Previously, in this series of articles intended to introduce the reader to various creationist perspectives, we discussed Young Earth Creationism (YEC), perhaps the most widely-recognized form of creationism, and the form that most people tend to think of when they hear the term "creationist" bandied about.
Today, we move beyond the dichotomy, and look at a creationist viewpoint that doesn't conform to the popular (and false) either/or view of life's origins: progressive creationism. This is actually a fairly broad category, and it's one that I am sure more people fall into than would readily admit it.
So, what does progressive creationism teach? At its most basic, according (again) to the ASA: "[a] theory of old-earth progressive creation proposes that, during a long history of nature spanning billions of years, God occasionally supplemented natural process with miraculous-appearing creations, which distinguish this view from evolutionary creation (theistic evolution) in which God used only natural-appearing creation."
But: "Is it evolution? Prominent young-earth creationists agree with this definition, but they acknowledge only two basic models - biblical young-earth creation and unbiblical evolution - so they consider ALL old-earth views, including progressive creation, to be evolution. There is some basis for this term, because most progressive creationists think natural process was sufficient for two of the four evolutions: astronomical evolution and geological evolution."
Note the exceptions, though: progressive creationists typically disagree with the theories of chemical and biological evolution, especially biological evolution. That's not to say that progressive creationists do not believe that the world is very old; they are old-earth creationists through and through. But it is to say that they typically believe that the method by which life emerged in the world, while it may have incorporated some natural processes (gene mutation, selection pressures), involved repeated and successive direct interventions by the creator. These interventions, they assert, could have taken the form of ensuring that a specific mutation occurred, or could have involved the direct creation of an entirely new species.
Progressive creationists can interpret the creation accounts in holy books in a variety of ways. With respect to the Genesis accounts specifically, the only interpretation that progressive creationists are not likely to use is that the events described happened over seven literal days. Most of the major proponents of the view, however, tend to hold to a more literal interpretation of the text, which is called day-age creationism. This view asserts that the "days" referred to in Genesis 1 correspond to geological epochs, and also maintains that the order of creation as presented in Genesis corresponds to the order of creation as reflected in the fossil record.
This is why I say that more people probably fall into this general category of creationist than would otherwise care to admit it - this "middle ground" view of recognizing the "days" of Genesis as an allegory for massive spans of actual time is a surprisingly common one, espoused even by people who don't necessarily consider themselves religious.
So that's progressive creationism, in as brief a summary as I think was possible. Who, then, are its proponents?
The foremost advocate of progressive creationism is astronomer Hugh Ross (he's Canadian, by the way), who runs Reasons to Believe. Russel Mixter (who passed away in 2007) was another major advocate of this view, and was the man principally responsible for pulling the American Scientific Affiliation (now an excellent resource for Christians curious about the relationship between science and faith) away from its early anti-evolutionary stance. Bernard Ramm, another man who influenced the direction of the ASA, can also be ranked amongst the progressive creationists (he too passed away recently). Alan Hayward and Robert Newman are other names often heard in progressive creationist circles. Richard Deem, who runs God and Science, can also be lumped in with this group, as can Steven Tooley.
Unlike YECs, progressive creationists don't typically view evolutionary theory with a conflict mindset, nor do they typically see it as some kind of deliberate deception, or as being inherently atheistic. They think it's wrong, to some degree, but certainly don't typically attempt to demonize its proponents. They take a similar view of YEC and its proponents, seeing that school of thought as being incorrect (especially as to the age of the Earth), but not damningly so.
Basically, progressive creationists are people of earnest faith who are trying to reconcile a somewhat literal reading of Scripture with the observable events and evidences of the natural world, but in a way that does not automatically dismiss as incorrect those evidences which suggest that the world is older than a simple summation of Biblical genealogies would suggest. At the same time, they're not entirely at home with those evidences either, and seek to find alternative explanations for some things.
Are they in error? Yes, absolutely. Are their views scientific? Not really. Should their views be taught in science classes? I would say no, though I would argue that progressive creationist theology should be taught in religion classes. (Then again, I think a lot could be done to improve religion classes in e.g. Edmonton's Catholic school system.)
But do progressive creationists have something valuable to contribute to the origins discussion? Yes, absolutely. Wrong though they may be on scientific matters, their ardent belief that God is the creator is commendable, and they do well to argue - often passionately - that the idea of a very old Earth is in no way incompatible with the idea of a creator God as revealed in the Bible/Torah/Koran.
Comments