It seems like the overwhelming majority of Dispensationalist theologians today are Young Earth Creationists. However, this has not been the case historically as there have been many famous Old Earth Creationists in the Dispensationalist camp, including C.I. Scofield, author of the *Scofield Reference Bible*, who believed in the gap theory himself but expressly allowed for the day-age theory as a legitimate interpretation in the Reference Bible. More recently, I know that Norman Geisler was dispensationalist and Old Earth Creationist while opposing theistic evolution. **I am wondering whether there are any notable Dispensational theologians, pastors, or apologists, who would embrace theistic evolution instead of YEC or OEC.** I have not been able to find any. This makes sense given modern dispensationalism's emphasis on the plain reading of Scripture, but given that this wasn't always a principle of dispensationalism, it isn't categorically impossible for a dispensationalist to be a theistic evolutionist.

There are several ways that Christians have tried to reconcile evolution with the Biblical narrative of creation. Theistic evolution is one option. Another is C.S. Lewis's way of how while the bodies undergo evolution, there was one historic couple Adam and Eve to whom God breathed "a new kind of consciousness" making the couple to be the one truly made in the "image of God" and that we all biologically descended from that couple thus sharing in their Fall consequences (see [this article](https://www.cslewis.org/journal/cs-lewis-on-intelligent-design/3/) referencing *The Problem of Pain*). Regardless, evolution over hundreds of thousands of years **necessitated many deaths** before the first species (or before 2 special members of a humanoid species) whom God stamped his image, and from whom we descended biologically, which young earth proponents adduce as one of the KEY theological obstacles if we take seriously Gen 1 where God pronounced his pre-Fall creation as "good". One Young Earth proponent said: > God can make use of death, but for it to be one of his primary creative tools paints the character of God in a very different light. with these as Biblical support: 1. Death itself is described as "enemy" (1 Cor 15:26): > The last enemy to be abolished is death. so how could God use death as a means of creation? 2. In the restoration (presumably to the condition before the Fall), there is no death per Isa 11:6-9: > The wolf will dwell with the lamb,and the leopard will lie down with the goat. ... An infant will play beside the cobra’s pit, and a toddler will put his hand into a snake’s den. ... **They will not harm or destroy each other on my entire holy mountain,** ... 3. In Rom 8:19-23 we read > ... For the creation was subjected to futility -- not willingly, but because of him who subjected it -- in the hope that the creation itself will also **be set free from the bondage to decay** into the glorious freedom of God's children. ... But groaning, suffering and decay is usually seen by YECs as referring to the consequences of the fall wrought by God's curse ("because of him who subjected it", see [answer to the question "Who subjected the creation to futility in Rom 8:20-21"](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/159/3849)) . If death is part of the creative process then it's not decay. Thus, my question is: **How do Christians holding some role of evolution defend against Young Earth proponents' charge that the many deaths required by evolution is adding blemish to God's character, or is counter to God's pronouncing creation as "good"?**

There are a several prominent Christian denominations which include young earth creationism as official dogma, such as the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod which I grew up in. Many other denominations do not have any official stance on creationism, such as the far more liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. And, of course, lots of Christians are not young earth creationists, including lots of people I know personally, as well as famous figures such as Pope Francis and William Lane Craig. **I am wondering whether there is any Christian denomination which, as an organization, officially opposes young earth creationism.** I was unable to find any examples by a quick Google search, or by consulting ChatGPT. The closest example that I can find is the Catholic Church, whose Canon 337 says: > God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God." This, and some of the other canons, plainly *lean* towards a non-YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, but does not strictly require it. The word *symbolically* in the second sentence is only expressly applied to God "working" and "resting", and in any case there is no reason why "symbolic" and "literal" meanings cannot coexist. See this article on Catholic Answers for a good summary of the Catholic teaching regarding creation and evolution. In short, Catholic dogma lends itself to theistic evolution (which is the view of the three most recent popes), but does not require it. So, my question is: **Is there any Christian denomination which goes a step beyond this and certifies a non-YEC position as official doctrine?**

According to theistic evolutionist Christians, did God allow their destruction because these creatures had done something to warrant it? This is because God is all knowing and knew from the moment that comet began moving that it was headed for earth and could have done something to stop it from causing this destruction but let it happen, and the most plausible reason for God allowing this is if those creatures had sinned and hence guilty. The hermeneutic reference that shows God had foreknowledge about that comet is this verse. *1 John 3:20* >For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

