Perspective Digest

Volume 10 Issue 4 Fall Article 4

2005

Can We Have It Both Ways?

L. James Gibson Loma Linda University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, and the Evolution Commons

Recommended Citation Gibson, L. James (2005) "Can We Have It Both Ways?," Perspective Digest: Vol. 10 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss4/4

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Adventist Theological Society at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Perspective Digest by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Gibson: Can We Have It Both Ways? indeed it was very good” (Gen.1:31, replaces God’s Word with the words BY JIM GIBSON* NKJV). We are dealing with a literal of humans and concurs with the record that gives one method God cosmic controversy at whose heart used in creation: He commanded, is the questioning of God’s Word and it was so. and nature (Gen. 3:1-6). Such an Genesis is only one of five books accommodation replaces the love of Moses wrote under God’s guidance. God with a God who created Do his other books interpret the through billions of years of suffer- CAN WE HAVE IT Creation week as literal? ing, which portrays Him in a way All subsequent references of incompatible with Calvary and Moses to Creation week are given a removes a literal Sabbath as the cli- literal interpretation. For example: max of Creation. (1) manna fell for six days but not Any replacement of a literal Cre- BOTH WAYS? on the seventh-day Sabbath (Ex. ation Sabbath by a day-age Sabbath 16:4-6, 21-23); (2) the Sabbath in makes no sense when Christ wrote the fourth commandment is based in the fourth commandment that He Faced with the dilemma of two mutually on the seventh day that God blessed created in six days and rested on the after six days of Creation (Ex. 20:8- seventh day, and asked His followers exclusive worldviews, some theologians and scientists are 11); (3) The Sabbath is a sign be- to keep the seventh day as Sabbath seeking ways to reconcile them. I tween God and His people, “‘for in (Ex. 20:8-11). six days the Lord made the heavens It is no wonder that Christ Him- iscussion of creation often created the first individuals of each and the earth, and on the seventh self referred to the creation of Adam focuses on profound contrasts lineage ex nihilo (Heb. 1:2, 3), from day He rested and was refreshed’” and Eve as literal (Matt. 19:4). between the theory of natural- non-living materials (Gen. 2:7), or (Ex. 31:17, NKJV). To interpret the istic evolution and the biblical in some combination. Creation in Creation record as nonliteral does model of a recent, six-day cre- this sense does not suggest that God not make sense in these subsequent REFERENCES ation. These contrasts identify such created new life forms through sec- 1 D Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and references. Authority (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983), vol. 6, p. issues as whether the universe and ondary processes, such as evolution. 226. human life were purposefully Nor does it include the appearance What the Evidence States 2 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Dem- designed, what are the nature and of new individuals through repro- The overwhelming evidence in arest, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids, extent of God’s actions in the uni- duction. God did create the entire the Genesis creation record, in the Mich.: Zondervan, 1990), vol. 2, p. 44. verse, and what conclusions can be universe ex nihilo, but this article is 3 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic other books of Moses, and in the Theology of The Christian Faith (Nashville: inferred from nature and from concerned primarily with the ori- entirety of Scripture leads one to Nelson, 1998), pp. 393, 394. Scripture. gins of living things on this planet. conclude that God created during a 4 David Hull, “The God of Galapagos,” For the purposes of this article, Evolution. The concept of univer- literal, contiguous period of six Nature 352 (1991), p. 486. the following definitions will apply: sal common ancestry, whether natu- 5 days, followed by a literal Sabbath. Cornelius G. Hunter, Darwin’s God: Creation. The concept that God Evolution and the Problem of Evil (Grand Any accommodation of the literal Rapids, Mich.: Brazos, 2001), p. 159. acted directly and personally to *Jim Gibson is Director of the Geo- Creation week to an evolutionary 6 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Edin- bring into existence diverse lineages science Research Institute, Loma worldview (theistic evolution) burgh: T & T Clark, 1958), vol. 3, pp. 1, 223. of living organisms. He may have Linda, California.

30 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews31 University, 2005 1 Perspective Digest, Vol. 10 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 4 Probably the most significant distinguishing feature of long-age tains that Genesis 1 refers to a recent that appear to be humans were actu- creation in six literal, contiguous ally human-like animals, while others creation models is the interpretation of the word day in Genesis 1. days, but that it was preceded by an were true humans with moral ac- Certain long-age creation models hold that the creation “days” are earlier creation that had been countability. Fossils from the two cre- literal, sequential days of creation; other long-age creation models destroyed. Proponents often claim ations are indistinguishable. This idea that the phrase “the earth was with- lacks any biblical, scientific, or philo- hold that the “days” are non-literal and/or non-sequential. out form, and void” (Gen. 1:2, KJV) sophical support, and the idea of an should read “the earth became with- invisible gap has not been widely out form and void,” suggesting a accepted. change from its original condition Intermittent Creation days (multi- ralistic or divinely guided. Evolution vides a way to help distinguish the (cf., Isa. 45:18). The destruction ple gaps). A few scholars have at- is the theory that all organisms, various models of theistic evolu- might have resulted directly from tempted to preserve the idea of liter- including humans, descended from tion. Theories that do not include Satan’s activity in the world or a war al days in a long time frame by an original ancestor. “Variation” and any divine activity are beyond the between Satan and God. proposing that the days were inter- “speciation” do not entail universal scope of this article. The gap theory founders on both mittent rather than contiguous. common ancestry, so they are not the exegetical and scientific grounds. Thus, there were actually six literal same as evolution. The occasional Long-Age Creation Models Exegetically, the gap theory is based creation days, in the sequence definition of evolution as merely Long-age creation models include on the supposition that Genesis 1:2 recorded in Genesis, but they were “change over time” is not adequate. any that incorporate the (1) geologi- means that the world “became” separated in time by millions of Every individual changes over time, cal time scale and (2) separate cre- without form and void. However, years. However, the sequence of yet individuals do not evolve. It is ation of humans and numerous other the Hebrew word (hayetha) does not events in Genesis conflicts with the populations that evolve. Change over independent creatures. These models have that meaning. The text states fossil sequence. To get around this time does not necessarily imply uni- usually speculate that if a six-day cre- that the Earth was without form and problem, it has been suggested that versal common ancestry. ation or biblical flood occurred, they void, not that it became without each day of Creation begins a new Long-age creation. Any theory were not global events. form and void. creative period of time. The literal that includes the geological time Probably the most significant Scientifically, the gap theory pre- days are actually only beginning scale and the idea of separately cre- distinguishing feature of long-age dicts a gap in the fossil record, with points of successive “overlapping ated lineages, especially the special creation models is the interpreta- the rubble of the old destroyed cre- ages” of creation. The successive cre- creation of humans. Since all major tion of the word day in Genesis 1. ation below the gap and the record ation events begin on specific days forms of long-age creation involve a Certain long-age creation models of the new creation above the gap. but are completed sometime later. series of discrete creation acts, the hold that the creation “days” are lit- But there is no such gap in the fossil This strategy effectively transforms