The September 2008 edition of Acts and Facts, a monthly magazine published by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), featured an article entitled "Capitulating on Creation." In it, the writer Lawrence E. Ford, executive editor of the magazine, expresses his concern for the growing number of Bible colleges, seminaries, and Christian universities that are espousing a non-literal interpretation of Scripture; nowhere is this approach more utilized than in the first two chapters of Genesis. An increasing number of Christian leaders are now supporting the pseudo-doctrine of Theistic Evolution: A theological position that provides the ostensible atheistic theory of evolution a comfortable home within the Christian worldview. Ford notes that within the last several years roughly 12,000 pastors from the United States have signed a document that rejects a literal interpretation of the creation account. As the title of his article anticipates, Ford wonders whether American Christianity is surrendering the truth of creation to the worldview of naturalism, which so often masquerades as science.

            The author's concerns are shared by many conservative Christians across this nation. His article pinpoints one of the most trying theological difficulties facing the church today and is indicative of the larger struggle between faith and science. Historically, Christianity has always had to be nimble, shifting its interpretation of Scripture in light of new scientific and technological discoveries. Such modifications were considered corrections to the current understanding of certain portions of the Bible; the error always being assigned to the interpreter and never to the text itself. Today, in the post-modern era, it is no longer just our understanding of Scripture that is challenged but the sacred book itself. The historical doctrine of Inerrancy is slowly being replaced with a far weaker doctrine of Infallibility. Where once the Bible was considered to be truthful and factual in all of its assertions, it is now only trusted in matters concerning faith and practice. With such proliferating distrust, it is no wonder that overtly antithetical theories like evolution have crept into the pages of Scripture.

            There are, of course, an unknown number of Christian leaders who have refused to relinquish the historical doctrine of Inerrancy, yet even among these ranks there exists division. Many theologically conservative leaders, not willing to open an evolution sized hole in the text of Scripture, have nonetheless supported other non-literal interpretations of the creation account. One such interpretation has come to be known as Progressive Creationism. Also called the Day Age theory, this position reinterprets Genesis chapter one in a way that allows for the supposed millions of years of earth's history. The recent popularity of this interpretation is, in large part, due to the current scientific evidence that seems to support the Big Bang theory. Supporters of this position argue that the text of Genesis chapter one can be read in a manner that is compatible with modern estimations for the age of the earth. Because this interpretation best fits the findings of modern science, we are told that it must be the right one.

            Though Progressive Creationism does not go nearly as far as Theistic Evolution, both seem to suffer from the same flaw: They allow popular scientific theory to govern their interpretations of Scripture. This technique is wrought with danger, for popular science has become a slave to religion; the religion of naturalism. Ironically, many leaders may find themselves reshuffling the meaning of Scripture at the behest of another competing religion and worldview. In the end, it is best to stick with the clear meaning of Scripture. All too often, yesterday's scientific theories become today's relics. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of the Lord endures forever." (Isa. 44:8)

Written by: Anthony Alberino