Progressive Creationism
Jerry D. McDonald
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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" (Genesis 1:1-2). From children, many of us (who were
raised in Christian homes), have been taught these verses in Sunday School and at home. These verses have been burned into our
minds from almost the time that we were born. Other verses have been taught to us; verses like Psalms 19:1: "The heavens declare
the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork," and we have cherished it as well. As we grew up we began to
encounter a teaching called "evolution" and our parents quickly began to tell us that there were those who believed in such a theory,
but it was only a theory and there was no basis in fact for it. The more we studied the more we confirmed our belief in the Bible
and then we became adults. We are married and have children of our own, and we have begun teaching our children the same
things that our parents taught us; and such is as it should be. In our growing stages, no doubt, many of us heard of the
compromise between creation and evolution called "theistic evolution." These people believe that God exists, that he was in control
of all that came into existence, but he did it through the process we know as evolution. I remember when I first heard of it, I
thought someone was pulling my leg. You mean there really are people out there who believe in God, but also evolution? Yes, there
are! Even though it started out really big, because it offered an alternative and seemed to join the best of both worlds together, it
seemingly began to dwindle down; at least I don't hear much about it anymore. The name itself tends to turn many people away;
because many of those who believe in the Bible don't want to be identified as evolutionists in any way shape or fashion. Recently I
came across a new word on the internet, "Old Earth Creationists." I looked at it and wondered what it was. I asked the person who
was using the name and I was told that these were people who believed in God; believed in the Bible; but also believed that the earth
was billions of years old. My first thought was that these were people who were following Dr. Robert Grange (a scientist), who
believed that God created matter billions of years ago, then about 10 thousand years ago used that matter to create the universe out
of, thus giving what he felt was an answer to the age-old dilemma that evolutionary geologists try to impose upon the Christian
about the earth being billions of years old. He drew a parallel of a vehicle: "If you take metal that was made back in the 1950's and
forged it into a new vehicle, and if you tested the metal; it would test back to the 50's, but the vehicle would be brand new." This
seemed like a reasonable explanation; except for (as brother Bert Thompson pointed out) this isn't what the Bible says happened.
The Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). What does it mean by "in the beginning"?
Look at it from Matthew 19:4: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning
made them male and female." What does it mean by "at the beginning" there? Isn't he talking about the beginning of time; the
creation of the universe? This is exactly what Mark said about it: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female" (Mark 10:6). So if "at (or from) the beginning" in Matthew and Mark's accounts mean at the beginning of time (the creation
of all there is), then we can logically argue that "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 means the very same thing. Therefore, (if the Bible
is correct) God did not create matter billions of years earlier then 10,000 years ago use that matter to create the universe. One
might, legitimately, raise the question: "Then how do we explain the age of the earth?" When God made Adam he made him full
grown didn't he? And being made full grown he made him with all the characteristics of a fully grown man. He couldn't have made
Adam full grown without the characteristics of being full grown. The same is true with the rest of the universe. If God made it full
grown (and he did just as he did Adam) then he would have had to have made it with the characteristics of being full grown. There
is no way to make something fully grown without giving it all the characteristics of being fully grown. However after continuing
discussion with this person, who told me about the "Old Earth Creationists", I learned that these people weren't like Dr. Grange at
all. They seemed to be nothing more than Theistic Evolutionists.
I called brother Bert Thompson and asked him if he knew anything about them and he threw a word at me that I had heard of:
"Progressive Creationists." I knew what that was; just another name for a theistic evolutionist. I then went back to my acquaintance
on the internet and told him that these people were nothing more than theistic evolutionists. He denied it and recommended that I
check out a website which was operated by these "Old Earth Creationists" and see for myself. Okay...that's a fair request, so I did.
What did I find? I'll let you be the judge.
1. One of their main contributors (in the area of articles) is Dr. Hugh Ross. Dr. Ross states in his article "The Shell Game Of
Evolution And Creation":
"As an astronomer, educator and evangelical minister, I concur that the normal physical science definition for evolution is well
established--things do change with respect to time and in some cases over a time-scale of billions of years.... It is the common life
science definition for evolution that must be questioned--the hypothesis that all the changes that take place in lifeformes, both in the
present and the past, are by strictly natural processes. For the lifeforms of the present era, I would agree. We do see natural
selection and mutational advance at work within some species. But, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report, 'The production of
new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not
even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation.'"