term multiple creations is a synonym eral, sequential days of creation; record, and most scholars aban- the intermittent creation days theory for long-age creation. other long-age creation models doned this theory long ago. into the overlapping day-age model. Theistic evolution. Those theo- hold that the “days” are non-literal Some have attempted to get ries that accept the geological time and/or non-sequential. around this problem by claiming that Multiple-Creation Models With Se- scale and universal common ances- the animals and plants of the first cre- quential but Non-literal Days try, including humans, in a divinely Multiple-Creation Models With Lit- ation closely resembled God’s work in Non-literal days. Various sugges- guided process. The proposed ex- eral, Sequential Creation Days re-creation. Thus, the gap would be tions attempt to sever the relationship tent of divine activity in nature pro- Gap theory. The gap theory main- undetectable. In this view some fossils between literal days and the creation https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss4/432 2 33 Gibson: Can We Have It Both Ways? Probably the most significant distinguishing feature of long-age tains that Genesis 1 refers to a recent that appear to be humans were actu- creation in six literal, contiguous ally human-like animals, while others creation models is the interpretation of the word day in Genesis 1. days, but that it was preceded by an were true humans with moral ac- Certain long-age creation models hold that the creation “days” are earlier creation that had been countability. Fossils from the two cre- literal, sequential days of creation; other long-age creation models destroyed. Proponents often claim ations are indistinguishable. This idea that the phrase “the earth was with- lacks any biblical, scientific, or philo- hold that the “days” are non-literal and/or non-sequential. out form, and void” (Gen. 1:2, KJV) sophical support, and the idea of an should read “the earth became with- invisible gap has not been widely out form and void,” suggesting a accepted. change from its original condition Intermittent Creation days (multi- ralistic or divinely guided. Evolution vides a way to help distinguish the (cf., Isa. 45:18). The destruction ple gaps). A few scholars have at- is the theory that all organisms, various models of theistic evolu- might have resulted directly from tempted to preserve the idea of liter- including humans, descended from tion. Theories that do not include Satan’s activity in the world or a war al days in a long time frame by an original ancestor. “Variation” and any divine activity are beyond the between Satan and God. proposing that the days were inter- “speciation” do not entail universal scope of this article. The gap theory founders on both mittent rather than contiguous. common ancestry, so they are not the exegetical and scientific grounds. Thus, there were actually six literal same as evolution. The occasional Long-Age Creation Models Exegetically, the gap theory is based creation days, in the sequence definition of evolution as merely Long-age creation models include on the supposition that Genesis 1:2 recorded in Genesis, but they were “change over time” is not adequate. any that incorporate the (1) geologi- means that the world “became” separated in time by millions of Every individual changes over time, cal time scale and (2) separate cre- without form and void. However, years. However, the sequence of yet individuals do not evolve. It is ation of humans and numerous other the Hebrew word (hayetha) does not events in Genesis conflicts with the populations that evolve. Change over independent creatures. These models have that meaning. The text states fossil sequence. To get around this time does not necessarily imply uni- usually speculate that if a six-day cre- that the Earth was without form and problem, it has been suggested that versal common ancestry. ation or biblical flood occurred, they void, not that it became without each day of Creation begins a new Long-age creation. Any theory were not global events. form and void. creative period of time. The literal that includes the geological time Probably the most significant Scientifically, the gap theory pre- days are actually only beginning scale and the idea of separately cre- distinguishing feature of long-age dicts a gap in the fossil record, with points of successive “overlapping ated lineages, especially the special creation models is the interpreta- the rubble of the old destroyed cre- ages” of creation. The successive cre- creation of humans. Since all major tion of the word day in Genesis 1. ation below the gap and the record ation events begin on specific days forms of long-age creation involve a Certain long-age creation models of the new creation above the gap. but are completed sometime later. series of discrete creation acts, the hold that the creation “days” are lit- But there is no such gap in the fossil This strategy effectively transforms term multiple creations is a synonym eral, sequential days of creation; record, and most scholars aban- the intermittent creation days theory for long-age creation. other long-age creation models doned this theory long ago. into the overlapping day-age model. Theistic evolution. Those theo- hold that the “days” are non-literal Some have attempted to get ries that accept the geological time and/or non-sequential. around this problem by claiming that Multiple-Creation Models With Se- scale and universal common ances- the animals and plants of the first cre- quential but Non-literal Days try, including humans, in a divinely Multiple-Creation Models With Lit- ation closely resembled God’s work in Non-literal days. Various sugges- guided process. The proposed ex- eral, Sequential Creation Days re-creation. Thus, the gap would be tions attempt to sever the relationship tent of divine activity in nature pro- Gap theory. The gap theory main- undetectable. In this view some fossils between literal days and the creation

32 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews33 University, 2005 3 Perspective Digest, Vol. 10 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 4 process. One is the day-age interpre- of creation are overlapping ages. Scientific issues were probably more influential in causing the tation (see below). A similar sugges- Each age began when God uttered a demise of the day-age theory. The sequence of creation events does tion is the relativistic-day interpreta- command, but the actual creation tion, which proposes that day means events may have been completed not match the sequence seen in the fossil record. The primary a regular day to humans but some- during any of the “ages.” Again, the similarity is that humans appear last in both lists, and that water thing much different to God. sequence of creation is unspecified. A third suggestion is that the The literary-framework interpre- creatures appear before flying or land creatures. Otherwise, the Genesis “days” are “days of procla- tation is the best-known model of lists are quite different. These problems have led to the wide-scale mation” or “fiat,” in which God this type. In this view, the Genesis uttered the creative words in a series “days” are somehow “analogues” of abandonment of the day-age interpretation. of six literal days. Each fiat might God’s activity in heaven. Models that have initiated the creation process, do not maintain the Genesis sequence but the events were completed are included in the non-literal, non- sometime during the millions of sequential days category. the morning and the evening were refer figuratively to God’s creative years of the “age.” The latter pro- Day-age theory. Any model that the [nth] day,” and suggests that the activity. The best-known model in posal has the obvious problem of maintains the Genesis sequence of action of each day was completed this category is the literary-frame- how one can have a first literal “day” creation, and in which the events of before the day ended. Also, the work hypothesis. This interpretation before the Solar System (or even the a creation “day” are not completed fourth commandment specifies a lit- treats the “days” of Genesis 1 as nei- universe) was created. Another in a literal day, but may extend over eral Sabbath day as commemorating ther literal nor sequential, but merely problem is that Genesis records “and long, sequential ages of indefinite the (by inference) literal creation as a literary device to show that the it was so” (1:7, 9, 11, 15, 24, 30, KJV) length. The following models should days. It is widely acknowledged that world is a creation. No model of cre- before the conclusion of each day, be included: the overlapping day-age the natural reading of the text is