The Story of an Evolving Creationist


(system) #1
Growing up in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement, Daniel never knew that Christians disagreed about Genesis and science.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-story-of-an-evolving-creationist

(George Brooks) #2

I found this part of the article to be particularly striking!:

I think starting every conversation about the age of the Earth is:
1) the most convincing part of our platform;
2) easiest to prove;
3) and removes the foundation of the YEC position without ever once having to discuss species, speciation, or Darwin.

@beaglelady, do we have a prominent Geologist to “tap” for helping to craft our narratives in regard to Geology issues?

[QUOTE]
“This rapid transition to old earth creationism (OEC) . . . was the first step in my transformation as a creationist. I reasoned that if my pastor and the leaders of these creationist para-church ministries had deceived me about what was claimed to be the very foundation of the faith, there’s no telling what other beliefs of mine are supported by deceptions.”

" Over the next few years, I studied over two dozen different interpretations of Genesis. My views migrated a bit over this time. But the biggest change I made during this time was not in an answer to one of these questions, but in an approach."


(Christy Hemphill) #3

I like this part:

Messiness is scary. But you get used to it, and then it’s not so bad.


(sy_garte) #4

Hi @DanielE , its great to see your post here.

The Proverb you quote, and your new approach to understanding the real meaning of scripture is a good way to think of the scientific method. As in theology, it is a fundamental precept of scientific investigation to put aside one’s preconceived notions of how things should be, and be open to whatever the actual data tell you. Many times I have done experiments expecting and hoping to get a result that would confirm an idea, only to get something totally unexpected and initially disappointing. But then, it always turned out to be a good thing, because truth is the goal, not confirmation of what we think is true. I think its wonderful that you were able to use the same process to seek out the truth of Scripture. See you at our other place.

Sy


(Daniel Eaton) #5

The key is to not see that cognitive dissonance as some leading of the Holy Spirit. :slight_smile:


(Phil) #6

This reminds me of how Jesus used this process when asked, “Who is my neighbor?” He then put forth the thought experiment of the Good Samaritan, looked for the listeners to make observations, and use that data to draw a rather difficult conclusion for many.

While I enjoyed many of the points in the article (and as I drive through the Paluxy River area frequently Daniel’s use of it resonated), I think the statement I identified with most was that "As a Christian, I believe I have nothing to fear from truth. "
Indeed, we can welcome learning more and be joyful in anticipating what marvelous things are left to be discovered with that attitude. One of the problems with not embracing truth where it leads, is that you are always on the defensive, and fearful that your house will be swept away.


(Paul Bruggink) #7

My fearless forecast, based on my own experience, is that it will take around three to five years for you to finish those evolutionary creationist books and gradually come to the realization that biological evolution is the way that God created and that there most likely was no historical Adam amnd Eve. Maybe by that time, at least some theologians will have worked out how to deal with the New Testament references to Adam in a way that makes it acceptable to more Christians. Peter Enns and Denis Lamoureux are off to a good start. I’m looking forward to the release of the Scot McKnight & Dennis Venema book “Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science,” coming out in January.