That sounds an awful lot like evolution to me. Even the atheistic evolutionists will affirm this same thing:
"Let's take a thought experiment and travel back in time right down your unbroken personal ancestral line. As we go back we can
watch the genes reshuffle at each incarnation. Just as we start our journey we will witness a rapid decrease in the height of our
immediate ancestors, but this is due to nutritional differences, not genetic change. As we go back generation after generation,
between each generation there is perhaps a slight reshuffleing of genes, with about 100 transcription errors passed on, but no
obvious change in appearance between parents and child. Yet at some pont we will notice that our ancestors are not only smaller
(most probably) than us, but appear subtly different--yet at no time was any child a sudden departure from the norm, nor was there
a huge genetic shift. But at some point we finally decide that we've passed from our ancestors to our most recent non-human
ancestors. Yet try as we might, running up and down the time scale, we will not succeed in locating THE moment when the child
was human and the parents were not" (The Argument for the Existence of God, Michael Fisher, Tue. Feb. 11, 1997).
Mr. Fisher, here, was trying to refute arguments for the existence of God and uphold evolution. They both say that you can't
document when these changes take place, but they do take place. Both believe in natural selection and mutational changes, both
believe that such changes are so slow that one cannot detect the exact moment that these changes take place. One claims to be an
atheistic evolutionist, and the other one claims to be a progressive creationist. Tell me the difference! One believes in God while the
other doesn't, but both believe in evolution. The theistic evolutionist will make, essentially, the same arguments that the progressive
creationist will make. So, from what I read, there is no essential difference between them.
2. Dr. Ross, in another article entitled: "Genesis One, Dinosaurs and Cavemen" wrote:
"In the beginning there were no cavemen, no dinosaurs, no plants, no oceans, no mountains, no Sun, no Moon, no stars. There was
nothing, not even space and time. Only God existed. Then God spoke-suddenly creating space, time, matter, and energy. Out of
this sudden beginning all of the galaxies, stars, and planets formed....Then God's Spirit began to work over the ocean's surface.
Maybe God first created life at this point-simple-single life in the ocean....Then God gathered the ocean water to one place so that
the land would appear. Now there was not just water on the surface of the earth. There were ocean(s) and continent(s). then God
produced plants on the land, plants of various kinds....Now God created advanced animals both in the oceans or on the continents.
The first, such, creatures were small and soft-worms and slimy creatures. Then came small animals with shells, like clams, crabs,
and insects. Fish and amphibians, like frogs, were next. Then came the reptiles, such as lizards. More than 100 million years ago
God created dinosaurs....But major disaster, perhaps a nearby exploding star, an asteroid collision, or a huge volcanic eruption took
place about 60 million years ago, wiping out nearly all the dinosaur species. Only a couple of species remain, both small and almost
extinct.... The dinosaurs were not the only species to be wiped out. In fact, even when conditions on earth were favorable,
lifeforms go extinct....That is why God, during the time He was creating, was constantly replacing the extinct species with new
species.... After the dinosaurs, God created birds and mammals....Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began to create
man-like mammals or 'hominids.' These creatures stood on two feet, had huge brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead
and painted on cave walls. However, they were very different from us. They had no spirit. they did not have a conscience like we
do. They did not worship God or establish religious practices.... In time, all these man-like creatures were extinct. Then, about 10
to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve. From Adam and Eve came all the people that live on the earth
today...."
Now, I obviously left out some parts, but they were parts which had to do with the development of each species. If you would like
a copy of the entire article I will gladly give you a copy of it, but I didn't want to take up space with irrelevancies. The point is, if
you know anything about evolution, you will know that what Dr. Ross described here is evolution. He said that God intervened
from time to time, but the whole thing is essentially the theory of evolution. They throw in the idea that God created certain things,
but only to get around the problems that have been facing evolutionists for years. If you can honestly read this and argue that this
does not teach evolution in any way shape or form, I would like to hear from you.
3. On this website the question was asked which was true, creation or evolution. The response was:
"Definitions here are important. Evolution means change with respect to time; evolutionism or Darwinism has come to mean
changes by natural means only; while creation means that at least some of the changes come by supernatural means. Natural
process evolution adequately describes, for example, the formation of rain drops and the burning of stars. It cannot explain the
origin of the universe, the capacity of the earth to support life, or the origin of life. In fact, all three of the latter cases, well
established facts of science prove beyond any reasonable doubt that supernatural input was required. This does not mean, however,
that natural-process changes never occur. Nor does it negate God's superintendence over the natural processes."
