I’ve noticed an unsettling trend among my Christians brothers and sisters who adhere to a young earth view of creationism. It’s no secret that this is, without a doubt, the most toxic debate in the church today. I cannot argue for Evolutionary Creationist views without the other side blasting me with the usual slander. “You’re elevating man’s fallible word over God’s infallible word”, “You don’t take God’s Word seriously.”, “If you don’t believe God created everything in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago, you’re calling Him a liar because it says so clearly here in Genesis 1”, “Compromiser”, “You’re a man pleaser”. I’ve even been accused of preaching a different gospel and of being an atheist!
You would think that with charges as serious as these, one wouldn’t consider me a Christian and would have no desire whatsoever to have fellowship with me. Unfortunately, after verbally abusing for daring to challenge the coloring book interpretation of Genesis 1, preferring to interpret it in its Ancient Near Eastern context (i.e the way the original audience would have understood it), when I ask if they consider me a Christian, they will say that I am, and we can be wrong on this issue without our salvation being called into question. What?
A Recent Facebook Conversation
Take this recent Facebook conversation as an example. I’ve changed the name to protect the privacy of the individual. I’m going to underline certain portions of the conversation to illuminate this person’s hypocrisy.
John Lamb: Absolute garbage. Anyone who believes in theistic evolution has an extremely limited knowledge of the full picture of the redemptive work of Christ. For through one man sin and death entered the world, so also does righteousness and eternal life through one man, the incarnation of God himself. Wake up and ditch your idolatrous understandings and believe God’s word over the liberal scientists who know next to nothing along side of God. We don’t need to become like the world to seem intellectually capable of defending God. This is not apologetics…this is foolishness and a denial of the clear word of God.
Evan Minton: *Facepalm Reaction GIF*
John Lamb: that’s exactly what I think every time some one posts this garbage you always post. That’s the problem with people like WLC that you follow. They really are clueless but they have so many followers who think they are geniuses.
John Lamb: Romans 5.
Evan Minton: Look, if you want to be like every other toxic young earth creationist out there and slander me with vitriol about me not believing God’s word, not understanding the gospel, undermining the gospel, compromising with science, and all the garbage I’ve heard blasted at me ad nauseum, then I’m not interested in having a serious conversation with you. You’re clearly way too emotional about this subject to have a rational conversation.
And I’ve heard the Romans 5 argument before. I’ve written on it. So have countless other Evolutionary and Old Earth Creationists. Do you ever read any of our writings or do you just stay in your AIG echo chamber?
John Lamb: All YEC are toxic eh? lol. Get out of here with your ad hominem attacks. AIG, yadda yadda yadda. I don’t follow any AIG or YEC’s. I follow biblical scholars who have much more training and understanding than a bubblegum scholar like WLC.
Evan Minton: Never said all YECs are toxic, but many of them are. You’re being toxic right now. Just look at your comments. Do you honestly believe that this kind of behavior facilitates fruitful dialogue?
Evan Minton: Why do you keep singling out William Lane Craig? I read plenty of other scholars like John Walton, Michael Heiser, Tremper Longman III, R.C Sproul, Gary Habermas, etc.
John Lamb: Because I know your affinity for WLC. I really don’t make time for online discussions anymore because they are completely unfruitful. I’d rather sit you down in person, teach you the difference between good and bad hermeneutical methodologies and nothing less would really make much of a difference. But, if you can post these ridiculous memes that mislead the sheep, I can post quick responses to counter your erroneous interpretations of scripture as a whole.
Evan Minton: Truth be told, you don’t seem like the kind of person I’d ever want to meet in real life.
After saying “Anyone who believes in theistic evolution has an extremely limited knowledge of the full picture of the redemptive work of Christ.” and that I have an “Idolatrous understanding” (whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean), and saying I’m denying “the clear word of God”, after this barrage of vitriol this person has the audacity to call me “brother” and to go onto say he’s praying for me.
John Lamb: Yikes. That’s cool brother.
[a few comments later…….]
John Lamb: Well, ok. Take it easy Evan. I’ll be praying you as I have many times in the past. I know I come across harsh sometimes. I take God’s word very seriously and I get upset when I see others misleading God’s people by completely destroying the redemptive message in scripture.