Genesis 2:7 NKJV > 7 And **the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life**; and man became a living being. Ezekiel 37:1-14 NKJV > 37 The hand of the Lord came upon me and brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 Then He caused me to pass by them all around, and behold, there were very many in the open valley; and indeed they were very dry. 3 And He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” > > So I answered, “O Lord God, You know.” > > 4 Again He said to me, “Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, ‘O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5 Thus says the Lord God to these bones: **“Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live**. 6 **I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the Lord**.” ’ ” > > 7 So I prophesied as I was commanded; **and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and suddenly a rattling; and the bones came together, bone to bone**. 8 **Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them**. > > 9 Also He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” ’ ” 10 **So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army**. > > 11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken it and performed it,” says the Lord.’ ” Ezekiel 37 offers a vivid and detailed depiction of God's power to instantly create a biological body, breathe life into it, and make it a living being. This rapid, almost instantaneous process contrasts sharply with the millions of years of gradual changes proposed by evolution. Does this not provide insight into the interpretation of Genesis 2:7? If so, how do theistic evolutionists reconcile this with their understanding of Adam's creation within the broader framework of the theory of evolution?

I previously posed the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101219/61679 , an [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/101246/61679) to which contended that one doesn't need to rely on Biblical inerrancy or a specific exegetical method to assert a young Earth. Instead, it suggested that the purportedly ample scientific evidence is enough to support this conclusion. To substantiate its position, the linked answer cited the article titled [The 10 Best Evidences from Science That Confirm a Young Earth](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/10-best-evidences-young-earth/) published on Answers in Genesis. The article opens by asserting the following: > The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. > > Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe. The article then proceeds to list ten lines of evidence supporting a young Earth: 1. [Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/1-very-little-sediment-on-the-seafloor/) 2. [Bent Rock Layers](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/2-bent-rock-layers/) 3. [Soft Tissue in Fossils](https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/) 4. [Faint Sun Paradox](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/4-faint-sun-paradox/) 5. [Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/) 6. [Helium in Radioactive Rocks](https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/6-helium-in-radioactive-rocks/) 7. [Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds](https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/) 8. [Short-Lived Comets](https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/comets/8-short-lived-comets/) 9. [Very Little Salt in the Sea](https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/9-very-little-salt-in-the-sea/) 10. [DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria](https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/antibiotic-resistance/10-dna-in-ancient-bacteria/) Are there published responses from Old-Earth Creationists and/or Theistic Evolutionists addressing the Young-Earth Creationist interpretation of these ten lines of evidence? I'm particularly interested in understanding why OEC and TE advocates do not find the scientific evidence presented by YEC advocates compelling. References to books or other authoritative publications are welcomed (and encouraged).

Theistic evolution holds that God used evolution to create mankind. It seems to follow then that this view must also hold the creation account in Genesis to be unhistorical. So, Adam and Eve may have been people, but were perhaps the first humans whose parents were pre-human. According to those who reject it, what are the Biblical and theological problem with theistic evolution?

If only humans are "created in His own image" (Genesis 1:27), then why are we so close in DNA to primates - why have we proved that dogs and primates have a theory of mind - among other important things we thought distinguished us from animals? Could this be evidence for theistic evolution?

A renowned Christian who believes in evolution is [Francis Collins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins) : > Collins also has written books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. After leaving the directorship of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and **advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially through the idea that the Creator brought about his plan through the processes of evolution**. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. In fact, Francis Collins is a well-known advocate of the concept of [Theistic Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) : > Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that > "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God", and > characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists > describe it, but under the direction of God". He lists six general > premises on which different versions of theistic evolution typically > rest. They include: > > 1. The prevailing cosmological model, with the universe coming into being about 13.8 billion years ago; > 2. The fine-tuned universe; > 3. Evolution and natural selection; > 4. No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way; > 5. Humans are a result of these evolutionary processes; and > 6. Despite all these, humans are unique. The concern for the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the continuous search for God > among all human cultures defy evolutionary explanations and point to > our spiritual nature. However, evolution via natural selection is a process that is inherently plagued with suffering. This suffering emerges from the relentless competition for resources, mates, and survival in an environment where only the fittest prevail. Organisms endure hardships such as hunger, disease, predation, natural disasters, mass extinctions, and territorial disputes as they strive to pass on their genes to the next generation. While natural selection drives adaptation and diversity, it does so through a mechanism that often entails pain and struggle. The evolutionary arms race perpetuates a cycle of suffering as organisms continually evolve to outcompete one another, leading to ever more sophisticated strategies for survival, but also escalating levels of conflict and suffering. I find it quite challenging to harmonize the picture of evolution with what the Bible reveals about God's ideal and desire for animals: Romans 8:19-22 ESV > 19 **For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God**. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, **in hope** 21 **that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God**. 22 **For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now**. Revelation 21:1-4 ESV > Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 **He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away**.” Isaiah 11:6-9 ESV > 6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, > and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; > and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze; > their young shall lie down together; > and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, > and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. 9 **They shall not hurt or destroy** > **in all my holy mountain;** > **for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord** > **as the waters cover the sea.** Isaiah 65:25 ESV > **The wolf and the lamb shall graze together**; **the lion shall eat straw like the ox**, **and dust shall be the serpent's food.** **They shall not hurt or destroy** **in all my holy mountain**,” says the Lord. How can the tremendous amount of suffering inherent in evolution be reconciled with the concept of a loving God from a Christian evolutionary standpoint? --- *Note*: I came up with this question while reflecting on recent discussions on the problem of evil: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100110/61679 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100129/61679

