[_ Old Earth _] creationism essential to christianity?

[hadron]

I realize there are probably a hundred threads similar to this, so for that I apologize. Also, if this is in the wrong forum somehow, I apologize for that as well, my question may be a little more theological in orientation.

I have a question I am sincerely interested in getting Christian responses to. How essential is accepting some form of creationism, as opposed to something like theistic evolution? Or can someone be genuinely Christian and accept theistic evolution?

I don't think I could be honest and give up my belief that common descent is likely to be true, given what I find to be the huge amount of evidence for it. I don't know if this is something that I should be worried about, as I investigate Christianity, or if it's something that is nonessential. I have heard a couple different things so I thought I'd throw it out there.

thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

In the broadest sense of the word, theistic evolution is creationism. But in the stricter sense, creationism does not include religious beliefs that are consistent with observed evidence.

YE creationism, with it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine is contrary to God's word in Genesis. But threre are a number of forms of creationism that are not contrary to scripture. And there are ideologies based on evolution that are atheistic and contrary to Christian belief. Fortunately, evolutionary theory as it is currently understood by biologists, is not one of those.

This is what you should know; it does not matter to your salvation whether you accept evolution or not. Any denomination that teaches that it matters is not teaching Biblical Christianity.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I ascribe to young earth Creationism myself, but I don't think it's essential. You can believe in the evolution theory and still receive Salvation.
So, I'm totally okay with theistic evolution. I just don't see how you can make it line up with the Genesis account in the Bible.

I could point out one or two major flaws with the theory as well based on what I know, but this discussion gets freaking complicated and ends up going way over my head. :eeeekkk So I'd prefer not to get into that. (Am not fond of debate, especially right now when there's a lot going on in my life and I've got a lot on my mind as it is.) That would be off-topic anyway, wouldn't it? I mean, since this is about how it relates to Christianity and not the science of the matter itself.

 

[cupid dave]

I realize there are probably a hundred threads similar to this, so for that I apologize. Also, if this is in the wrong forum somehow, I apologize for that as well, my question may be a little more theological in orientation.

I have a question I am sincerely interested in getting Christian responses to. How essential is accepting some form of creationism, as opposed to something like theistic evolution? Or can someone be genuinely Christian and accept theistic evolution?

I don't think I could be honest and give up my belief that common descent is likely to be true, given what I find to be the huge amount of evidence for it. I don't know if this is something that I should be worried about, as I investigate Christianity, or if it's something that is nonessential. I have heard a couple different things so I thought I'd throw it out there.

thanks.

It is not essential, however, one must be open to accepting Truth when that Truth becomes apparent to them.
This is the case because Christ is the Truth and the way to lead one's life.
So in a sense, if one realizes that Genesis pretty much agrees with evolution he needs to stop arguing creationism and even confess the Truth about his real belief.

 

[Asyncritus]

Genesis certainly does not agree with evolution.

Looking at it dispassionately, we see zap zap zap zap zap zap creation.

Which is certainly not consistent with any kind of evolution.

When you start trying to reconcile that with the sciences, you end up with YEC. They are at least consistent in their attempted explanations.

I personally see nothing to convince me that any gradual process took place. The case I have been arguing for the creation and implantation of the instincts which power the whole of the living world shows that gradualism is impossible, since half-formed instincts (like half-formed organs) are worse than useless.

The concept of common descent is a huge joke in my opinion, since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a single organism which could possibly contain all the genetic material responsible for every life form extant and extinct.

If there's such a creature, I'd like to see it.

I am a believer in Old Earth Creation - which harmonises the facts of geology, astronomy, and palaeontology of the planet.

 

[Grazer]

Genesis certainly does not agree with evolution.

Looking at it dispassionately, we see zap zap zap zap zap zap creation.

Which is certainly not consistent with any kind of evolution.

When you start trying to reconcile that with the sciences, you end up with YEC. They are at least consistent in their attempted explanations.

I personally see nothing to convince me that any gradual process took place. The case I have been arguing for the creation and implantation of the instincts which power the whole of the living world shows that gradualism is impossible, since half-formed instincts (like half-formed organs) are worse than useless.

The concept of common descent is a huge joke in my opinion, since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a single organism which could possibly contain all the genetic material responsible for every life form extant and extinct.

If there's such a creature, I'd like to see it.

I am a believer in Old Earth Creation - which harmonises the facts of geology, astronomy, and palaeontology of the planet.

I don't think that's what they mean by common ancestor though. The ancestor doesn't have to hold all the genetic material for all life past and present. Many scientists are concluding there was more than one but that aside, the theory is that it started one or more and their off spring had minor differences in their DNA (mutation, natural selection, adapting to environment - many possible reasons but it has been observed in smaller species such as viruses and tests involving stickleback fish) and these keep going over however long the earth has been around. So the genetic material of these original ancestors were for it's own but as time as gone on, what is being passed has changed.

I'm not a scientist but that's how I've always understood as what scientists mean by common ancestor.

As for the original question, it's the classic debate over whether Genesis is meant as a literal historical text or whether it's conveying truths that go far deeper than "the earth was created in 6 days" Now, for the sake of argument, even it's not a literal text doesn't mean it can be dismissed, just means we have to take a closer look and ask "what is actually going on here?" The church had to do something similar over whether the earth moved in the wake of the Galileo affair. There are many Christians who believe the theory of evolution to be true. Francis Collins, who was director of the human genome project when it first mapped the human DNA, is one that comes to mind.

I agree with what N.T Wright says about it:

[video=youtube;3BP1PpDyDCw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BP1PpDyDCw[/video]

Edit: You might also find http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response interesting.

 

[felix]

Young Earth Creationism is as important and essential as receiving Salvation itself because, if you stop believing in "Creationism", at some point during the future, you are not going to believe the rest of the Scriptures too, as you had underestimated the truth of Scriptures once, so it is much easier for you to do the same again, thus slowly will lose faith in Christ.

 

[Grazer]

Young Earth Creationism is as important and essential as receiving Salvation itself because, if you stop believing in "Creationism", at some point during the future, you are not going to believe the rest of the Scriptures too, as you had underestimated the truth of Scriptures once, so it is much easier for you to do the same again, thus slowly will lose faith in Christ.

There's a difference between being a creationist and believing in a young earth. As for salvation, your view on genesis does not affect it in any way. Just because some doesn't take genesis as an scientific and historical account doesn't mean they don't believe it.

 

[felix]

There's a difference between being a creationist and believing in a young earth. As for salvation, your view on genesis does not affect it in any way. Just because some doesn't take genesis as an scientific and historical account doesn't mean they don't believe it.

I did not say it affects salvation. What I said is, in long run, when you compromised one scripture verse, you will do the same for rest which will make you to rethink the faith you have because, you no longer believe exactly what Scripture says anyway.

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis certainly does not agree with evolution.

It doesn't agree with protons, either. There are many things that are real, that are not in Genesis. The key is that Genesis is consistent with evolution, and not with some versions of creationism.

Looking at it dispassionately, we see zap zap zap zap zap zap creation.

No. God in Genesis is not like some little middle eastern godling, prancing around making a rabbit here and a tree there. The very earth and waters brought forth life as He intended when He made them.

Which is certainly not consistent with any kind of evolution.

It's called "abiogenesis." But evolutiion isn't tied to any particular origin of life.

When you start trying to reconcile that with the sciences, you end up with YEC.

As you learned, Genesis directly contradicts YEC. You've got it backwards again.

I personally see nothing to convince me that any gradual process took place.

Personal incredulity isn't going to help you.

The case I have been arguing for the creation and implantation of the instincts

...fell apart when it became clear that every time we find the cause of an "instinct" it was natural and evolveable.

The concept of common descent is a huge joke in my opinion, since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a single organism which could possibly contain all the genetic material responsible for every life form extant and extinct.

You actually think that is what evolutionary theory says? No wonder you're confused.

I am a believer in Old Earth Creation - which harmonises the facts of geology, astronomy, and palaeontology of the planet.

Some forms of OE are consistent with those. However, most of them are inconsistent with biology. Few of them are able to account for evolution.

 

[Free]

Let's keep this on topic and not turn it into a debate about common ancestry or any other specific point regarding evolution.


Is creationism essential to Christianity? No.

 

[felix]

Is creationism essential to Christianity? No.

The Beginning of the creation of God, as in Rev 3:14 is a title of God Himself. Denying His creation denies His title and Him.

Denying creationism is denying it's Creator.

(Rom 1:20-21) For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

[Grazer]

I did not say it affects salvation. What I said is, in long run, when you compromised one scripture verse, you will do the same for rest which will make you to rethink the faith you have because, you no longer believe exactly what Scripture says anyway.

Since I stopped looking at genesis as a literal scientific text, my faith has been stronger for it. I'm slowly learning that to take scripture literally and to take it seriously are not always the same thing.

As for the topic, believing the world is created is essential to Christianity (seems self evident but anyway) however believing the earth is 6000 years old is not.

 

[Asyncritus]

It doesn't agree with protons, either. There are many things that are real, that are not in Genesis. The key is that Genesis is consistent with evolution, and not with some versions of creationism.

Zap zap zap zap zap zap zap. Evolution? You gotta be kidding!

There's a lot of stupid things that aren't in Genesis either.

Let's not derail this thread, but continue beating evolution over the head with facts it is incapable of accounting for in the other threads.

Originally Posted by Free
Is creationism essential to Christianity? No.

I think this an incredible statement.

Do you subscribe to Gen 1 and all the other places in scripture where it is flatly asserted that God created...?

Felix:

The Beginning of the creation of God, as in Rev 3:14 is a title of God Himself.

This is a title of Christ Himself, not God Himself. Why?

Because God cannot be the beginning of the creation of God

14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

The faithful and true witness is Christ Himself, because witness = martus = martyr

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness [martus], and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding the notion that Genesis doesn't "agree" with evolution:
It doesn't agree with protons, either. There are many things that are real, that are not in Genesis. The key is that Genesis is consistent with evolution, and not with some versions of creationism.

Zap zap zap zap zap zap zap.

A lot of creationists get flustered when they realize.

There's a lot of stupid things that aren't in Genesis either.

Creationism, for example.

Originally Posted by Free
Is creationism essential to Christianity? No.


Async objects:

I think this an incredible statement.

Free is speaking from a Christian perspective, remember.

Do you subscribe to Gen 1 and all the other places in scripture where it is flatly asserted that God created...?

As you learned, YE creationism is opposed to God's account of creation.

 

[Stan53]

I have a question I am sincerely interested in getting Christian responses to. How essential is accepting some form of creationism, as opposed to something like theistic evolution? Or can someone be genuinely Christian and accept theistic evolution?

You have to ask yourself two things.

1. Do you believe and accept who Jesus is and said He was?
2. Are you willing to committ to Him?

If you answer yes to both, then there is no conflict or confusion.
Jesus said if you believe in Him, you believe in the Father, and if you believe in the Father you will believe that the Bible is His inspired Words to us. His word says He created the universe and the world in seven days. Pretty simple and as easy as that. God is fully evolved. What He created was and is fully evolved. Bottom line is YES creationism IS essential to being a Christian.

 

[felix]

As for the topic, believing the world is created is essential to Christianity (seems self evident but anyway) however believing the earth is 6000 years old is not.

Just on the last part, neither does Scripture say the earth was created 6000 years old. God created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" - This was even before light was created to define what a Biblical day is.

 

[Free]

The Beginning of the creation of God, as in Rev 3:14 is a title of God Himself. Denying His creation denies His title and Him.

Denying creationism is denying it's Creator.

(Rom 1:20-21) For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify [Him] as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I don't think you understand what is typically meant by creationism. It is usually meant as the belief that God created everything mature in 6 literal days, 6 24-hour periods of time, about 6,000 years ago. Denying creationism as a Christian is in no way whatsoever denying that God created, so it clearly is not denying the Creator.

I think this an incredible statement.

Do you subscribe to Gen 1 and all the other places in scripture where it is flatly asserted that God created...?

Of course I do. See the above.

 

[Stan53]

Denying creationism as a Christian is in no way whatsoever denying that God created, so it clearly is not denying the Creator.

Really? Maybe you can explain that to me.

 

[Free]

Really? Maybe you can explain that to me.

It's all there in my post.