Isn't this basically what the theistic evolutionists argue for? Certainly it is. There are small differences, but essentially they are the
same. The conclusion that I have reached is that I believe that "progressive creationists" are nothing more than "theistic
evolutionists." In places other than this website they deny being theistic evolutionists, but Bolton Davidheiser wrote: "Those who
espouse threshold evolution or progressive creationism distinguish it from theistic evolution as follows. Theistic evolution refers to
the total evolution, divinely directed. Progressive creationism holds that there were a number of acts of divine creation" (Evolution
and the Christian faith as quoted by Bert Thompson in Theistic Evolution, pp. 208-209). Bernard Ramm, a self admitted progressive
creationist wrote: "In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation. The amount is to be determined by the
geographical record and biological experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical radiation is only by fiat creation
(special creation jdm). A root-species may give rise to several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of unraveling of
gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the theory of
evolution." (Creation Compromises, p.189). Is progressive creationism, theistic evolution? Dr. Thompson beautifully answers this
question: "Both call in God to start creation. Both accept evolution (in varying amounts). Both accept the validity of the geologic age
system. Both postulate an old Earth. Where is the difference, except that progressive creationism allows God 'a little more to do in
the system'? Both systems put God (theos) and evolution together. By any other standard that's theistic evolution (italics mine jdm)"
(Creation Compromises, p. 193). What other conclusion can we reach? They may call themselves creationists all they want, but
their beliefs concerning creation only go so far. They may not accept the full theory of evolution (this remains to be seen), but they
do accept belief in it and that is enough to classify them as theistic evolutionists. While they go under a different name, their belief is
essentially the same as those who wear the name theistic evolutionists. I draw the only conclusion that I believe can be drawn: I
believe that they are theistic evolutionists. You will have to draw your own conclusion
"...but try the spirits whether they are of God..." (1 Jno. 4:1)
Jerry D. McDonald
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 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" (Genesis 1:1-2). From children, many of us (who were
raised in Christian homes), have been taught these verses in Sunday School and at home. These verses have been burned into our
minds from almost the time that we were born. Other verses have been taught to us; verses like Psalms 19:1: "The heavens declare
the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork," and we have cherished it as well. As we grew up we began to
encounter a teaching called "evolution" and our parents quickly began to tell us that there were those who believed in such a theory,
but it was only a theory and there was no basis in fact for it. The more we studied the more we confirmed our belief in the Bible
and then we became adults. We are married and have children of our own, and we have begun teaching our children the same
things that our parents taught us; and such is as it should be. In our growing stages, no doubt, many of us heard of the
compromise between creation and evolution called "theistic evolution." These people believe that God exists, that he was in control
of all that came into existence, but he did it through the process we know as evolution. I remember when I first heard of it, I
thought someone was pulling my leg. You mean there really are people out there who believe in God, but also evolution? Yes, there
are! Even though it started out really big, because it offered an alternative and seemed to join the best of both worlds together, it
seemingly began to dwindle down; at least I don't hear much about it anymore. The name itself tends to turn many people away;
because many of those who believe in the Bible don't want to be identified as evolutionists in any way shape or fashion. Recently I
came across a new word on the internet, "Old Earth Creationists." I looked at it and wondered what it was. I asked the person who
was using the name and I was told that these were people who believed in God; believed in the Bible; but also believed that the earth
was billions of years old. My first thought was that these were people who were following Dr. Robert Grange (a scientist), who
believed that God created matter billions of years ago, then about 10 thousand years ago used that matter to create the universe out
of, thus giving what he felt was an answer to the age-old dilemma that evolutionary geologists try to impose upon the Christian
about the earth being billions of years old. He drew a parallel of a vehicle: "If you take metal that was made back in the 1950's and
forged it into a new vehicle, and if you tested the metal; it would test back to the 50's, but the vehicle would be brand new." This
seemed like a reasonable explanation; except for (as brother Bert Thompson pointed out) this isn't what the Bible says happened.
The Bible says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). What does it mean by "in the beginning"?