There is already a question focused on biblical arguments, *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6908/61679* , but I found none focused on scientific reasons. According to creationists, are there scientific grounds for being skeptical of the view that God used Darwinian mechanisms to bring about the diversity of life we see today from a common ancestor? What are the main scientific arguments that creationists put forward to challenge [theistic evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) ?

1 Timothy 2:11-14 >**11** Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. **12** I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. **13** **For Adam was formed first, then Eve**; **14** **and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor**. Jude 14 >It was also about these that **Enoch, the seventh from Adam**, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones Luke 3:23-38 >**23** Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, **24** the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, **25** the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, **26** the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, **27** the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, **28** the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, **29** the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, **30** the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, **31** the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, **32** the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, **33** the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, **34** the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, **35** the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, **36** the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, **37** the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, **38** the son of Enos, the son of Seth, **the son of Adam, the son of God**. Acts 17:26-27 >**26** **And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth**, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, **27** that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, Romans 5:12-14 >**12** Therefore, **just as sin came into the world through one man**, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— **13** for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. **14** Yet death reigned **from Adam to Moses**, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 1 Corinthians 11:7-12 >**7** For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. **8** **For man was not made from woman, but woman from man**. **9** **Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man**. **10** That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. **11** Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; **12** for **as woman was made from man**, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 >**21** For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. **22** **For as in Adam all die**, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:45 >Thus it is written, “**The first man Adam** became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 2 Corinthians 11:3 >But I am afraid that **as the serpent deceived Eve** by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. Matthew 19:4-6 >**4** He answered, “Have you not read that **he who created them from the beginning made them male and female**, **5** and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? **6** So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” These passages appear to depict Adam and Eve as historical figures. For Christians embracing the theory of Evolution, how might these verses be interpreted to align with a [theistic evolutionary](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) account of the origin of the human species? --- A few subquestions to consider when seeking to reconcile theistic evolution with these passages: 1. How can the genealogy outlined in Luke 3:23-28, corroborated by Jude 14, be harmonized with an evolutionary timeline? It's noteworthy that this genealogy is often cited in support of [Young Earth Creationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) . 2. Within a theistic evolutionary framework, what interpretations exist for the sequence of creation, particularly with Eve's creation occurring from/after Adam, as indicated by 1 Timothy 2:11-14 and 1 Corinthians 11:7-12? 3. Concerning Romans 5:12-14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, how is the idea of death entering the world through one man understood in the context of theistic evolution? How is the absence of death before Adam and Eve's fall reconciled with the mechanism of natural selection that relies on the death of the unfit to work? 4. How is the deception of Eve by the serpent, referenced in 2 Corinthians 11:3, reconciled with an evolutionary perspective on human origins?

[Theistic evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) postulates that God employed the process of evolution to bring about the formation of the human species. In this view, Adam and Eve, like any other living organisms, are thought to share a common ancestor and, by logical inference, must have had biological parents. However, Adam and Eve are also commonly believed to have possessed souls. Considering that genetically they may not have been significantly different from their parents (given the gradual nature of evolutionary changes), it raises an intriguing question: Did their parents also have souls, and if so, does this imply moral accountability for Adam and Eve's ancestry? And for a more amusing pondering: How might dinner table conversations have played out between Adam and Eve and their parents if the former possessed souls while the latter did not?

We read in Gen 1:31: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. By human standards, certificate of excellence in relation to something made, is given by a third party which assesses the product independently or in consultation with the manufacturer. Going by Gen 1: 26 ( "Let us make man in our image ") the entire Trinity was involved in Creation . Genesis does not record if God consulted anyone say, the Angels, in the assessment of Creation. How do Creationists address this issue ? Do the Theistic- evolutionists have something to say from their perspective ?

