SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Brief History of Creationism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Brief History of Creationism

I found this on the web and wonder what you all think. It clearly states that many Christians, like myself, believe in evolution and accept the Genesis story as allegory. Bubbaguy


Brief History of Creationism -- From the Middle Ages to "Creation Science"
by William Thwaites


Early History

At the end of the Middle Ages, European tradition held that all of the Earth´s inhabitants had been created by God in one place, the Garden of Eden, soon after the formation of the earth. But as the scientific revolution began to unfold some 400 years ago, naturalists started to catalog fossils according to the layers in which they were found. Soon a very unexpected and troubling pattern emerged.

The deepest (and oldest) layers showed mostly unfamiliar species, but higher (younger) layers contained fossilized remains that resembled living organisms. If what naturalists found had been consistent with traditional beliefs, fossils found in every layer should not have looked different from those that living species would leave if fossilized. Elephants, tigers, palm trees, and people should have left a record of their presences even in the most deeply buried layers, but they didn´t. Clearly, tradition al belief had to be modified to explain the succession of fossil types seen in the fossil record.

Progressive Creation

Such a change of belief was neither rapid nor easy for European naturalists, and many valiantly attempted to show how the observations they made did not really require changing traditional belief. But the fossil record undeniably showed that older forms were going extinct while newer forms appeared.

Extinction was itself disturbing to many traditionalists. "Why would an organism be created only to go extinct?" they asked. However, the evidence of extinction of ancient forms was indisputable. Extinction of ancient varieties had indeed occurred, and modern forms were explained as being the result of more recent creations.

This view is now referred to as "progressive creation." The new explanation marked a major modification of the traditional religious understanding of creation. It had become the dominant view of natural historians even before Charles Darwin boarded the Beagle in 1831.

Centers of Creation

As description and analysis of the fossil record progressed, the successive modernization of fossil types was not the only pattern that emerged. There was also a pattern of geographic clustering of species. For example, all kangaroo-like fossils and all living kangaroos are native to Australia and a few neighboring islands. This pattern of geographic isolation is repeated around the world over and over again for other species. The fossils that most closely resemble living forms are found in the same geographic area where older types that resemble them are found.

Traditional belief could not explain this clustering of more recent forms with earlier forms that looked like them. Having already given up the idea of a single creation week, natural historians were also forced to give up the traditional belief that all forms had been created in one geographical location, the Garden of Eden.

The geographic clustering of look-alike fossil forms eventually forced a reluctant change that supposed at least six centers of creation. This second compromise with traditional belief had been as difficult to make as the first, but it was the only view that seemed consistent with the facts of natural history, even in 1831.

So, by the time Darwin boarded the Beagle, traditional belief already had been significantly modified. Gone were both the single creation week and the Garden of Eden as the sole locus of creation. The study of natural history had forced a new understanding. In this new view, God had periodically created species at one center of creation or another. And at each new center, he would create new organisms according to his pattern for that particular place. Such a view had little in common with the traditional account of creation given in the Book of Genesis.

The New Explanations Raised Questions of Their Own

Although the new modifications of traditional belief seemed to be compatible with the fossil record, they raised other questions that distressed early naturalists: Why would a Creator of organisms always make relatively small changes? And why would a Creator always go back to Australia, for example, to make the next kind of kangaroo? Kangaroos could certainly live on other continents with similar climatic conditions. Could it be that the newer kind was actually just a modified descendent of the preexisting version? Were these changes actually explainable by natural causes?

Such was the state of European thought in 1831. Darwin certainly was not the first to propose that the formation of new species could be explained in terms of natural processes. Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, a French naturalist, had made just such a proposal in the early 1800s, but the mechanism he proposed to explain the change from one species to another had little, if any, support from empirical observation.

Finally, both Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace proposed that the change could be explained in terms of differential reproduction that was based on heritable variations (i.e., natural selection). A fully natural explanation for nature´s diversity was now available for consideration.

