DOCSLIB.ORG

Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross' Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth Creationism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross' Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth Creationism Answers Research Journal 12 (2019) 53–71. www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v12/hugh_ross_progressive_day_creationism.pdf Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth Creationism David McGee, Instructor, Liberty University, Rawlings School of Divinity Online Abstract Since the early 1800s, the evangelical community has sought to harmonize the scientific interpretations of long periods of time and the early chapters of Genesis to determine the appropriate age of the universe. There are primarily two groups—those who believe the universe is billions of years old and those who believe the universe is thousands of years old. One view within the former group is called Progressive Day-Age Creationism. This view is taught by Hugh Ross and is quite popular within the evangelical community. This article analyzes primarily the writings of Ross and the implications that his view may have towards understanding the early chapters of Genesis, the trustworthiness of the Bible, and the Gospel. Keywords: progressive day-age creationism, six-day creationism, day, hermeneutics, Genesis Introduction before the 1860s (Sexton 2018, 5). This view was When it comes to the topic of origins, the challenged by Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin to suggest evangelical community agrees that God is the creator western society should discard the Genesis story of the universe. Where this agreement usually ends, and replace it with their scientific view that sought however, is on the question how and when did God to remove the necessity of a creator. Consequently, create. Did God begin the creation process billions of the evangelical community, primarily because of years ago or thousands of years ago? Did He create Darwin’s popularization of the philosophical theory ex nihilo (out of nothing), through the evolutionary of evolution, has sought to harmonize the scientific process of natural selection, or some combination interpretations of long periods of time with the early thereof? Whereas some evangelicals are convinced of chapters of Genesis to determine the appropriate an older earth (billions of years old) and debate the age of the universe. means by which God created, others maintain that Because of the influence of Darwin’s book, two the earth is younger (thousands of years old) and groups have emerged from this topic of reconciling affirm a literal meaning of Genesis 1. Genesis with the prevailing scientific hypotheses and Ernst Mayr, an evolutionary biologist, opined that interpretations. One group are old-earth proponents, Christianity’s biblical account of creation as told in who believe the universe and earth are billions the book of Genesis, chapters 1 and 2 “was virtually of years old, and the other group are young-earth unanimously accepted not only by laypeople but proponents, who believe the universe and earth are also by scientists and philosophers. This changed thousands of years old. There are a few proposals overnight, so to speak, in 1859 with the publication within the old-earth group. Proposal #1 is the Gap of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species” Theory, which believes the universe was created as (Mayr 2001, 12). However, prior to Darwin, James recorded Genesis 1:1, then there was a long period Hutton published Theory of the Earth in 1795 and of time (a gap) of billions of years. Subsequently, in Charles Lyell published the volumes Principles of Genesis 1:2, God recreated the billion-year-old earth Geology in the 1830s. They sought to dethrone the in six 24-hour periods of time. Proposal #2 is Theistic catastrophism of Noah’s Flood and replace it with Evolution, which affirms that the earth is billions of uniformitarianism, the belief that the present is years old but asserts that God used the mechanism the key to the past. Darwin’s book popularized their that Darwin discovered, natural selection, to theories, arguing that the God of the Bible was evolve the flora, fauna, and human beings that are not necessary to explain the origin of the universe. present on the earth. Proposal #3 is The Framework And the creation event in Genesis 1, which would Hypothesis, which seeks to reclassify Genesis 1 as indicate the universe is thousands of years old, was poetic literature rather than historical narrative not the correct interpretation. The interpretation of literature, thus allowing the possibility of billions of Genesis 1 that creation is a recent event can trace years (or whatever the prevailing scientific view of its roots to the church fathers (Mook 2012, 29–32), the day) to be inserted into Genesis 1 without doing and was the prevailing view of Hebrew scholars hermeneutical harm. Proposal #4 is Progressive ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2019 Answers in Genesis, Inc. All content is owned by Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) unless otherwise indicated. AiG consents to unlimited copying and distribution of print copies of Answers Research Journal articles for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For website and other electronic distribution and publication, AiG consents to republication of article abstracts with direct links to the full papers on the ARJ website. All rights reserved. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal. The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis. 54 D. McGee Day-Age Creationism, which believes that the earth Berney with Intervarsity. Buttressed that PDAC is is billions of years old and that each creation day prominent within the evangelical community is that represents many millions of years of time, but God none of the larger denominational seminaries, such didn’t use the Darwinian process to evolve the flora, as, the Southern Baptist, Methodist, and Reformed, fauna, and human beings. or the non-denominational seminaries, such as The effect of proposal #4, Progressive Day-Age Dallas Theological, Denver, or Trinity Evangelical, Creationism (PDAC), chiefly reinforced by Hugh Ross, affirm a young-earth position, which is an indication is prominent within the evangelical community. For that old-earth theology is permitted.3 example, Douglas Groothuis, professor of philosophy Thus, given the influence of old-earth views in at Denver Seminary, references Ross’ book Creation general, and the PDAC in particular within the and Time in his footnotes before opining “there is evangelical community, the purpose of this paper overwhelming evidence that the universe is 13–15 is to (1) analyze Proposal #4, PDAC, and (2) the billion years old and that the earth is ancient as well” implications that the PDAC view may impart to (2011, 274). Norman Geisler, who taught at Dallas Christians seeking to understand the early chapters Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity of Genesis.4 In addition to analyzing PDAC, the School, and founded Southern Evangelical Seminary young-earth view of Genesis—the Six Day Creation and Veritas Evangelical Seminary is quite open to Theory (SDC)—will be presented to allow the reader Progressive Day-Age Creationism. He writes, “Not to contrast (or compare) each view. This will be only is it possible that there are time gaps in Genesis accomplished by (1) describing the central tenets of 1, but there is also evidence that the ‘days’ of Genesis each view, (2) describing a critical analysis of each are not 6 successive 24-hour days” (Geisler 2014). view, and (3) summarizing the theological and Immediately after writing his theological assertions, practical implications for each view. What this paper he refers his readers to Creation and Time by Ross. will not address in great detail is the Gap Theory, Geisler adds, “It seems plausible the universe is Theistic Evolution, Framework Hypothesis, and the billions of years old . there is no demonstrated genealogical debate of Genesis 5 and 11. The goal conflict between Genesis 1–2 and scientific fact . a after reading this article will be that the reader will literal interpretation of Genesis is consistent with be able to compare and contrast PDAC and SDC a universe that is billions of years old” (Geisler view, recognize the hermeneutical dangers that the 2003, 650). Wayne Grudem, who taught at Trinity PDAC view presents when interpreting the Bible, Evangelical Seminary, and is currently teaching and properly crown the Bible to a magisterial role at Phoenix Seminary and the author of Systematic and science to a ministerial role when interpreting Theology, has affirmed that Progressive Day-Age the creation account. Creationism is a valid “option for Christians who believe the Bible today” (Grudem 2000, 297–300).1 Central Tenets of the J. P. Moreland from Biola University, who is open to Progressive Day-Age Creationism the possibility of Progressive Day-Age Creationism, The most vocal proponent of PDAC is Hugh Ross but not committed,2 remarks “My own views about and those connected with the ministry Reasons To the creation-evolution controversy are divided Believe (RTB).5 Ross earned his Doctor of Philosophy between old and young earth creationism. While in Astronomy from the University of Toronto and I lean heavily toward old earth views, I do not see founded RTB in 1986.6 He has written dozens of the issue as cut-and-dried” (Moreland and Reynolds books and articles on this topic and most recently, 1999, 142). Add that when Ross published Creation in 2017, was one of four contributors to the book and Time, his book received the endorsements from Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Walter Kaiser from Gordon-Conwell Seminary, Earl Design.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Three Versions of Versions of Versions of the Book of Genesis The
    Three Versions of the Book of Genesis Below are three versions of the same portion of chapter 1 of Genesis. King James Version: The Creation 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. http://www.bartleby.com/108/01/1.html#1 Contemporary English VersionVersion:::: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    [Show full text]
  • CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, Rev 4/19)
    CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, rev 4/19) Note: This bibliography contains mainly the books that refute the evolution worldview and support the creationist young-universe view. There are only a few books from the old-universe view as noted at the end. A few other resources have been added from Robby Dean after a 4/12/19 meeting as noted with an asterisk. CREATION vs. EVOLUTION Scientific Creationism, edited by Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research, Master Books, 1974. Over 22 scientists with PhDs contribute a variety of scientific evidence supporting the creation view. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, 2000. The main evidence supporting the theory of evolution, “icons,” are explained and effectively refuted. The Lie: Evolution, Ken Ham, Master Books, 1987. The theory of evolution is refuted more philosophically than evidentially for a general audience. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood, Henry Morris, Baker Book House, 1993. The entire Bible is surveyed for passages referring to creation or God as Creator. Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny: A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity, A. E. Wilder-Smith, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1975. A professor with PhDs in organic chemistry and medical science supports the creationist position from both science and Scripture. This is an older but still a useful work. * The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach To Evolution. A. E. Wilder Smith. Older but very valuable work by a British scholar who has a Ph,D in organic chemistry, a Doctor of Science in Pharmaceuticals from the University of Geneva, and a third doctorate from the E.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Science 3 ASTRO
