Milo

Progressive creationism (also called “process creation”) is the belief that God created the heavens and the earth over a period of billions of years, not the six 24-hour days that is the basis for the traditional creationism view. Progressive creationists can be liberal or conservative in their theological belief system, but they generally agree on the following:

• The “Big Bang” was God’s way of producing stars and galaxies through billions of years of natural processes.
• The earth and universe are billions of years old, not merely thousands of years old.
• The days of creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.
• Death and bloodshed have existed from the very beginning of creation and were not the result of Adam’s sin. Man was created after the vast majority of earth’s history of life and death had already taken place.
• The flood of Noah was local, not global, and it had little effect on the earth’s geology, which shows billions of years of history.

Progressive creationism is a belief that opposes both atheistic evolutionism and young earth creationism. The teachings of progressive creationism are not new, but in recent years they have received favorable publicity through Christian radio, television, magazines, and books.

In our view, the error of progressive creationism rests on the assumption that the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1–2 is not meant to be understood literally. According to progressive creationism, the “days” in Genesis 1 are not literal, 24-hour days but actually long periods of time, amounting to millions or even billions of years (see our article on the days of creation). Progressive creationists accept the evolutionary viewpoint of the age of the earth, which we feel is in error (see our article on age of the earth).

Another disagreement we have with progressive creationism is that it posits that death existed prior to the Fall, which undermines the teaching that all physical death is a result of sin (see Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).

In some circumstances, progressive creationism is an attempt by some Christians to harmonize the teachings of modern science with the Bible. However, the theory actually precedes modern evolutionary thinking and was suggested by some of the earliest Christian writers. While we disagree with progressive creationism, it is a view held by a sizable proportion of the Christian community.

All that being said, the traditional interpretation of Genesis has mostly been that of young earth creationism, not progressive creationism. This is because the strongest evidences suggested for progressive creationism come mainly from the field of science, not directly from the words of the Bible.

The historical creationist view affirms that the creation account in Genesis 1—2 is indeed intended to be a historical account—not poetry or mythology. At the same time, the historical creationism interpretation relieves much of the tension between modern science and Scripture that seems to be inherent in the young-earth creationist view, which also uses a “historical” reading of Genesis 1. Historical creationism is also called “historical” to point out that it is not new but has been held by many throughout church history, especially before the rise of modern science.

Historical creationism has been promoted of late by John Sailhamer (professor of Old Testament at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Brea, California) in his book Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (originally published by Multnomah, 1996; second edition by Dawson Media, 2011).

Historical creationism maintains that Genesis 1:1 is the account of the creation of the universe. This creation took place “in the beginning”—in an unspecified period of time that may have lasted a very long time and may have been a very long time ago. The Genesis account simply does not give us any time frame for when the physical universe was created. It could well have been created long ago (even millions or billions of years in the past), or it may have been created very slowly over time. Therefore, the historical creationist interpretation of the Genesis account does not require a “young-earth” view.

When we pick up the story in Genesis 1:2, the earth is unformed and unfilled. Prior to modern science, there would have been little or no understanding of the concept of Earth as a planet. Thus, according to historical creationism, the word earth would have been understood as a specific area of land, not “Planet Earth.” Genesis 1:2—2:24 recounts the preparation of a specific area of habitat for mankind—the Garden of Eden—which took place over a literal six days.

The relationship of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2ff can be stated in the following paraphrase: “In the beginning, God created the universe. After He did this, He turned His attention to a specific area for man to live in. It was dark, so He said, ‘Let there be light.’” The words formless and void in Genesis 1:2 (KJV) can refer to a wasteland or wilderness that is unable to sustain life. (The term translated “formless” is also used in Deuteronomy 32:10 to refer to the wilderness at the time of Israel’s wanderings. Had it not been for God’s special provision, the people could not have survived their time there.) So, according to historical creationism, rather than Genesis 1:2 referring to the whole earth as a formless mass, it refers only to a specific section of wasteland that God had chosen for man to live in. (The whole planet may have been a barren waste, but that is outside the scope of the text.)

So, God spent a week of literal, 24-hour days to get the Garden of Eden ready for man. He first commanded the sun to rise: “Let there be light.” On Day 4, God did not bring into existence the sun and moon (they had already been created in Genesis 1:1); rather, He declared their purpose. Instead of “let there be lights in the vault of the sky,” historical creationists would argue that the best translation of Genesis 1:14 would be something like this: “Let the lights in the vault of the sky be signs.” The lights had existed since Day 1 and were already providing light, but, on Day 4, God proclaimed their significance—just as the rainbow may have existed before Noah’s time, but after the flood God gave it special significance. In Genesis 1:14 God revealed that the purpose of the heavenly bodies is to serve mankind.

