Stephen E. Jones

Creation/Evolution Articles

Pattle P.T. Pun, "A Theology of Progressive Creationism," in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith:
Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 39, No. 1, March 1987, pp.9-19. (part 2)

[Home page] [Site map] [Update log] [Articles]

A Theology of Progressive Creationism

THEOLOGY OF PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM

This is an incomplete work-in-progress.

The understanding of these presuppositions-that one cannot impose human volition on the non-human world, that man's dominion in the created world implies his control of the reproductive pattern of the non-human life forms, and that the food chain necessitates physical death in the things eaten- seems to lead to the conclusion that physical death was present in the creation before the human Fall. The usual implications Of death-pain, suffering and condemnation-are not necessarily associated with the non- human world. Since God utilizes death to maintain life, then natural selection, which is based on differential fecundity and mortality, could be one of the processes God employs to bring forth the varieties of life forms in His creation.

5. Creation As Good-The Incarnation Necessitated by the Fall of Man

The Creation was good (Gen. 1:31). The Creation is not the result of the Fall. For "the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies declare the work of His hands (Psm. 19:1), and "His name is majestic in all the world (Psm. 8:9). From the perspective of many theistic evolutionists, particularly that of Teilhard de Chardin and of process theologians, Creation, the Incarnation and Redemption are organically integrated so that they are but three stages of a single action performed by God in relation to His creation. In the cosmic evolutionary scheme of de Chardin,16 Christ is the culmination of the progressive unification of the universe. The God of process theology is not the Creator but rather a creature who only gives the initial aims and lures the creation towards its perfection during which process he himself is perfected by its growth.17

Calvin addresses the problem of the necessity of the Incarnation.18 God's decrees for the Fall and the Incarnation run together. Christ would not have to be incarnated if Adam did not sin, for Christ was the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:47; Rom. 5:12-21). He was made like man in all respects except sin (Heb. 4:15). He was reckoned as a descendant of Adam (Luke 3:38). Colossians 1:15-17, quoted by de Chardin and his associates to support the idea that the Incarnation is a necessary stage of God's creative plan, is taken out of context. Paul seems to suggest that the fullness of God indwells Christ so that Christ can reconcile to Himself through His blood, shed on the cross, all things on earth or in heaven which have been alienated from God (Col. 1:19-20). God's eternal purpose is to predestine us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ before the creation of the world (Ephes. 1:4-5). All things were created by the pre-existent Christ and for Him. But the necessity of Christ's Incarnation hinges on the Fall of man.

As a result of human sin, the ground was cursed (Gen. 3:17). The creature is subject to frustration (Rom. 8:20). It seems possible that the condition described by the second law of thermodynamics, the increase of randomness in the universe, is a result of the human Fall. The food chain, operating efficiently before the Fall, would now be subject to the same fate; although we still see many examples of its effective operation today. Man's immortality was apparently maintained before the Fall by means of God's special sustenance, perhaps through the Tree of Life. As a result of man's sin, God's special sustenance was removed (Gen. 3:24). Death and evil entered the human race. Mankind and the creation need to be reconciled to God through the Incarnation and Atonement of Christ (Col. 1:20). How ever, man is to be made a new creation in Christ (11 Cor. 5:17), and is not to be restored to his pre-Fall status. Therefore, Scriptural references such as Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25, which abolish predation, seem to be referring to the millenial kingdom or to the new heaven and the new earth, and cannot be used to refer to the original creation.

Evaluation of Conservative Positions on the Issues of Creation and Evolution

All of the conservative positions evaluated below acknowledge that God is the Creator, and that man and the rest of the creation are sustained moment by moment by God, Another tenet shared by these positions is the unilateral dependence of the creation on the transcendent Creator.

