![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/theundergroundchurch.net\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/9F477241-2E70-476B-8DB1-E0C765BBF3E1.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nMichelangelo (1465-1564), \u201cThe Creation of Adam\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Varieties of Christian thought on Creation, with Sources of Further Information<\/h2>\nI. Young Earth Creationism:<\/h2>\n
\u2014Teaches that the Universe is young, being created by God in six literal days. \u2014Teaches six literal 24-hour days, but there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. \u2014Holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (from thousands to billions of years). The sequence and duration of the creation \u201cdays\u201d may be paralleled to the scientific consensus for the age of the earth and the universe. \u2014In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all \u201ckinds\u201d of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. \u2014Fully embraces evolutionary theory, but believes that there is a mind behind it all, namely God \u2014It starts from Biblical interpretation, and is compatible with many of the above views of creation or evolution. In this view, the \u201cdays\u201d in Genesis have nothing to do with historical time; they are literary devices, employed by God in order to communicate the story of the creation in terms that we can understand. \u2014Proponents claim that \u201ccertain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.\u201d
\n\u2014Clearly an orthodox Christian position, and the view dominant until the advent of Darwin and modern geology\u2019s clues that the earth may be very old. Currently, it is held by about 30% of Americans. Recent proponents include:
\n\u2014Ken Ham, \u201cAnswers in Genesis\u201d: https:\/\/answersingenesis.org<\/a>
\n\u2014Dr. Henry M Morris, Institute for Creation Research: http:\/\/www.icr.org\/homepage\/<\/a><\/p>\nII. Old Earth Creationism<\/h2>\n
Gap Creationism:<\/h4>\n
\n\u2014Thomas Chalmers, a divinity professor at the University of Edinburgh, popularized the Gap theory. He first lectured on it in 1814.
\n\u2014Popular in late 1800s to 1940s, associated with the Scofield Study Bible<\/em> which took this position.
\n\u2014Arthur C. Custance, a Canadian physiologist and anthropologist, wrote a privately published book, Without Form and Void<\/em>\u00a0(1970), arguing for the gap theory. This book is considered the strongest and most able defense of the gap theory available.
\n\u2014The most thorough refutations of the gap theory come from rival creationists. They point out the absurdity of supposing that billions of years exist between the crack, as it were, of the first two verses of Genesis (https:\/\/ncse.com\/cej\/8\/3\/formless-void-gap-theory-creationism<\/a>)<\/p>\nDay-Age Creationism:<\/h4>\n
\n\u2014Dates as far back as St Augustine, who argued that the days of creation can\u2019t be literal since the sun wasn\u2019t made until day 4.
\n\u2014Hugh Ross, Canadian astrophysicist, is a proponent, and founded \u201cReasons to Believe\u201d: https:\/\/www.reasons.org<\/a><\/p>\nProgressive Creation:<\/h4>\n
\n\u2014Accepts \u201cmicroevolution\u201d but rejects \u201cmacroevolution\u201d.
\n\u2014proponents include Dr. Robert Newman, astrophysicist and theologian. He writes a nice overview of some of the implications of the different views of origins,
\nhttps:\/\/www.asa3.org\/ASA\/PSCF\/1995\/PSCF9-95Newman.html<\/a><\/p>\nIV. Evolutionary Creation \/ Theistic evolution<\/h3>\n
\n\u2014Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project and subsequently named director of the NIH. Founded BioLogos: https:\/\/biologos.org<\/a>
\n\u2014Howard J. Van Till, Professor emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, Calvin College, author of The Fourth Day<\/em>.<\/p>\nV. The Framework Hypothesis:<\/h3>\n
\n\u2014The activities of the six days of creation are arranged into a \u201cframework\u201d of two triads (days 1-3 and days 4\u20146), with parallel types of activities in each triad.
\n\u2014Dr. Arie Noordzij of the University of Utrecht was the first proponent of the Framework Hypothesis in 1924. Nicolaas Ridderbos (not to be confused with his more well-known brother, Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos) popularized the view in the late 1950s. It has gained acceptance in modern times through the work of such theologians and scholars as Meredith G. Kline, Henri Blocher, and Bruce Waltke (Wikipedia<\/a>)
\n\u2014The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it resolves the traditional conflict between the Genesis creation narrative and science.<\/p>\nIntelligent Design: Not explicitly Christian, But it is consistent with Creation<\/h3>\n
\n\u2014ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: \u201cirreducible complexity\u201d and \u201cspecified complexity\u201d. Complexity is an argument for design.
\n\u2014ID aims to be a scientific theory (and is, on the face of it), but arose initially out of a textbook controversy, and is seen as being closely associated with Christians and Creationists.
\n\u2014Dr. Steven C Meyer, biologist who then earned PhD in history and philosophy of science; founder of \u201cDiscovery Institute\u201d: https:\/\/www.discovery.org<\/a>
\n\u2014Dr Robert J Marks, (b. 1950), Baylor University, \u201chas emerged as the public face of intelligent design.\u201d (\u201c20 Most Influential Christian Scholars\u201d<\/a>) His colleague William Dembski at Baylor is a mathematician who wrote The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities<\/em>\u00a0and No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence<\/em>.<\/p>\nOther interesting links:<\/h3>\n