Having read @kkeathley’s article in more detail I have a few comments and questions.
- Thanks Ken for the clear and concise writing. I was in a couple workshop groups with you in St. Louis and appreciated your thoughtful insights. I think the article moves the discussion forward.
- Do you see the primary, distinguishing positions of Old Earth Creationism as 1) a 4.5+ billion year old earth and 2) the special creation of Adam and Eve ? Are there more essential positions that you would include?
- I’m a little surprised by “As stated, one could hold that all life, except human life, came about by evolutionary means and still be considered an old earth creationist.” I am aware that OEC often have allowed for some amount of evolution (usually more than Young Earth Creationists) but my impression is that RTB and others would still be quite a ways from “everything but Adam”. Is that an evolving stance? (pun not intended, but still kinda funny)
- I’m also very interested in the second sentence after that, “As a matter of fact, that probably describes the position of B. B. Warfield, the great nineteenth-century defender of the inerrancy of Scripture.” There has been an occasional “war” over Warfield by OEC and EC camps and it seems this could explain it, if Warfield affirmed the evolutionary origins of all life except humans (Adam & Eve, in particular).@TedDavis do you have any thoughts?
- I share @Guy_Coe’s question on Comments on Keathley: What is at Stake? about the helpfulness of a sequential reading of Genesis 1 & 2 rather than prologue & detailed account, and how that might help develop a theological understanding of evolved vs de novo humans.