This final break with traditional belief was psychologically the most difficult of all. To some, this meant that God was no longer required to explain the formation of new species. Most disturbing of all, God was not even required to explain the formation of humankind. Some reflective theologians realized that the strictly literal view of the Creation had to be abandoned as knowledge about nature and natural processes grew more detailed. The Church of England, in fact, accepted evolution by natural selection within a few decades of the writing of The Origin of Species .

Modern Creationists

Twentieth-century creationists follow many paths. The "young earth" creationists believe in a single, special creation that occurred only several thousand years ago. They are the defenders of the most strictly literal Biblical view. "Old earth" creationists believe, as do the young-earthers, in a single, special creation, but believe it took place billions of years ago. These creationists at least accept the position of modern science on the age of the earth, though they do not believe that one species can give rise to another.

"Day-Age" and "Gap" creationists believe that the earth is old, but in other ways they are the direct descendants of the old progressive creationists of the late 18th century. They believe that the present universe came about through stages of creation, such as would have occurred if the seven "days" of Genesis were actually seven very long ages ("day-age"), or if there were long gaps between the days of creation ("gap" creationists). In either case, these creationists, like the others, deny the possibility that one kind of organism can evolve into another.

None of these forms of creationism can be reconciled with scientific evidence from biology, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, biogeography, embryology, or many other relevant fields. All appear to be attempts to retain a theology that has been abandoned by mainline Christianity.

Theistic Evolution

What, then, is the position of the majority of religious Americans about "creation"? Anglicans, Catholics, most Protestant Christians, and Conservative and Reformed Jews believe that God is the Creator, but that he works through the process of evolution, as revealed through modern science. This position is known as theistic evolutionism, and is widespread among modern theologians. It is a little-known fact that Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, the United Church of Christ and many other denominations do not believe that Creation occurred literally as described in Genesis. In fact, the majority of Christian seminaries do not teach a Biblical literalist creation. In the United States and Canada, one tends to find Biblical literalist beliefs being promoted most strongly in small, independent denominations, where it is not uncommon for the leader to have little or no formal theological training.

Americans need to know that there is no necessary conflict between religion and acceptance of evolution as a scientific idea. Although there is of necessity a conflict between Biblical literalist views of creation and modern science, these views are not held by the majority of Christians.

From this brief history, it is clear that there has been a struggle within theology to accommodate the discoveries of science regarding creation and evolution. This history also shows that accommodation of evolution, rather than rejection, has been more the norm. Religious people who struggle with the creation/evolution controversy need to understand that accepting evolution as science is not antithetical to a religious view.

 2005/11/17 14:26
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re: Brief History of Creationism

The article raises one question that I can't seem to get an answer to...

Quote:
What, then, is the position of the majority of religious Americans about "creation"? Anglicans, Catholics, most Protestant Christians, and Conservative and Reformed Jews believe that God is the Creator, but that he works through the process of evolution, as revealed through modern science.



If this is true then why are people in this camp so opposed to Intelligent Design? It makes no sense to me...clearly the majority of Christians don't really believe life started all by itself so they should feel right at home with ID.

What is the difference between Theistic evolution's synthesis that says God designed life with the latent genetic potency to mutate itself and Intelligent Design's position that God designed life with the latent genetic potency to mutate itself? Isn't the real difference political and not substantive?

I'm not advocating Intelligent Design over the biblical view of Creation, but it seems rather political and inconsistent of Christians who believe in evolution to not stand up at least for ID.

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/17 15:19Profile









 Re:

Compton, Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved through Darwinian evolution. In ID God has to intervene in the process. Theistic evolution holds that God designed the universe to produce life through natural processes and that no intervention is necessary. I think it is more complex than this, but this is the main sticking point, as I understand it.

