Hans, as always, it is a pleasure to interact with you whether in person or in writing. You raise cogent points that get to the heart of the matter and ask insightful and probative questions. This case is no exception. Let me do my best to respond to your questions in the space available. Are…

These are all good questions and I will direct my additional comments toward three basic issues Hans raises: 1) the role that current scientific understandings do or should play in shaping biblical exegesis; 2) how biblical understandings might shape interpretations of data and natural history proposals; and 3) regulations for scientific community and navigating the…

Hans, thank you for your gracious and insightful comments. I appreciate your questions and the way you ask them. I’ve included your questions in my reply. The title given for the Areopagite on old earth creationism is “Old but Not Evolving.” That’s descriptive up to a point. OEC proponents do not accept the Darwinian paradigm…

The question Hans raises regarding the “conservatism principle (CP)” is fair. Does not the CP reveal that once scientific consensus obtains, theologians are then free to adjust their biblical interpretations? But the CP entails more than just recognition of scientific consensus. In the first place, the principle is based on an historical observation, not the…

First, I agree I was a little loose in my language switching between “science” and “nature.” But I don’t want to accept a high wall of division between them, either. Science is the study of nature, and to the degree that we do good science, what science tells us is what nature tells us. Clarifying…

Given your acceptance of the scientific consensus on the age of the cosmos, why do you reject the consensus regarding human evolution? So went the original prompt, intended to stimulate discussion on a recurring question faced by old earth creationists. Put another way, is there a consistent way to be an old earth creationist while…

As an evangelical Christian, the approach I use to construct origins models relies on two data sets: (1) Scripture, and (2) the record of nature. Ideally, the resulting models should comfortably accommodate both sets of data. Of course, drawing insights from Scripture and the record of nature requires an interpretive process. The approach we adopt…

A major challenge in origins-related discussions is that there are usually a variety of interrelated “forces” at work “underneath” any position one specifies. In the face of debate it is often a difficult task to narrate one’s rationale because the interactions of these convictions may not be linear or even clearly definable. Our underlying judgments…

I am an old earth creationist (OEC). The question posed to me is straightforward: since I accept what science says about the age of the earth, why don’t I also accept what science seems to be saying about human evolution? In short, my answer is twofold: 1) the science concerning human origins (particularly the Darwinian…

The question on its face is fair given that old earth creationists (OEC) appear to accept scientific consensus on everything but human evolution. But the question’s assumptions must be examined and its terms should be defined. First, I do not believe scientific consensus should dictate what I believe regarding human beings if that consensus appears…

First, let me outline my approach to Scripture and science briefly. In seeking to integrate Scripture and science as the “two books” of God, I allow each to critique the other. This makes many people uncomfortable: some would allow science to critique the Bible, but never the other way around (the “eager-to-please” position), while others…

Christians are those who strive to believe and obey the voice of God, revealed and preserved in holy writ. It is a classic position with implications for faith in the modern world, not least the tensions that some experience between biblically informed convictions and many of the claims of natural science. Even if scholars might…