Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Can Evangelicals Find Agreement on Creation and Evolution? No.

Can Evangelicals Find Agreement on Creation and Evolution? No.

Last updated on: January 8, 2019 at 9:01 am by Libby Anne

Can Evangelicals Find Agreement on Creation and Evolution? No. 2019-01-08T09:01:03-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Belief in young earth creationism was incredibly important in my family of origin. In fact, when I left home and began to form my own beliefs independent from those of my parents, it was this issue that proved the first (and perhaps most lasting) sticking point. This hasn’t changed with time. On a recent visit home, I attended a service at the church I grew up attending (a large, nondenominational midwestern church); an announcer advertised a young earth creationist Sunday school class that would provide attendee’s with evidence of ties between evolution and godless secularism.

Articles that touch on young earth creationism naturally pique my interest. A recent Christianity Today article by Todd Wilson titled Ten Theses on Creation and Evolution That (Most) Evangelicals Can Support was no exception. As a young pastor, Wilson writes, many of his parishioners were upset when they learned that he “held to a version of evolutionary creation.” To handle this problem, his church developed “ten theses on creation and evolution that we believe (most) evangelicals can (mostly) affirm.”

It was important for us to arrive at a position on creation and evolution that was in keeping with that faithful Christian saying, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Wilson’s goal, it seems, was to find common ground—area where people could agree to disagree. The ten theses he helped develop could, he hoped, be affirmed and supported by both those who believe the earth was created six thousand years ago and those who believe in theistic evolution.

However, upon review, Wilson’s theses actually exclude a lot of people. I’ll explain.

My parents followed a young earth creationist ministry called Answers in Genesis, led by prominent creation evangelist Ken Ham. Growing up reading their literature, the message I received was that one had to believe in young earth creationism to be a real Christian. The issue wasn’t treated as something one could agree to disagree on—if you weren’t a young earth creationist, you were in theological danger and needed correcting. This all came to mind as I puzzled over what Wilson was trying to do.

Toward the end of Wilson’s list comes this item:

8. The Christian faith is compatible with different scientific theories of origins, from young-earth creationism to evolutionary creationism…

Curious for an official line from Answers in Genesis on this issue—because this organization loomed so big in my childhood—I did a quick google search and found this FAQ on Answers in Genesis’ website:

Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal view of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society.

The entire point of Answers in Genesis’ ministry is to convince Christians that they have to be young earth creationists—and Answers in Genesis has a long reach in evangelicalism. Wilson, my gut says, is bonkers if he thinks he can get Answers in Genesis followers like my parents on board with agreeing to disagree.

As I thought about it, I realized that Wilson’s theses are as much about drawing lines as they are about finding common ground. Wilson has presumably had at least some success in his project of finding common ground on this issue, at least in his own church, and that’s because young earth creationists who drew a hard line on the issue—who disagree that the Christian faith is compatible with multiple views—are forced to either change their views or leave his church. They’re outside the circle he is drawing.

There are other items on Wilson’s list that also draw lines, only on the other side:

5. Adam and Eve were real persons in a real past, and the fall was a real event with real and devastating consequences for the entire human race.

Wilson explains this item as follows:

This is likely to be a sticking point for some. An increasing number of evangelical evolutionary creationists are giving up belief in Adam and Eve as real persons in a real past. The genetic evidence, at least as we now understand it, makes belief in an original human pair doubtful if not impossible.

I suspect in 20 years’ time, support for Adam and Eve as real persons in a real past will be a minority view even within evangelicalism. Should this come to pass, I remain confident that the Christian faith will survive, even though this will require some reconfiguration of our deepest convictions.

That being said, I personally don’t find the genetic evidence compelling enough to jettison belief in a real Adam and Eve in a real past. I admit that the evidence is mounting and at this stage looks (to my untrained eye) impressive. But two scriptural convictions keep me tethered to the historic Christian conviction about the original human pair. The first is the testimony of Scripture, especially Adam’s presence in genealogies (Gen. 5; Luke 1) and in Paul’s Adam-Christ typology in Romans 5. Even more compelling is the idea that the Christian view of salvation appears to hinge on the doctrine of original sin and the fall as an event, which in turn requires a real person to have transgressed and thus plunged humanity into a state of sin from which it needs redemption.

It may be the case that faithful Christians will develop biblically legitimate and theologically sensible ways of explaining the gospel apart from a real Adam and Eve. But until that point, the better part of wisdom is maintaining a spirit of engaged conversation on this issue.

To a certain extent, Wilson talks out of both sides of his mouth here. He talks about “maintaining a spirit of engaged conversation on this issue” and acknowledges that “an increasing number of evangelical evolutionary creationists are giving up belief in Adam and Eve as real persons,” but he also includes belief in a literal Adam and Eve his list of theses outlining out what he sees as legitimate common ground.

In other words, he acknowledges that there are Christians who don’t think Adam and Eve were real people, but he draws them out of his circle.

Wilson is aware that the scientific evidence is against his position—and it’s not just a little bit of evidence. It’s a lot of evidence. You can’t get an entire population from breeding only two individuals without having significant problems. And, genetically, we would be able to tell if our entire population was the result of breeding only two individuals. The evidence suggests, instead, that we descend from a population that was never smaller than 10,000 individuals.

Wilson knows the science on genetics—he has just decided that it doesn’t matter, because Adam and Eve as real people is a point he won’t cede. This feels very familiar. In his article, Wilson talks a good deal about God having “two books”—the Bible and nature. But when the evidence in nature contradicts a theological point he has deemed essential, he rejects the scientific evidence. Young earth creationists do the same; they simply differ in which theological points they deem essential.

(As a quick side note, “Mitochondrial Eve” and “Y-chromosome Adam” may come to mind here for some. While these individuals are common ancestors, however, they did not live at the same time, and they were alive simultaneously with thousands of other early humans. They are only common ancestors in the way that 0.5% of the world’s population are believed to be descendants of Ghengis Kahn.)

I spent some time as a theistic evolutionist, during my own theological journey. I knew the genetic evidence too, and didn’t think belief in a literal Adam and Eve was tenable. So I didn’t believe in one. I held those stories as myth, like the first chapter of Genesis. The story, I argued, held meaning—it created an allegory of mankind’s moral failings—but was not historical in nature.

I would have been outside of Wilson’s circle.

Wilson’s is a middle circle, including young earth creationists who aren’t too dogmatic—those who affirm that multiple views are valid—and theistic evolutionists who don’t go too far afield (as defined by Wilson).

While it’s impossible to say for sure, his circle may actually exclude more people—young earth creationists like my parents and theistic evolutionists like I was—than it includes. Curious about Wilson’s reception, given this reality, I had a look at his article’s facebook comments, only to find some people arguing that Wilson is wrong because only a literal young earth creation understanding is valid, and others arguing that Wilson is wrong because the story of Adam and Eve was only allegory.

So much for finding agreement.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

creation

evolution

Previous Post

January 7, 2019

Republicans: From "Tear Down This Wall" to "Build That Wall"

Next Post

January 9, 2019 Telling the Cyntoia Brown Story Better

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How old was Jesus when He started His public ministry?

Select your answer to see how you score.

About 12 About 30 About 21 About 50