that ation is offered, although the special suggesting that each day’s creative theory; the intermittent-day theory; the days were literal. creation of a personal Adam and his activity was completed before the and the relativistic-day theory. The Scientific issues were probably subsequent Fall are considered to be beginning of the next. day-age interpretation can also be more influential in causing the historical events. Each of these interpretations included in a model of theistic evo- demise of the day-age theory. The A key concept of the literary- attempts to retain the sequence of lution. Since all sequence-based, sequence of creation events does not framework hypothesis is the two- Genesis events. Hence, they are long-age models of origins conflict match the sequence seen in the fossil register cosmology: the earth forms included with day-age models. with the order of the fossil sequence, record. The primary similarity is a visible “lower register” and the In contrast, some models reject the problems described here would that humans appear last in both lists, heavens form an invisible “upper both the literalness of the days of also apply to any theistic evolution and that water creatures appear register.” The two are related “ana- creation and the sequence of cre- model that attempts to preserve the before flying or land creatures. Oth- logically.” This framework is applied ation events. One variant of this cat- Genesis creation sequence. erwise, the lists are quite different. to Genesis 1 to explain the “days” as egory suggests that the Genesis The day-age interpretation has These problems have led to the periods of time that belong to the “days” are days of revelation, in serious exegetical problems that wide-scale abandonment of the day- invisible “upper register,” and not to which Moses received six symbolic include the biblical description of age interpretation. the literal world in which the cre- visions about the creation, but the each day as literal, with an evening Non-literal, non-sequential days. ation events took place. The authors actual sequence is not revealed. and a morning. The phrase “and it Some scholars have proposed that the insist that the creation “days” refer to Another proposal is that the “days” was so” precedes the statement “and creation “days” are not literal, but something real and significant in the https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss4/434 4 35 Gibson: Can We Have It Both Ways? process. One is the day-age interpre- of creation are overlapping ages. Scientific issues were probably more influential in causing the tation (see below). A similar sugges- Each age began when God uttered a demise of the day-age theory. The sequence of creation events does tion is the relativistic-day interpreta- command, but the actual creation tion, which proposes that day means events may have been completed not match the sequence seen in the fossil record. The primary a regular day to humans but some- during any of the “ages.” Again, the similarity is that humans appear last in both lists, and that water thing much different to God. sequence of creation is unspecified. A third suggestion is that the The literary-framework interpre- creatures appear before flying or land creatures. Otherwise, the Genesis “days” are “days of procla- tation is the best-known model of lists are quite different. These problems have led to the wide-scale mation” or “fiat,” in which God this type. In this view, the Genesis uttered the creative words in a series “days” are somehow “analogues” of abandonment of the day-age interpretation. of six literal days. Each fiat might God’s activity in heaven. Models that have initiated the creation process, do not maintain the Genesis sequence but the events were completed are included in the non-literal, non- sometime during the millions of sequential days category. the morning and the evening were refer figuratively to God’s creative years of the “age.” The latter pro- Day-age theory. Any model that the [nth] day,” and suggests that the activity. The best-known model in posal has the obvious problem of maintains the Genesis sequence of action of each day was completed this category is the literary-frame- how one can have a first literal “day” creation, and in which the events of before the day ended. Also, the work hypothesis. This interpretation before the Solar System (or even the a creation “day” are not completed fourth commandment specifies a lit- treats the “days” of Genesis 1 as nei- universe) was created. Another in a literal day, but may extend over eral Sabbath day as commemorating ther literal nor sequential, but merely problem is that Genesis records “and long, sequential ages of indefinite the (by inference) literal creation as a literary device to show that the it was so” (1:7, 9, 11, 15, 24, 30, KJV) length. The following models should days. It is widely acknowledged that world is a creation. No model of cre- before the conclusion of each day, be included: the overlapping day-age the natural reading of the text is that ation is offered, although the special suggesting that each day’s creative theory; the intermittent-day theory; the days were literal. creation of a personal Adam and his activity was completed before the and the relativistic-day theory. The Scientific issues were probably subsequent Fall are considered to be beginning of the next. day-age interpretation can also be more influential in causing the historical events. Each of these interpretations included in a model of theistic evo- demise of the day-age theory. The A key concept of the literary- attempts to retain the sequence of lution. Since all sequence-based, sequence of creation events does not framework hypothesis is the two- Genesis events. Hence, they are long-age models of origins conflict match the sequence seen in the fossil register cosmology: the earth forms included with day-age models. with the order of the fossil sequence, record. The primary similarity is a visible “lower register” and the In contrast, some models reject the problems described here would that humans appear last in both lists, heavens form an invisible “upper both the literalness of the days of also apply to any theistic evolution and that water creatures appear register.” The two are related “ana- creation and the sequence of cre- model that attempts to preserve the before flying or land creatures. Oth- logically.” This framework is applied ation events. One variant of this cat- Genesis creation sequence. erwise, the lists are quite different. to Genesis 1 to explain the “days” as egory suggests that the Genesis The day-age interpretation has These problems have led to the periods of time that belong to the “days” are days of revelation, in serious exegetical problems that wide-scale abandonment of the day- invisible “upper register,” and not to which Moses received six symbolic include the biblical description of age interpretation. the literal world in which the cre- visions about the creation, but the each day as literal, with an evening Non-literal, non-sequential days. ation events took place. The authors actual sequence is not revealed. and a morning. The phrase “and it Some scholars have proposed that the insist that the creation “days” refer to Another proposal is that the “days” was so” precedes the statement “and creation “days” are not literal, but something real and significant in the

34 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews35 University, 2005 5 Perspective Digest, Vol. 10 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 4 The fossil sequence falsifies most of the clearly stated models of ficult to defend. requires the death of every individual Second, all forms of long-age cre- of that species. This can apparently long-age creation. The historical setting of Adam and the effects of ation that preserve the sequence of happen if the species is confined to a the Fall are problems for all long-age creation models. Scientific Genesis events conflict with the small region, but it is difficult to problems can be minimized only by trivializing important issues sequence of the fossil record. Thus, explain the extinction of an entire the intermittent-day theory and day- order or class of organisms, especially and denying the teaching of Scripture. age theory are both scientifically if the group has a global distribution. untenable. Attempts to modify these Such extinctions require catastrophic theories to match the fossil sequence, events of global magnitude. What such as the proposal that the “days” kind of god would repeatedly create “upper register,” although it is not a distinct separation of God’s activi- are “overlapping,”convert them into a and destroy on a global scale? clear just what that