The two most differing points of view in the creation discussion are the Traditional Interpretation (termed Calendar-Day Interpretation in the PCA Report) of the Bible and evolution (as presented by secularists). There are several positions between these two most differing views. Differing views are presented in order of closeness to the Bible beginning with the:
Traditional Interpretation: Christians who hold the church’s traditional view of creation as being accomplished in six days of ordinary (24 hour) length are participants. The term “Traditional Interpretation” is rooted in the fact that this is the historic interpretation of the church. The term Traditional Interpretation is also termed the “Literal Interpretation”; this term focuses on the plain reading of Scripture and the perspicuity of Scripture. The term “Traditional Interpretation” is also termed the Calendar-Day Interpretation, Days of Ordinary Length Interpretation and the Twenty-four-Hour Interpretation these terms all focus on the fact that the days of creation were days of 24 hour duration. The Traditional Interpretation supported by a number of ministries that include Answers in Genesis (AIG), www.answersingenesis.org, Creation Ministries International (CMI), www.creation.com and the Institute for creation Research (ICR), www.icr.com. The traditional view is widely held among conservative Christians of every denominational background.
Concordant Views: Some Christians who believe long ages required by uniformitarian geology but not evolution hold concordant views of creation such as the Ruin-Reconstruction (Gap) Interpretation and the Day-Age Interpretation. The Ruin-Reconstruction (Gap) Interpretation is supported by The Bible Genesis and Geology, www.kjvbible.org. The Day-Age Interpretation is supported by Reasons to Believe (RTB), www.reasons.org. Concordant views are popular among conservative Christians. The Day-Age view is has been popular in Presbyterian circles. The Ruin-Restoration view has been popular in Baptist and Pentecostal circles.
Disoncordant Views: Some Christians who believe long ages required by uniformitarian geology but not evolution also hold discordant views of creation such as the Analogical Day Interpretation and the Framework Interpretation. Discordant views started to become popular in evangelical circles after 1958. The website (www.upper-register.com) has downloadable papers on the Framework Interpretation. Dr. Lee Irons (a student under and co-laborer with Dr. Meredith G. Kline) manages the website. The Framework Interpretation has appealed to academics and is taught at many Presbyterian and evangelical colleges and seminaries.
Theistic Evolution (Evolutionary Creation): Christians who believe long ages required by uniformitarian geology and in evolution are said to hold to a Theistic Evolution (also termed Evolutionary Creation). They believe that theistic evolution may be supported by the Analogical-Day Interpretation and the Framework Interpretation of creation. The most prominent supporter of Theistic Evolution is BioLogos, www.biologos.org. The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is dominated by Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution. The website is www.asa3.org. Those who support Theistic Evolution will reference discordant views of the Bible.
Intelligent Design: Some Christians and some non-Christians who believe in design rather than chance accept the teachings of the Intelligent Design Movement. This movement offers very good evidences for design but does not name the designer. The Intelligent Design Movement advocates a “teach the controversy” approach to creation. Intelligent Design is supported by the Discovery Institute, www.discovery.org. The Intelligent Design has movement has taken a lot of criticism over the years. The U.S. Supreme Courts has ruled it to be religious and therefore the Intelligent Design may not be taught in public schools. Secularists consider Intelligent Design to religion by a different name and therefore find it unacceptable.
Secularist: Secularists typically believe long ages required by uniformitarian geology and in evolution. Secularists do not require the God of the Bible or any a god for long geologic ages, evolution or anything else. This is the position of atheists and agnostics. Politically, it is expressed as “scientific atheism” by the communists. Secularists do not consider either Intelligent Design or theistic evolution to be scientific. Court decisions in the United States have banned the teaching of both creation science and intelligent design in American public education. Based on these decisions, it appears that the teaching of theistic evolution would also be banned in American public education.