The format is Turbian.

One of the best ways to sharpen your skills as an apologist is to carefully consider the best evidence against your position. In this portion of the assignment, you will investigate the best case against the main point you presented in your original blog post. You can incorporate research from web sites, videos, or the feedback you received from the students and instructor about your blog.

One helpful resource is “From the Critical ThinkeràToolbox: Have You Considered the Other SideàBest Argument?“.

Write an 800q00-word reflection essay about what you learned in this assignment. The essay should include:

• Summary of the best argument against the main point of your blog post,
• Presentation of 1 or 2 substantial counter arguments in response the argument against your original post.
• Discussion of how this new data would change the presentation in your original post.
• An analysis of how this exercise will shape your ministry. (1/3 of the paper)

Original post was:

There is a common belief that Christians have a single view of creationism. In reality, Christians have a wide range of beliefs concerning the origins of life, the universe, and everything. This diversity of opinion is large because the Bible does not give a clear, step-by-step account of how God created the world. Moreover, different scientific views have influenced how Christians interpret the Genesis creation narrative. This discussion will cover the four different models of creation that have been proposed by different scholars.

One of the most commonly cited accounts of creation is the young-earth creationism model. This model suggests that the universe was created by God in six literal days, as outlined in Genesis 1-11. Conspicuously, one argument is that Genesis 1:5 uses the Hebrew word “yom” to mean a 24-hour day.[1] Thus, proponents argue that another word, such as “dor”, could have been used in place of “yam” if the author had intended to communicate a longer period.[2] While it is based on the Word of God, young-earth creationism has been critiqued by the younger generations since it lacks scientific evidence that could counter evolutionists.[3]

The second model is the old-earth creationism model is based on the belief that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are to be interpreted as six long periods. One argument for this model is that the Hebrew word “yom” can also mean an undefined period.[4] Additionally, the proponents of this model, like Hugh Ross, believe that God’s supernatural work can be seen in the laws of nature which He put in place at the time of creation. There are also miracles outlined in the scripture, namely transcendent, transformational and sustaining.[5]

Another model is the theistic evolution model, also known as the evolutionary creationism model. This model accepts the scientific evidence for evolution while affirming that God was the one who directed the process. One argument for this model is that “God’s accommodation is a gift of his grace to the original audience.”[6] This argument is based on the realization that different ancient cultures or religions share a near-similar understanding of creation. For example, the Egyptians and Babylonians believed that “the natural world was a god.”[7] In other words, there is a mention of a spiritual force that molded everything into existence. Theistic evolutionists also argue that there is no need to choose between science and religion, as they can coexist.[8]

Lastly, there is the intelligent design model, which affirms that there is evidence of design in nature and that this points to the existence of a supernatural designer who is God. Unlike most of the previously mentioned theories, this one is not based on Genesis, as much as it does not dispute the 6-day creation account. Proponents of this model, such as Stephen C. Meyer, hold that there are patterns in nature that cannot be explained by Darwin’s evolution theory or random chance. For example, the DNA molecule is too complex and functional to have arisen through random chance. They believe “that living organisms look designed because they were designed.”[9]

In that light, there is no doubt that these theories offer strong points that can be useful to Christians. Most importantly, they help fill gaps in Genesis that can undermine one’s Christian belief in God as the creator.

Bibliography

Ham, Ken, Hugh Ross, Deborah B. Haarsma, Stephen C. Meyer, J. B. Stump, and Stanley N. Gundry. Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017.

[1] Ken Ham et al., Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2017), 24.

[2] Ibid., 24.

[3] Ibid., 22.

[4] Ibid., 85.

[5] Ibid., 86.

[6] Ibid., 151.

[7] Ibid., 150.

[8] Ibid., 146.

[9] Ibid., 208.