Evan Minton: So I’m your brother in Christ even though I’m “destroying the redemptive message of scripture”? Oh how you YECs always talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Several of my friends came to my defense which led this person to claim he was the one being attacked. He ended up blocking me. This guy was totally two-faced.
Ken Ham’s Two-Faced Nature
I wish he were the only example I could think of, but sadly, this has become a trend. Ken Ham is just as guilty. Just look at these two contrasting tweets.
The same warning the prophet gave from God to the Israelites sadly applies to so many Christian leaders/academics today: “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:1) https://t.co/hauEjjNCHG
— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) April 4, 2019
BioLogos is an organization out to infiltrate Christian colleges & churches with evolution–they’ve infiltrated colleges like Wheaton & Calvin & many others. At @AiG we not only have to battle for the truth of God’s infallible Word against secularists but much of the church too
— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) April 2, 2019
comes to the topic of origins (historical science) he has just added God to the pagan religion of evolution/millions of years. He uses the word ‘science’ for evolutionary belief, which is historical science, not observational science. He founded an organization (BioLogos) that..
— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) April 3, 2019
of God. Such compromise and undermining of biblical authority is one of the reasons so many young people have doubts about God’s Word, have left the church and why the church is not impacting the culture like it used to as now the culture has impacted & weakened the church
— Ken Ham (@aigkenham) April 3, 2019
These are some pretty damning words from Ham. Yet, consider this citation from his article “Does The Gospel Depend On A Young Earth?” He writes “Many great men of God who are now with the Lord have believed in an old earth. Some of these explained away the Bible’s clear teaching about a young earth by adopting the classic gap theory. Others accepted a day-age theory or positions such as theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, and progressive creation. Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe.” (emphasis mine).
In the first tweet, Ham quotes a verse from Jeremiah in which God speaks about those destroying his sheep, linking to an article on The Christian Post in which Pastor John Ortberg of Menlo Church in Menlo, Park California spoke at The 2019 BioLogos Conference, insinuating that Ortberg and others who promote The BioLogos passage are in the same boat as the Babylonians who destroyed Israel! It isn’t hard for one to read Ham’s biblical citation and the Christian Post article and think that he’s applying it to Ortberg. He also sprays honey and venom at Francis Collins; the founder of BioLogos, saying he thinks he’s a great geneticist, it’s just too bad Collins compromised God’s word because now he’s got to call him out on that. Later tweets went onto say that BioLogos “infiltrates” Christian colleges and churches. Wait a minute. Infiltrates? Since when did Christians and Christian organizations need to “infiltrate” Christian churches and Christian colleges? We’re Christians. This “Infiltrate” language makes us Theistic Evolutionists sound like theological KGB Agents. But let’s ignore that for now. BioLogos, because of the messages they present cause AiG to have to “Battle” them “for the truth of God’s infallible word”.
He goes onto say that this is one of the reasons so many young people have doubts about God’s word and have left the church. I find this ironic because I and many other Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists think this about Young Earth Creationism! When people have it pounded into their heads that if young earth creationism is false, then the whole gospel is undermined and God’s Word isn’t true, then when they go off to college and actually study real science (not the flood geology garbage of AIG), then they find themselves faced with a choice: Reject the scientific evidence for an old earth and common ancestry, or reject their Christian faith. Many, unfortunately, do the latter. I have no problem with Christians holding a young earth view and even arguing in favor of that position, but please leave the door open and let young people know that young earth creationism and atheism aren’t their only options; there’s Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution, and there are a dozen different interpretations of Genesis they can examine. I myself think The Cosmic Temple Inauguration view is what the original author of Genesis had in mind, as does Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy. He and I talked about this interpretation in episode 11 of The Cerebral Faith Podcast.
That was a bit of a tangent. Notice how Ham’s extremely damning words contrast with what he said in “Does The Gospel Depend On A Young Earth?” He writes “Many great men of God who are now with the Lord have believed in an old earth.” and “Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe.” How can he say in one breath that we’re destroying peoples’ faith, undermining and compromising God’s word, that we “infiltrate” churches and colleges, that he needs to “battle” us and yet say “No, you’re my brothers in Christ”. Ken Ham is two-faced.
Talk Out Of One Side Of Your Mouth, Please!
These are just two examples out of a dozen I’ve seen. Young Earth Creationists tend to accuse Old Earth Creationists and Evolutionary Creationists like myself of heresy and then say we’re saved in another breath. They tell us we’re denying God’s word and undermining the gospel in one breath and then say that our salvation doesn’t depend on what we think of Genesis in another.