The rest of the historical creationist interpretation of Genesis 1—2 would proceed along the same lines as other creationist views, based on a somewhat literal reading of the text.

There are strengths and weaknesses to the historical creationist view. Genesis 1 definitely seems, upon a literal reading, to be describing the creation of the universe and the entirety of the earth. However, it is absolutely true that the Bible does not offer extensive or specific information about God’s process of creation. For instance, some assumptions required for a young-earth interpretation might be valid, but they are still assumptions, not direct statements of Scripture itself. At the very least, the historical creationist view is an example of how people can interpret the Genesis 1 account in a faithful and theologically valid way but come to different conclusions on certain points.

Historical creationism should also challenge all believers to examine their understanding of the creation account, as well as any other passage of Scripture. It is important that our view is not overly influenced by English translations, traditions, or modern scientific concerns—either in capitulation or opposition to them.

Although Moses wrote the book of Genesis approximately 3,400 years ago, it has been in just the last few centuries when serious debate over the nature and date of the original creation has developed. Consequently, there are now several creation theories, one of which is the Day-Age Theory. In short, this is a belief that the “days” spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis are sequential periods and not literal, 24-hour days. Each day, therefore, is thought to represent a much longer, albeit undefined, period of time, such as a million or more years. This is rooted in an effort to harmonize our understanding of the Bible with what appears to be overwhelming scientific evidence of an “old” earth.

Science has a habit of disproving interpretations of certain views, but it has never contradicted anything explicitly taught in the Bible. God’s Word is our supreme source of truth, but that does not mean everything it says is easy to understand or immediately clear (see 2 Peter 3:16; Colossians 1:26). It’s important to point out that Day-Age theorists are not attempting to remove God. Some alternative views, such as atheistic evolution, do just that. Rather, Day-Age Theory seeks to harmonize faithful interpretation of the Bible with a modern understanding of science.

Needless to say, any approach to interpreting the Bible should be handled with caution. One consequence of questioning the fundamental truths of the book of Genesis is the temptation to re-interpret any doctrine that does not agree with our preferences. However, preference is not a valid reason to reject the inerrancy of the Word of God. At the same time, suggesting a different interpretation is not at all the same thing as questioning the inspiration of the Bible.

Adherents of Day-Age Theory often point out that the word used for “day” in Hebrew, yom, sometimes refers to a period of time that is longer than a literal, 24-hour day. In fact, this happens in the creation account itself, in Genesis 2:4. There, the entire explanation is described as “the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” (NASB). This is also seen in God’s warning in Genesis 2:17, where He warns that man will die “in the day” he eats from the tree.

Each day in the first chapter of Genesis is described as having an evening and a morning. Indeed, these two words—evening and morning—are used extensively in the Old Testament, and in most circumstances they refer to normal days. Speaking from the perspective of language, opponents of Day-Age Theory note that, if Moses wanted to convey a longer period of time, he could have used clear terms such as olam or qedem in place of yom. Day-Age proponents, in response, note that this does not change the possibility of a symbolic use of yom, especially since it’s clearly used symbolically in those very passages by Moses.

Another reason given for a metaphorical “day” as postulated by the Day-Age Theory is that the sun was not created until day four. Given this, how could there have been conventional, 24-hour days (i.e., day and night) before day four? Opponents of the Day-Age Theory would contend that, technically, the sun itself is not needed for a day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating Earth. The “evening and morning” indicates a rotating Earth, and, as far as light is concerned, God’s very first command was “Let there be light,” and there was light (Genesis 1:3), prior to there being a sun. Separating the light from the darkness was the very first thing our Creator did.

A major sticking point for some Christians about Day-Age Theory is the implication that disease, suffering, and death must have existed before the fall of man. Careless application of Day-Age Theory could possibly contradict the concept of the fall of man and, by extension, the doctrine of the atonement. Scripture clearly indicates that “sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin” (Romans 5:12). Day-Age creationists would agree there was no human death prior to Adam’s sin. They note the primary effects of the fall were relational and spiritual and did not result in immediate fatality to Adam or Eve. In other words, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that some kind of death existed in the world—but not necessarily in man—prior to the fall.

As with many such issues, the Bible is not especially clear about the exact nature of creation. There are arguments and evidence for many different views, though not all of these are truly biblical. The Day-Age Theory, in and of itself, is like any other possible interpretation of the Word of God. It has strengths and weaknesses and should be treated with cautious deliberation.

