created entity. Many ancient historical accounts from around the world refer to or imply a creation of the earth and universe. Although specific historical understandings of creationism have used varying degrees of empirical, spiritual and/or philosophical investigations, they are all based on the view that the universe was created. The Genesis creation narrative has provided a basic framework for Jewish and Christian epistemological understandings of how the universe came into being – through the divine intervention of the god, Yahweh. Historically, literal interpretations of this narrative were more dominant than allegorical ones.

<i>The Genesis Flood</i>

The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications is a 1961 book by young Earth creationists John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris that, according to Ronald Numbers, elevated young Earth creationism "to a position of fundamentalist orthodoxy."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Created kind</span> Supposed original forms of life created by God

In creationism, a religious view based on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other biblical texts, created kinds are purported to be the original forms of life as they were created by God. They are also referred to in creationist literature as kinds, original kinds, Genesis kinds, and baramins.

<i>A New Theory of the Earth</i>

A New Theory of the Earth was a book written by William Whiston, in which he presented a description of the divine creation of the Earth and a posited global flood. He also postulated that the earth originated from the atmosphere of a comet and that all major changes in earth's history could be attributed to the action of comets. It was published in 1696 and was well received by intellectuals of the day such as Isaac Newton and John Locke.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolution and the Catholic Church</span> Attitude of the Catholic Church to evolution theory

The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his creation, that Adam and Eve were real people, and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jewish views on evolution</span> Jewish views on evolution includes a continuum of views about the theory of evolution

Jewish views on evolution includes a continuum of views about the theory of evolution, experimental evolution, the origin of life, age of the universe, evolutionary creationism, and theistic evolution. Today, many Jewish people accept the theory of evolution and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, reflecting the emphasis of prominent rabbis such as the Vilna Gaon and Maimonides on the ethical rather than factual significance of scripture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hugh Ross (astrophysicist)</span> Canadian astrophysicist

Hugh Norman Ross is a Canadian astrophysicist, Christian apologist, and old-Earth creationist.

Kurt Patrick Wise is an American young Earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia. He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard University. He writes in support of creationism and contributed to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the creation–evolution controversy</span> Aspect of history

Rejection of evolution by religious groups, sometimes called creation–evolution controversy, has a long history. In response to theories developed by scientists, some religious individuals and organizations question the legitimacy of scientific ideas that contradicted the young earth pseudoscientific interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

Although biological evolution has been vocally opposed by some religious groups, many other groups accept the scientific position, sometimes with additions to allow for theological considerations. The positions of such groups are described by terms including "theistic evolution", "theistic evolutionism" or "evolutionary creation". Of all the religious groups included on the chart, Buddhists are the most accepting of evolution. Theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and all life within, and that biological evolution is a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian organization of scientists:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution and geological evolution plus chemical evolution and biological evolution — but it can refer only to biological evolution.

References

Support

Criticism

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.