means, since ties in the “upper register” from the different category of models: those Models of long-age creation share they deny the sequence represented world of the “lower register.” God is that invoke non-sequential, non-liter- two characteristics: acceptance of the in God’s “daily” activities. continuously acting throughout the al days of creation. The chief example long geological time scale and the The literary-framework interpre- entire universe, and is not confined to of this category, the literary-frame- separate creation of humans and tation is not truly a creation model an “upper register.” It also presents work interpretation, does not explain other lineages. None of these models but an exegetical hypothesis. It makes unacceptable theological implications anything in nature; it merely attempts is free of scientific problems. The gap no predictions about the fossil for the character of a God who inten- to explain away the Genesis creation model predicts a non-existent gap in sequence and is infinitely flexible in tionally created a world of violence, text. the fossil record. The intermittent its application. Therefore, the liter- suffering, and death. Third, there is a troubling incon- creation day model and the day-age ary- framework hypothesis is a non- sistency in interpreting Genesis 1 in a model conflict with the fossil se- scientific theory, and must be evaluat- Problems Specific to Long-Age long-age context: “[O]ld Earth special quence. The literary-framework ed theologically: The narrative style Creation Models creationism, by its choice to accept interpretation merely explains every of the text, the words used to describe All long-age creation models suf- the scientifically derived timetable for observation in the fossil column with the events, and the rest of Scripture, fer from numerous problems. Many cosmic history, is in the exceedingly the words “God did it.” Neither the all combine to indicate the author’s are shared with theistic evolution, awkward position of attempting to “days” nor the sequence have any lit- intention to describe literal, consecu- but a few are unique. interpret some of the Genesis narra- eral, or even symbolic, meaning. tive days. And all New Testament First, all versions of long-age cre- tive’s pictorial elements (interpreted Problems in interpretation are merely writers appear to accept the Genesis ation are essentially conjectural. as episodes of special creation) as his- pushed off into some ethereal “upper story as literal. They all lack direct support, either torical particulars but treating the register.” Overlapping-day-age mod- The literary-framework interpre- scientific or biblical. Nothing in the narrative’s seven-day timetable as els attempt to blend the sequence of tation explains away anything that Bible or in science suggests that God being figurative.”2 Genesis days with a denial of the challenges our conclusions by refer- created our world in a series of dis- Fourth, a multiple-creation model sequence of events of those same ring it to the invisible “upper regis- crete, supernatural acts over long is also a multiple-destruction model. days. The fossil sequence falsifies ter,” safely removed from the real ages. Any observation in the fossil The fossil record is a record of death most of the clearly stated models of world where its meaning can be as sequence can be “solved” with the and extinction, including numerous long-age creation. The historical set- vague as we like. statement that “God created it that mass extinctions in which large num- ting of Adam and the effects of the The literary-framework interpre- way.” Though this makes the theory bers of species disappear simultane- Fall are problems for all long-age cre- tation suffers from the implication of difficult to falsify, it also makes it dif- ously. The extinction of a species ation models. Scientific problems can https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss4/436 6 37 Gibson: Can We Have It Both Ways? The fossil sequence falsifies most of the clearly stated models of ficult to defend. requires the death of every individual Second, all forms of long-age cre- of that species. This can apparently long-age creation. The historical setting of Adam and the effects of ation that preserve the sequence of happen if the species is confined to a the Fall are problems for all long-age creation models. Scientific Genesis events conflict with the small region, but it is difficult to problems can be minimized only by trivializing important issues sequence of the fossil record. Thus, explain the extinction of an entire the intermittent-day theory and day- order or class of organisms, especially and denying the teaching of Scripture. age theory are both scientifically if the group has a global distribution. untenable. Attempts to modify these Such extinctions require catastrophic theories to match the fossil sequence, events of global magnitude. What such as the proposal that the “days” kind of god would repeatedly create “upper register,” although it is not a distinct separation of God’s activi- are “overlapping,”convert them into a and destroy on a global scale? clear just what that means, since ties in the “upper register” from the different category of models: those Models of long-age creation share they deny the sequence represented world of the “lower register.” God is that invoke non-sequential, non-liter- two characteristics: acceptance of the in God’s “daily” activities. continuously acting throughout the al days of creation. The chief example long geological time scale and the The literary-framework interpre- entire universe, and is not confined to of this category, the literary-frame- separate creation of humans and tation is not truly a creation model an “upper register.” It also presents work interpretation, does not explain other lineages. None of these models but an exegetical hypothesis. It makes unacceptable theological implications anything in nature; it merely attempts is free of scientific problems. The gap no predictions about the fossil for the character of a God who inten- to explain away the Genesis creation model predicts a non-existent gap in sequence and is infinitely flexible in tionally created a world of violence, text. the fossil record. The intermittent its application. Therefore, the liter- suffering, and death. Third, there is a troubling incon- creation day model and the day-age ary- framework hypothesis is a non- sistency in interpreting Genesis 1 in a model conflict with the fossil se- scientific theory, and must be evaluat- Problems Specific to Long-Age long-age context: “[O]ld Earth special quence. The literary-framework ed theologically: The narrative style Creation Models creationism, by its choice to accept interpretation merely explains every of the text, the words used to describe All long-age creation models suf- the scientifically derived timetable for observation in the fossil column with the events, and the rest of Scripture, fer from numerous problems. Many cosmic history, is in the exceedingly the words “God did it.” Neither the all combine to indicate the author’s are shared with theistic evolution, awkward position of attempting to “days” nor the sequence have any lit- intention to describe literal, consecu- but a few are unique. interpret some of the Genesis narra- eral, or even symbolic, meaning. tive days. And all New Testament First, all versions of long-age cre- tive’s pictorial elements (interpreted Problems in interpretation are merely writers appear to accept the Genesis ation are essentially conjectural. as episodes of special creation) as his- pushed off into some ethereal “upper story as literal. They all lack direct support, either torical particulars but treating the register.” Overlapping-day-age mod- The literary-framework interpre- scientific or biblical. Nothing in the narrative’s seven-day timetable as els attempt to blend the sequence of tation explains away anything that Bible or in science suggests that God being figurative.”2 Genesis days with a denial of the challenges our conclusions by refer- created our world in a series of dis- Fourth, a multiple-creation model sequence of events of those same ring it to the invisible “upper regis- crete, supernatural acts over long is also a multiple-destruction model. days. The fossil sequence falsifies ter,” safely removed from the real ages. Any observation in the fossil The fossil record is a record of death most of the clearly stated models of world where its meaning can be as sequence can be “solved” with the and extinction, including numerous long-age creation. The historical set- vague as we like. statement that “God created it that mass extinctions in which large num- ting of Adam and the effects of the The literary-framework interpre- way.” Though this makes the theory bers of species disappear simultane- Fall are problems for all long-age cre- tation suffers from the implication of difficult to falsify, it also makes it dif- ously. The extinction of a species ation models. Scientific problems can

