From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: a brief tirade
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:54:06 GMT

Chris Colby (colby@bu-bio.bu.edu) wrote:

: >	At some point, I'll summarize "Progressive Creationism" in
: >my "Creation" book and I'll call it a "Theory of Creation". 

: Could I ask a serious question? What good is a theory that is adaptable
: enough to cope with anything science discovers? 
: 

	Almost as good as a scientific theory, with the added flavor that
a noted theologian has put a label on it saying "Biblically Acceptable"?

	Seriously, you've been asking repeatedly for a theory of creation.
The ICR hacks don't have one.  This theory apparently is an attempt by
some sane Christian practitioners of science to do the best they can at
reconciling what Genesis says with what science has discovered.  Hence,
the extremely subtle irony of my post;  "Progressive Creationism" appears
to be the scientific theory of creation.  With a different name.  Which
is what I believe.

	O.K., full speed ahead and ignore the typos.

(I am nuts. This is long.)  I'll do it in stages.

	"In the last four chapters we looked at four competing views
of creation:  atheistic evolution, theistic evolution, the gap theory,
and six-day creationism.  Each has been well presented and well defended 
by able advocates;  but each has problems, as we have seen.  As a result,
in recent years a fifth approach to the creation process has appeared:
progressive creationism.  Briefly stated, it says that God created the 
world directly and deliberately, that is, without leaving anything to
"chance", but that He did it over long periods of time that correspond
roughly to the geologic ages.  Moreover, this creation is still going
on.  Progressive creationism attempts to show how current scientific
theories of the origins of the universe and the formation of the earth
match the revelation in Genesis.
	This approach is not entirely new.  For example, some elements 
of the progressive creationist's description of the early formation of the
earth sound much like things the gap theorists were saying earlier in this
century.  Parts of the theory would be affirmed by evolutionists.  (Ed. note: I
hate that word.)
	One book that takes this position is "Genesis One & The Origin of the
Earth" by Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann.  Newman, who holds a 
doctorate in astrophysics from Cornell University, (Ed. note:  must not be 
disciple of Sagan, Ted) is Professor of New Testament at the Biblical 
Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA (ca. 1982).  Eckelmann has been an associate
with the Center for Radiophysics and Space Research at Cornell University,
but is now pastor of a church in Ithaca.  A second book that espouses
progressive creationism is "Creation and the Flood:  An Alternative to Flood
Geology and Theistic Evolution" by Davis A. Young, son of the well-known
Westminster Theological Seminary Professor of Old Testament, Edward J. 
Young.  Davis Young is (was, ca. 1982; now at Calvin College) Associate
Professor of Geology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
	Important to each of their views is the idea that the creative
days of Genesis launch creative periods in the sense that work begun in
the earlier days continues to unfold in some form during the later days.
The progressive creationists want to make possible the appearance of some
new forms of vegetation in late geological periods even though the Genesis
account places the creation of plants and trees on day three -- to give
just one example.
	This view is held by many Christians (ED. NOTE:  See that, Lionel?)
who are in scientific fields, even though they have not published books
on their position.  It is held by quite a few biblical scholars and
theologians.

	A POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION

	Since even scientists are unsure precisely how the earth may have
formed, it is an exercise in speculation to suggest the early history
of the earth and universe.  Nevertheless, since an outline of that history
is given in the first chapter of Genesis, it is not out of place to look
at it in terms of current geological theory, which is essentially what the
progressive creationists have done.  The result is something like the
following (composite) picture of development.
	_Initial creation_.  The first verse of Genesis tells us that
"God created the heavens and the earth".  It does not tell us how God
created the heavens and the earth, nor when.  So it is permissible to
view this statement in terms of the prevailing "Big Bang" theory.  That
is, the universe had a definite beginning on the order of 15 to 20 billion
years ago.  At that point all the matter in the universe was together, but
it began moving outward in a sudden rapid expansion.  Scientists estimate
that nearly all of the elements would have been formed by the end of the
first half hour.  As matter expanded, galaxies, solar systems, and satellite
bodies were formed.  In this early period the earth would have been quite
hot.  Most of the water would have been in the atmosphere.  Consequently,
there would have been a heavy cloud layer that would have shrouded the 
earth in impenetrable darkness.  As the earth cooled, some of the cloud 
cover would have condensed and would have fallen as rain, thus 
forming oceans.  Progressive creationists feel that this state of things
is well reflected in Genesis 1:2, which says, "Now the earth was formless
and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of
God was hovering over the face of the waters."

	It is nearly the end of lunch hour, and I'm worried that the
computer will go down and I'll have to retype all of this again.  I've got
4 1/2 two-column pages to go.  This may take six days -- hmmm...

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov 
	
Newsgroups: talk.origins