Why do you accept an old earth and not evolution? Is it for scriptural reasons? Scientific objections?
Now I Know In Part
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Why do you accept an old earth and not evolution? Is it for scriptural reasons? Scientific objections?
Now I Know In Part 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 7, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Steve
I’m just commenting just so I can get notified about subsequent comments from the people you’re asking the question of. 🙂
January 7, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Luke Holzmann
I’m certainly not steeped enough in this topic to give any kind of solid answers. I guess I lean toward Old Earth because Young Earth doesn’t have a lot going for it. But, eh… I don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter.
And I fully embrace micro/descent-with-modification evolution… anyone who believes the Bible is right about the Flood should give at least that much.
But I don’t buy macro/descent-with-speciation evolution because I haven’t seen good evidence for it. Granted, I haven’t read the big name titles on this yet… but that’s because I haven’t read much of anything recently (other than Scott’s “Evolution vs. Creationism” which I found to be horribly lacking).
So my objections–on almost all counts–are based in the lack of really compelling motivation to bend one way or another. Mostly I hear a lot of “there’s a ton of evidence,” “everyone believes,” “you must accept” type talk and not much presentation.
But… again, I’m relatively out of the loop.
~Luke
January 7, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Thomas
Steve, this blog typically has low traffic, so I think you may be a little disappointed. But I thought it was worth a shot to see if I would get any feedback.
Welcome, Luke, and thanks for your comment! I guess my question could also be phrased, what’s so objectionable about evolution to an old earth Christian? If a Christian is willing to accept the scientific consensus on the age of the earth and universe, what is stopping him or her from accepting the theory of evolution? You wrote that you have not been convinced by any compelling arguments. Is there a reason that your starting point is that you need to be convinced of evolution? And if evidence were pretty compelling, would you embrace the theory or still be reticent for other reasons?
Just gathering information here.
January 11, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Luke Holzmann
Thomas, as I mentioned in my comment above, I don’t have much information to offer [smile]. But my impressions are:
1. There is nothing particularly objectionable about evolution to Old Earthers… because God seems heavily involved with evolution.
2. If a Christian is willing to accept the scientific consensus of the age of the earth, the only thing that would stop him from accepting the theory of evolution would be the lack of a scientific consensus on the matter. [smile]
3. I grew up in a culture–and, in many ways, still live in one–that starts with the idea that “Evolution” is an evil lie comprised of twisted facts. Hence my need to be convinced before I would begin to embrace the idea of “Evolution”–descent with speciation.
4. It’s difficult to answer what I would do, feel, experience if I were to find compelling evidence… primarily because “compelling evidence” comes in so many shapes, sizes, types and forms. And each of those can have different outplays. For example: Let’s say I buy the compelling evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy theory documentary that ultimately says that Bush was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. Well, I can find the evidence interesting, compelling, even factually true… but it wouldn’t lead me to believe the politically motivated “Bush did it” rhetoric. Similarly, just because there is compelling evidence for descent with speciation, that does not really tell me much. The “who” and “why” and “hows” are still very much unknown.
So, let’s say that I find compelling evidence for “Evolution”–my hesitation to really embrace the theory would likely continue because of the lack of clarity in areas that are still being sorted out. But that’s assuming the compelling evidence doesn’t also account for all of those. [smile]
Clearer? Or just more muddy?
~Luke
January 12, 2010 at 12:55 am
Thomas
Yes, clearer. Thanks, Luke.
April 6, 2010 at 9:28 pm
krissmith777
I am a Christian, and an Evolutionist. — BUT I think I can answer your question in very simple words.
— It i because Creationism can still be creationism . . . EVEN WITH an old earth. You are thinking in black and white terms which is faulty logic.
April 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Thomas
Thanks, Kris, and good point. I think you may be right when it comes to most Old Earthers. The idea of direct divine intervention is just too strong an idea to give up.
November 16, 2017 at 4:39 pm
Robbie Dirusso
Hello! This post could not be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my previous room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this page to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing!|