Look at it from Matthew 19:4: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning
made them male and female." What does it mean by "at the beginning" there? Isn't he talking about the beginning of time; the
creation of the universe? This is exactly what Mark said about it: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female" (Mark 10:6). So if "at (or from) the beginning" in Matthew and Mark's accounts mean at the beginning of time (the creation
of all there is), then we can logically argue that "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 means the very same thing. Therefore, (if the Bible
is correct) God did not create matter billions of years earlier then 10,000 years ago use that matter to create the universe. One
might, legitimately, raise the question: "Then how do we explain the age of the earth?" When God made Adam he made him full
grown didn't he? And being made full grown he made him with all the characteristics of a fully grown man. He couldn't have made
Adam full grown without the characteristics of being full grown. The same is true with the rest of the universe. If God made it full
grown (and he did just as he did Adam) then he would have had to have made it with the characteristics of being full grown. There
is no way to make something fully grown without giving it all the characteristics of being fully grown. However after continuing
discussion with this person, who told me about the "Old Earth Creationists", I learned that these people weren't like Dr. Grange at
all. They seemed to be nothing more than Theistic Evolutionists.
I called brother Bert Thompson and asked him if he knew anything about them and he threw a word at me that I had heard of:
"Progressive Creationists." I knew what that was; just another name for a theistic evolutionist. I then went back to my acquaintance
on the internet and told him that these people were nothing more than theistic evolutionists. He denied it and recommended that I
check out a website which was operated by these "Old Earth Creationists" and see for myself. Okay...that's a fair request, so I did.
What did I find? I'll let you be the judge.
1. One of their main contributors (in the area of articles) is Dr. Hugh Ross. Dr. Ross states in his article "The Shell Game Of
Evolution And Creation":
"As an astronomer, educator and evangelical minister, I concur that the normal physical science definition for evolution is well
established--things do change with respect to time and in some cases over a time-scale of billions of years.... It is the common life
science definition for evolution that must be questioned--the hypothesis that all the changes that take place in lifeformes, both in the
present and the past, are by strictly natural processes. For the lifeforms of the present era, I would agree. We do see natural
selection and mutational advance at work within some species. But, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report, 'The production of
new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not
even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation.'"
That sounds an awful lot like evolution to me. Even the atheistic evolutionists will affirm this same thing:
"Let's take a thought experiment and travel back in time right down your unbroken personal ancestral line. As we go back we can
watch the genes reshuffle at each incarnation. Just as we start our journey we will witness a rapid decrease in the height of our
immediate ancestors, but this is due to nutritional differences, not genetic change. As we go back generation after generation,
between each generation there is perhaps a slight reshuffleing of genes, with about 100 transcription errors passed on, but no
obvious change in appearance between parents and child. Yet at some pont we will notice that our ancestors are not only smaller
(most probably) than us, but appear subtly different--yet at no time was any child a sudden departure from the norm, nor was there
a huge genetic shift. But at some point we finally decide that we've passed from our ancestors to our most recent non-human
ancestors. Yet try as we might, running up and down the time scale, we will not succeed in locating THE moment when the child
was human and the parents were not" (The Argument for the Existence of God, Michael Fisher, Tue. Feb. 11, 1997).
Mr. Fisher, here, was trying to refute arguments for the existence of God and uphold evolution. They both say that you can't
document when these changes take place, but they do take place. Both believe in natural selection and mutational changes, both
believe that such changes are so slow that one cannot detect the exact moment that these changes take place. One claims to be an
atheistic evolutionist, and the other one claims to be a progressive creationist. Tell me the difference! One believes in God while the
other doesn't, but both believe in evolution. The theistic evolutionist will make, essentially, the same arguments that the progressive
creationist will make. So, from what I read, there is no essential difference between them.
2. Dr. Ross, in another article entitled: "Genesis One, Dinosaurs and Cavemen" wrote:
"In the beginning there were no cavemen, no dinosaurs, no plants, no oceans, no mountains, no Sun, no Moon, no stars. There was
nothing, not even space and time. Only God existed. Then God spoke-suddenly creating space, time, matter, and energy. Out of
this sudden beginning all of the galaxies, stars, and planets formed....Then God's Spirit began to work over the ocean's surface.
Maybe God first created life at this point-simple-single life in the ocean....Then God gathered the ocean water to one place so that
the land would appear. Now there was not just water on the surface of the earth. There were ocean(s) and continent(s). then God
produced plants on the land, plants of various kinds....Now God created advanced animals both in the oceans or on the continents.
The first, such, creatures were small and soft-worms and slimy creatures. Then came small animals with shells, like clams, crabs,
and insects. Fish and amphibians, like frogs, were next. Then came the reptiles, such as lizards. More than 100 million years ago
God created dinosaurs....But major disaster, perhaps a nearby exploding star, an asteroid collision, or a huge volcanic eruption took
place about 60 million years ago, wiping out nearly all the dinosaur species. Only a couple of species remain, both small and almost
extinct.... The dinosaurs were not the only species to be wiped out. In fact, even when conditions on earth were favorable,
lifeforms go extinct....That is why God, during the time He was creating, was constantly replacing the extinct species with new
species.... After the dinosaurs, God created birds and mammals....Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began to create
man-like mammals or 'hominids.' These creatures stood on two feet, had huge brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead
and painted on cave walls. However, they were very different from us. They had no spirit. they did not have a conscience like we
do. They did not worship God or establish religious practices.... In time, all these man-like creatures were extinct. Then, about 10
to 25 thousand years ago, God replaced them with Adam and Eve. From Adam and Eve came all the people that live on the earth
today...."
Now, I obviously left out some parts, but they were parts which had to do with the development of each species. If you would like
a copy of the entire article I will gladly give you a copy of it, but I didn't want to take up space with irrelevancies. The point is, if
you know anything about evolution, you will know that what Dr. Ross described here is evolution. He said that God intervened
from time to time, but the whole thing is essentially the theory of evolution. They throw in the idea that God created certain things,
but only to get around the problems that have been facing evolutionists for years. If you can honestly read this and argue that this
does not teach evolution in any way shape or form, I would like to hear from you.
3. On this website the question was asked which was true, creation or evolution. The response was:
"Definitions here are important. Evolution means change with respect to time; evolutionism or Darwinism has come to mean
changes by natural means only; while creation means that at least some of the changes come by supernatural means. Natural
process evolution adequately describes, for example, the formation of rain drops and the burning of stars. It cannot explain the
origin of the universe, the capacity of the earth to support life, or the origin of life. In fact, all three of the latter cases, well
established facts of science prove beyond any reasonable doubt that supernatural input was required. This does not mean, however,
that natural-process changes never occur. Nor does it negate God's superintendence over the natural processes."
Isn't this basically what the theistic evolutionists argue for? Certainly it is. There are small differences, but essentially they are the
same. The conclusion that I have reached is that I believe that "progressive creationists" are nothing more than "theistic
evolutionists." In places other than this website they deny being theistic evolutionists, but Bolton Davidheiser wrote: "Those who
espouse threshold evolution or progressive creationism distinguish it from theistic evolution as follows. Theistic evolution refers to
the total evolution, divinely directed. Progressive creationism holds that there were a number of acts of divine creation" (Evolution
and the Christian faith as quoted by Bert Thompson in Theistic Evolution, pp. 208-209). Bernard Ramm, a self admitted progressive
creationist wrote: "In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal radiation. The amount is to be determined by the
geographical record and biological experimentation. But there is no vertical radiation. Vertical radiation is only by fiat creation
(special creation jdm). A root-species may give rise to several species by horizontal radiation, through the process of unraveling of
gene potentialities or recombination. Horizontal radiation could account for much which now passes as evidence for the theory of
evolution." (Creation Compromises, p.189). Is progressive creationism, theistic evolution? Dr. Thompson beautifully answers this
question: "Both call in God to start creation. Both accept evolution (in varying amounts). Both accept the validity of the geologic age
system. Both postulate an old Earth. Where is the difference, except that progressive creationism allows God 'a little more to do in
the system'? Both systems put God (theos) and evolution together. By any other standard that's theistic evolution (italics mine jdm)"
(Creation Compromises, p. 193). What other conclusion can we reach? They may call themselves creationists all they want, but
their beliefs concerning creation only go so far. They may not accept the full theory of evolution (this remains to be seen), but they
do accept belief in it and that is enough to classify them as theistic evolutionists. While they go under a different name, their belief is
essentially the same as those who wear the name theistic evolutionists. I draw the only conclusion that I believe can be drawn: I
believe that they are theistic evolutionists. You will have to draw your own conclusion
"...but try the spirits whether they are of God..." (1 Jno. 4:1)
 | |  |