Here is the last of Erickson's 5 models, Progressive Creationism:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Creationism
Progressive creationism sees the creative work of God as a combination
of a series of de novo creative acts and an immanent or processive
Operation. God at several points, rather widely separated in time,
created de novo (i.e., he created afresh). On those occasions he did
not make use of previously existing life, simply modifying it. While
he might have brought into being something quite similar to an already
existing creation, there were a number of changes and the product of
his work was a completely new creature.
Between these special acts of creation, development took place through
the channels of evolution. For example, it is possible that God
Created the first member of the horse family, and the various species
of the family then developed through evolution. This is "intrakind"
develop- ment (microevolution), not "interkind" development
(macroevolution). For with respect to the biblical statement that God
made every creature after its kind we have already observed that the
Hebrew word yom is rather vague, so that it is not necessarily to be
identified with biological species. It may be considerably broader
than that. Moreover, considerable amounts of time are available for
microevolution to have occurred, since the word..yom.., which is
translated "day," may also be much more freely rendered.
According to progressive creationism, when the time came for man to be
brought into existence, God made him directly and completely. God did
not make him out of some lower creature. Rather, both the physical
and spiritual nature of man were specially created by God. The Bible
tells us that God made man from the "dust" of the ground. This dust
need not be actual physical soil. It may be some elementary pictorial
representation which was intelligible to the first readers.
Progressive creationism agrees with fiat creationism in maintaining
that the entirety of man's nature was specially created. It
disagrees, however, in holding that there was a certain amount of
development in creation after God's original direct act. It agrees
with naturalistic evolution, deistic evolution, and theistic evolution
in seeing development within the creation, but insists that there were
several de novo acts of creation within this overall process. And
although it agrees with theistic evolution that man is the result of a
special act of creation by God, it goes beyond that view by insisting
that this special creative act encompassed mans entire nature, both
physical and spiritual.
(Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology", 1985, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI,
pp481-482)
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven't yet done so, please indicate your first preference
among these 5 models, then I will tabulate them. I am happy to leave
names off and just present the numbers.
Thank you for participating.
God bless.
Stephen