Positions on Human Origin

So there's been some news this week. News that Pope Francis has declared that the scientific theories of Evolution and the Big Bang are not only compatible with Catholic doctrine, but preferable for understanding the creation of the universe and the origin of humanity. Well that's interesting. I wish I could find the original recording of the Pope's words because I am sure the media has distorted them either by proof-texting or just making things up. In the meantime I guess counter-articles like this one will have to suffice.

http://time.com/3545844/pope-francis-evolution-creationism/

In any case, I thought it might be fun to very briefly outline the different types of positions concerning the creationism / evolution debate.


Dogmatic and Paranoid

The Bible needs to be interpreted literally in all respects. Everyone who says differently doesn't know the TRUTH! Science is a lie from the Devil and all scientists go to HELL! Anyone who doesn't believe in a literal six day creation and a young earth is also going to Hell!


Dogmatic

I believe in a literal six day creation and a young earth. I base my position on a literal reading of the Genesis creation account and read the years in the genealogies literally as well. There needs to be a literal creation because we need a literal first Adam in order to have a literal second Adam (Jesus). Science is wrong.


Creationist

The prevailing scientific theories concerning the origin and age of the earth misinterpret scientific data and ignore instances where the data doesn't line up with their theories. Carbon Dating methods are unreliable, fossil records do not prove evolution, and a world wide cataclysm... like a flood for instance, would make sense of the data even more so than an old earth + evolution.


Faith seeking Understanding

I acknowledge that my beliefs run counter to the current scientific model. I am open to discussing it though.


Gap Theorist

The world was created in six days but there is a gap in the creation story where Lucifer was cast from heaven. The missing time must fall into that gap. God then created this world out of the Luciferian world after he destroyed it in a flood similar to Noah's flood and that explains how science sees an old earth but the Bible reveals a young earth!


Origenistic Origins

The creation narratives in Genesis were never meant to be interpreted literally. The first 3 days don't have a sun or moon to mark them and chapter 2 has man and woman being made at a different time than chapter 1. What we need to understand is that God is the one who creates not his precise method of creating.


Intelligent Design

When we look at the scientific data as a whole it seems as though someone or something guided the process with a purpose in mind. Look at the harmony of how the ecosystems work on the earth, or how our human bodies work, or how the galaxy seems to be formed precisely just so that this planet can support life. Coincidence? I think not...


Catholic Position

God is not a magician who just pops everything into being. He uses the natural laws which he established to build and form the world and everything in it. Faith and Science are not enemies. Science requires the divine creator as a starting point and faith needs science to understand the physical elements of creation.


Genesis as Saga

God communicated the beginning of the earth in a way that the original audience of ancient Hebrews could understand it, as a creation narrative that mimicked other creation narratives of their neighbors. We shouldn't take the stories literally because historical criticism.


Agnostic

Don't know. Don't care.


Evolutionist

Science says that the earth is 6.5 billion years old and the universe started with a big bang. Here, take a look at these carbon dating / fossil tables / quantum physics.


Atheist

The data is clear. The earth is 6.5 billion years old. The universe started with a big bang. The Bible is WRONG! People who believe it are STUPID!