Stop contradicting yourselves. If you consider us damnable heretics, just say so. But don’t treat us as though we are and then call us brothers in Christ the next day. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
The Accusations Aren’t True Anyway
If you’re going to treat us like heretics, don’t tell us we’re your brothers in Christ. But why even think we’re heretics anyway? I don’t deny that God’s word is true. I don’t deny that Genesis is true. I just deny that the Young Earth Creationists’ interpretation of Genesis is the correct interpretation! Get that through your thick heads! There’s a world of difference between denying a statement is true and disagreeing with someone’s interpretation of that statement.
Suppose someone came to us from outside and said “It’s raining cats and dogs out there!” and you say “Oh my! I hope those little guys aren’t injured! Should we call an animal hospital?” and I say to you “I’m pretty sure he doesn’t really mean felines and canines are falling from the sky. This is a well-known metaphor for torrential rain.” It would clearly be obtuse for you to say “Are you calling this man a liar!?” We both believe that what the man said is true, we just interpret it differently. Moreover, I don’t accept the metaphorical route because I like it better. I have cultural precedent for doing so. This is indeed a well-known metaphorical saying that people use of torrential rain. In every place you find someone using this statement, that’s what it means. Likewise, there’s lots of literature in the Ancient Near East of creation stories being functionally oriented rather than concerning themselves with material origins, and there are plenty of Ancient Near Eastern documents that show that temples took 7 days to inaugurate, that temples were microcosms of the universe, and that at the end of the inauguration, the god would come into the temple and take his rest up in it. Likewise, there’s a lot of places in The Bible where “bara” (the word translated “create”) is not referring to the material origin of anything, and Genesis 1 is cluttered with statements that God created things with a particular purpose; an anthropologically aimed functional purpose. This makes me think that The Cosmic Temple view (defending in John Walton’s “The Lost World Of Genesis One”, and in episode 11 of The Cerebral Faith Podcast. ) is most likely correct. God took 7 24-hour days to inaugurate His cosmic temple. During this inauguration, He created functions for everything that exists, functions that pertain to us humans. After that, God “rested”, like gods typically do at the end of their temple’s inauguration.
Do you want to know what I believe? I believe in God The Father; Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord. I believe Jesus was conceived by the power of The Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. I believe that He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead and I believe He was resurrected on the third day, and ascended into Heaven to sit at God’s right hand. I believe Jesus Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead. I believe God is one divine entity that consists of three persons. I believe that The Bible is inerrant in all that it intends to teach. I believe that only by trusting in Christ’s work of atonement on the cross can we be forgiven of our sins. We cannot be saved by our own good works. They are like filthy rags to God. I believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man. This is what I believe. This is what really matters. If we agree on these things, then you should have no problem considering me a brother in Christ and I’ll have no problem considering you one.
I wish that the above is what Ham and his followers of Hamites would really focus on rather than attacking members of the body for daring to challenge the interpretation of Genesis we got in Sunday School at 5 years old.
It’s time YECs repented of the way they’ve dealt with their brothers. That’s what this article really is; a call to repentance. I don’t mind that you disagree with my stance on creation (or any other theological topic for that matter), but you are to express your disagreement civilly, respectfully. No name calling, no calling our faith into question, no saying we undermine the gospel or deny the truth of God’s word, or any other inflammatory remarks of that sort. You are to say “I think your position is incorrect. Here are my reasons why: X, Y, Z.” This is the standard of conduct we are called to as followers of Christ. The Bible says “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.” (2 Timothy 2:24), and the context of this verse reveals Paul was instructing Timothy how to deal with unbelievers. If this is how we are to treat those who oppose the gospel, how much more ought we to deal with brothers and sisters in the body of Christ we disagree with on secondary, in-house theological issues?
It’s time we talked about this issue with a demeanor fitting of those who profess the name of Christ. Satan laughs when Christians fight, especially with an unbelieving world watching (see John 13:35).
Before you go, why not click here to see why serious biblical scholars don’t take the so-called “Creation Museum” seriously. –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h33TyJkzwQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3gtb8zVhvD9WjhsOmcdqumZuAf6RIIJqSvez2kR-Pejw1Xl_j0Lwc-Vig
This Post Has 15 Comments
To some degree I agree with you as I am not a YEC.
But I'm writing primarily because I have heard of John Walton and his general thesis. However I do think there is a problem with taking other near eastern creation accounts as necessarily having any bearing on the Biblical account. This seems to be purely an assumption. If you believe that God provided various revelations to his servants throughout the ages, then why would the accounts (and assumptions) of uninspired men have any relevance? This has puzzled me since I heard about John Walton's ideas. That's not to say that they can't have some relevance (where they don't contradict the Biblical account), such as in the example of flood accounts. Although those accounts may be wrong on the details, they attest to the fact that at least there was a major flood. I should note too, that to my knowledge, John Walton's theories aren't taken particularly seriously.
From what I understand, the ANE Literature is only used to show that functional ontology is how the ancients thought and what they were primarily concerned about. It isn't used to determine our reading of Genesis, nor should it anymore than modern science should determine it.
Walton supports the case from The Bible primarily and the ANE Literature secondarily. There's certainly many places in Genesis where function is specifically created, places outside of Genesis where "bar a" is used but nothing material is actually created, and the number 7 is known to have the symbolic meaning of completion. You can make a case from scripture alone. But the ANE Literature supports it. Moreover, it shows that anthropologically oriented functionam ontology was not anomalous to ancient thinking.
I recommend checking out episode 11 of The Cerebral Faith Podcast to hear this biblical case cashed out in full.
Ok, well then that seems to be a more plausible way to approach things. One thing I see often pointed out by biblical scholars about Genesis 1:1 is that the confluence of the words "beginning" and "created" indicate creation ex nihilo. It seems to me that the only way one could interpret "beginning" any differently would be to take the Ancient Near Eastern texts as your starting point in interpreting the Biblical text. That said, I will take a look.
Evan, I would like to know if you consider yourself a theistic evolution (TE) believer?? In my understanding, TE also encompasses biology and would teach that God was involved in biological evolution which is contra to special creation. Can you cash this out for me? firstname.lastname@example.org Regards, Brian C.
I do. Although I prefer the term Evolutionary Creationist.
I believe God created the universe out of nothing at The Big Bang 14 billion years ago (Kalam Cosmological Argument), and finely-tuned the laws of physics to an extraordinarily narrow precission so that physical life could exist. He then, through ordinary providence, orchastrated the fine-tuning of the 400+ characteristics of our galaxy, solar system, and planet, to make life possible in this region of the universe.
As soon as the earth cooled, God specially created a single celled organism. From there, I believe God used his middle knowledge of what nature WOULD do in any given circumstance to guide the evolutionary process to produce the kinds of creatures he wanted.
Now, Inspiring Philosophy has a video on a view called Process Structuralism which I hope to view soon. If this view is correct, God may not have needed to use middle knowledge of what nature would do, so Molinism may not need to be applied to origins.
I guess I'll be open, I am a YEC and I've only ever seen it from the opposite side i.e. "how stupid do you have to be to believe…" fill in the blank. In your conclusion you make it clear how Christians should behave towards one another and I agree 100% but why is your article titled in such a way that you mean all YEC are two faced? Aren't you calling me a name? I've never called you any names, I frequent your sight despite our disagreement over creation. I just would prefer not to be blamed for something I've never done. If you have issues with Ken Ham or "John Lamb," or whoever please say that and not all YECs. If I have miss understood your title then I apologize.
I thought it was clear that I didn't mean to indict every single YEC on the face of the earth. I certainly know of YECs, even friends of mine, who are not at all like the people described in the article. They liked this article and said that they had long been frustrated with the divisive attitudes from their fellow YECs.
Allow me to preface my response by saying that I am a YEC, and while I have seen that kind of vitriol from my fellow YEC, I've seen the same from OEC — accusing us of being "ignorers of science" as my acerbic fellows would accuse OEC of being "ignorers of scripture". And yet, in your article, you only call out YEC, as if OEC is not guilty of the exact same hubris, or is not as much in need of repentance. This, I think, only feeds into the division rather than reconciling it.
Conversely, I'd like to applaud you for approaching the discussion in terms of disagreement rather than presuming one side or other is "wrong". And in keeping with this, I'd like to propose an argument for YEC that I didn't see represented in your article.
Rather than starting with the universe, as YEC/OEC so often does, let's start with Adam. Consider for a moment that you were God, and you created Adam literally out of the dust of the earth, as one view of Genesis suggests. How would you do it?
