Recently read this explanation of how the mind works when reconciling the existence of God as fact, and evolution taught as fact leading to theistic evolution (reconciling God and evolution), and the following problems the theistic evolution carries. Had to share this….
My formal education…all through public grade school and high school, then into a private four-year college, and finally four years of graduate training ending with the Ph.D., was within the evolutionary framework. Evolution was presented as fact. But God is also a fact. It occurred to me that if God was fact and evolution was fact, then evolution must be God’s method for creation. I adopted theistic evolution. All I had to do was to retreat from a firm stand on Scripture and reinterpret Genesis….That way I could be a Christian and be scientifically educated, too – or so I thought. Further study, however, revealed extreme problems with the position, and I later rejected it in favor of direct creation.
After adopting theistic evolution, I had the uneasy feeling that I had compromised and downgraded Scripture. However, there were many theologians and many of my scientific colleagues who assured me that this was a respectable way to go. I became very sensitive and defensive when encountering those who were theologically more conservative and who held to a direct creation view. Any implication that the world was squeezing me into its intellectual mold (as Romans 12:2 warns against) was resisted fiercely. I wanted to be known as a Christian and a Bible-believer. But I also wanted to be intellectually respectable. There was, I suppose, a measure of pride in my new position. It made me tend to look down on those who were not as educated in science as I thought I was. The temptation was to look down on those who still believed in creation as not being well educated or as not being good scientists. Adopting theistic evolution, however, did not make problems go away. I had reinterpreted Scripture relating to creation, but where would the process stop…?
– DON CHITTUCK, from “The Controversy”
At this point, the scientist who sincerely loves Christ and the Bible is confronted with a tension. Frequently, the apparently obvious interpretation of the Bible seems to contradict his scientific background. How is he able to handle this? Because he has not been trained in Biblical exegesis and theology, all too often he is content to fall back on the fact that there are many different interpretations. He often feels a freedom to select from the maze of options the one that happens to be most consistent with his particular scientific background. This raises the question as to which of these different possible interpretations will be taken as the correct one. Or more precisely, what criterion does one use to select the correct one from those possible interpretations? The tendency of many Christians who are scientifically trained seems to be to select the interpretation that best fits with their personal scientific convictions…It is highly improbable that the Bible is actually as ambiguous as these various interpretations would lead us to believe.
– JOSEPH DILLOW, from “The Bible as a Scientific Text”
Here’s another thought… we could just take it as written. The whole young-earth vs. old-earth creation debate boils down to something very simple: which needs to be reinterpreted: the Bible or the science? This is a Biblical authority issue, NOT a creation/evolution debate.
For more, watch a 2-hr debate on the TBN program Praise the Lord featuring leading young-earth creationist Ken Ham and leading old-earth creationist Hugh Ross here. Also featured is Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind, and Sean McDowell.