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 1 MARCH 1987

13

top of page

PATTLE P.T. PUN

1. Fiat Creationism (or Recent Creationism)

This view is currently the most prominent view of "Creationism" and is often synonymous with it in the popular mind. Despite being ridiculed by some scientists as some kind of a cultic movement,19 it has gained momentum and visibility in some legal circles. One spokesman for the movement, Wendell Bird, has gained a respectable hearing in the Yale and Harvard law journals.20, 21 Although the courts in Arkansas and Louisiana have ruled against Creationists, the public awareness raised by the Creationist movement has yet to be fully appreciated. Despite the insignificance of its support among academicians, there is considerable grass-roots support among conservative Protestant Americans.22 The widespread support of Recent Creationism is based essentially, on its high regard for Biblical authority and its concern for moral and traditional values.22

It is apparent that the most straightforward under standing of the Genesis record, without regard to all of the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the Fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah's family and the animals therewith. Since many outspoken scientific and theological proponents of evolution are also known for their agnostic or humanistic views,23 the Creationist movement alleges that many scientific assumptions, such as the principle of uniformitarianism, are colored by humanistic presuppositions.24 It follows, therefore, that many of the conclusions drawn by geologists and anthropologists on the age of the earth and the fossils are questionable. It was the Creationists who alerted the American public to the dogmatic claim by some scientists that evolution is a fact, and who went to court in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Texas to require the teaching of Creation science alongside of evolution in the public schools.25

However, the Recent Creationist position has two serious flaws. First, it has denied and belittled the vast amount of scientific evidence amassed to support the theory of natural selection and the antiquity of the earth.23, 26, 27 Secondly, much Creationist writing has "deistic" implications. Although Creationists would probably not admit that their position could suggest that the Creator only intervenes in the creation occasionally to perform creative acts and miracles, the stipulation that the varieties we see today in the biological world were present in the initial Creation28 implies that the Creator is no longer involved in His creation in a dynamic way. Rather, the creation is seen as having been left to its own devices for the expression of the variability potential endowed to it in the beginning. This deistic implication is contrary to Hebrews 1:3, which stipulates that all things are upheld by the word of His power.

2. Theistic Evolutionism

Many theistic evolutionists accept the historicity of the Bible, but some allegorize the Genesis account in order to treat the whole Creation account as a "poetic" representation of spiritual truths of humans' dependence on God their Creator and of their fall from God's grace by a symbolic act of disobedience. They accept the processes of organic evolution as the method God chose to create humans. Such theistic evolutionists are the dominant voice among many scientifically oriented theologians; they are the "Christian Darwinists."29 Darwin rejected the notion of a designer, for which William Paley argued eloquently in Natural Theology, and averred that the directive organization of living things is the result of a natural process-although he deferred to the Creator as the initiator of the process.30 Darwin's views changed later as he increasingly denied the Christian faith. The Christian Darwinists, on the other hand, see the process of natural selection as a way to explain God's immanence in nature and the omnipresence of His creative power. Thus, they see God's providential hand behind the process of mutations selected by the favorable environment which endows the living system with the capacity to leave more offspring and become the dominant variety. Seen in this light, the Christian Darwinists maintain a more wholistic theological position concerning God's providence than do the Recent Creationists, who have to posit a repetitive divine intervention in cataclysmic proportions.

However, Theistic Evolutionists have to deal with two theological obstacles:

a. The exegetical problems in the Genesis account of creation.

Although Theistic Evolutionists tend to interpret the creation account in Genesis figuratively, it is contrary to the context of the text. There seem to be eleven historical narratives in the first thirty-seven chapters of Genesis, each delimited by the phrase, "These are the names [generations, descendants] of..." (Gen. 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:9, 37:2). The contents are linked together to form a roughly chronological account of primeval and patriarchal life.31, 32 While few would doubt the historicity of the patriarchs of Israel, it seems unwarranted to assume the creation account to be allegorical while the rest of these narratives are historical. The New Testament also regards certain events mentioned in Genesis 1 as actually

14

PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH

top of page

THEOLOGY OF PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM

[part 1] [part 3]