36 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews37 University, 2005 7 Perspective Digest, Vol. 10 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 4 be minimized only by trivializing event. Instead, He designed the laws The historical setting of Adam and the effects of the Fall are important issues and denying the of nature so that evolution is the problems for all long-age creation models. Scientific problems can teaching of Scripture. result. He established the laws of It seems pointless to reject the nature at the time of the Big Bang, be minimized only by trivializing important issues and denying the obvious meaning of Genesis on scien- and no further divine action is teaching of Scripture. It seems pointless to reject the obvious tific grounds to accept another model needed. He intended that con- with serious scientific problems. Sev- sciousness would evolve in good meaning of Genesis on scientific grounds to accept another model enth-day Adventists cannot improve time. with serious scientific problems. Seventh-day Adventists cannot their position by adopting any model The emphasis here is on the suffi- of long-age creation. ciency of natural law. God is not a improve their position by adopting any model of long-age creation. participant in the evolutionary proc- Theistic Evolution Models ess, but merely an observer. This Theistic evolution models in- would be ordinary deism except that clude those based on: (1) universal it does allow God to intervene occa- these phenomena. The fact that they Some have proposed that God common ancestry of all organisms, sionally in the lives of believers, but, may operate in harmony with nat- acts through chaotic systems that are including humans; and (2) common apparently, not in the flow of nature. ural law says nothing about their unpredictable to us but predictable descent of all organisms as the result So the model is quasi-deistic. respective origins. to Him. Another possibility is that of a divinely guided process over The autonomous model of theis- Second, there seems to be too quantum uncertainty may provide long ages of geological time. tic evolution has some serious diffi- much evidence of intelligent design an opening for God to act in unde- Theistic evolution models differ culties. In the Bible, nature is not in nature. For example, the structure tectable ways. However, quantum among themselves primarily in how autonomous, but totally and contin- of the human brain appears to be events, although uncertain individu- they propose that divine guidance is uously dependent on God for exis- designed for far more mental capac- ally, act statistically in predictable accomplished. The large number of tence. There is no biblical support ity than required for survival under ways, which tends toward determin- minor variants of theistic evolution for the idea of a God who does not the “law” of natural selection. ism rather than freedom of choice. can be grouped into categories. One interact with His creation, and much Theistic evolution driven by God’s This model is widely held among includes views that God created biblical evidence against it. continuous interaction with nature. scientists, and is the primary object nature to be autonomous, so that This model also has scientific Most versions of theistic evolution of criticism by the intelligent design continuing divine influence on problems. There are just too many propose that God continuously inter- group. If natural law is sufficient to nature is unnecessary. Another cate- apparent gaps in the “natural econ- acts with nature. Nature is totally explain evolution without God’s gory is that God continuously inter- omy.” Some of the most glaring dependent on God’s sustaining activ- intervention, why insist that an acts with nature in the regularities examples include: the cause of the ity as observed in the laws of nature. invisible, undetectable God is some- we recognize as natural law, yet He Big Bang; the origin of life; the ori- But as God sustains nature, He some- how acting to influence events? somehow influences the outcome gin of gender and sexual reproduc- how acts providentially to bring Some versions of theistic evolu- for His own purposes. tion; the origins of multicellularity, about His will in ways generally tion are open to the possibility of Theistic evolution through autono- cellular differentiation and embry- undetectable to us. This raises the occasional direct divine interven- mous “natural law.” One form of the- onic development; and the origin of issue of how God can influence tion, as in miracles. Miracles are istic evolution holds that nature is consciousness, language, and moral- nature to accomplish His will without uncommon, special acts of God. autonomous. In this view, God does ity in humans. No known natural violating the regularity of His own Miracles for the benefit of believers not personally control any natural law can explain the origin of any of natural laws to sustain the universe. are often accepted by theistic evolu- https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss4/438 8 39 Gibson: Can We Have It Both Ways? be minimized only by trivializing event. Instead, He designed the laws The historical setting of Adam and the effects of the Fall are important issues and denying the of nature so that evolution is the problems for all long-age creation models. Scientific problems can teaching of Scripture. result. He established the laws of It seems pointless to reject the nature at the time of the Big Bang, be minimized only by trivializing important issues and denying the obvious meaning of Genesis on scien- and no further divine action is teaching of Scripture. It seems pointless to reject the obvious tific grounds to accept another model needed. He intended that con- with serious scientific problems. Sev- sciousness would evolve in good meaning of Genesis on scientific grounds to accept another model enth-day Adventists cannot improve time. with serious scientific problems. Seventh-day Adventists cannot their position by adopting any model The emphasis here is on the suffi- of long-age creation. ciency of natural law. God is not a improve their position by adopting any model of long-age creation. participant in the evolutionary proc- Theistic Evolution Models ess, but merely an observer. This Theistic evolution models in- would be ordinary deism except that clude those based on: (1) universal it does allow God to intervene occa- these phenomena. The fact that they Some have proposed that God common ancestry of all organisms, sionally in the lives of believers, but, may operate in harmony with nat- acts through chaotic systems that are including humans; and (2) common apparently, not in the flow of nature. ural law says nothing about their unpredictable to us but predictable descent of all organisms as the result So the model is quasi-deistic. respective origins. to Him. Another possibility is that of a divinely guided process over The autonomous model of theis- Second, there seems to be too quantum uncertainty may provide long ages of geological time. tic evolution has some serious diffi- much evidence of intelligent design an opening for God to act in unde- Theistic evolution models differ culties. In the Bible, nature is not in nature. For example, the structure tectable ways. However, quantum among themselves primarily in how autonomous, but totally and contin- of the human brain appears to be events, although uncertain individu- they propose that divine guidance is uously dependent on God for exis- designed for far more mental capac- ally, act statistically in predictable accomplished. The large number of tence. There is no biblical support ity than required for survival under ways, which tends toward determin- minor variants of theistic evolution for the idea of a God who does not the “law” of natural selection. ism rather than freedom of choice. can be grouped into categories. One interact with His creation, and much Theistic evolution driven by God’s This model is widely held among includes views that God created biblical evidence against it. continuous interaction with nature. scientists, and is the primary object nature to be autonomous, so that This model also has scientific Most versions of theistic evolution of criticism by the intelligent design continuing divine influence on problems. There are just too many propose that God continuously inter- group. If natural law is sufficient to nature is