According to Young Earth Creationists, other beliefs (particularly in Evolutionism) harm Christianity in various ways such as: - Making Death something other than the direct consequence of Sin - Distorting the redemptive role of Death¹ - Denying the special value of man as distinct from all other creatures - Reducing God's power I don't want to belabor the point, as I'm merely trying to show the existence of claims that a denial of YEC is detrimental to Christian theology. I also don't want to get into debates of whether belief in, or rejection of, YEC is beneficial or harmful to one's ability to *remain* in the faith. For this question, I am placing that explicitly out of bounds. (Likewise for arguments dealing with science, whether or not a belief is scientifically supported or affects one's view of science.) Rather, given the above YEC arguments, it would seem that a case can be made that any attack on YEC is an attack on Christianity itself, and that all such attacks are thus ultimately opposed to Christianity. Indeed, such arguments *have* been made by various YECs. Now... if such arguments can be sustained, they would be a powerful argument in favor of YEC. Therefore, I would like to explore the opposite side. According to non-YECs, **what are the theological detriments to belief in YEC?** ---- (¹ Death is the wages/consequence of Sin. Adam sinned ⇒ God killed an animal. God's people sinned ⇒ they sacrificed animals. Humans sinned ⇒ God sacrificed His Son. YECs argue that death before sin distorts this relation and reduces the atoning "value" of death. [This answer](/a/41819/53502) on another question may be helpful.)

Romans 1:18-24 sounds like an argument from [Intelligent Design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) to me: > 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 **For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made**. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and **exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things**. > > 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served **the creature rather than the Creator**, who is blessed forever! Amen. Can Romans 1:18-24 and the Theory of Evolution be reconciled? How do Christians who believe in the Theory of Evolution make sense of Paul's teleological argument? If Paul is arguing for design, isn't Paul arguing indirectly against evolution?

Genesis *seems* to say that God created the Earth in six literal days ~4,000 B.C., and that there was a *global* flood ~2,000 years later that destroyed (almost) all life. It also claims that Earth was created before the stars, birds before land animals, and that all animals were vegetarian before The Fall. It "seems" to say this so plainly that for ~4,000 years, this was the prevailing belief among Jews and, later, Christians. Moreover, Christ Himself made statements such as "From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female". Many today believe however that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, humans are some hundreds of thousands of years old (some tiny fraction of a percent the age of the universe), and death and suffering reigned for millions of years before any humans existed. Clearly this is at odds with a "plain" reading of Genesis; at least the first nine chapters must be pure fantasy, and none of the genealogies can be trusted. Someone made the claim that God's revelation is progressive. That may be, but that puts Genesis firmly in the "lies told to children" category. It also puts Christ in the same boat; why, for example, would He not choose a phrasing that *isn't* factually wrong (e.g. "from the start of history" or some such)? If God lied to his people for thousands of years (and Christ perpetuated the lie), or if Genesis is simply not inspired, how can we trust *anything* about the Bible or Christ? If the origin of Sin and its consequences is a lie, and if death, disease and suffering are Very Good, how do we make sense of Christian theology? Okay, that's a lot of questions, but the one I really want to ask is this: **according to Trinitarians that *deny* a historical reading of Genesis**, what is the purpose of this misleading narrative? Even if "we weren't ready", why include elements that are *factually* wrong but appear to make no difference, such as the wrong order of creation? ---- Some evidence that Christians prior to ~1800 AD believed predominantly that the Earth was created < 10,000ya: - [This article](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html) on talk.origins (note the first sentence). - [This paper](http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/6795/1/How_old_is_the_Earth_really.pdf) . - [This article](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/how-an-archbishop-calculated-the-creation-1.378556) . - There are various YEC resources floating around that give much more comprehensive lists of age-of-the-earth calculations done by Christians which mostly give a Creation date of ~3,500 BC - ~7,000 BC (with a few outliers, but all much less than 100,000 years). - Wikipedia also [discusses the topic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) , and asserts that "an Earth that was thousands of years old remained the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800)". There were other beliefs prior to ~1800 AD, both [Christian](/a/25872/53502) and otherwise, but to the best of my knowledge, belief in a "young" Earth prior to ~1800 AD was *predominant*, at least among Christians and Jews. Moreover, *the Scriptures themselves* (and even Christ, as noted above) generally refer to the Creation and Flood accounts as plain history.