Please note, as a ministry, GotQuestions.org officially holds to young earth creationism. We truly and fully believe that young earth creationism best fits with the biblical account of creation. However, we recognize that old earth creationism is a valid viewpoint that a Christian can hold. In no sense is old earth creationism heresy and in no sense should old earth creationists be shunned as not being brothers and sisters in Christ. We thought it would be worthwhile to have an article that positively presents old earth creationism, as it is always good for our viewpoints to be challenged, motivating us to further search the Scriptures to make sure our beliefs are biblically sound.

Old earth creationism (OEC) is an umbrella term used to describe biblical creationists who deny that the universe was created within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years over the course of six consecutive 24-hour days. Rather, old earth creationists believe that God created the universe and its inhabitants (including a literal Adam and Eve) over a much longer period of time than is allowed for by young earth creationists. The list of notable Christian leaders who are at least open to an old earth interpretation is a long one, and that list continues to grow. The list includes men such as Walter Kaiser, Norman Geisler, William Dembski, J.I. Packer, J.P. Moreland, Philip E. Johnson, and Chuck Colson, as well the late Francis Schaefer and Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer.

Old earth creationists usually agree with the mainstream scientific estimates of the age of the universe, humanity, and Earth itself while at the same time rejecting the claims of modern evolutionary theorists with respect to biological evolution. Old earth creationists and their young earth creationist brothers hold several important points in common, including:

1) The literal creation of the universe out of nothing a finite time ago (creation ex nihilo).

2) The literal creation of Adam out of the dust of the ground and Eve out of Adam’s side as well as the historicity of the Genesis account.

3) The rejection of the claim of Darwinists that random mutation and natural selection can adequately account for the complexity of life.

4) The rejection of the claim that God used the process of evolution to bring man to today (theistic evolution). Both old earth and new earth creationism categorically reject the theory of common ancestry.

However, old earth creationists differ with young earth creationists on the following:

1) The age of the universe. Young earth creationists believe that God created the universe 6,000-10,000 years ago. Old earth creationists place the creation event at approximately 13.7 billion years ago, thus being more in line with “mainstream” science, at least on this point.

2) The time of the creation of Adam and Eve. Young earth creationists place the creation of Adam no later than 10,000 years ago. Old earth creationists are varied on this point with estimates ranging somewhere between 30,000-70,000 thousand years ago.

The controversy between the two views of creationism hinges on the meaning of the Hebrew word yom, meaning “day.” Young earth creationists insist that the meaning of the word yom in the context of Genesis 1–2 is a 24-hour period of time. Old earth creationists disagree and believe that the word yom is being used to denote a much longer duration of time. Old earth creationists have used numerous biblical arguments to defend their view including the following:

1) Yom is used elsewhere in the Bible where it is referring to a long period of time, particularly Psalm 90:4, which is later cited by the apostle Peter: “A day (yom) is like a thousand years” (2 Peter 3:8).

2) The seventh “day” is thousands of years long. Genesis 2:2-3 states that God rested on the seventh “day” (yom). Scripture teaches that we are certainly still in the seventh day; therefore, the word “day” could also be referring to a long period of time with reference to days one through six.

3) The word “day” in Genesis 1–2 is longer than 24 hours. Genesis 2:4 reads, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” (NASB). In this verse, “day” is referring to the first six days as a whole and thus has a more flexible meaning than merely a 24-hour period.

4) The sixth “day” is probably longer than 24 hours. Genesis 2:19 tells us that Adam observed and then catalogued every living animal on the earth. At face value, it does not appear that Adam could have completed such a monumental task in a mere 24-hour period.

To be sure, the issues dividing young and old earth creationists are both complex and significant. However, this issue should not be made a test for orthodoxy. There are godly men and women on both sides of this debate. In the final analysis, biblical creationists—both young and old Earth varieties—have a great deal in common and should work together to defend the historical reliability of the Genesis account.

The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.”

The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing.

However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information-packed than had ever been conceived of previously.

Much of what had once been filed away as “solved” in the early twentieth century is now found to be inadequately explained by naturalism. Twenty-first century technology is increasingly revealing gaping holes in conventional evolutionary theory. The information-rich content of the “simple” has only recently been understood at any real level and found to be anything but simple. Information can now be understood to be inherently non-material. Therefore, materialistic processes cannot qualify as sources of information.

In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them. The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20). The God-of-the-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies.

There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the fine-tuning thereof; the origin and subsequent development of life itself; and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means. Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).