Oh absolutely, and I completely love both witnesses, for obviously very different reasons! 
But again, if Bobās testimony is silent on things that Samās testimony speaks volumes about, then we have to work on meshing the two accounts together better.
Joshua (if I may call you that),
Thank you very much for your extensive and thoughtful reply. It will take some time for me to work through it as well as the other replies Iāve gotten. (Iām trying to work on a first-in, first-out basis, but sometimes when I think a short reply will do I move it up in the queue.) Rest assured that I will read thoughtfully all you have written including your personal testimony, and respond thoughtfully as soon as practical for me.
1 Like
I think there is a great deal of merit to what you say. Ken Ham says, in part, something very similar when he says āEvolution is the symptom; millions of years is the disease.ā I know you and he are opposed on the age of the earth, and perhaps on many other things as well. However, you are both putting your finger on a very important relationship between the two ideas (evolution and the age of the universe).
Alas, for various reasons too detailed to mention here, I am currently focused on reconciling evolution with the Bible. I keep my eyes open for opportunities to shift focus to the age of the earth when I think it might get me to a strategic conclusion sooner. However, I havenāt yet found a biblical opening to do so; and, as you may have discerned, itās biblical openings that matter most to me.
P.S. I recognize that an OEC who rejects evolution only has to fight the biologists, while the YEC has to fight the geologists and the astronomers in addition to the biologists. Iāve never been interested in fighting more people than I have to, but, alas, there are more considerations than this one.
Since YECās couldnāt accept evolution if they wanted to (because their age of the earth wouldnāt allow it), I came to BioLogos thinking there might be OECās who had biblical reasons for accepting evolution which would be persuasive to me.
A OEC who accepts evolution is known as an Evolutionary Creationist around here. 
Once you accept an old earth it is going to force you to decide how you are going to read Genesis. That is why I believe coming to grips with evolution will be much easier after you accept the actual age of the earth.
āI do wonder about the anti-evolutionism in our interpretations ā¦ I was so attached to anti-evolutionism.ā - Joshua Swamidass
The BioLogos Foundation is still officially anti-evolutionism. So perhaps itās time for Joshua to ānot grow so unattached to itā after all. Just anti-evolution is not allowed, but anti-evolutionism is supported & encouraged by BioLogos.
āBioLogos emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.ā How is Evolutionary Creation different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism? - BioLogos
Hopefully Joshua can tell the difference between evolutionary theories and evolutionism. But not an insignificant # of natural scientists intentionally refuse to distinguish them.
And therein lies the rub. Change your understanding of Adam, and the dominoes seemingly never stop falling. What about the rest of Genesis? The flood and Babel? Original sin? The genealogies? How do we account for parallels between Genesis and ANE mythology? What sources, if any, were available to Moses? How do we understand Paul and Romans 5 or 1 Cor. 15? What about 2 Peter? Lukeās genealogy? The list goes on and on, which is why you havenāt been able to find one book that wraps everything up in a bow. It hasnāt been published (yet ). Interpreting (or reinterpreting) Adam is an enormously complex task, and one that is made more difficult by the fact that the human genome was mapped just over a decade ago, finally ruling out the possibility of a literal Adam & Eve as the first human pair and source of our species.
Now, Iāll save you a lot of time and trouble, because there are only a few interpretive āmovesā to resolve the tension for the Evangelical who accepts the authority and inspiration of Scripture. First, reject the conclusions of science and ālet God be true, and every man a liar.ā This is the YEC position. Second, maintain a literal Adam & Eve, a literal garden, and a literal first sin, but identify the events of Gen. 2-3 as taking place sometime in the more recent past (~6,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand). This also usually involves understanding Noahās flood as a regional event. Third, interpret Adam & Eve figuratively, as well as most of Gen. 1-11.
Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but thatās the general outline of the way things stand. The second option is more common among people who are strong inerrantists. Personally, I donāt like that option because I donāt think it is faithful to the language of the text. To my mind, Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are about mankindās beginnings, not a man named Adam specially created and put into a garden thousands of years later, and the language describing the flood does not lend itself to a regional interpretation. So, I am working with a figurative model of interpreting Genesis 1-11 because I believe it is more faithful to the Scripture. Others prefer the genealogical Adam/regional Flood for exactly the same reason.