As an embryo? No, because he wouldn't be self-sustaining. He'd need parents to bear him, and thus he wouldn't be the "first".
As an infant? No, and for the same reason. He'd need parents to protect and provide for him.
A toddler, or child, or adolescent? No, no, and no again. He'd need parents to teach him.
I submit that you'd create him as an adult, which basic knowledge of how to provide for himself and how to interact with you. In other words, you'd create him as a life "already in progress", and thus create him with the ready-to-go capacity to self-sustain, needing you for completion but not needing you for survivability.
Just as Genesis describes in Adam's creation. If the account is to be taken literally, Adam was self-sustaining even in his first moments of life. Even at two SECONDS old, to look at him would be to see a whole lifetime of growth and development — not the "appearance" of age as some would call it, but age intentionally built in for the express purpose of being used going forward.
Note also that Adam's maturity would not be a "lie", considering that the God who created Time itself created the effects of its passage. He's more than capable — and it's more than logical — to create Adam as a life already in progress.
I would argue that this very dynamic, suggested in Adam, is the basis for a logical YEC argument that completely respects, and takes as literal, both science and scripture, without either being forced to compromise for the other.
I really like this argument and your message, Jeremy. I pray God helps us all arrive at a better understanding of the truth even if we only ‘see dimly’ this side of eternity.
Evan, I like your website (from what I have seen so far) and what appears to be sincere handling of God’s Word. You also make a valid point here about SOME YECs. I also think you are right to question Ken Ham’s attitude and behaviour towards those who disagree with his own viewpoint, since he is someone who publicly represents Christ to others inside and outside Christendom. However, just a casual observation as a brother with no feeling of obligation to defend either side of this debate: here in the UK, if somebody called me two-faced or accused me of speaking from both sides of my mouth, I would assume that I was being insulted with intent to cause offence or question my personal integrity. There is of course chance that your context is completely different to mine but perhaps, as others suggest, you could have chosen less incendiary language or phrasing.
I do find Ken overzealous in his defence of certain positions at times – positions that many Christians would argue relate to secondary issues for a believer. Still, it was actually a lecture from Ken at a university in Liverpool that led me to first question the atheistic version of evolution, so you could argue that God used Ken’s ministry to help me grow as a young believer. I also admired his passion for defending God’s Word (even if that passion extends to interpretations of God’s Word on occasion).
I may be taking the following out of context but I believe it can apply to any relationship within the body of the Church…
“May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(Romans 15:5-6 ESV)
From what you and Ken clearly attest to believe about Jesus on your platforms, I would suggest you and he are brothers in Christ and I pray that any future discourse reflects this in love.
Personally, I am not a scholar but I try to remain humble and flexible on secondary issues to the Gospel and I have yo-yo’d between stances on various issues over the years (eg. YEC/OEC; pre-Trib/Mid-Trib/whatever Trib, etc.) as I study and prayerfully meditate on the Word and listen to other believers gifted by God as teachers. This is not because I am ‘blown to and fro’ by popular theological trends or different arguments like a ‘weak reed’ nor is it because I ‘struggle to arrive at a firm understanding’ of the truth. Like you, I believe what I believe about Jesus and His life, death and resurrection but I humbly try to remind myself that my mind is still being renewed daily and I may be wrong about issues that are not foundational to saving faith so I choose to maintain a teachable spirit. There should indeed be divisions between those who claim to be believers (1 Cor 11:19), but true believers are proved in the way that we live (our fruit) and on primary issues that separate us from the likes of JWs and other false religions – not fighting amongst ourselves on secondary issues.
Sure – secondary issues are still important, often with far-reaching implications, but when we fight amongst ourselves, it is Christ’s blood we are spilling. If we could continue debating these issues in love without judgement, sniping or name-calling, imagine if people like you and Ken focused your keen minds and passion instead of finding ways to lovingly convince those outside the Church on the basis of primary issues to reconsider Christ?
I pray this comes across lovingly as I don’t want to be hypocritical in offending you the same way I think you and Ken may have offended one another.
