Joel Detamore-Final Research Paper
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
290
Subject
History
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by joeldetamore
Joel Detamore
CRST 290 History of Life
October 2023
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to compare, and contrast, two views on the Genesis 1
account: Progressive Creationism (non-traditional) and 24-hour day, young-Earth Creation
(traditional). The first portion lays out the overview of Progressive Creationism, while the second
portion lays out a response to Progressive Creation through the lens of a young-Earth view and a
literal, six-day account of Genesis 1.
The audience of this paper will find the history of the non-traditional view of Progressive
Creationism, the different interpretations for the word “day” in the creation account, the differing
views on timing and the “age” of the earth, where both views align and disagree within Genesis
chapter 1, as well as implications for changes made to Biblical timelines and history. Ultimately,
this paper, through comparing and contrasting, will show why the non-traditional view of
Progressive Creationism is not Biblical and has no place in The Church today.
Overview of Progressive Creationism
The beginning roots of Progressive Creationism can truly be traced back as far as Charles
Darwin’s work in
On the Origin of Species
in 1859, and potentially even as far back as 1795 with
James Hutton’s work,
Theory of the Earth
.
1
As David McGee puts so plainly, “They sought to
dethrone the catastrophism of Noah’s Flood and replace it with uniformitarianism, the belief that
the present is the key to the past.”
2
From these two works, and mainly from Darwin’s, two
groups rose from his writings on the theory of the Genesis account: old-earth and young-earth.
Old-earth proponents believe the earth and universe are billions of years old, while young-earth
proponents believe the earth and universe are thousands of years old. Although the two works by
Darwin and Hutton helped to propel the theory in modern-day, Hugh Ross claims the Day-Age
concept appeared originally in the late 17
th
century during the Age of Science.
3
There are a handful of proposals that emerged within the old-earth believers, and we will
focus on proposal #4, Progressive Day-Age Creationism (PDAC). In its simplest form, PDAC is
the belief that the earth is billions of years old and a “creation day” is millions of years; however,
God did not use Darwin’s ideas and processes for evolution in the creating of the earth and its
inhabitants, including mankind.
4
A large, and vocal, proponent of PDAC is a gentleman named
Hugh Ross, along with his ministry, Reasons to Believe (RTB), which Ross founded in 1986.
5
Though PDAC gained much traction in modern-day theology in the mid-1980s, less than 40
1
A Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth
Creationism
, accessed October 9, 2023,
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1057&context=sod_fac_pubs
. 53.
2 Ibid.
3
Historic Age Debate: Overview, Part 2 (of 2)
, accessed October 9, 2023,
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/historic-age-debate-overview-part-2-of-2
.
4
A Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth
Creationism
, accessed October 9, 2023,
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1057&context=sod_fac_pubs
. 54.
5 Ibid.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
years ago, thanks to Hugh Ross and RTB, its roots are traced back to the late-1850s and even as
far back as the late-1790s.
A critical argument for PDAC is the Biblical usage of the Hebrew word for “day”, which
is
yom
. In the collaborative work,
Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
,
Ross’ contribution on PDAC breaks down “four distinct literal definitions in Biblical Hebrew”
for the Hebrew word,
yom
: “1). a portion of daylight hours, 2). all of the daylight hours, 3). one
of Earth’s rotational periods, and 4). a long, yet finite time period.” According to PDAC and
Ross, the Genesis account in chapter 1 sees three of the afore mentioned definitions at work:
definitions 2, 3, and 4.
6
Based off the above definitions of “day” in the Genesis account, PDAC believers do not
necessarily put a specific timing of creation into their belief. Definition #4 states that the period
is long, but finite. That is not to say they don’t believe the earth is millions, or even billions, of
years old, but there isn’t a specific number added to those millions and billions. All throughout
chapter 2 of the collaborative work mentioned above, Ross makes claims of life being and
becoming extinct millions of years ago, such as his claim that, “Between 544 and 543 million
years ago, Avalon creatures suffered a mass extinction event.”
7
While PDAC does not put
specific numbers to the timing of creation and the Genesis account, they do hold firm to an old-
earth belief and that the earth is much older than thousands of years.
Response to Progressive Creationism
6 Ken Ham and Hugh Ross et al.,
Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
(Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2017). 71-106.
7 Ibid.
In looking at the “age” of PDAC and its conceptualization in the late 17
th
century and
being propelled by Darwin and Hutton’s works, it is important to pay attention to when PDAC
appeared vs when the traditional view of a literal, six-day creation began. Ross breaks down
through different time periods, what idea(s) of a creation “day” were held and more prominent,
beginning with the Apostolic Church (30-90 AD).
8
It is important to note, through the five
different time periods he addresses, ranging from 30 AD to 1781 AD, a literal, six-day creation
belief never disappears; it holds firm as the prominent belief through these 1,750 years. Let us
not forget, this is only speaking of the time from the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is not
including the historical records of the Old Testament and the authors’ writings referring to the
Genesis account as history and a literal, six-day creation, such as the Psalmist and in God’s
rhetorical monologue to Job, retelling God’s creation. If we are to consider the Old Testament
accounts attesting to the historical account of a literal, six-day creation, a young-earth belief has
been the traditional belief for multiple millennia. Whereas the Day-Age/PDAC idea has only
been around for the last two and a half centuries. The fact that the creation story and questioning
its timeframe only came about during the Age of Science and intertwining man’s findings with
God’s Word, it is safe to conclude, by traditional standards, PDAC does not carry with it the
same weight as a traditional view of the Genesis account.
PDAC’s view of the Hebrew word “yom” is not being used contextually as is a major
component for analyzing hermeneutics in the Bible. Hermeneutically speaking, “yom” is always
referred to as meaning a literal day when it is used in a singular form, as we find 13 times
between Genesis 1:1 through 2:3.
9
The word “yom” can, and does, take on multiple
8
Historic Age Debate: Overview, Part 2 (of 2)
, accessed October 9, 2023,
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/historic-age-debate-overview-part-2-of-2
.
9
A Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth
Creationism
, accessed October 9, 2023,
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1057&context=sod_fac_pubs
.
interpretations. However, those interpretations are based on the context surrounding the use of
the word. For example, “the day of the Lord” in Amos chapter 5 or “the day when you came out
of the land of Egypt” in Deuteronomy chapter 16. These are referring to a past event and a future
event, not specifying a timeframe. However, the context in which “yom” is used in Genesis 1:1-
2:3, is referring to a literal day, not an unspecified amount of time. Moses, the presumed author
of Genesis, combines “yom” with temporal markers, such as “first” and “second” to accentuate
his intention on meaning a literal day.
10
With the poetic nature of the Hebrew language, Moses
could have used a plethora of other words to describe the creation days figuratively or
allegorically, but he didn’t. He intentionally used a noun in singular form to describe a 24-hour
day in the creation account.
Conclusion
We can see the history of Progressive Day-Age Creation stemming back as far as the late
17
th
century; with its propulsion in the Age of Science and with Darwin and Hutton’s works on
evolution and into modern-day with Hugh Ross and his RTB ministry. PDAC’s belief on the
usage of the word “yom” includes a definition of a long, yet finite period of time, nothing too
conclusive. On the contrary, we see the traditional view’s history stemming back into the Old
Testament, spanning over multiple millennia. This long-held belief gives credence to the
historical and literal understanding of the Genesis account. Additionally, the traditional view and
interpretation of the word “yom” is used contextually accurately by the author of Gensis and
leaves no room for doubt in his intentions to the reader.
10 Ibid.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
While proponents of PDAC can make solid arguments for their belief and understanding
of the Scriptures, I cannot negate the stronger evidence proposed by young-earth theologians,
scientists, professionals, and my own studies of the Scriptures and the guidance of our
“parakletos”, the Holy Spirit. I have never questioned my belief on a young-earth account. This
paper serves only as a solidification of that belief.
Bibliography
McGee, David A.
Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day ... - Liberty University
. Last
modified 2019. Accessed September 18, 2023.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1057&context=sod_fac_pubs
.
Ross, Hugh. “Historic Age Debate: Overview, Part 2 (of 2).”
Reasons to Believe
. Last modified
October 23, 2020. Accessed September 18, 2023.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/historic-age-debate-overview-part-2-of-2
.
Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah B. Haarsma, Stephen C. Meyer, and James B. Stump. “Old
Earth (Progressive Creationism): Hugh Ross.” Essay. In
Four Views on Creation,
Evolution, and Intelligent Design
, 71–106. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.