Nor should you assume that the value of, or truth to be learned from the poetry is always contingent upon its historical fact-hood.
The problem is finding a Creationist who genuinely accepts the Geologistsā view that the Earth is 5 billion years old.
Our most recent self- declared OEC participant doesnāt actually accept the verdict of Geologists - - which makes for a pretty quick conversation!
The real challenge is clear: how to accept the view of Geologists while rejecting the view of Archaeologists!
I spent about 3 years debating Karl Giberson when he was a Creationist; I couldnāt convince him of anything. But when he finished his physics degrees, he arrived at evolution all on his own; physics was the most powerful āconvincerā he had ever encountered.
1 Like
Are there Biblical reasons for acceptingā¦
Plate Tectonics?
The Law of Unviersal Gravitation?
General Relativity?
The Big Bang Theory?
Quantum Field Theory? Schrodingerās Equation?
Maxwells Equations of Electromagnetism?
Archimedes Principle?
The ideal gas laws?
Hereās a list of various laws and theorems named after people, many of whom were Christian (List of scientific laws named after people - Wikipedia). Do we have any Biblical reasons for accepting these ideas? The same is true for Evolution and every other scientific idea that arose out of studying the natural world. None of them were founded on the Scriptures and while many were motivated to reveal the glory of God (like Faraday, Kepler, etc.), it had nothing to do with a theological idea based upon reading a book written by and for a prescientific people group.
As a side note, hereās one more book (which I havenāt read): From Evolution to Eden: Making Sense of Early Genesis.
2 Likes
Mr. Gantt and others at Biologos:
Socratic Fanatic has had a very serious medical relapse. It is unclear at this time whether he will recover quickly or not at all. He has surprised us in the past with impressive rebounds.
Iām sure he would have been happy to elaborate on your excellent questions, Mr. Gantt. As a teacher, he always loved pithy questions. He left his computer on this webpage as if he was going to resume his dialogue with you at breakfast.
Thing are looking very difficult at this point. Prayers would be appreciated.
8 Likes
Thank you for letting us know.
Yes, thanks for the news. We will pray.
Joshua,
Thanks again for all you wrote. I also read the Didaskalia article to which you linked. It was terrific, and Iāll say more about it below. I also sampled a couple of your Veritas videos on YouTube, giving me a sense of your personality to help me better appreciate the words you have written me.
You and I are different in some pretty dramatic ways - most notably in the area of science. That is, what you have an aptitude and affection for, I recoil from. I donāt mean that I disrespect what you do; on the contrary, I admire and appreciate it greatly. In fact, I marvel at it. And I thank God for it. But itās not for me. My interests just donāt lie in the direction of science. Itās very similar to the way I feel about the soldiers who defend our country: I donāt want to trade places with them, but I thank God that they want to be in the place they are. It does me and my family a lot of good.
Though you and I are different in many ways, especially with respect to science, we are almost identical when it comes to Jesus being the proper locus of faith. I was thrilled with, and I identified with, so many of the statements you made in your Didaskalia article. Our paths to faith were different, and even our personal experience of faith has been different at least in certain ways, yet I love the way you think about our Lord and subordinate all things to Him. I love your emphasis on the limitations of theism and of arguments for the existence of God.
I can say that science did not lead me to faith in Christ and science cannot take me away from itā¦but if you say it, it has so much more power because science is your domain. I love your testimony and you have my utmost respect for your stance in Him.
With respect to what you have written above, let me engage you on two of the points.
First, is there anything beyond your references to creatio continua and Augustine that you think might get me to where you are on Genesis 2:1-3? I regard that passage as emphatically labeling the creation as complete, excepting only His management of the universe (including procreation) and His redemption of it. Regarding this redemptive activity, I consider āthe new heavens and new earthā as spiritual references, the physical creation having no need to be replaced. It seems that for you, and for all adherents of creatio continua (presumably including Augustine), any reference to Godās creative, management, or redemptive activity after Genesis 1 is bearing witness to creatio continua, whereas for me, as I have stated, they represent separate activities clearly distinguished from what was described as completed in Genesis 2:1-3. As long as I see the original creation labeled as complete in Genesis 2:1-3 I see myself barred, practically speaking, from any OEC position (whether it is for or against evolution).
Second, Iād appreciate a better understanding of what you wrote here:[quote=āSwamidass, post:89, topic:36078ā]
I believe that God created us, He designed us, by a process of evolution. I know this because the Creator of Everything reveals Himself through Jesus, by raising Him from the dead.
[/quote]
I donāt understand how the second sentence supports the first. It seems like a non sequitur.
Thanks again for manning the walls of the citadel of science in the name of the Lord. We need you on that wall!
2 Likes
Thank you for this information. It deeply personalizes our dialogue and reminds us all of our dependence on our Creator for every breath of life. May Godās best be yours and his.
5 Likes
@Mike_Gantt something beautiful has happened here.
I think you see here that I am a member of the Church, and you are accepting me as family across what is a great divide. This is correct and natural ecclesial (of the Church) response that is only possible because of the work of Jesus to bring us all into his unlikely family.
Let me quickly address your questions and return to thisā¦
We affirm many of the same beliefs, but the order is also important for me. At times in my belief, I falsely believed:
Because of creation science, I know God created us and now trust the Bible. Because I trust the Bible, I believe in Jesus.
In my āepistemology,ā my faith was rooted in manās effort to study nature. First it was creation science, then it was Intelligent Design. I believed because of manās effort.
Now, turning from my idolatry, I still believe God created us, but for a different reason. Now my grounding, my ordering goes like thisā¦
God reveals Himself to all people by raising Jesus from the dead. I respond to His act with trust in Jesus. Because of Jesus, I trust that which brought me to Him, the Bible and the Church. Through the Bible, I find out that God created us.
Put more succinctly, I believe that the Creator exists, is good, and wants to be known because Jesus rose from the dead. And the ordering here is important. Placing Jesus at the foundation of my faith, looking to Godās work instead of manās effort, is what brings me to confident faith in science.
For this, I will ask @Jon_Garvey to respond to your honest and important questions.
Personally, however, I will back off on this one, but I want to explain why. My goal here is not to change your view of Scripture. Personally, Iām okay with whatever you believe about our distant past. Hopefully you can at least see that it is there is at least uncertainty about how to understand Genesis 1-2, and that my view on this is faithful to my understanding of Scripture even if you do not yet see it.
Instead of focusing on what is not clearly seen in Scripture, Iād rather focus for a moment on what you have clearly seen.
I want to suggest that the central problem we face in evolution is not exactly theological or exegetical. Rather we face a fundamentally ecclesial problem, meaning this is a challenge that disorders and divides the Church of all believers.
Because I chose to honestly and publicly affirm evolution, I have been called a āhereticā. I have been told I do ānot have a place at the tableā. I have had members of the Church and my natural family furious with me for honestly explaining my position. I have been called cowardly and a traitor, because I would not join the war against evolution. I have been disinvited from speaking engagements. I have Christian friends who accept my privately but will not be seen in public with me.
I chose to honestly and publicly affirm evolution, knowing it would have this effect. I did this because of how I saw seekers in science being treated in the Church. They were curious about Jesus, but they were told that a pillar of our faith, a key step in following Jesus, is rejecting evolution. Jesus made sense to them, but our anti-evolutionism did not. I became willing to bear some suffering so that the seeker might encounter a Church that has returned to Jesus from anti-evolutionism.
I believe we face an ecclesial problem. Many in the Church do not know that Godās Spirit is also poured out on those that affirm evolution. I think you have seen something here. I want to ask you to tell the Church what you have seen. Nothing in evolution restrains the Gospel of Jesus. God has placed people here in science, but will we accept them as family in the Church?
Peace.
2 Likes
A quick one on creatio continua, following your namedropping me to Mike!
I canāt recall Iāve done a Hump post specifically dealing with ācreation after Genesisā (maybe I should). But I can point Mike to the fact that Scripture specifically uses the word for ācreateā, bara, for events after the initial creation. That includes, for example, the creation of Israel.
But in the natural world, that great treatise on creation, Psalm 104, uses the word ācreateā with respect to Godās renewing of the earth by creating new creatures, through his Spirit, to replace those that have died. That refers to daily existence,m of course, not evolution - but in principle it would not exclude extinctions and new forms happening after the Genesis 1 week.
The cessation of Godās initial work of creation on Day 7 has the connotation of his setting up the universe and then reigning in it, much as David reigned in Jerusalem after God gave him rest from his enemies, yet was still active. āMy Father is still about his business.ā
But also in the history of theology, the greatest theologians from the Orthodox Fathers, through Aquinas to Reformed guys like B B Warfield have dealt with the close - perhaps even inextricable - relationship between creation and special providence.
The key application of this in the matter of origins has been not to support evolution, but actually to teach against a common āstatitstical deisticā understanding of theistic evolution, ie that God created the world and then ālet it evolveā - a position known as ābare conservationismā. Rather, the concept of creatio continua respects the fact that Godās true actions occur in eternity as one eternal act, even when they have their effects in time. He creates the whole world, not just the beginning of the world. The implications are profound!
Just to pick up on your main point here, Joshua. You give your ātestimonyā as:
creation science -> belief in Bible -> (particular) belief in Jesus, the order of which had to be unlearned to put Jesus first.
Implicitly you contrast that with an alternative:
ID (or Paley) -> belief in God -> belief in (maybe somewhat different) Jesus.
To which I might add another possibility:
Evolutionary science -> theistic evolution -> belief in (another slightly different) Jesus.
Or (to complete the set!) one that seems fairly common in Biologos:
creation science -> belief in Bible -> (particular) belief in Jesus -> evolutionary science -> disillusion -> (changed) belief in Jesus.
I go along with you in seeing how all those routes may lead to disorder and division. My own journey is rather different (and maybe more difficult to condense):
Evolutionary science -> no influence on conversion to Christ -> interesting, but not existentially threatening, project to resolve the two, leading to modified understanding of evolution.
Now, I know other people who also came to faith with no consideration of origins at all, and who through their faith came to believe in Theistic Evolutionā¦ or in Intelligent Design, or Old Earth Creationism, or even Young Earth Creationism. And their different conclusions led to no division or disorder, even though it sometimes led to heated discussion, because the Christ of the Bible was the beginning and end of their faith, and the rest mere detail.
To some extent the difference in experience is a sociological matter - in much of the world creation and evolution are simply of minor interest to most people. There is little teaching in most churches here in UK that would indoctrinate one into one view, or lead to a crisis of faith when it proved inadequate. That leads to vulnerability in other ways (eg to strident atheist biology lecturers or Fundamentalist books from the US!), so the issues still matter.
1 Like
What a beautiful spirit!
You are not arguing for evolution - at least not here - you are arguing for Jesus. This is right, for He who unites us is far greater than whatever divides us.
Jesus Christ has been your north star in all your sailing - whether to the east or the west. Even when you encountered storms, you stayed fixed on Him. And even when deep darkness obscured Him, you kept reaching for, and, at times, groping for the sure knowledge that He was still there. Because of your love for Him, He has always made sure you found Him.
āBlessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, an falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.ā - Matthew 5:11-12
āIf anyone fiercely assails you it will not be from Me. Whoever assails you will fall because of you.ā - Isaiah 54:15
For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. - 1 Peter 2:19
I rejoice over the rejection you have endured because it (the endurance, not the rejection) eloquently testifies to the genuineness of your faith - from your childhood on! That faith in the resurrected Lord has sustained you whether you embraced YEC, ID, and now whatever you call your current thinking. He is Lord!
I may never be able to join you in your embrace of evolution, but whether I do or donāt, I will always rejoice over the glory of your devotion to Christ.
You are blessed! And may God grant you ever-increasing strength all the rest of your days on earth that your voice of praise to Him may be heard from mountaintops. Truly, truly, He is worthy!
4 Likes
Jon, thanks for stepping up to the plate. Can you tell me anything about the history of the doctrine of creatio continua? I acknowledge that its origin precedes Darwin, but I was wondering what other historical setting or theological debate might have provoked it.