For me, to call someone two faced means that they show different sides of them depending on the context. And with Ham, we definitely have that. We have him calling Old Earth and Evolutionary Creationists some of the most slanderous, awful, degrading things all over the place (as I’ve pointed out in this article), basically using language you would use of really immoral and blasphemous non-Christians. I mean, he compared Deborah Haarsma and Hugh Ross to Old Testament enemies of God, for Pete’s sake! But then when you ask him “Mr. Ham, are only young earth creationists getting into Heaven?”, he’ll say something like “No, no, of course not. Old Earth Christians are my brothers in Christ. We just disagree on this issue.” It certainly SOUNDS like he’s talking out of two sides of his mouth if you ask me.
Now, I realize that that may come across as harsh sounding and even insulting, but as the saying goes “If the shoe fits, wear it.” And Ham is not alone. I’ve had a lot of YECs say to me, sometimes in the same context, that I’m a Bible doubter, compromiser, that I make God out to be a liar, that I’m a man pleaser, secularist, but then they’ll say “I’m praying for you, brother!”. Do you not think that’s two-faced? If not, why not?
I also don’t doubt that God can use unsavory people in His work. Look at Ravi Zacharias, for example. Although this is not to put Ken Ham and Ravi Zacharias on the same level, by any means! Ham is just a jerk. That’s the extent of his sin. But Zacharias was a serial rapist. His two faces had even more of a contrast. But I am glad that Ham got you to question atheism.
I agree that we need to handle these discussions better. They are indeed secondary issues, and people from all three camps can be really abrasive in the way they treat people holding opposing views. However, by far and away the vast majority of this bad behavior comes from the YEC camp. When I (a Theistic Evolutionist) debate my views with Christians who affirm an old earth but disavow evolution, it’s a lot more civil. We discuss why concordism is or is not a categorically flawed approach to scripture, whether the day-age or Cosmic Temple Inauguration view is the correct reading of Genesis 1, whether the science supports or disconfirms common ancestry (although I only do this over coffee or dinner because I don’t feel qualified to debate this publicly), a fly on the wall would conclude that we’re friends who just have different views. I think many of the public conversations between Reasons To Believe and BioLogos are emblematic of this. OECs and TEs seem to get along a lot better than either do with YECs. This is sad, but it is the reality.
No the last sentence of the article, you say that Satan laughs when Christians disagree. The Bible never says he laughs: He has no sense of humour.
Well, that may be due to the fact that The Bible is not an exhaustive track record of every word and deed Satan makes. So…take that fallacious argument from silence elsewhere.
It’s also a straw man to say that I said he did it due to Christians disagreeing. It’s Christians demonizing each other and breaking off fellowship over in-house issues, treating each other like enemies over non-essential theological issues, that makes Satan gleeful.
Probably my biggest objection to God having used evolutionary means to create man is reconciling God calling creation good (and very good) while at the same time having allowed the death and suffering that would’ve necessarily taken place in the buildup to Adam finally arriving if evolution is indeed true in that respect. I’m not primarily concerned with the poor animals, which I think still merit mention in this. I’m more concerned with, say, the Neanderthals who walked, talked, looked, and behaved like Homosapiens — even mated with them. So how do you reconcile that?
I’ve written elsewhere on this site that “Very Good” does not mean something like “perfect” or “pleasurable in every single way”. Rather it means that the universe is up and running as it should be. We have a functioning eco-system and all the animals and stuff God intended to put here is ready. In a way, you could view this as God saying to Himself “Job well done.”
As for earlier hominid species, William Lane Craig has written a book on this called “The Quest For The Historical Adam”. I was just about to read it before I crashed into the worst form of ministry burnout during the entire 10 years I’ve run Cerebral Faith. Were it not for that, I would have already read it. However, based on what he has said scattered throughout different episodes of The Reasonable Faith Podcast, and particulalrly in my interview with him in Episode 100 of The Cerebral Faith Podcast, I think his model is pretty promising. I have to say that based on what little I know about it, I already find myself leaning towards it. Dr. Craig proposes that Adam and Eve were not homosapiens, but homo heidelbergenses. For one, Craig argues that this gets rid of the “bottle necking problem” in genetics and allows Adam and Eve to be the ancestors of us all. But, moreover, it incorporates rational, intelligent creatures who probably had a sense of morality and free will, into the human race rather than relegating them to mere animals, mere pre-cursors to God’s TRUE image bearers.
I recommend you check out my interview with Dr. Craig on The Cerebral Faith Podcast which can be accessed on this website. It’s also on YouTube on both the Cerebral Faith and Reasonable Faith YouTube channels.