Bubbaguy

 2005/11/17 17:02
worzle
Member



Joined: 2005/10/22
Posts: 20


 Re:

I'm a pretty convinced creationist myself. Having read plenty of books on the subject (some fairly peculiar, others incredably complex (ref. Darwins Black Box - Behe)), one of the best books I've come accross is by Malcolm Bowden - True Science Agrees With The Bible. Certainly, the creationists have a lot to answer for, but this guys research is a real eye opener as to how 'blind' science has been. It doesn't just go around 'evolution bashing', but presents a great deal of evidence in favour of a young earth, and ultimatly biblical creation. (I havn't read it, but the same author produced a book called Science vs Evolution, if your interested).

Studying (PPE) philosophy at university has shown me how much of an emphasis 'evolution' has in getting round the tricky issue of God. Take evolution from the picture and your forced to effectively accept a God exists; and from there all that follows on from it. I'm not sure many secular scientists (or philosophers for that matter) could stomach losing there (literal) 'pride and joy', upon whom there reputation has been built.

Quote:
[size=10]If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. CSLewis[/size]

 2005/11/17 18:09Profile
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Thanks Bubbaguy,

Quote:
Theistic evolution holds that God designed the universe to produce life through natural processes and that no intervention is necessary.



I guess my point was that Theistic evolution's position that God designed the universe is where Theistic Evolution becomes a pseudonym of a type of Intelligent Design. When you say God "designed" you are noting that intervention was necessary. The moment we introduce a "theistic" clause into the laws of evolution, we are talking intelligent design. Ongoing intervention versus open theism is a philosophical distinction of varying degrees at best and besides, not all ID relies on continual intervention. (Interesting…noting here the parallel between free will and sovereignty debates)

Michael Behe (ID biologist) for instance believes that man and apes descended from a common ancestor. His disputed question is how did DNA content in the common ancestor have sufficient coding to enable such modifications as a creature that can climb trees and another creature that can design airplanes? Intelligent Design can't really answer this question except to say “someone or something” caused it….yet evolution’s answer is even weaker because it won’t even admit the question exists.

So I understand the said differences between the two schools. Yet both schools approach origins through rationalism and not empiricism. Naturalism is itself a rationalist proposition with theological conclusions…who says that God is not interacting even now in biology? Only the philosopher and the theologian can dabble here because science can neither prove nor deny such statements. Yet apparently it tries.

Now I don't think ID is consistent with biblical creationism, but I do think that ID asks some darn good questions that naturalists must treat with derision from their philosophical handicap. Ultimately, because both schools must rely on rational argumentation to settle questions of causality, rather then empirical demonstration, both schools are ultimately standing on A prior propositions and not "unbiased" science.

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/18 9:01Profile









 Re:

Compton Wrote:

"Now I don't think ID is consistent with biblical creationism, but I do think that ID asks some darn good questions that naturalists must treat with derision from their philosophical handicap. Ultimately, because both schools must rely on rational argumentation to settle questions of causality, rather then empirical demonstration, both schools are ultimately standing on A prior propositions and not "unbiased" science."

Compton, First, I'm not sure there is anything such as "unbiased science." Second, the fossil record and conclusions of gradual decent with modification is not based upon a rational argument, but on observable data and fossil patterns that have a signficant consistency over time and geography. Of course we cannot prove that God didn't create the Universe in a flash and make it look old, but I don't see why He would do such a thing, as it would be a deception and I don't think God deceives us for any reason.

Bubbaguy

BTW, if you don't see ID as compatible with creationism, just what do you believe?

 2005/11/21 17:28
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Hi Bubbaguy,

Quote:
Compton, First, I'm not sure there is anything such as "unbiased science."


I agree. Let's put that statement on a sticker and lobby to have it placed in school text books. ;-)
Quote:
Second, the fossil record and conclusions of gradual decent with modification is not based upon a rational argument, but on observable data and fossil patterns that have a significant consistency over time and geography.



For the sake of this discussion let's temporarily agree that the fossil record demonstrates gradual progression. For instance, let's agree that horses started out small with many toes and evolved larger or that whales began their evolution as land animals. ID dosn't argue against mutation, but allows that God enabled this mutation through whatever means.... such as giving the land whale sufficient DNA coding to facilitate change.(Various ID thinkers hold to various degrees of intervention to be sure...)

