I simply use the term creationists to refer to "young earth creationists" because creationists that do not believe in a young earth fall into the theistic evolutionist category. Although they are creationists too, it is just easier to carry on a discussion when they are identified differently. Although young-earth creationists could also be called fundamental creationists.

Now let me address the "specific literal interpretation of God's Word". Creationists do accept God's Word as it is written without trying to "read between the lines".

• When God's Word says God created the world in six days, each marked with an evening and a morning, creationists accept it as just that - six literal days.
• When God's Word says that God destroyed the entire world with a flood, covering every mountain and destroying all land-dwelling life, save that in the ark, creationists accept it as it is written. They do not try to rationalize that it was only a local and limited flood.
• When God's Word says that the wages of sin is death, creationists accept that before sin there was no death.
• When God's Word says sin entered the world through Adam, creations accept that before Adam there was no sin on the earth and thus no death.

The original Bible languages make such passages so clear that among linguists there is no debate about what the authors of the texts were trying to say. This is evident as we read the various versions of the Bible which basically all say the same thing.



I didn't know you were not a young-earth creationist but that is besides the point and off topic.

My implication is that theistic evolutionists do not believe God's Word can be accepted as it reads. Rather we must rely on an interpretation of science in order to understand what God's Word is saying. It is not that I believe theistic evolutionists cannot be dedicated Christians. I believe they are misguided (Col. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:20, 21) but I believe the same about Lutherans, Baptists and Mormons but do not believe any of them will be excluded from heaven because of their misunderstandings of Scripture.

However the evolution/creation hybrid beliefs have opened the door to further compromise and many Christians that go down that road continue to compromise in other areas of their walk with the Lord. However, to be fair, many fundamentalists also compromise in their walk with the Lord too. Yet that should not be of any consolation to the theistic evolutionist that is walking on thin ice. If we can't believe Genesis 1-11, that casts doubt on the Ten Commandments and even the teachings of Christ.

Actually, I think one can have it both ways. From the time the flood began to the time Noah got of the ark was a year. We don't know what all happened during that time. We suspect an ice age followed that lasted about 700 years.

Not so - there are many different positions, including some who believe in a literal six-day creation of all living things in pretty much their current form, but some millions of years ago rather than thousands. An ancient creationist perspective fits more neatly with more of the empirical evidence, but of course also has other problems of Biblical interpretation.

I'm continually trying to avoid the false dichotomy of recent-creation vs evolution in our discussions here.

I think it's also important to recognise that your own 'recent creation of life on an ancient earth in an ancient universe' perspective would be considered heretical by 'recent creation of the entire universe' creationists!


Except melvin's favourite bit about snakes eating dirt, apparently. The basic truth is that it requires interpretation to decide that eating dirt is not really eating dirt, and that bruising heels and crushing heads are metaphors. It takes more to decide that snakes had wings. It takes interpretation to decide that there was a pre-existing planet, or that there was not. It is presumption to state that one's own position requires no interpretation and is simply 'reading the text as it is'.

The false dichotomy that allows only recent creationism vs ancient evolutionism is at the basis of the kind, thoughtful but mistaken analysis in the rest of your post. Let me try in a separate post to outline a small and over-simplified taxonomy of origins positions.

I don't have credentials in this field, and I recognize that. How about you?



By posting here, you invited response.



Do you claim to? If so, at what level of knowledge? What is your professional education or experience in this specific area?

Four questions on origins:

1. Is there a God who takes/took an active role in creation?

This distinguishes between theistic and atheistic perspectives. Without miraculous creation, our best alternative explanation is evolution, so the default tends to be atheistic evolutionism for those who answer this question in the negative. (Life coming from other planets to start life on earth doesn't forestall the origins question, just moves it.) Those who answer it in the positive move on to answer the remaining questions.

2. Is the universe and planet Earth young (thousands or tens of thousands of years or old (billions of years)?

This separates young-universe creationists from young-life-on-earth/old-universe creationists. It's a distinction not often made, but it helps people get off the hook of the apparent age of the universe and some of the apparent age of the earth. As noted above, the text of Genesis seems to say that the stars were made during Creation Week, so arriving at the old-universe position seems to me already a step away from a purely literal reading. I look forward to being set straight.

3. Is life on earth young or old?

This question distinguishes between ancient creationists/theistic evolutionists and recent creationists. The creation account in itself does not say *when* its events occurred - the age of the earth is deduced from genealogical information given elsewhere in the Bible. Ancient creationists recognise that the earth appears very old, and assume God created life millions of years ago in pretty much its current form.

4. Do the rules of biological evolution (mutation and environmental selection) explain some or all of the features of living things today?

This question distinguishes between ancient creationists and theistic evolutionists. The question is not 'who created' (both believe God did) but 'how created'.

Intelligent design advocates are most often ancient-universe theistic evolutionists, and the discussion with both them and other theistic evolutionists is often about how large or small God's active role in the process was and where it occurred.

Every taxonomy is limited, but again, I absolutely reject the 'there are young-life-on-earth creationists who take God at his word, and everyone else who doesn't' formulation.

I'm very aware that all these perspectives fall into the Judeo-Christian axis in some way: there are creation myths in almost all human cultures, and won't it be a surprise to all of us if the Aborigines were right?

And my posts here have been civil. To question whether or not one who ventures an opinion has credentials to back up that opinion is appropriate, and can be done in a civil way, as it has been here. The credibility/reliability of an opinion is a relevant issue.

I am surprised to see Shane who has been rather even handed in this discussion make reference to me by name and accuse me of trying to disredit Dr Kennedy! I have heard her speak and have a set of her campmeeting tapes and I esteem her opinions highly. In her response to the unauthorised and inapropriate e-mail by a certain person who I will not name Dr Kennedy admitted that she had not been given a burden to study those chalk deposits. She merely quotes two other's opinions

I make no pretense of any authority and have never claimed such. I believe I have as much right to express my viewpoints as that certain un-named person. Am I correct in this belief?

If someone can tell us at what stage in a universal flood there would have been an opportunity for depositions of pristine chalk beds I would be really interested. No I am not an evolutionist but I have to reserve judgement on many of the statements made by strict Biblical literalists. Can we not be more tolerant of other people's viewpoints so this would be a "kinder" place as the un-named person repeats so often?

mel

I don't have time at the moment to respond in depth to your post, but I did take a quick look at the Hebrew. On what basis do you say that 'the text in Genesis seems to say that the stars were amde during Creation week'?

Dave

If you are referring to my email to Dr. Kennedy, I quite disagree with you. this is a public forum, and for that reason, and in view of what was said about Dr. Kennedy, it would seem both authorized and appropriate.



Speaking for myself, as I have said, I do not have credentials in this area. The views of untrained lay persons have the weight and credibility of such. Dr. Kennedy is not untrained, she is a professional scientist and as such, would be in a different category.

Quotes? Where? What quotes? Please specify. I do not recall her quoting or citing anyone.