The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Religious creationism

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search

Religious creationism is the belief that the universe and life on Earth were created by an almighty deity. The position has a deep rooted foundation in scripture, which is relied upon for insights regarding the history of the world. Religious creationists hold to a variety of views regarding the specific products of the creation, which can be broadly divided into young earth and old earth advocates.

E. C. Scott compares six differing Christian views on creation including New Earth Creation and Old Earth Creation theories including the Gap Theory, the Day Age Theory, Progressive Creation and Theistic Evolution. The views differ widely and cannot all be true due to the law of non-contradiction.[1] An additional theological view is the Framework Hypothesis noted John Morris.[2] He stated that in the early framework view, only things in the Genesis account in the Bible relating to theology are assumed correct and statements relating to history and science not correct. There are a number of framework views, however. The Presbyterian Church of America[3]issued a large report on creation views in 1990 from which these quotes are taken:

“We believe that the Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. We affirm that Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. We believe that history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.” “A theology wed to the science of one age is a widow in the next.” “First, the four most prominent views of the creation days in the PCA are (in no particular order) the 24-hour view, the Day-Age view, the Framework view and the Analogical Day view. The Framework view was not widely held at the founding of the PCA, although it does not seem to have become controversial until recently. The Analogical Day view in its most recent expression was not circulated broadly until the 1990s. Fourth, there is a conviction among many that Christians are engaged in “culture wars” for the very survival of the Christian heritage and worldview. Reformed Christians rightly agree that the doctrine of creation lies at the basis of the Christian worldview.”

In summary, the PCA accepts these four views, although the 6-24 hr day is favored by some. This report is unique in that it gives somewhat unbiased descriptions of the many different creation views and lists the pros and cons of each. The theistic evolution and progressive creation views were not favored by the PCA. A cited weakness of the Day-Age view is that it would be hard for plants to exist for thousand of yrs. after the day 3 creation, without the sun on Day 4 or the pollinating insects and birds on days 5 and 6.

Arguments against the framework view and others are found in the AIG papers.[4] Mortenson discusses many scholarly Genesis topics in his book [5]Coming to Grips With Genesis; Chapter 14 is on “Luther, Calvin and Wesley on the Genesis of Natural Evil.” by T. Ury. This chapter notes that the 3 founders above held Genesis 1-11 as real history and held the flood as global and catastrophic. Wesley wrote about the 6 day creation, and also affirmed the flood as 1656 yrs. from the creation. Also Anglican bishop Hugh Latimer held this view. This was based on careful exegesis of the scriptures. D. Hall (p.53) claimed in Chapter 2 of Mortenson, that the reformation church fathers held to a 6 day creation. Also Thomas Horn, an Anglican, did a lengthy 3 volumes tilled “Introduction to the critical Study of the Holy Scriptures” in 1818. A condensed version published in 1827 that was widely used in seminaries and also held this view. It was only after the scientific opinion shifted in the late 19th century, that other long age positions developed to accommodate the long ages view. Hall’s write up covers 25 pages and 116 references in tracing the history of creation from Luther to Lyell. Dr. Morris(p.26-32) notes that most of the other theological views of creation with long ages became popular after the theories of uniformitarianism and evolution became popular and are an attempt to make the Bible fit science. Snelling in the section on geology[6] traces the history of these theories and how Lyell had a prior agenda to be rid of biblical geology and flood catastrophes. It is now apparent that Lyell issued a false report on the erosion rate of Niagara Falls, which now is better explained with the biblical timeline. [7]

References

  1. Scott, E. C. Evolution Vs. Creationism, An Introduction, Berkeley, Ca. Univ. of California Press, 2009
  2. Morris, John. The Young Earth, Green Forest AK. Master Books 2007, p9
  3. (PCA) REPORT OF THE CREATION STUDY COMMITTEE 1990 http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html
  4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/creation-compromises
  5. Mortenson, T. and Ury, T. Coming to Grips With Genesis, Master Books, Green Forest, Ak. 2008, Chap. 14 by T. Ury and Chap. 2 by D. Hall
  6. Snelling, A. Earth's Catastrophic Past, Geology, Creation & the Flood, Vol 1-2 ICR 2010, p.186,479
  7. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/niagara_falls.asp http://creationapologetics.net Introduction to Assumptions and Likely Bias


Biblical Creationism

Main Article: Biblical creationism

Biblical Creationism is a belief systems based on the scriptures found in the Bible, which is validated by science, and logic. People holding to these beliefs have a worldview that is in stark contrast to the Darwinian evolutionary perspective known as Darwinism. Biblical creationists hold to the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God with everything therein true and historically accurate. Physical phenomena is interpreted by creation scientists based on this Biblical worldview rather than Godless naturalism that the evolutionist ordains. Therefore, the principal difference between evolutionists and creationists; is their underlying presuppositions, or axioms.

Islamic Creationism

Main Article: Islamic creationism

Islamic creationism is the belief in a divine creation, which relies upon the Qur'an for insights into the early history of the Earth. Generally speaking, Islamic creationists agree with Biblical creationists on the core events of creation, but believe that Genesis is corrupted in some details.

Personal tools
In other languages