unnecessary. Another cate- apparent gaps in the “natural econ- acts with nature. Nature is totally explain evolution without God’s gory is that God continuously inter- omy.” Some of the most glaring dependent on God’s sustaining activ- intervention, why insist that an acts with nature in the regularities examples include: the cause of the ity as observed in the laws of nature. invisible, undetectable God is some- we recognize as natural law, yet He Big Bang; the origin of life; the ori- But as God sustains nature, He some- how acting to influence events? somehow influences the outcome gin of gender and sexual reproduc- how acts providentially to bring Some versions of theistic evolu- for His own purposes. tion; the origins of multicellularity, about His will in ways generally tion are open to the possibility of Theistic evolution through autono- cellular differentiation and embry- undetectable to us. This raises the occasional direct divine interven- mous “natural law.” One form of the- onic development; and the origin of issue of how God can influence tion, as in miracles. Miracles are istic evolution holds that nature is consciousness, language, and moral- nature to accomplish His will without uncommon, special acts of God. autonomous. In this view, God does ity in humans. No known natural violating the regularity of His own Miracles for the benefit of believers not personally control any natural law can explain the origin of any of natural laws to sustain the universe. are often accepted by theistic evolu-

38 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews39 University, 2005 9 Perspective Digest, Vol. 10 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 4 Theistic evolutionists often deny any individual Adam, asserting Fifth, the possibility of human all intermediate models of origins. freedom seems difficult to harmonize The origin of humans in the image that Adam was a generic representation of the evolutionary with the view that the human mind of God and the relationship of nat- advance from primate to human. Another view is that Adam was a arose through natural processes in ural evil to the fall of Adam are per- divinely selected individual in whom God implanted a soul. Some which chemical reactions are driven haps the most interesting of these. by natural law. Natural law does not The problem of Adam and the ori- accept the reality of Adam as a Neolithic farmer with emergent seem capable of producing a brain gin of humans. All intermediate self-consciousness rather than a soul. This Adam was not the with freedom of choice. Most hu- models of origins have a serious mans believe they actually have free- practical problem with the origin of ancestor of all humans, but the “federal representative” of the race. dom of choice, and they hold other humans. Where do Adam and Eve fit humans accountable for their behav- in a series of increasingly human- ior. This would not be logical if nat- like fossils stretching back more than ural law and/or God were directing a million years? tionists but usually not in nature. ary process to appear guided by a every atom and every chemical reac- Theistic evolutionists often deny Some, however, would permit mira- beneficent creator. The problem is tion, rather than some reactions any individual Adam, asserting that cles in the course of nature. God not solved by the suggestions that being subject to human will. Adam was a generic representation might intervene in nature, for exam- have been offered: e.g., that such Sixth, the “fall” of Adam is diffi- of the evolutionary advance from ple, to help evolutionary processes things may not be truly evil; or that cult to explain in the context of the- primate to human. Another view is over difficult obstacles, such as the God’s participation makes suffering istic evolution. In evolution, humans that Adam was a divinely selected gaps mentioned previously. easier to bear; or that God had to are on an upward trajectory rather individual in whom God implanted All forms of theistic evolution work with nature as it is; or that suf- than the downward trajectory a soul. Some accept the reality of have numerous problems. First, a fering is the price God had to pay to described in the Bible. This implica- Adam as a Neolithic farmer with direct reading of the fossil record, produce His ends. tion of theistic evolution introduces emergent self-consciousness rather even with the assumption of the Third, the deleterious effects of theological problems by undermin- than a soul. This Adam was not the long-age geological time scale, does most observed mutations seem diffi- ing the biblical teaching of Calvary ancestor of all humans, but the “fed- not suggest a single evolutionary cult to reconcile with the notion that and the atonement. eral representative” of the race. The tree with all organisms descending God is guiding them. The origin of Seventh, theistic evolution tends image of God was first placed in from a common ancestor. The evo- cancer and birth defects from muta- toward the idea that all things exist Adam and later perhaps given to the lutionary tree as reflected in the fos- tions are related problems. within God, who permeates the entire remainder of the species. sil record is full of gaps, especially at Fourth, the origin of morally universe. The proposal that God is Long-age creationists have pro- the level of phyla and classes. The accountable humans is a difficult somehow acting “within” the cre- posed that Adam was created 10,000 structural pattern in the fossil record problem for all forms of theistic evo- ation, continuously influencing its to 60,000 years ago in a world is summarized in the clause “dispar- lution. How can a continuous, grad- directionality, blurs the distinction already containing other human-like ity precedes diversity.”3 Descent with ual process account for a discontinu- between Creator and creation in the lineages. Another proposal is that modification would produce the ity in the origin of spiritual humans? minds of some theistic evolutionists. Adam was the first anatomically opposite pattern. In other words, how would one jus- modern human, created perhaps Second, the fossil record exhibits tify the position that a particular General Problems With All Inter- 150,000 years ago. In either case, too much evil—extinctions, suffer- individual was morally accountable mediate Models there were already human-like, but ing, and disease—for the evolution- but his parents were not? Certain problems are inherent in non-spiritual, organisms in exis- https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss4/440 10 41 Gibson: Can We Have It Both Ways? Theistic evolutionists often deny any individual Adam, asserting Fifth, the possibility of human all intermediate models of origins. freedom seems difficult to harmonize The origin of humans in the image that Adam was a generic representation of the evolutionary with the view that the human mind of God and the relationship of nat- advance from primate to human. Another view is that Adam was a arose through natural processes in ural evil to the fall of Adam are per- divinely selected individual in whom God implanted a soul. Some which chemical reactions are driven haps the most interesting of these. by natural law. Natural law does not The problem of Adam and the ori- accept the reality of Adam as a Neolithic farmer with emergent seem capable of producing a brain gin of humans. All intermediate self-consciousness rather than a soul. This Adam was not the with freedom of choice. Most hu- models of origins have a serious mans believe they actually have free- practical problem with the origin of ancestor of all humans, but the “federal representative” of the race. dom of choice, and they hold other humans. Where do Adam and Eve fit humans accountable for their behav- in a series of increasingly human- ior. This would not be logical if nat- like fossils stretching back more than ural law and/or God were directing a million years? tionists but usually not in nature. ary process to appear guided by a every atom and every chemical reac- Theistic evolutionists often deny Some, however, would permit mira- beneficent creator. The problem is tion, rather than some reactions any individual Adam, asserting that cles in the course of nature. God not solved by the suggestions that being subject to human will. Adam was a generic representation might intervene in nature, for exam- have been offered: e.g., that such Sixth, the “fall” of Adam is diffi- of the evolutionary advance from ple, to help evolutionary processes things may not be truly evil; or that cult to explain in the context of the- primate to human. Another view is over difficult obstacles, such as the God’s participation makes suffering istic evolution. In