Creation and Evolution

      Scripture does not readily adapt itself to the eons of time projected for accomplishing what evolutionary theory postulates, particularly in the biosphere. With varying degrees of likelihood, certain possibilities might push the date A.M. beyond the 4000 + B.C. minimum reading of scripture as in fiat creationism.

Can we put in sequence the origin of reciprocating parts that are necessary for the viability of the organism and the parts themselves? If we can put their origin in sequence, they are not reciprocal. But the parts of plants and animals are in fact reciprocally interdependent unto viability. All parts have to be present and functional at all times. Disorganization destroys functionality.

            We face a challenge in fleshing out our worldview. Sometimes a well-informed perspective needs to incorporate information of such a technical and detailed nature that we non-specialists are never sure how well we grasp it. On the other hand, specialists who work at the detailed level in a few fields have the opposite disadvantage: they are not well equipped to grapple with the big picture. They tend to make unwarranted extrapolations, which they set contrary to theism and creationism. Scientists frequently let “hard science” bleed over into philosophy of science without seeming to realize it. As a result, the relative certainty scientists may have about the specifics of their research they tend to transfer to the philosophical inferences they make from that work.

            A formal similarity could be seen between “emergent evolution” and progressive creationism. The “emergent points” of emergent evolution might appear to correlate with the “intervention points” of progressive revelation. From a scientist’s viewpoint, we could consider the possibility that a connector in a progression is a natural one rather than a supernatural one, as previously supposed. We may not already know that a natural “force” exists for accomplishing this complexification. There is a difference, however, between keeping the natural category potential for explanation in such cases and making it the necessary category for explanation by disallowing the supernatural category in principle. The latter is what methodological naturalism does by assuming that its method, good in itself, somehow becomes the only legitimate method. Creationists, however, want to keep the supernatural category open after the initial creation of mass-energy. The formal similarity is limited because of the internal-external variable in the respective formats at their correlating junction points.

Introduction:  The Antilogism

            The presentation here is not for solving the creation-evolution problem, but for clarifying the issue and correcting inappropriate thinking patterns.

Identifying the Issue

            Creationism as such vs. the Christian formulations of it. There is a difference between creation as a concept and the Judaeo-Christian—or even Islamic—formulation of it. The Christian formulation gets into additional matters, which vary according to the manner interpreters handle the relevant biblical materials.

A few comments on Romans 1-2 relate to a natural theology. We can distinguish here what may be true from what Paul is arguing in this passage. Natural theology may be possible, but our conviction is that Paul does not have that in mind in Romans 1. He means that natural revelation is sufficient for making people without excuse for leaving truth already known; getting to that truth via nature is more difficult. The first format makes general revelation primary proof while the second makes a lesser truth claim by saying that it confirms special revelation.  

    I. Preliminary Definitions and Concepts

Introduction

            The following observations evaluate the possibility of general evolution in the organic realm, particularly in the animal kingdom. They address features of living reality that highlight reciprocal causation, its necessary accompanying features, and its implications in contrast to all forms of straight-line causal series.

     I. Views of the Flood