Coincident to reviewing the old story of Jacob’s Ladder, I am teaching a small group that is taking on the opening chapters of Genesis. This surely ranks among the most contentious areas of Scripture. We don’t advocate a particular view here, but offer the following information as a helpful resource.

Michelangelo (1465-1564), “The Creation of Adam”

Varieties of Christian thought on Creation, with Sources of Further Information

I. Young Earth Creationism:

—Teaches that the Universe is young, being created by God in six literal days.
—Clearly an orthodox Christian position, and the view dominant until the advent of Darwin and modern geology’s clues that the earth may be very old. Currently, it is held by about 30% of Americans. Recent proponents include:
—Ken Ham, “Answers in Genesis”: https://answersingenesis.org
—Dr. Henry M Morris, Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/homepage/

II. Old Earth Creationism

Gap Creationism:

—Teaches 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.
—Thomas Chalmers, a divinity professor at the University of Edinburgh, popularized the Gap theory. He first lectured on it in 1814.
—Popular in late 1800s to 1940s, associated with the Scofield Study Bible which took this position.
—Arthur C. Custance, a Canadian physiologist and anthropologist, wrote a privately published book, Without Form and Void (1970), arguing for the gap theory. This book is considered the strongest and most able defense of the gap theory available.
—The 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)

Day-Age Creationism:

—Holds 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 “days” may be paralleled to the scientific consensus for the age of the earth and the universe.
—Dates as far back as St Augustine, who argued that the days of creation can’t be literal since the sun wasn’t made until day 4.
—Hugh Ross, Canadian astrophysicist, is a proponent, and founded “Reasons to Believe”: https://www.reasons.org

Progressive Creation:

—In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all “kinds” 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.
—Accepts “microevolution” but rejects “macroevolution”.
—proponents include Dr. Robert Newman, astrophysicist and theologian. He writes a nice overview of some of the implications of the different views of origins,
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1995/PSCF9-95Newman.html

IV. Evolutionary Creation / Theistic evolution

—Fully embraces evolutionary theory, but believes that there is a mind behind it all, namely God
—Dr. Francis Collins, head of Human Genome Project and subsequently named director of the NIH. Founded BioLogos: https://biologos.org
—Howard J. Van Till, Professor emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, Calvin College, author of The Fourth Day.

V. The Framework Hypothesis:

—It starts from Biblical interpretation, and is compatible with many of the above views of creation or evolution. In this view, the “days” 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.
—The activities of the six days of creation are arranged into a “framework” of two triads (days 1-3 and days 4—6), with parallel types of activities in each triad.
—Dr. 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)
—The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it resolves the traditional conflict between the Genesis creation narrative and science.

Intelligent Design: Not explicitly Christian, But it is consistent with Creation

—Proponents claim that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
—ID presents two main arguments against evolutionary explanations: “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity”. Complexity is an argument for design.
—ID 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.
—Dr. Steven C Meyer, biologist who then earned PhD in history and philosophy of science; founder of “Discovery Institute”: https://www.discovery.org
—Dr Robert J Marks, (b. 1950), Baylor University, “has emerged as the public face of intelligent design.” (“20 Most Influential Christian Scholars”) His colleague William Dembski at Baylor is a mathematician who wrote The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities and No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence.

Other interesting links:

The American Scientific Affiliation is an organization of Christian scientists and engineers (Note that it is NOT specifically aimed at creation/evolution issues and includes people with all of the above perspectives): https://network.asa3.org