I understand that some Christians feel it necessary to accommodate a long period of time (which is suggested by some scientists for reasons of radioactive decay, the fossil record, geological formation and the red shift of starlight) into the scriptural record. However I have yet to be informed of how that works and how the actual timeline of Genesis chapter one should be understood, since the wording does not appear to me to suggest any 'age' for the earth at all. Luke's genealogy of the Lord states quite categorically, that there are seventy generations from Christ back to Adam. Arguments for a longer period of time centre on the Genesis genealogies and are complex semantic arguments. But I would be interested to know what the exact timeline of Genesis chapter one is, when Christian Evolutionists insert the long period of time which modern science demands. *Note that I am not, in this question, concerned with biological evolution.* I appreciate that an argument is necessary to insert the time required for so-called biological 'evolution' to occur (if one believes in such a thing, which I do not) but my concern - in this question - is solely as to the *timeline* of Genesis Chapter one as Christian Evolutionists understand it, *beginning at verse one.* I am not asking for technicalities of archaeology, paleontology, geology, biology or molecular biochemistry. I am just asking for a plain timeline through Genesis chapter one with the long time period, which is assumed, inserted into the details of the text. ----------------------------------- Personally, I do not know how old the earth is. Personally, I do not think we can know. Personally, I do not think it matters to anybody. I am told by Luke of seventy generations and I am told by Jesus Christ that 'one thing is needful' which should preoccupy me for the brief time that I am given in this present life. And therein I am content. But I would be interested to see how Christian Evolutionism actually manages to arrange the details of Genesis chapter one in such a way *that makes sense of the actual text of scripture.* ------------------ Note, also, that I specify *Christian* Evolutionists since Genesis one contains a wealth of spiritual matter concerning *creation as such*, which is relevant to the New Creation also, as it is revealed and expressed in the doctrine of Christ made known by the apostles of Jesus Christ.

It would appear that ***defining the word ‘day’*** in Genesis ch. 1 has a profound bearing on stances taken. Young Earth Creationists take them to be literal 24-hour-earth-days, but Evolutionists say they must have been millions of years each. The question seems to be boiling down to seeking an explanation from Old Earth Creationists, but I don’t like pigeon-holes, nor do I want to cramp anyone’s style here, if they consider themselves to be Christian, but not an Old Earth Creationist either! ***My second query*** is that if, indeed, the word ‘day’ as used in Genesis has diverse or non-literal meanings, would the elephant in this room be that no time-line is required for believing and understanding the six days of creation? The time factor would not be the point, but could remain unstated because how long it took God to create everything is neither here nor there, from a Christian faith point of view. The universe could have been in process of forming for an unspecified time, so that when planet Earth is first mentioned, its age is simply not known. Nor does its age matter. ***Finally,*** I don’t want anybody to go into whether Christians can rightly claim to be Evolutionists or not; for once I’m prepared to take Stack’s definition of a Christian as the basis for answers – whoever self-identifies as a Christian is to be considered one, when asking or answering.

As I understand, many Christians nowadays accept evolution. There are such Christians in most major denominations and inside these denominations exist different traditions and groups of believers, so I understand that there may be different theories in those traditions for how to combine evolution with Christianity. Those theories may broadly be called Theistic Evolution. There may also be individual ideas which are not part of the teaching of a specific denomination, but are plausible theories in which some of the Christians believe, which I am also ready to explore. Do those who are Christians and accept evolution at the same time, think that there was no Adam and Eve? If so, does this mean that there was no original sin? What are the main modern theories how to understand Original Sin (The idea that the humankind changed after the first sin and that people as children of Adam and Eve bear the consequences of this first sin) when believing in evolution at the same time?

I recall reading a book by Hugh Ross many years ago, in which he claimed that life, or at least intelligent life, on other planets was a Biblical impossibility. I believe the argument hinged on the Biblical claim that Humanity is the "crown of God's creation." Ross is an Old Earth Creationist; that is, he believes in an old earth (billions of years), but that humanity was a "special creation", not evolved from lower life forms. Theistic Evolutionists tend not to depend on a "special" intervention, which, at least on the surface, seems that it would lend itself to the possibility of life, possibly including intelligent life, having evolved in various places throughout the Universe. My question is: **Do any Theistic Evolutionists hold the view that life on Earth** (or at least intelligent life on Earth) **is unique in the universe, _for Biblical reasons_?** And if so, **what is their Biblical basis?** I stress _for Biblical reasons_, because I'm not interested in the types of arguments that might be made based on the [Fermi paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) , or other views that are equally valid among non-theists. Naturally, Biblical reasons are bound to coincide with naturalistic and/or philosophical reasons, and that's fine. I'm not looking for the absence of naturalistic/philosophical reasons; I'm looking for the existence of a Biblical basis. And to scope the question away from "My uncle is a TE, and believes this", please focus on Theistic Evolutionists which have published their views in a book, magazine, or journal (peer review not required; self-published blogs and the like discouraged).