evolution, humans that Adam was a divinely selected gaps mentioned previously. easier to bear; or that God had to are on an upward trajectory rather individual in whom God implanted All forms of theistic evolution work with nature as it is; or that suf- than the downward trajectory a soul. Some accept the reality of have numerous problems. First, a fering is the price God had to pay to described in the Bible. This implica- Adam as a Neolithic farmer with direct reading of the fossil record, produce His ends. tion of theistic evolution introduces emergent self-consciousness rather even with the assumption of the Third, the deleterious effects of theological problems by undermin- than a soul. This Adam was not the long-age geological time scale, does most observed mutations seem diffi- ing the biblical teaching of Calvary ancestor of all humans, but the “fed- not suggest a single evolutionary cult to reconcile with the notion that and the atonement. eral representative” of the race. The tree with all organisms descending God is guiding them. The origin of Seventh, theistic evolution tends image of God was first placed in from a common ancestor. The evo- cancer and birth defects from muta- toward the idea that all things exist Adam and later perhaps given to the lutionary tree as reflected in the fos- tions are related problems. within God, who permeates the entire remainder of the species. sil record is full of gaps, especially at Fourth, the origin of morally universe. The proposal that God is Long-age creationists have pro- the level of phyla and classes. The accountable humans is a difficult somehow acting “within” the cre- posed that Adam was created 10,000 structural pattern in the fossil record problem for all forms of theistic evo- ation, continuously influencing its to 60,000 years ago in a world is summarized in the clause “dispar- lution. How can a continuous, grad- directionality, blurs the distinction already containing other human-like ity precedes diversity.”3 Descent with ual process account for a discontinu- between Creator and creation in the lineages. Another proposal is that modification would produce the ity in the origin of spiritual humans? minds of some theistic evolutionists. Adam was the first anatomically opposite pattern. In other words, how would one jus- modern human, created perhaps Second, the fossil record exhibits tify the position that a particular General Problems With All Inter- 150,000 years ago. In either case, too much evil—extinctions, suffer- individual was morally accountable mediate Models there were already human-like, but ing, and disease—for the evolution- but his parents were not? Certain problems are inherent in non-spiritual, organisms in exis-

40 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews41 University, 2005 11 Perspective Digest, Vol. 10 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 4 tence. These purported groups are propose a significant change in It is commonly claimed that the “death” that resulted from the “pre-Adamites.”Yet another pro- nature when Adam sinned run into Adam’s sin was only a “spiritual” death; physical death was posal is that language is a defining scientific trouble since evidence of capability of humans, and evidence disease, predation, and mass extinc- already in force. But death resulting from Adam’s fall must have indicates the existence of language at tion are found throughout the fossil been physical, since it involved returning to dust and was least 400,000 years ago. record. What, then, is the origin of the On the other hand, interpreta- facilitated by preventing access to the tree of life. Furthermore, “pre-Adamites”? Multiple-creation tions that attribute no physical restoration involves resurrection of the body. Indeed, physical death theories would answer this differ- changes in nature at the Fall run into ently from theistic evolution theo- theological trouble with the rela- is the sign of spiritual death. ries, but both would share the prob- tionship of moral and natural evil. lem of locating Adam in history. Attributing natural evil to God’s Placing the creation of Adam less intentions does not fit with the bib- than 10,000 years ago raises the ques- lical revelation of God’s character, suffering before—and thus indepen- was inexperienced as a Creator and tion of how his sin could affect the and seems contrary to biblical re- dent of—Adam’s sin. The fossil had to learn by practice. rest of humankind, since many demption and restoration. record thus becomes a record of The existence of disease and suf- groups of humans are not genetically Theistic evolutionists often reject God’s activity, not a record of the fering is another aspect of natural related to him. It also seems to imply the story of Adam’s fall, interpreting results of Adam’s sin. But repeated evil. Yet there is good evidence that that the atoning sacrifice of the “sec- it as symbolic of the fact that we are episodes of mass extinctions in the animals suffer now, and that they suf- ond Adam” does not benefit most estranged from God in a less-than- fossil record do not seem to reflect the fered from disease, injury, and per- races of humans, since they are not ideal world. Some claim there was behavior of a caring Creator. haps even emotional trauma in the descendants of the first Adam. On the no Fall, but that “we appear to be ris- It is commonly claimed that the past.A common response is to specu- other hand, extending the time for ing beasts rather than fallen angels.”4 “death” that resulted from Adam’s late that somehow suffering is part of Adam’s creation back several millions Such views conflict with the most sin was only a “spiritual” death; God’s plan. This leaves the problem of years to include all hominids fundamental teachings of Scripture. physical death was already in force. an unresolved theological challenge means that the image of God is pres- One theory offers a contrasting But death resulting from Adam’s fall to long-age models of origins. ent in the australopithecines, or at position: There was a real Fall, which must have been physical, since it Some have attempted to clear least in the erectines. This is as diffi- was a failure in responsibility by involved returning to dust and was God of responsibility for evil by cult to accept on scientific grounds as Adam and Eve. The result of the Fall facilitated by preventing access to removing Him from direct control on scriptural grounds. was the negative ecological effects of the tree of life. Furthermore, restora- over nature. But ironically, this criti- The problem of the effects of Adam’s the abuse of nature by humans. tion involves resurrection of the cism strikes its own preferred view, fall on nature. The fall of Adam is However, if ecological problems are body. Indeed, physical death is the theistic evolution, just as strongly. identified in the Bible as a major a moral evil, who was responsible for sign of spiritual death. God is equally responsible whether turning point in human experience, them before Adam sinned? The claim that death and suffer- He directly causes every evil event or with serious effects on nature as well The problem of death and suffering ing are the price God had to pay in whether He simply established the as on the human condition. Integrat- before sin. The problem of death and order to bring about His desired laws that cause them to happen and ing the Fall into a long-age chronol- suffering is related to the problem of ends is neither intellectually satisfy- then withdrew. ogy poses significant challenges. the effects of the Fall. All long-age ing nor consistent with Scripture. A superficially more attractive, Interpretations of the Fall that models entail the idea of death and Some have even suggested that God but entirely conjectural, answer to https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss4/442 12 43 Gibson: Can We Have It Both Ways? tence. These purported groups are propose a significant change in It is commonly claimed that the “death” that resulted from the “pre-Adamites.”Yet another pro- nature when Adam sinned run into Adam’s sin was only a “spiritual” death; physical death was posal is that language is a defining scientific trouble since evidence of capability of humans, and evidence disease, predation, and mass extinc- already in force. But death resulting from Adam’s fall must have indicates the existence of language at tion are found throughout the fossil been physical, since it involved returning to dust and was least 400,000 years ago. record. What, then, is the origin of the On the other hand, interpreta- facilitated by preventing access to the tree of life. Furthermore, “pre-Adamites”? Multiple-creation tions that attribute no physical restoration