This is my first post, so I will follow protocol and tell you a little
about myself. I am a student at Radford University in Southwest Virginia.
I became a Christian during the summer between High School and College
and became actively involved with a student Christian organization.
About a year and a half ago, I attended a national conference of the
parent ministry which oversees our on-campus church. During that time, a
pastor held a seminar on creation/evolution from the YEC perspective and,
unfortunately, I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. For the next year I
began held firmly to the YEC viewpoint, even engaging in internet debates
with biology and anthropology professors.
My faith in the young earth view was first challenged when I read Alan
Hayward's Creation/Evolution. I tried with all my might to find material
to refute Hayward and his old earth view, but I just could not find
anything credible. But what impacted me the most was when it became clear
that YEC's, whom I had put my complete trust in, were playing fast and
loose with the facts and bearing false witness against evolutionary
scientists.
As of right now, I am still undecided as to what my position actually is.
I'm wavering between a progressive creation and Theistic Evolution
viewpoint. But one thing I have determined is that dogmatic creationists,
especially young earthers, are doing a great disservice to Christianity
by putting up unnecessary barriers between believers and unbelievers.
I will probably not be a very vocal participant on this list, since I
have a fairly heavy class schedule this semester. Also, I don't have any
particular position to advocate. Any posts on my part will probably
consist of me asking questions that I need answered in order to come to
some final conclusion on the whole origins issue.
Well, enough about me. On to the first question.
I've read Dick Fischer's "The Origins Solution" and am hoping to get a
copy of Glenn Morton's book as soon as I can, (I've checked out his
web site and found it fascinating). I admire both of these men for their
attempts to reconcile science and the Bible, but I have problems with
both of their views, particularly in regards to Adam and Noah.
Mr. Fischer presents the case that Adam lived about 7,000 years ago and
is not the biological father of the human race. The problem I have with
this view is that this seems to make the virgin birth of Christ unnecessary.
be born of a virgin so that he would not have the sinful nature that Adam
passed on to all his descendants. If one accepts Fischer's view, this was
unnecessary and there would be nothing wrong with accepting the virgin
birth as some sort of allegorical teaching and not necessarily a
historical fact.
Mr. Morton believes that Adam was, indeed, the father of the human race,
and that he was an early hominid, in fact, the first hominid. I don't
really have a problem with that, but what I do find hard to accept is his
position that Noah, too, was an early hominid who lived not long after
Adam. He places the date of the flood at around 5 million years ago,
and it seems that the most advanced hominid that could possibly have
lived around that time was Homo Erectus. I find it a little hard to
believe that even Homo Erectus could have built anything as sophisticated
as the ark.
And so I am wondering about the possibility of combining these views,
making Adam the first hominid and the true biological father of the human
race, but placing the date of the flood and Noah recently, within the
last few thousand years. This would seem to clear up some problems,
(although the genealogy between Adam and Noah could not, or course, be
taken absolutely literally).
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Private e-mail is always welcomed.
God Bless,
Travis E. Doane
tdoane@runet.edu