The Evolution of a Creationist: A New Blog

According to my reading of the relevant literature, I am something of an anomaly. When it comes to the issue of origins, the different positions that one can affirm are found along a spectrum. At the far right there is young-earth creationism and at the far left there is evolutionary naturalism, while between them are a number of alternatives (e.g., progressive creationism, theistic evolution, etc.). [1] Characteristically, the fundamentalists are at either end of the spectrum, evangelical Christians at one end and militant atheists at the other. Myself, I check all of the important boxes for a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, which includes among other things an affirmation of the Reformation-era doctrine of sola scriptura. What that essentially means is that I'm fully committed to the supreme authority of the inspired word of God as the only infallible rule of faith and life. That is a pregnant and carefully worded statement containing important dog whistle terms, including "supreme," "authority," "inspired" (theopneustos) and so forth. At any rate, a person then might reasonably expect to find me somewhere on the far right of the spectrum, and on many issues that is where I land (e.g., pro-life).

However, as I said, I'm something of an anomaly because this Christian fundamentalist is open to exploring and seeking to understand the scientific theory of evolution. I am an old-earth creationist who takes Genesis 1 literally (with a Calendar Day view) while also, provisionally and tentatively, being open to accepting an evolutionary view of natural history—and this is without any contradictions, cognitive dissonance, or theological compromise.

"That's simply not possible. There almost certainly is a contradiction or compromise somewhere and you're simply not yet aware of it."

No, it actually is possible, and that is one of the reasons why I chose to start this blog. This curious yet harmonious mix of views is unfortunately not well-represented on the internet. Out of the hundreds of Christian web sites and blogs out there dedicated to education and conversation related to origins, I have discovered maybe two or three at most which represent my position, that of a fundamentalist evangelical Christian who is open to accepting the science of evolution from a stubbornly biblical world-view.

If you are the sort of person who thinks that this position is not possible, that it has to contain elements which are mutually exclusive or irreconcilable, then you are charitably invited to critically evaluate my arguments and challenge them wherever you believe they conflict with Scripture and the gospel. I rely on people like you to keep me on the straight and narrow, catching important elements that I may have overlooked.

So what sort of material can a person expect to find here? There will be basically two categories that all my writing will address.

1. Under the "pro science" category, I will typically be exploring and making sense of (a) issues pertaining to the philosophy of science, such as its scope and relevant terminology, and (b) the theory and science of evolution, including its scope and relevant terminology, and all of this from a Christian world-view for the sake of those fellow believers with a shared evangelical commitment to Scripture and the gospel.
   
2. Under the "contra science" category, I will generally provide a critical analysis of (a) the arguments made against evolutionary science by young-earth and old-earth creationists and (b) the arguments made in favor of a young-earth creation, with a focus on the biblical, theological, and scientific arguments and their consequences. [2]

It should be noted that I tend to ignore arguments from those advocating intelligent design (ID) because, as a Christian, I already believe in design. It's simply not a conclusion of which I need to be persuaded. As Cardinal Newman once said (in a letter to William Brownlow), "I believe in design because I believe in God, not in a God because I see design." [3] This, then, effectively obviates most of their arguments. Additionally, there are other ID arguments such as those raised against the steady creep of metaphysical naturalism but, as a Christian, obviously I already agree with that, too. Apart from these two areas, what else are ID arguments known for? Nothing, as far as I can tell, other than firm denouncements of the theory of evolution, which I expect will be addressed by the things I have to say under the aforementioned second category of writings. Come to think of it, that is probably where I will include critiques of their tendency toward deism, insofar as their intelligent designer, like the god of theistic evolution, seems to be essentially hands-off with respect to his creation (which I find diametrically opposed to the language of the Bible).

What about me? What can be said about the author of this blog? What does he believe? What is his position on these questions? That, dear reader, is for another article.


John M. Bauer
Approx. 725 words

----------
Footnotes:

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[1] Gerald Rau, Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 36. I placed Christian fundamentalists on the "far right" for the convenience of corresponding with our political leaning.

[2] Category 2(a) will include a sub-category called "Creationist Errors" where I expose creationist claims or arguments that exhibit less than Christ-like principles. It is really disappointing that this happens routinely enough to warrant having its own sub-category. The purpose of this is to critically evaluate literature and various other material (e.g., blogs) produced by creationists opposed to biological evolution, evaluating it for accuracy, transparency, trustworthiness, and other basic virtues, primarily in what they argue, represent, or claim. (Do they misrepresent others or the relevant science? Do they refer to claims by others without citing references? Do they demonstrate an awareness of contrary evidence, taking it seriously and addressing it? Is this done adequately? And so on.) I do this because I am convinced that, as Christians, we are ambassadors of Jesus Christ in the world and are expected to represent him and his message—which means, if nothing else, treating others with grace and love in truth, as he did. As Christians we have a higher moral obligation—so high, in fact, that it is hopelessly out of human reach apart from Christ and his work for us and within us. Furthermore, if what we believe is rooted in the infallible truth of God revealed in Scripture and nature, we have no reason to fear contrary evidence (for there should be none except where we have erred, and we do err). I think it is a reasonable expectation that Christians would engage the world and others accurately and fairly with spiritual, moral, and intellectual integrity. So whenever I encounter these types of creationist errors, I want to draw attention to them by identifying the error and correcting it, with the hope of compelling my fellow believers toward more Christ-like standards in their published material.

[3] John H. Newman, The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, ed. Charles Stephen Dessain and Thomas Gornall, 31 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 25:97.