Re: statement on creationism?

glenn morton (
Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:08:10 +0000

At 11:45 AM 11/29/99 -0700, wrote:
>The best I can see for Glenn's approach is that he can show that the Word
>does not demand a YEC interpretation. This has the added benefit of
>undercutting that interpretation as a test of one's Christianity, though
>I can almost hear them reacting to him as Luther reacted to Copernicus.
>It was not scripture that made me change my view from YEC. It was reading
>scientific reports. Science, plus philosophical ruminations, then forced
>a change from OEC to TE. Biblical interpretation followed.

Hi Dave,

While my personal epistemological beliefs require a more historical Bible
than others require, I will freely admit that what you describe above was
one of my strategic considerations in going the way I have. WE can't
convert YECs wholesale unless we give them something that they want--namely
a historical scripture. My views do show that the YEC way is not the only
way to maintain historicity. But my strategy goes deeper than this. Like
the YECs, I share many of their cherished theological beliefs including Eve
literally taken from Adam's rib. That doctrine is used to specifically rule
out ANY descent from the animals from man. It is used by both young and old
earthers.Part of my strategy is to show that the Bible doesn't rule out
evolution. Christianity must come to grips with evolution just as they came
to grips with heliocentrism. Some examples of how Christians use the Eve
taken from the rib business.

"The second chapter of Genesis also makes it perfectly clear that Eve was
taken physically, literally, and supernaturally from the side of Adam. If
this point be granted, then the whole purpose of trying to interpret Adam's
creation in evolutionary terms falls apart. To connect Adam's body with
the animal kingdom but to admit that Eve's body was directly created would
be absurd, either from the standpoint of evolutionary science or biblical
creationism. We may not know in exact detail how God fashioned the bodies
of our first parents, but that He created them miraculously and suddenly is
the plain teaching of Scripture." ~ John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth,
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 125

"Thus because of specific passages and the general way the Bible
teaches that Adam and Eve did not have animal forebears. This is a
nonnegotiable conclusion." ~ Russell Maatman, The Impact of Evolutionary
Thought: A Christian View, (Souix Center: Dordt College Press, 1993), p. 199

"There are many biblical reasons for rejecting an evolutionary account of
man's origin. For instance, Eve was formed from the body of Adam, and Adam
himself was molded by divine transmutation from some type of earth.
Descendants of the original man and woman (as well as other creatures) must
have been subject to change in a limited sense by diversification, which
would account for such things as racial variations in evidence today." ~
Wayne Frair and Percival Davis, A Case For Creation, 3rd ed., (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1983), p. 129

Genesis 2 describes how a succession of animals was brought to Adam, so
that he might name them. None of them was suitable to be a companion for
Adam, and so God provided him with a wife. He rendered Adam unconscious,
removed a portion of his body, and from it made a woman. There as a
purpose in this curious process. When Adam saw her he rejoiced that,
unlike all the animals, Eve was 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'.
"There is no way of squaring this sequence of events with theistic
evolution.' Consequently, the conservatives take a leaf from the liberals'
book and regard this portion of Genesis 2 as a myth or an allegory." ~ Alan
Hayward, Creation and Evolution, (London: Triangle, 1985), p.196


Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution