Cross-posted from a closed thread (but on this same topic):
CrowCross said:
You do see my problem....you said..."I believe the earth is old and animals evolved"...which I take as darwinian style evolutionism....then you claim you're not an evolutionist.
But, you wanna play games...OK. Why can't you man up and simply present your view without being so wishy-washy?
Correct, I am not an evolutionist. There is a very good reason why I am so emphatic about this and it centers on that suffix, which represents much more than a mere semantic point.
I invite you (and the readers) to consider the impact of this suffix on the entire conversation. There is a significant difference between accepting
evolution (a question of science) and accepting
evolutionism (a question of worldview). Adding the suffix '-ism' shifts the discussion to the level of worldview, indicating an ideological or philosophical stance. Words like theism, naturalism, humanism, and materialism all represent comprehensive frameworks for understanding the world. Likewise, evolutionism elevates evolution to a central tenet that shapes all interpretation of reality. This is what Richard Dawkins represents—a worldview in which evolution becomes the lens through which all existence is understood.
But that is fundamentally antithetical to everything I believe and affirm. My belief system is not centered around evolution but around the incarnate, crucified, and risen Son of God, from whom and through whom and to whom are all things. That is the central tenet through which all else is understood and articulated. My view includes God in the most radical fashion, namely, as the axiomatic presupposition from which everything else is derived. The foundation of all my reasoning, beliefs, and knowledge is located in the presupposition of the triune God and his revelational activity with man as his covenant creatures.
We learn from scripture that man is constituted as a covenant creature, made in the image of God, such that man’s self-consciousness is a covenant-consciousness. The truth for which he had capacity and possession was interpreted and enlightened for him by God through revelation in the integrity of that covenant relationship. Given that all of creation is covenantal in character (including the cruciform nature of reality), all human reasoning, beliefs, and knowledge are analogical in nature; they are inherently covenantal activities of either obedience or rebellion. This presupposition is necessary to make sense of any human experience. Without it, one cannot account for logic, knowledge, morality, and the intelligibility and uniformity of nature (science).
It is with this presupposition in place my old-earth creationism functions as a theological model for understanding the science and history of evolution from within a biblical worldview, believing that natural processes are orchestrated by God's ordinary providence in accordance with his good pleasure and the purposes of his will. I affirm that God, as the creator and sustainer of all reality, answers why anything exists at all, that man as
imago Dei answers why we are here, that the fall answers why there is human sin and suffering, and so on.
That is why, as I emphatically insist,
I am a creationist, not an evolutionist (theistic or otherwise).
NOTE: The cruciform nature of reality emphasizes that the redemptive work of Christ on the cross extends far beyond a mere historical event or religious observance. Instead, it serves as the axis around which the entire cosmos revolves. Thus, creation has an intelligible christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be.
It isn't so much my theory as something I've read and am repeating.