involves resurrection of the body. Indeed, physical death theories would answer this differ- changes in nature at the Fall run into ently from theistic evolution theo- theological trouble with the rela- is the sign of spiritual death. ries, but both would share the prob- tionship of moral and natural evil. lem of locating Adam in history. Attributing natural evil to God’s Placing the creation of Adam less intentions does not fit with the bib- than 10,000 years ago raises the ques- lical revelation of God’s character, suffering before—and thus indepen- was inexperienced as a Creator and tion of how his sin could affect the and seems contrary to biblical re- dent of—Adam’s sin. The fossil had to learn by practice. rest of humankind, since many demption and restoration. record thus becomes a record of The existence of disease and suf- groups of humans are not genetically Theistic evolutionists often reject God’s activity, not a record of the fering is another aspect of natural related to him. It also seems to imply the story of Adam’s fall, interpreting results of Adam’s sin. But repeated evil. Yet there is good evidence that that the atoning sacrifice of the “sec- it as symbolic of the fact that we are episodes of mass extinctions in the animals suffer now, and that they suf- ond Adam” does not benefit most estranged from God in a less-than- fossil record do not seem to reflect the fered from disease, injury, and per- races of humans, since they are not ideal world. Some claim there was behavior of a caring Creator. haps even emotional trauma in the descendants of the first Adam. On the no Fall, but that “we appear to be ris- It is commonly claimed that the past.A common response is to specu- other hand, extending the time for ing beasts rather than fallen angels.”4 “death” that resulted from Adam’s late that somehow suffering is part of Adam’s creation back several millions Such views conflict with the most sin was only a “spiritual” death; God’s plan. This leaves the problem of years to include all hominids fundamental teachings of Scripture. physical death was already in force. an unresolved theological challenge means that the image of God is pres- One theory offers a contrasting But death resulting from Adam’s fall to long-age models of origins. ent in the australopithecines, or at position: There was a real Fall, which must have been physical, since it Some have attempted to clear least in the erectines. This is as diffi- was a failure in responsibility by involved returning to dust and was God of responsibility for evil by cult to accept on scientific grounds as Adam and Eve. The result of the Fall facilitated by preventing access to removing Him from direct control on scriptural grounds. was the negative ecological effects of the tree of life. Furthermore, restora- over nature. But ironically, this criti- The problem of the effects of Adam’s the abuse of nature by humans. tion involves resurrection of the cism strikes its own preferred view, fall on nature. The fall of Adam is However, if ecological problems are body. Indeed, physical death is the theistic evolution, just as strongly. identified in the Bible as a major a moral evil, who was responsible for sign of spiritual death. God is equally responsible whether turning point in human experience, them before Adam sinned? The claim that death and suffer- He directly causes every evil event or with serious effects on nature as well The problem of death and suffering ing are the price God had to pay in whether He simply established the as on the human condition. Integrat- before sin. The problem of death and order to bring about His desired laws that cause them to happen and ing the Fall into a long-age chronol- suffering is related to the problem of ends is neither intellectually satisfy- then withdrew. ogy poses significant challenges. the effects of the Fall. All long-age ing nor consistent with Scripture. A superficially more attractive, Interpretations of the Fall that models entail the idea of death and Some have even suggested that God but entirely conjectural, answer to

42 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews43 University, 2005 13 Perspective Digest, Vol. 10 [2005], Iss. 4, Art. 4 the problem of death before sin is problems, or are entirely ad hoc and the claim that pre-Adamic death and conjectural. There is truly no way to IF YOU LIKE PERSPECTIVE DIGEST, YOU'LL LOVE THE find harmony between the biblical suffering are the result of Satan’s “To be known and read” by all. . . . rebellion. This is a strange way for a view of origins and current scientific God of love to entertain Himself for thinking billions of years. This idea also runs Biblical creation also suffers from into serious difficulties with the serious scientific problems, but this problem of the lack of distinction in does not distinguish it from the ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY the fossil record between the sup- other models and seems a poor rea- A dynamic organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental beliefs of posed works of Satan and those of son to prefer one of them instead. Seventh-day Adventists and strengthening the heart of Adventist theology. God. It is quite unsatisfactory to One may adopt an attitude of agnos- state that, within what appears to be ticism, but this hardly seems appro- ATS encourages bibli- prayer, fellowship, and a single species, some individuals priate for a Christian. cal, theological, and histor- responsible discussion. were actually the product of Satan’s Only one family of models enjoys ical studies that will help ATS sponsors Conven- work while others were the product biblical support: the literal interpre- bring about spiritual reviv- tions, scholarly presenta- of God’s work. This becomes an tation of Genesis. This is the model al and reformation within tions, Bible conferences, and especially onerous idea when ap- on which the biblical story of the church. It provides a publications all grounded plied to the human species. Most, redemption is based, and the model place for its current mem- on two great interests: The but not necessarily all, theistic evo- on which Seventh-day Adventist bership of nearly 2,000 church admin- authority of Scripture and the respon- lutionists seem to reject the exis- theology is based. Although many istrators, scholars, pastors, and lay sible principles of biblical interpreta- tence of Satan. Thus, this explana- questions about the biblical model people to address vital questions of the tion that uphold, rather than compro- tion is primarily limited to advocates remain unanswered, abandoning it Adventist faith in the context of mise, biblical authority. of long-age creation who generally in favor of one of the intermediate do believe in a personal devil. models is like jumping out of the Your annual membership entitles you to: Numerous theological problems frying pan and into the fire. • A one-year subscription to the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, or Perspective Digest. are associated with long-age models • A subscription to the ATS newsletter, carrying announcements and information of origins. The seventh-day Sabbath, about ATS conventions, publications, and other activities. the nature of the atonement, the REFERENCES • Voting rights at the society's business sessions held at the spring and fall meetings. character of God, the nature of 1 A more comprehensive treatment of this • Satisfaction that you are helping to affirm and advance solid, centrist inspiration, the nature of humanity, topic appears on the Website of the Journal of Adventist belief in a church that is rapidly becoming theologically diverse. the basis for marriage, the nature of the Adventist Theological Society at http://ats- jats.org. the future life, and other doctrines 2 H. J. Van Till, “The Fully Gifted Cre- are logically related to the story of ation,” in J. P. Moreland and J. M. Reynolds, Member dues are $25 for an individual; origins. eds., Three Views on Creation and Evolution Yes, send me $35 for husband/wife; and $10 for retirees and students. This article began with the ques- (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), p. application materials 211. to join the Adventist tion of how alternative models fare Name______3 S. J. Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: Theological Society. scientifically. The answer is: not very W. W. Norton, 1989), p. 49. Mail to: Address______well. All of the models described 4 A. Peacocke, “Biology and a Theology of ATS, P.O. Box 86, here suffer from serious scientific Evolution,” Zygon, vol. 34, p. 701. Berrien Springs, MI 49103 City______State_____Zip______https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol10/iss4/444 14 45