Well, creation is literally the beginning of the story of the Bible.
I mean, it begins verse 1, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but
it's theologically the beginning of the story of God's relationship to the world.
Creation, fall, redemption, and the eventual consummation.
So if one does not have a proper understanding of creation, you will not have a proper understanding
of God, God's relationship to the world, what God is doing in the world, what our place
is in the world.
And so creation really is the bedrock or the foundation of theology.
Well, the problem I see is not just the teaching of evolution, but the philosophical and even
theological conclusions that they draw from it.
Now they deny that they make any kind of philosophical or theological assertions from it, but they
do.
They teach materialism.
They teach atheism.
Even if they'll never use those terms, one finds that kind of teaching permeating all
too often what is being done in the name of evolution.
When we teach a materialistic evolution, what we've done is we've told a young man or young
woman, there is no God.
That means that there is no purpose for them being here.
There is no goals in life in order to achieve, nor is there any accountability at the end
of life.
That can be nothing but destructive.
Well, I think that creating unnecessary cognitive dissonance is always bad.
And the young Earth position demands that we hold that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
Well, anybody that knows anything about astronomy knows that light from across the Milky Way took
100,000 years.
Light from the Andromeda galaxy took a million years.
Why hold to an interpretation of Scripture that puts yourself at odds with understanding what
God has created in nature?
So what we find in Scripture is that the Bible does not necessitate a young Earth interpretation.
And there are compelling reasons, as I gave in the talk, for understanding it in non-literal
terms.
Historically, Christians have understood it in non-literal terms.
I'm thinking of those like Augustine, who was very clear.
They didn't have a debate about how old the Earth was, but they did have a debate about
literal 24-hour days or not.
And there was a significant understanding in the early church that they were not to understand
those in 24-hour terms.
It's important, the issue is important because the young Earth position is a relatively recent
phenomenon.
Prior to 1961, the vast majority of evangelicals, not just Christendom as a whole, but the vast
majority of evangelicals held to an old Earth view.
It is in 1961 that Henry Morris' book came out, The Genesis Flood, in which it argued
that one must hold to a young Earth view.
Prior to that, most Christians held to either day age or gap theory or some other framework
hypothesis.
So I think that people need to understand just how new the young Earth position is, and that
it is not the historical position of the church throughout the ages.
As an informed theologian, as somebody who engages with scientists, I think that I don't expect
evolution generically to go away any time soon.
I do think that Darwinism, the Darwinian version of evolution, is in serious trouble.
And so when Darwinism collapses, it will be interesting to see where the conversation goes.
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has a website, so does the Bush Center for Faith
and Culture, called The Intersect.
It's part of The Intersect Project, and that is our webpage for our center, and there you'll
find articles about creation and evolution and other apologetic and social issues.
坎
Southeastern Boston
gelernt
Southeastern Baptist exposed to Local
Darwinism