Regarding labels:
Labels are handy when used for identification, and can help clarify thinking
about the issues. This includes the use of technical labels, as we have
been doing, which identify all of the fine gradations, distinctions, and
hierarchies between viewpoints.
Labels are lethel when used as targets. Too often they are used as
propoganda to set up granfalloons (i.e., vague divisions of "we, the good
and wise", versus "they, the evil and deceived").
Consider the following:
I like Capon's hypothesis as an explaination of Genesis 1. He holds to
literal 24 hour days, but that the days are points of completion. So God
took billions of years to create the present beasts of the fields, but once
he made them, he pronounced them finished on the 6th day of Creation. This
certainly agrees with the sentence structure of Genesis 1, although I never
picked up on it until it was pointed out to me. 'Finished' is in the sense
that the stage--or that part of the stage, the beasts--was set for the
arrival of man. This also means that the days of creation are not
consecutive days.
Also, it fits well with the taxonomy of Genesis 1, in which the 1st 3 days
involve creation of environments, and the 2nd 3 days involve creation of
populations for those environments (as according to the middle eastern mind
set of the time). Indeed the taxonomy in Genesis 1 is cultural for
Bablylonian times--who else would group birds and fish together?
And it gives poor Adam time to name all the creatures on the sixth day.
Furthermore, this allows the catagories of creation to proceed in parallel,
and each respective catagory of creation is terminated by a 24 hour day.
If I have misrepresented Capon's hypothesis, I apologize, and relabel the
above as the Capon-Sweitzer hypothesis.
So, are the days in this scheme revelatory, as with St. Augustine? It seems
to me that it fits under origen types 2 (progressive creation), 3 (Theistic
Evolution), and even 4 (Deistic Evolution). It says more about Geology (it
implies the Earth is older than 6,000 years), than about Biology (since it
allows a number of mechanisms).
Finally,
The term Evolutionary Creationist certainly makes a point. It sounds like a
contradiction, but since evolution is simply "modification of life forms
from a common ancestor", and creation refers to "created by a creator",
there is no absolute problem. The problem is that "evolution" is identified
with "accidentalism" (i.e., no creator), and "creation" is identified with
"instantaneous, fully formed". So, "Evolutionary Creationist" forces an
observer to think again about how to classify that label. While Theistic
Evolutionist might mean the same thing, it simply lacks pizazz, and doesn't
force much rethinking of the issue.
Grace & peace,
Dennis Sweitzer
sweitd01@imsint.com