    THE BIBLE & ANCIENT SCIENCE 3. ANCIENT ASTRONOMY Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta Scientific Concordism Features of the Heavens from an ASSUMPTION: Ancient Phenomenological Perspective • the facts of science align with the Bible. 1. Sun Moves across the Sky Daily • that God revealed scientific facts in the Bible 1000s of years before their discovery by modern science. The sun rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other [end]. Ps 19:6 The 3-Tier Universe The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to . where it rises. Eccl 1:5 2. The Firmament (Heavenly Dome) 2ND DAY OF CREATION: God said, “Let there be a firmament between the waters to separate the water from the water.” So God made a firmament and separated the water under the firmament from the water above the firmament. And it was so. God called the firmament ‘heavens.’ There was evening, & there was morning––The Second Day. Gen 1:6-8 GREEK στερεωμα stereōma firmament, dome of heaven στερεος stereos hard, firm HEBREW rāqîa‘ firmament, dome of heaven Phenomenological Perspectives of Nature rāqa‘ to flatten, stamp down Context of pounding metals: They hammered out [rāqa‘] thin sheets of gold. Ex 39:3 Context of creating the heavens: Can you join God in spreading out [rāqa‘] the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze? Job 37:18 Egyptian 3-Tier Universe (1570-1085 BC) Message-Incident Principle Principle of Accommodation The concept that God descended to the level of ancient Firmament is shaded.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FIRMAMENT and the WATER ABOVE Part I: the Meaning of Raqiac in Gen 1:6-8
    The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40 Copyright © 1991 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission. WTJ 53 (1991) 227-240 THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE Part I: The Meaning of raqiac in Gen 1:6-8 PAUL H. SEELY STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars c have defined the raqia (fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome over the earth.1 Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present, however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse.2 Some conservatives have taken special pains to reject the concept of a solid dome on the basis that the Bible also refers to the heavens as a tent or curtain and that refer- ences to windows and pillars of heaven are obviously poetic.3 The word raqiac, they say, simply means "expanse." They say the understanding of raqiac as a solid firmament rests on the Vulgate's translation, firmamentum; and that translation rests in turn on the LXX's translation stere<wma, which simply reflected the Greek view of the heavens at the time the trans- lators did their work.4 The raqiac defined as an atmospheric expanse is the historical view according to modern conservatives; and the modern view of the raqiac as a solid dome is simply the result of forcing biblical poetic language into agreement with a concept found in the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish.5 The historical evidence, however, which we will set forth in concrete detail, shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid and not a merely atmospheric expanse.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenie Scott
    Expert Witness Statement by Eugenie C. Scott Contents: 1. Qualifications as an Expert Witness 2. The Nature of Science 3. The Scientific Meaning of “Theory” and “Fact” 4. History of the Creationism/Evolution Controversy Definitions: evolution, creationism, creation science Fundamentalism; Banning Evolution Creation Science “Evidence Against Evolution” and Creation Science Evolution of Creation Science Into Intelligent Design “Theory Not Fact” Policies Are Promoted By Creationists to Denigrate Evolution and Advance Creationism 5. History of Creationism in Georgia 6. History of Creationism in Cobb County 7. “Theory Not Fact” Policies are Pedagogically Harmful Respectfully submitted: Date: November 17, 2006 _________________________ Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., D.Sc. 420 40th St #2 Oakland, CA 94609 1. Qualifications My name is Eugenie C. Scott. My curriculum vitae is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A. I have a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri and honorary doctorates (D.Sc.) from McGill University, Ohio State University, and Mt. Holyoke College. In December 2006, I will receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and in May 2007, from Rutgers University. I am the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California. NCSE is a nonprofit membership organization of scientists and others that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools. NCSE is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The NCSE monitors the creationism/evolution controversy and maintains an archive of information on the recent history of the controversy, including materials relevant to the history of the creationism/evolution controversy in Cobb County.
