First off, I think this is not a description of evolutionary creationism. Evolutionary creationism is not a scientific model that is essentially the scientific model + God. Just like as a Christian I don't have to affirm that theistic photosynthesis is chlorophylI + sunlight + CO2 + H20 +God. Or theistic reproduction is sperm + egg + God. Evolutionary creationism is not a scientific model, it is a theological affirmation that God is the Creator and his means of creation was the process scientists have described as evolution. No scientist I have ever heard defines evolution as matter + chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death + time. They define it as changes in allele frequencies in a population over time. So from the get-go we have someone who is not correctly characterizing what they are arguing against.
- Death does not equal "horror" or "ghastliness." Death is part of the life cycle, even in a sinless world, if nature is anything at all like it is now. You can't have the nitrogen cycle without death. I see no evidence in Scripture that nature in the Garden of Eden was such a fundamentally different kind of nature or that at the Fall God essentially had to recreate the world and make herbivores into carnivores, invent the nitrogen cycle, and purposely design every organism we find less than Paradise-y (mosquitos, viruses, thorn-bearing roses) as a curse. Deuteronomy 32:4 is an unacceptable proof text because it does not say that nature or creation is perfect. It says God's works are perfect. Reading "everything in the universe" into God's "work" in this context is not good exegesis, especially knowing that often in Hebrew couplets the second part paraphrases the first and if the second part is "all his ways are just" then it is God's actions that are in focus, not nature/creation in general.
No, evolution is part of God's creation and proceeds according to God's will and plan, as does everything else in creation. Science does not explain God's work, so in science, no workspace is allotted to God. But since evolutionary creationism is not "science + God", but "God created via some processes science can describe," this is just inaccurate.
I think almost every sentence here is demonstrably wrong, and lengthy discussions of why are all over these boards.
Huh? "Evolution knows no sin."?? Okay. Neither does photosynthesis. Why would anyone be looking to evolution for moral instruction? How is sin made meaningless by allele changes in a population over time? How is sin an "evolutionary factor" in any scenario?
Do you understand what this means because I sure don't. If you are going to say evolution is incompatible with the Incarnation, you have to actually explain WHY, not just quote a guy who says something indecipherable.
You don't have to believe in a literal Adam created from literal dust to affirm a historical Fall or the sinfulness of all humanity. It is the sinfulness of all humanity and their need for a savior that is the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption, not a historical Adam.
As you know, there are well-developed, exegetically responsible ways to understand the six days of creation other than six 24 hour days in recent history, and even most conservative Hebrew/Old Testament scholars would deny you can calculate the age of the earth by adding up genealogies.
I think YEC encourages a simplistic, culturally decontextualized, Western-centric approach to reading Scripture that leads to irresponsible assertions about what God's word teaches.