Neither side denies evidence of change as "observed" in the fossil record. The difference between the two camps lies in their philosophic and religious explanations for these changes. This is why I said that both sides use rationalistic arguments to settle the matter...naturalists are committed to saying that nature selection can account for the astonishing array of life on Earth while Intelligent Designers are saying that the natural selection on it's own does not explain evolution.
Quote:
Of course we cannot prove that God didn't create the Universe in a flash and make it look old,...

The leading Intelligent Design scientists and advocates, (Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Murray Eden)hold that the Earth is geologically very old.

Quote:
BTW, if you don't see ID as compatible with creationism, just what do you believe?



While ID is a compelling critique of the inadequacies of natural selection, I do not count myself in their camp. I believe that God created the universe including the Earth, and created life on Earth in six days. After the fall of man, I am not dogmatic about what happened next except to agree with Jesus who seemed to think there really was a Noah and an ark.

If you find the concept of sudden creation unreasonable, consider the abrupt occurrences that evolution accepts. For instance there is the Precambrian explosion, in which almost all branches of existing life sprang from a world of simple-celled organisms, supposedly over the course of 50 million years. (A blink of the eye in evolutionary scale) Gould himself struggled with this evolutionary burp that resulted in the precambrian potpourri of the Burgess Shale. He devised a rational explanation called "Decimation and Diversification" in his book Wonderful Life.

Next, after 1.5 million years of primitve human species, there is an unanticipated appearance of fully developed civilizations with complete systems of government, language, agriculture, commerce, architecture, and religion...all in the last 10 to 12 thousand years. (I guess the invention of the plow had the power to transform prehistoric men into Egyptians and Sumerians.)

And of course, there is the prebiotic immaculate conception, the first living organism. No matter how many times I hear that one I am amazed that intelligent people believe it. During the first billion years on earth, there was little free oxygen and no ozone to absorb UV radiation from the sun. Yet, under such harsh conditions, simple organic molecules were still forming. When gases were heated with water and energized by electrical discharge or by UV radiation, they reacted and formed small organic molecules. And then one random day it happened…the cosmic lottery. Poof, one of the little fellas came to life and the rest is prehistory.

It’s a myth worthy of the ancient mystery religions. (They didn’t realize they were believing in myths either.)

MC


_________________
Mike Compton

 2005/11/22 2:21Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

Here is something on SI about evolution, you might find it interesting.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=7095]Evolution[/url]


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2005/11/22 9:11Profile









 Re:

Compton, SOunds like you understand evolution but don't believe it. On the point of the origin of life though, you have it wrong. Comets brought the organic precursors of life to earth. The "bombardment" of the earth with organic molecules and h2o (ice from comets) set the stage. Its as if the universe was programmed to produce life. I'm just wondering what else is out there and when we'll meet up.

Bub

 2005/11/22 9:54
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re: Brief History of Creationism

Hi bubbaguy...

Quote:
None of these forms of creationism can be reconciled with scientific evidence from biology, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, biogeography, embryology, or many other relevant fields. All appear to be attempts to retain a theology that has been abandoned by mainline Christianity.

Thank you for providing this analysis of the different concepts of creationism. However, I do disagree with above statement. I do not believe that creationism cannot be reconciled with true science. Currently, I believe in a "[i]young earth[/i]." This is due to a combination of my understanding of the Scriptures and my understanding of science. Several of my professors -- including two chemistry professors and two physics professors -- believe in creationism. They all cite scientific evidence for their respective positions. I actually have a difficult time seeing any "scientific evidence" for evolution. In my opinion, that entire theory is based primarily on subsequent and unsubstantiated assumptions. They assume that evolution is a [i][u]fact[/u][/i], rather than a theory. Thus, they build science upon a theory. In fact, all of the accepted modern "science" of paleontology, geology and evolutionary biology is based upon this theory. While alot of good scientific concepts have resulted from this flawed theory, it still seems to be a "house of cards" (or more scripturally, a "house built upon sand").

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2005/11/22 9:55Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy