CREATION AND THE FLOOD: THREE VIEWS

  The three views we will describe are all held by Evangelical Christians.  By Evangelical I mean those who take the claims of Christ seriously; who hold to the orthodox, historic Christian faith; and who believe it is absolutely necessary for every individual to personally believe and commit to the Gospel (Gr. euangellion) that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose bodily from the dead on the third day.  There are at least some people in every branch of Christianity who fit this description,  and because they take seriously the claims of Christ they want to take seriously the truth of God as Creator.   This summary of the three views comes from 60 years of reading and reflection on these matters.   
   Before we go any further we need to clarify a few terms.  Naturalism is the belief that everything that exists can be explained without any reference to the infinite, Personal God.  Naturalism (in a philosophical sense) views the existence of God as irrelevant to questions of origins and ignores or minimizes the fact that modern science was born of the Christian world view.  Without the belief in a rational Creator Who made a creation that can be rationally understood there would be no modern science.   Naturalism, is the term that Christians should be using most of the time when they, instead, use the term evolution.  Conservative Christians have developed a bad habit of using the term evolution always in a bad sense when what they mean is naturalism.  Evolution, in the sense of change over time, is a useful scientific concept and not at all the same as philosophical naturalism.  All naturalists are totally committed to evolutionary explanations alone.  All Christian views of origins believe in at least some change over time (evolution).
   The first of the three views held by some Evangelical Christians is often called theistic evolution (from the Gr. word for God, theos).  But those who hold this view might use terms like evolutionary creation.  The scientific organization they have recently formed is called Biologos, from the New Testament Greek words for life (bios) and word (logos).  They believe: 1)we should look for natural explanations to physical phenomena because the Creator used natural processes to bring about His Creation;  2) always saying "God did it" about things in the physical realm is an error called "the God of the gaps", because,  3) if and when a natural explanation is found, God is make to look unnecessary;  4) the evidence is (in their view) compelling for the common descent of all life (including people) from previous life forms (in particular they point to studies in genetics);  5) there were two creative acts of God --  the initial act,   in which God, in some sense,  programmed atoms to produce the universe and life, and the second direct creative act caused one (or more) highly evolved hominid(s) to be a "living soul in the Image of God";  6) the first eleven chapters of Genesis are more like parables that illustrate truths than they are actual history. 
   Examples of believers who hold (or have held) some form of this view would be, first, the best known Christian writer of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis.  Currently, the best example would be Francis Collins who was in charge of the human genome project in the 1990's.  He was the founder of the Biologos organization and wrote the book  The Language Of God.  Positive comments about this view would include their effort to maintain scientific integrity while recognizing  God as Creator.  Criticisms of the view primarily have to do with denying the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis, when Christ and the New Testament writers certainly seem to refer to them as historical.  Also, they do not believe in "design" in living things.  They believe that God allowed the evolutionary process to run its course and did not interfere or "tinker" with it.  They are also charged with being inconsistent.  Why admit two creative acts of God and no more?  For these reasons this view, although held by nearly all who are theological liberals, is held by a relatively small percentage of Evangelicals.
   The second view we shall look at is the polar opposite of the view just described.   Advocates of this view use terms like Creationism or Creationist but the more accurate designation would be Young Earth - Flood Geology (abbreviated as YEFG).   Although there were many throughout Christian history who believed that the Creation occurred only about four thousand years before Christ, by the 20th century even the most conservative Christians acknowledged that the evidence was overwhelming for the vast age of the earth and the cosmos.  But in the 1920's a Seventh Day Adventist writer, J.M. Price, revived the idea of a "young earth" and that the geologic strata and fossils were all formed at the time of Noah's flood.  The apparent age of things was not the actual age he argued.  He was a persuasive speaker and writer.
   In 1942 a group of evangelical Christians formed the professional scientific organization called The American Scientific Affiliation.  During the 40's and 50's many of their members reviewed the YEFG theory and concluded that the evidence was overwhelmingly against it.  Nevertheless, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris went ahead with the publication of their book The Genesis Flood in 1961 and that book marked the beginning of the modern YEFG movement.  This writer bought a first edition of The Genesis Flood, read it through many times, and memorized many passages.  He became an early and strong advocate of this view.  The movement has grown dramatically in the last 55 years with groups like the Institute For Creation Research and Answers In Genesis spreading the YEFG message.  The Creation Museum and the replica of Noah's ark are efforts of those in this movement.  
    Although the advocates of YEFG would strongly prefer to state their beliefs in their own way, it is fair to say they would go something like this:  1) all creation took place in 144 hours;  2) By adding up the numbers in Genesis ch. 5 and ch. 10 it is concluded that the entire cosmos (not just the earth) is just over 6000 years old;  3) that no animals died before man sinned;  4) that the earth was created before the sun, moon and stars;  5) that there was no rain on the earth until the flood of Noah's time;  6) that animals came to Noah from all regions and climates of the earth and then returned to those regions and climates;  7) that this global flood happened around 2450 BC (in the middle of Egyptian history that goes back to at least 3000 B.C.);  8) that the flood covered the entire planet including the highest mountains;  9) that all, or nearly all, geologic strata and fossils were formed at that time; 10) "observational science" can tell us little if anything about the remote past since knowledge of the distant past can come only through revelation;  11) radiometric dating methods cannot be trusted.
    Positive comments about this view are largely centered in one fact and that is their very commendable insistence on the historical nature of the early chapters in Genesis.  Surveys indicate that as many as 47% of the U.S. population believe at least some of this view.  So, there is a high probability that you, the reader, hold this view.  If you do, it is the desire of this writer that you will sense the effort to balance being fair and charitable with the necessity to be honest regarding problems.
    To put the criticisms of this view in perspective we need to ask why the following respected Christian authors, Bible scholars, scientists and linguists have not embraced YEFG views:
   John Ankerberg, Gleason Archer, Chuck Colson, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Jack Hayford, Walter Kaiser, John Lennox, Paul Little, Nancy Pearcy, Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Ken Taylor, R.C. Sproul, and James Dobson, (to name only a few).
    Among the criticisms of the YEFG view, one of the first would be that advocates of YEFG use anecdotal evidence (called "cherry picking" evidence).  Their failure to present fairly and honestly the many and serious objections to their biblical interpretations and scientific claims is another serious concern.   It is charged that they fail to clearly distinguish between their interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself.   It is also charged that they impugn the motives of Christians who disagree with them by accusing them of compromising Scripture when, in fact, many of those they have accused have been in the forefront of defending the trustworthiness of Scripture.   
   Another serious criticism is that scientifically literate young people are being turned away from the Bible altogether by being told that the Bible teaches a six thousand year old universe.   These problems, and others, combine to keep this view on the fringes of Evangelical Christianity even though many thousands believe it.  The criticisms of YEFG can be summarized in three "D's":   Disingenuous in claiming to take the Bible literally (they do not take literally the biblical statements that the earth does not move and that the sun does move);  Dishonest (or at the very least, less than candid) in their use of anecdotal evidence;  and Divisive in the Body of Christ by the way they speak against those who disagree with them.   It is said by their critics that they hold the old fundamentalist anti-science and anti-intellectual attitude.  It is believed that if they shifted their emphasis away from the age of the cosmos/earth and flood geology toward the Creator's design in Creation, they would greatly advance Christian unity and win more respect and credibility.
    The third view held by some evangelical Christians is sometimes called progressive creation or old earth creation.  This view holds:  1) that when all the language of the creation account and all relevant Scriptures are carefully examined, Scripture can be correlated with the conclusions of modern science, including the age of the earth and the universe;  2) we should learn from the mistake that Christians made several centuries ago when they said a "literal" reading of Scripture meant that the sun went around the earth;  3) what God has "written" in the physical universe should be carefully observed to help us correctly interpret Scripture; 4) the flood of Noah's day apparently involved only the region of the world where humans lived, early in human history [earth and land are the same word in Hebrew];  5) there are sizeable gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 10;  6) it was the death of humans that came from sin, not the death of animals;  7) the "days" of creation were six eras or epochs of time during which God created all things;  8) the comparison of the "days" of creation to "days" of the week is an analogy and not an equality of hours since the seventh "day" (Heb. "yom") had no "evening and morning" and extends to the present;  9) the phrase "morning and evening" indicates a close to one era of creation, an interval of time, and the beginning of another era;  10) humans were directly and uniquely created by God;  11) God planned from eternity to replace this earth with a new Heavens and Earth after redemption was completed.
    Positive comments about this view are that it has scientific credibility while treating Genesis as actual history.  Most, if not all, of the names listed above, as well as most Evangelical Christians in the sciences, hold to some form of this view.  Criticisms come first from those who hold to evolutionary explanations and dislike this view for advocating direct creative acts of God, which they call a "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy.   YEFG advocates would say that making the list of names in Genesis 5 & 10 cover around 50,000 years (the apparent time humans have been here) is a stretch.  They also call this view "a compromise of biblical truth".    In spite of these criticisms, it is accurate to say that this is the mainstream Evangelical view because it is seen as balancing a high view of Scripture with scientific credibility.
     We might mention in passing that there is a fourth movement or view called Intelligent Design, but it is held by both Christians and non-Christians since it is not specific about Who the Designer is.  Most Christians in that movement would probably agree with old earth creation. 
     This writer can imagine that you, the reader, are feeling a bit overwhelmed by all this and saying something like, "All I know is, God created all things and that there was some kind of flood in Noah's day, but I do not want to argue about the details!"   This writer sympathizes with that feeling because he has spent thousands of hours weighing the merits of these three views and has very gradually modified his own views.  An emphasis on the Creator's design and wisdom in His creation and not on "the age of the earth" seems to be the most fruitful and edifying approach.   In any event, a huge amount of humility is appropriate for anyone regardless of the view they hold.  None of us is infallible in our interpretation of Scripture or our interpretations of scientific data. 
   Like many other issues, evangelical Christians will never agree totally on these matters.  But if we can discuss them calmly and not impugn the motives of those who disagree with us, the Cause of Christ will be the winner.