Christianity and Science, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Old Earth Creationism, Science, Theistic Evolutionism, Young Earth Creationism

What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions

Trilobites_in_the_Mineral_Museum_in_SiófokThe origins debate within Christianity is often viewed through the lens of a very narrow spectrum. Most recently, this was demonstrated in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.  I also demonstrated this recently by answering questions for old earth creationists (see the first and second parts): some people tend to see the only options available for Christians as either young earth creationism (the earth was made in six 24 hour days 6-10 thousand years ago) or theistic evolutionism (God set it up, then evolution accounts for diversification). These perspectives, though showing a few of those available to Christians, do not actually reflect the whole realm of possibilities for Christians.

More thoughtful Christians tend to think of the perspectives as threefold. There are theistic evolutionists, young earth creationists, and then in between there is a kind of amorphous glob of people who hold to an “old earth” without expressing it in strictly evolutionary terms. Here, we’ll explore this amorphous glob (as well as the extremes) to show that there really is a range of options. I’m writing this mainly to clarify for many some of the difficulties in commenting on creation issues without such a taxonomy.

Gerald Rau’s Mapping the Origins Debate

If I could recommend one book to anyone who is going to get involved in creation issues, I would have to say I’d recommend Gerald Rau’s Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything. I’m not recommending it because I think it is the best book on creation issues. Rather, I’m recommending it because I think anyone who is going to interact with these issues must be able to make distinctions between positions. Rau’s work is helpful because he has laid out many of the main categories for belief. There is, however, a downside to his work: it is necessarily simplified. He did an adequate job showing the major positions available, but the fact remains that even within each position he dilineated there are more divisions to be explored. Moreover, there are views which simply don’t fit into any specific group. That said, I think his work is extremely useful and so I’ll start with his organization as a way to introduce the taxonomy.

Rau’s Taxonomy

Rau divided the major positions on the origins debate into a sixfold division (see Rau, 41):

Naturalistic Evolution- On this view, there is no God and no purpose in origins. The process for the origin of species and its diversity is “spontaneous.”

Nonteleological Evolution- On this view, there is a creator, but there remains no intervention in the natural process which yield life and its diversity. Thus, the “conditions necessary for life” were “established at creation.” However, evolution is still without purpose and the creator did not specify its parameters.

Planned Evolution- On this view, there is a creator who had a purpose for life and its origin. This purpose is through a “perfect creation” which “naturally fulfills God’s purposes.” Thus, the purpose which the creator had was essentially front-loaded in at the moment of creation. There is no direction during the process.

Directed Evolution- On this view, there is a creator with a purpose for the diversity of life. Unlike the previous view, the creator doesn’t merely front-load design and purpose but rather intervenes throughout the course of history to bring about purpose: “changes in universe and life” are “subtly directed over time.”

Old-Earth Creation- On this view, the process by which the diversity of species came about is not through directed evolution but rather through creation over time: “major body plans” are “created over millions of years.” New diversity of life is through God’s direct creative act.

Young-Earth creation- on this view, “each ‘kind'” is “created in one week, within the last 10,000 years. All diversity of life is due to God’s creative act; any changes since then are only among the “kinds” represented on the ark.

162283main_image_feature_693_ys_4A Larger Picture

Rau’s division of these groups is extremely helpful because he hits on the major positions represented within the spectrum. Of course the only options which are available to Christians are those which do not exclude God from the picture. Thus all but naturalistic evolution remain open to the believer. Now,  the debate over how these might fit into the teaching of the Bible is not what I’m trying to dive into here. Instead, I’m simply pointing out there is diversity of views greater than the YEC/Theistic Evolutionism divide. One can see from the above that even within theistic evolutionism there is some diversity. Does evolution take place nonteleologically or did God plan it from the beginning? Perhaps God directed evolution along the way. There also is the option of Old Earth Creationism which shares many features with young earth creationism but radically diverges from the latter in many respects.

However, the spectrum opens up even more than Rau’s taxonomy depicts. The views he discusses focus primarily upon the science; that is, they are distinctions among views on the specifics of a scientific account of origins. Other views may be listed which may be distinguished by the reading of the Bible. Now, there is of course much overlap between these and Rau’s list, but I wanted to highlight a few views of interest.

First, there are interpreters like John Sailhamer in his book Genesis Unbound who hold that the text of Genesis is most specifically talking about the creation of the Garden of Eden. C. John Collins also holds to this view. They each hold that Genesis 1:1 is a kind of statement about the creation of the universe (though Collins does question whether it is explicitly about the ex-nihilo creation of the universe) and what follows as a continuous creation narrative of the land for the inhabitants. Thus, the text in Genesis does not explicitly affirm any sort of creation account and so people would be free to hold to essentially any position above apart from naturalistic evolution.

Second, John Walton’s view reads the creation account within the Ancient Near Eastern context and so he views Genesis not as a literal creation account but rather as an account showing how God is enthroned over the entire creation as King. Again, such a view would be amenable to the spectrum of views possible for a Christian as I noted.

It is worth noting that either of these is distinct from the spectrum Rau lists. They are distinct because they do not require commitment to any of the creation models. Thus, for Collins, Sailhamer, and Walton, one may simply remain open to the evidence rather than filtering the evidence through specific readings of the Genesis text. Of course, one could hold to this view and remain a young earth creationist; but none of these readings explicitly forces someone to hold to any position on the actual means of creation and speciation.

Third, there are positions related to the scientific origins which would further subdivide Rau’s categories as dilineated above. For example, young earth creationists often hold that the Global Flood can account for the fossil record and stratification. But some YECs have historically held that the Flood would have been tranquil and essentially had no impact on the Earth. Other YECs simply hold that the universe and the Earth have an appearance of age because God would have known at what age it would have needed to be in order to sustain life. There is much diversity about the mechanisms related to the Flood as well. Similarly, Old Earth Creationists exist upon a spectrum, though Rau’s principles about what unites them are correct. However, OECs are often confused with other views along the spectrum such as directed evolution. Strictly speaking, an Old Earth Creationist will not hold to the notion that speciation occurs on such a broad scale through evolution.

Conclusion

I have utilized Rau’s work to demonstrate there is a spectrum of beliefs related to the origins debate. The spectrum, I have argued, is even broader than Rau showed. Within each category he listed, there may be subdivisions. Moreover, there are some views which eschew attempts to dilineate the scientific truths but simply ascribe to reading the text. These latter views would fit with essentially any along the spectrum of beliefs so long as God is involved.

The purpose of this post is not to sow confusion for those interested in the topic of origins. Rather, it is to demonstrate that there really are more options on the table than either Young Earth Creationism or Theistic Evolutionism. Within either of those views there is much diversity, and there is a whole range in-between. Thus, let us hope that when we discuss origins we avoid falsely portraying the positions as being so limited that we fail to account for the range. Hopefully, this taxonomy will prove helpful.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Source

Gerald Rau, Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

About these ads

About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick has an MA in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. His interests include theology, philosophy of religion--particularly the existence of God--astronomy, biology, archaeology, and sci-fi and fantasy novels.

Discussion

14 thoughts on “What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions

  1. I appreciate the post. It covers an important important issue, and Rau’s taxonomy is a helpful starting place.

    Nevertheless, there is an aspect of the post with which I struggle and I’ll use this passage to address it:

    “Rau’s division of these groups is extremely helpful because he hits on the major positions represented within the spectrum. Of course the only options which are available to Christians are those which do not exclude God from the picture. Thus all but naturalistic evolution remain open to the believer. Now, the debate over how these might fit into the teaching of the Bible is not what I’m trying to dive into here.”

    I think the Bible deserves more consideration than the afterthought it seems to receive in the fourth and last sentence. Rather, it deserves to be fitted into the first three sentences. I’m not saying you should have dealt with it in this post – just that you should have characterized it as a more important issue than you did.

    Assuming we are Christians and that we are so because of the testimony of the Bible as the word of God, then all positions outside of naturalistic evolution are not open to us because all of them cannot be reconciled to the Bible. Or, perhaps to be more precise, some can be reconciled to the Bible more easily than others.

    Therefore, my suggestion for a revised wording would be:

    “Rau’s division of these groups is extremely helpful because he hits on the major positions represented within the spectrum. Of course the only options which are available to Christians are those which do not exclude God from the picture and do not conflict with the Bible. Now, the debate over how these might fit into the teaching of the Bible is not what I’m trying to dive into here.”

    Thus I don’t think that the key issue here for Christians is theological; rather, it’s biblical.. Theologically, God can do anything He wants any way He wants to do it, and, thus, yes, all points on Rau’s taxonomic spectrum except for naturalistic evolution are safe landing places for theists. However, a Christian has allegiance to the Scriptures which Christ considered dear. And therefore, to pick just one, nonteleological evolution is not a place a Christian can land. A Deist maybe, but not a Christian.

    What I look forward to are posts from you about those positions that can be best reconciled to the biblical text.

    For example, BioLogos is adamant about evolution but indifferent about the historicity of Adam and Eve (some of their folks, such as Walton, hold to it and some, such as Enns, don’t). Whether you think Adam was historic or you don’t, the BioLogos position is not reconciling an important theme of the Bible – dealt with in both testaments – by its ambiguous viewpoint. And for a professional Bible scholar like Peter Enns to be more sure about evolution than he is about a major Bible figure strikes me as absurd, because it makes him more sure in a field where he’s not an expert than in a field where he is.

    Any position which leaves us more sure in the word of men (scientists) than in the word of God (prophets and apostles) does not seem desirable to those of us who want most in life to honor Christ our Lord.

    I have trusted scientists all my life and will continue to do so. But when they tell me something that violates Scripture or reason, I have to hold back my trust.

    Posted by Mike Gantt | February 10, 2014, 9:29 AM
  2. Another excellent post, J.W! Rau’s book is one of the best and very helpful in terms of laying out the categories of positions. Not sure if you have reviewed “Origins” by Deborah and Loren Haarsma. One of best explanations of the issues.

    Posted by gbaron | February 10, 2014, 12:43 PM
  3. Thanks for this post J.W. I wrote a review of the book over at Apologetics315 and really found it useful. That review can be found here: http://www.apologetics315.com/2013/04/book-review-mapping-origins-debate-six.html

    I will offer a few clarifications. Although I personally fall closest to Sailhamer, I’ve read all of Collins work and discussed the issues with him personally in the past.

    Collins actually holds that the six days of Genesis 1 are analogical days representing the time in which God “set up the earth as the ideal place for human beings to live” (p.85 of his chapter in Reading Gen 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation; Hopefully Brian will post my review of the book soon at A315). Thus, he doesn’t believe that they refer to the creation of the Promised Land, ala Sailhamer, but the shaping of the world for God and his covenant people. You are probably thinking this is the case since he argues that the description of creation in Gen 2:4-7 is about the Promised Land in particular, whereas most scholars hold it to be a second creation account. His reading of Gen 1, although close to a literary/polemical reading, is actually a rather standard analogical reading, similar to John Currid or Meredith Kline.

    Collins actually holds to 1:1 referring to creatio ex nihilo rather firmly. He states this in a few of his works. This is foundational for his Reformed understanding of Gen 1 as teaching the Creator/creature distinction. He does hold that everything after 1:1 refers to God shaping creation into a functional form, but 1:1 is ex nihilo on his reading.

    Back to this review, I think one of the greatest misunderstandings among evangelicals on this issue is that it is assumed that the diversity of views arise from issues in science. They do not. Our issues with science are secondary to the exegetical issues with the text itself. Unfortunately, both YEC, OEC and TE ministries often abuse the text in order to support their particular scientific reconstruction. Those who do the hard work of exegesis first will realize that their assumptions about the text may not be as clear cut as they presume.

    Posted by G. Kyle Essary | February 10, 2014, 6:44 PM
  4. Why do you suppose the Framework Hypothesis is virtually ignored when discussion about comparison of Genesis views occurs? I have only heard it mentioned in one book that tries to assess the point of Genesis 1&2. I know there are plenty of “blog posts” and the like, but in popular thought and popular books it’s virtually unmentioned.

    Posted by Tim Henderson | March 14, 2014, 9:32 PM
    • Historically, the Framework Hypothesis was much more “in vogue” in the late 1800s/early 1900s, unless I’m remembering this incorrectly. There are a few people who still hold to it (such as Meredith Kline or Christopher R. Smith), but it’s not terribly popular anymore, as you said. I think that there are actually more people who hold to the position but don’t really call it that. C. John Collins’ view relies quite a bit on the parallels between the days but ultimately ascribes the days to the creation of Eden; as does Sailhamer (though if I recall correctly, he specifically rejects the Framework view).

      As far as its lack of popularity, I believe that it may be largely subsumed into other views. For example, various old earth concordist positions seem to have affinities with the Framework interpretation (particularly as outlined here by Lee Irons, who wrote alongside Meredith Kline defending the framework view). And, as I said, other views which don’t really even attempt to have a specific age of the Earth could accommodate or use the Framework interpretation. So I don’t think it’s really gone so much as its been largely incorporated into other views.

      Finally, the major reason I think it’s not as popular is because it has a certain “feel” to it of being rather bare bones. At least, it feels that way to me. The Framework intepretation, that is, seems to be largely a framework. It’s not developed. It’s a kind of theory about how to approach Genesis, but seems to (in my experience) have little to say about what exactly is meant within the Genesis narrative. Thus, as I noted above, it often gets subsumed into other views.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | March 15, 2014, 12:48 AM

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: What options are there in the origins debate? – A Taxonomy of Christian Origins Positions | THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM - February 10, 2014

  2. Pingback: “Oceans of Kansas,” Unexpected Fossils, and Young Earth Creationism | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - February 19, 2014

  3. Pingback: Sunday Quote!- The Desperate Lights of Genesis? | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - March 2, 2014

  4. Pingback: Sunday Quote!- Does Science Limit Exegesis? | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - May 4, 2014

  5. Pingback: Dinosaurs, Noah’s Flood, and Creationism- An ecological challenge | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - June 2, 2014

  6. Pingback: Sunday Quote!- Reframe the Origins Debate? | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - June 8, 2014

  7. Pingback: Young Earth Creationism Does Not Have Historical Pedigree | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - August 11, 2014

  8. Pingback: Is the historical Adam a “Gospel” issue? | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - August 25, 2014

  9. Pingback: Do Young Earth Creationists Advocate Appearance of Age? | J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - October 20, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,458 other followers

Archives

Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,458 other followers

%d bloggers like this: