INTRODUCTION: John Bauer

[John Bauer]

So a brief introduction. Right. Well, I am an evangelical Christian, have been for roughly 20 years now, with a highly developed biblical world-view and a deep systematic theology. Yeah, I sorta take my religion seriously. I am also a husband and father, a middle-aged blue-collar professional, a skeptic and critical thinker, a strong advocate for science education and literacy, and an aspiring writer. I passionately study theology and science, have learned just enough philosophy to be dangerous, and I'm possessed by an insatiable love of books. I also love the natural world, strongly believe in environmental stewardship, and patiently explain climate change to those who seem oblivious to its realities.

For the first six years of my Christian faith, I was a zealous young-earth creationist who vigorously opposed evolution and its "naturalistic dogma." However, the strength and consistency of the evidence from astronomy and physics eventually convinced me that the universe had to be several billion years old, and soon the cumulative case from equally compelling evidence led me to accept that the age of the earth was far greater than I had been told. (I was still firmly opposed to evolution, however, though my zeal had been tempered by the exposure of my ignorance.)

But this left me confused about the narrative of creation in Genesis and how to understand it, for the days of creation are clearly not vast ages of time but ordinary 24-hour periods. That conviction prevented me from ever accepting the Day–Age view (the days of creation were vast ages), nor could I accept the Gap view (inserting billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2). In all my studies, neither interpretation enjoyed the strength of the Calendar Day view, which I've always retained.

For the next five years I suspended any pursuit of those issues for the sake of advanced theological study (personally, not academically), exploring the fundamentals of Reformed theology, starting with the five solas and the doctrines of grace but then focusing on covenant theology. Although I have belonged to a Baptist church basically this whole time, my biblical world-view is significantly influenced by the doctrinal convictions of Old Princeton and Westminster Theological Seminary (neither of which I have ever attended).

It was not until about 2010 that I revisited the issue of origins and what to make of Genesis 1, as a result of a book recommendation from Amazon. My view began to consolidate the theological work of Gregory K. Beale and the exegetical analyses of John H. Walton, with some non-trivial influence from J. Richard Middleton and many others. My religious views have been shaped largely by such theologians as John Murray, Benjamin B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, Louis Berkhof, Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, and others including Karl Barth to some extent (supralapsarian christology).

Once I finally understood what science is and how it works, and particularly the theory and science of evolution, apprehended from an evangelical perspective with a strong commitment to Scripture, I have been making it my mission to make sense of these things for those Christians who share similar concerns and commitments. The so-called war between science and faith is a manufactured one, unnecessary yet vociferously maintained by fallacious arguments defended by the fundamentalists on both sides of the imaginary divide (e.g., Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins). Science education and literacy is so critically important and needed right now, at a time where we are fighting important battles which science and technology are uniquely suited to address. But it requires changing the hearts and minds of those who have been taught to see science as an enemy of faith.

-- John Bauer

[Bust Nak]

I was still firmly opposed to evolution...

You say "was," how about now?

[ttruscott]

Welome, John.

Supralapsarian? We'll be discussing this Ithink...

[otseng]

However, the strength and consistency of the evidence from astronomy and physics eventually convinced me that the universe had to be several billion years old, and soon the cumulative case from equally compelling evidence led me to accept that the age of the earth was far greater than I had been told. (I was still firmly opposed to evolution, however, though my zeal had been tempered by the exposure of my ignorance.)

I believe it is quite possible to believe in an old universe and a young earth at the same time.

In all my studies, neither interpretation enjoyed the strength of the Calendar Day view, which I've always retained.

I lean towards a literal 24 hour day of creation (from Earth perspective). Yet I also believe it is old from the universe perspective.

For the next five years I suspended any pursuit of those issues for the sake of advanced theological study (personally, not academically), exploring the fundamentals of Reformed theology, starting with the five solas and the doctrines of grace but then focusing on covenant theology.

I'm also spending more time on personal theological study. Currently, trying to learn Greek and write my own translation of the Bible.

The so-called war between science and faith is a manufactured one, unnecessary yet vociferously maintained by fallacious arguments defended by the fundamentalists on both sides of the imaginary divide (e.g., Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins).

I completely agree!

Look forward to reading more of your posts in the forum.

[John Bauer]

I was still firmly opposed to evolution (...)

You say "was," how about now?

Oh, sorry. I really ought to have been more clear. Seems I forgot a fair bit of information. Not sure how I lost track of what I was writing.

But no, I am not opposed to evolution. I am an evolutionary creationist, which is a theological view that deals with how to understand the science of evolution from within a biblical world-view. It is not a scientific theory or research program, it is a theological view and thus argued by different principles and methods than that which governs science. It is the belief that natural processes are orchestrated by God's ordinary providence in accordance with his good pleasure and the purposes of his will. My views are somewhat similar to those of Denis R. Alexander, but a lot more like what Benjamin B. Warfield's view would have been had he lived long enough to see the science of evolution come of age. At any rate, nearly all of my writing over the last three or four years has gone toward elucidating or explaining the natural sciences in the context of a biblical world-view for evangelical Christians who want to understand. And the theory of evolution is, of course, part of "the natural sciences."

[John Bauer]

I lean towards a literal 24 hour day of creation (from Earth perspective). Yet I also believe it is old from the universe perspective.

Gerald Schroeder?

Look forward to reading more of your posts in the forum.

Well, thank you very much.