    [Show full text]
  • A Biblical Creationist Cosmogony
    Answers Research Journal 8 (2015):13–20. www.answersingenesis.org/arj/v8/creationist-cosmogony.pdf A Biblical Creationist Cosmogony John G. Hartnett, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. johnhartnett.org Abstract According to the Bible the universe is about 6000 years old. It follows from all standard assumptions that we have a starlight-travel-time problem. With the universe being billions of light-years in extent how does light travel across the universe to earth within the timescale of only about 6000 years as laid out by summing up the years represented by the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11? This problem has been a stumbling block to many simply to believe the inerrant Word of God. Others have attempted to UHLQWHUSUHWWKH6FULSWXUHVWRIRUFHWKHPWRÀWLQZLWKVRFDOOHGPRGHUQVFLHQWLÀFGDWLQJRIWKHDJHRIWKH universe. But is this really necessary? I take another look at the problem and ask the following questions: :KDW LV DEVROXWHO\ QRQQHJRWLDEOH" :KDW FDQ ZH VD\ IRU VXUH" :KDW GHÀQHV RXU XQLYHUVH" $QG LV that consistent from a biblical creationist perspective? The cosmogony I propose involves Lisle’s ASC (Anisotropic Synchrony Convention) model in a static universe with added features and a mechanism for cosmological redshifts, which is consistent with all creationist understandings of the biblical texts, and no light-travel time problem. Keywords: universe, cosmogony, tired light, ASC model, starlight travel time problem Introduction WKH galaxies (mostly via type Ia supernova What do we know from science about the size and measurements). nature (the physics) of the universe? In the following 2. The speed of light (represented by the universal I list what I believe we know, but there are some constant c is constant throughout history.
    [Show full text]
  • Tanya Sources.Pdf
    The Way to the Tree of Life Jewish practice entails fulfilling many laws. Our diet is limited, our days to work are defined, and every aspect of life has governing directives. Is observance of all the laws easy? Is a perfectly righteous life close to our heart and near to our limbs? A righteous life seems to be an impossible goal! However, in the Torah, our great teacher Moshe, Moses, declared that perfect fulfillment of all religious law is very near and easy for each of us. Every word of the Torah rings true in every generation. Lesson one explores how the Tanya resolved these questions. It will shine a light on the infinite strength that is latent in each Jewish soul. When that unending holy desire emerges, observance becomes easy. Lesson One: The Infinite Strength of the Jewish Soul The title page of the Tanya states: A Collection of Teachings ספר PART ONE לקוטי אמרים חלק ראשון Titled הנקרא בשם The Book of the Beinonim ספר של בינונים Compiled from sacred books and Heavenly מלוקט מפי ספרים ומפי סופרים קדושי עליון נ״ע teachers, whose souls are in paradise; based מיוסד על פסוק כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו upon the verse, “For this matter is very near to לבאר היטב איך הוא קרוב מאד בדרך ארוכה וקצרה ”;you, it is in your mouth and heart to fulfill it בעזה״י and explaining clearly how, in both a long and short way, it is exceedingly near, with the aid of the Holy One, blessed be He. "1 of "393 The Way to the Tree of Life From the outset of his work therefore Rav Shneur Zalman made plain that the Tanya is a guide for those he called “beinonim.” Beinonim, derived from the Hebrew bein, which means “between,” are individuals who are in the middle, neither paragons of virtue, tzadikim, nor sinners, rishoim.
    [Show full text]
  • Biblical Cosmology: the Implications for Bible Translation
    Journal of Translation, Volume 9, Number 2 (2013) 1 Biblical Cosmology: The Implications for Bible Translation John R. Roberts John Roberts is a Senior Linguistics Consultant with SIL International. He has a Ph.D. in Linguistics from University College London. From 1978 to 1998 John supervised the Amele language project in Papua New Guinea during which time translations of Genesis and the New Testament were completed. John has taught graduate level linguistics courses in the UK, USA, Sweden, S. Korea and W. Asia. He has published many articles in the domains of descriptive linguistics and Bible translation and several linguistics books. His current research interest is to understand Genesis 1–11 in an ancient Near East context. Abstract We show that the creation account in Genesis 1.1–2.3 refers to a worldview of the cosmos as the ancient Mesopotamians and ancient Egyptians understood it to be. These civilisations left behind documents, maps and iconography which describe the cosmological beliefs they had. The differences between the biblical cosmology and ancient Near East cosmologies are observed to be mainly theological in nature rather than cosmological. However, the biblical cosmology is conceptually different to a modern view of the cosmos in significant ways. We examine how a range of terms are translated in English Bible translations, including ḥōšeḵ, təhôm, rāqîᵃʿ, hammayim ʾăšer mēʿal lārāqîᵃʿ, and mayim mittaḥaṯ lā’āreṣ, and show that if the denotation of these terms is in accordance with a modern worldview then this results in a text that has incongruities and is incoherent in the nature of the cosmos it depicts.
    [Show full text]
  • Adam and Eve—Community: Reading Genesis
    last day of creative work. In the second account, however, Man is created before anything else.2 Of course, it is not to be denied that the text did not spring up ex nihilo, created by a Volume 1, Issue 1 | Fall 2003 writer without reference to previous texts. The redactor undoubtedly had a number of Adam and Eve—Community: texts to which he could refer in creating the Reading Genesis 2-3 Genesis text, and he undoubtedly used works already familiar to him as sources. Or James E. Faulconer it is conceivable that there was no individual Brigham Young University redactor or set of redactors, but only the egin thinking about human community solidifying of an oral tradition. For our B and its possibility at the beginning, or purposes, it does not matter. In either case it almost at the beginning, one step after the is too much to assume that the final text is immemorial beginning.1 The biblical story merely contradictory. There may be of the creation of Man (’adam) and Woman contradictions within the text, but the more (’isha) and their expulsion from the garden obvious those contradictions are, the less places humans in the world in a particular likely it is that they are contradictions that way; it creates a habitation for human life so undo the text. It is too much to assume that that the history shared by humans and the the redaction of Genesis was a product of story that manifests community includes the blindness. A considerable amount of “cut possibility of gathering together all humans and paste” work was surely involved in the as unique individuals rather than simply as creation of the Genesis story, but unless we members of a collective.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creation Study Committee and the PCA's Struggle For
    University of Mississippi eGrove Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors Theses Honors College) 2016 In Six Days: The rC eation Study Committee and the PCA's Struggle for Consensus on Anti- Darwinism Michael Calhoun Wilkerson University of Mississippi. Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Wilkerson, Michael Calhoun, "In Six Days: The rC eation Study Committee and the PCA's Struggle for Consensus on Anti-Darwinism" (2016). Honors Theses. 709. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/709 This Undergraduate Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College (Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College) at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. In Six Days: The Creation Study Committee and the PCA’s Struggle for Consensus on Anti-Darwinism Michael C. Wilkerson A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Mississippi in partial fulfillments of the requirements of the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College. Oxford May 2016 Approved by ___________________________ Advisor: Dr. Theresa Levitt ___________________________ Reader: Dr. Darren Grem ___________________________ Reader: Dr. Douglass Sullivan-Gonzalez ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Like the creation account itself, this thesis began without form, and void. Without the help of several individuals, this thesis would not have been possible, and they deserve recognition for their selfless contributions to this work. First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Theresa Levitt for her tireless work of editing countless drafts of the thesis, challenging my assumptions, and encouraging me over the course of three semesters.
    [Show full text]