So Many Problems Just to Believe Something So Unsupported

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, March 1, 2018 6 comments

by Steve Risner

Today we're going to touch a little more specifically on theistic evolution—something that is neither in line with Christianity nor with evolution. You see, when you try to mix two opposing viewpoints, you generally end up with neither. If you mix salt water and fresh water, you don't end up with fresh-salt water. You get twice as much salt water. Theistic evolution is compromise and, when taken to its logical conclusion, it's not Christ centered and it's not in agreement with humanism (the source of evolutionism).

There's really no argument against the fact that the “theory” of evolution was birthed by godless men whose entire purpose was to “free the science from Moses.” It pains me to see Christians who, for whatever reason, have decided to try to join Christianity with this humanistic garbage. That's all it is—men who hated God and wanted to create an alternative for creation so they generated/fabricated a story about rocks that involves slime turning into humans over millions or billions of years. If the whole point was to remove God from the story, why on earth would a Christian want or need to join Christianity with it? At its origins, evolution is a replacement for God. It discredits the Bible and, therefore, the entire story of the Gospel (since the Gospel is rooted in the Genesis account of creation).

For many of these folks, the Genesis account is not a true historical account but merely some allegory or mythology designed to speak spiritual truths (while in reality not speaking literal truth). There is an amount of disingenuous activity in such a position that I haven't been able to measure yet. There is no honest, ethical way to combine the two. You simply cannot. The Gospel rests on the creation account. Without the creation account in Genesis as it's written, including the Fall and Curse, you have no real need for a Savior. Let's review a few of the reasons a Christian really cannot accept evolutionism as a co-origins theology. I’m defining evolutionism as the belief that non-life became life and, over eons of time through a series of copy mistakes during reproduction slowly changed from slime to plants, birds, spiders, dogs, and humans, as well as everything else living.

As stated already, you must reject the clear reading of the Bible's first few chapters (first 11 or 12 chapters, actually) in order to accept evolutionism. The creation account means nothing if it didn't happen. The Fall of man didn't happen. The Curse on creation didn't happen. If these things did happen according to the theistic evolutionist, I'd like to hear how that works. God says, “I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded” in Isaiah 45:12. I'm not sure how one reconciles this verse (and numerous others as well as general, foundational ideas of Christianity) and holds to Christianity and evolutionism.

Belief that man is the result of countless mutational changes and selection over millions of years makes it tough to understand how man is created in the image of God. It also means we have no idea how sin originated as something humans do and a condition humans are born into. Beyond that, we have no idea why death is said to be the result of sin if death has always been a part of nature. God pronounced death (physical death, specifically) when He proclaimed the Curse after Adam's sin. God said, “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:19). You see, God specifically points out that physical death (returning to the ground or back to dust) is a result of the sin of Adam, who was created in the image of God and has a moral responsibility and is accountable for his actions.

Evolution does not allow for this or adequately explain where sin and death came from, and this sort of minimizes the work of Christ in defeating sin and death. If death is the result of nature rather than sin, then why will we one day reign in a place that is a return to the way it was meant to be—in the Garden? In eternity, we will live forever—no death. This is not possible if death has always been a part of the creation. If it has, then we're going to die in heaven. That's how it works. Revelation 21 talks a little about that.

The origin of the work week is also in question. The day, month, and year are all designed around astronomical events. The work week is only derived from the Bible. We celebrate the creation, the first works of the Creator, by setting aside a day to marvel and celebrate Him. This is because He worked for 6 days and rested (stopped) creating on the 7th day. That is reiterated in Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17. God specifically states numerous times that He created the heavens, earth, and seas in 6 days. Why does He repeat this if it's not true? And why do so many of the Old and New Testament authors all seem to accept and firmly believe in a 6 day creation that happened at about 4000 BC? Even Christ Himself referenced “the beginning” when talking about God creating men and women. Why all this this talk of a 6-day, recent creation if it's just a story to teach a spiritual but not literal truth? There isn't a more clear way to state it in God's Word that I can tell.

Theistic evolution, like Darwinism, also allows for racism since not all “races” are the same. God's Word tells us that there is but one race—the human race. We all ultimately come from Adam, but more recently from Noah and his sons. We are all brothers and sisters to one degree or another. The racial atrocities Darwinism is responsible for is inarguable. The Bible explains repeatedly why we are all of one race and one blood and are all in the same boat—headed for death and hell without Jesus. Racism has no place in the heart of the follower of Christ, but how can the theistic evolutionist make such claims? He doesn't believe in the creation account or the global Flood. Both of these events explain the origins of man—all of us.

Generally, it seems that, for the theistic evolutionist, God is an afterthought. He's inserted more as an observer than a participant or, more accurately, the originator of all there is. The claim that science is opposed to the natural reading of Genesis (and the rest of Scripture) is far from true. Science doesn't tell us about one time past events no one was around for or understands the conditions of. It can't by its very definition. Evolution is a religious idea. It has no place in science texts. Of course I'm talking about abiogenesis and pond scum evolving over time to become fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and everything else there out there. I'm not talking about a “change in allele frequency” which is nothing like molecules to man evolution. Be wary of the theistic evolutionist, but pray for them. Pray that God reveals Himself to them as their Creator and that His Word can be trusted. The absurd amount of theological gymnastics and ignorance the theistic evolutionist has to endure (willful ignorance quite often) is astounding and enough in and of itself to reject it completely.

This isn't a salvation issue by any means. However, there is an obvious slippery slope that one must be aware of if they begin to rewrite or reinterpret the Word of God to fit their preconceived ideas taught to them by man. We should not alter our understanding of Scripture based on the currently popular interpretation concerning the humanist origins myth. It'll be different next year but will not be any more closely related to the clear teaching of the Bible.

For a great deal more reading about theistic evolution and my response to a particular theistic evolutionist's claims about theological issues for Biblical creation, you can go here (there are a number of posts in this series).

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.


ashleyhr said...

"Evolution is a religious idea. It has no place in science texts." Unfortunately for you you don't get to censor science texts.

I'm not really a theistic evolutionist - but how many religions do they have?

And, if you are so sure of your pronouncements on science, how come you either censor criticism or take about two weeks to moderate it and respond to it.

ashleyhr said...

Thanks for clearing my recent comments.

Steve Risner said...

"if you are so sure of your pronouncements on science, how come you either censor criticism or take about two weeks to moderate it and respond to it."--I'm sure that "pronouncements" are correct because they clearly are and you haven't even suggested they're not let alone provide evidence they're not. I take some time on occasion to moderate because I am a husband, I have 5 children, I run my own business which takes quite a lot of my time, I lead worship at our church as well as our men's group, I write for the Worldview Warriors, and work our homestead. And that's just the major stuff. There are many other things that occupy my time. Frankly, I don't get to it sometimes in a quick fashion because I don't think of it. My apologies. Your comments (or those of any else) are not censored--not because of scientific content anyway. If you are belligerent, you won't bet published. that's about the size of it.

I claimed evolution from a recent common ancestor was a religious idea. You have no rebuttal. Thanks. I'll take that as the matter is settled and you agree.

ashleyhr said...

You claimed that "evolution is a religious idea" on the grounds that "science doesn't tell us about one time past events no one was around for or understands the conditions of". But that is not true. Science can learn about past events. And it can rule out other past events that eg the religious insist happened.

ashleyhr said...

You also wrote under your earlier blog (22 Feb I think): "Evolution (meaning the idea that life emerged from non-life billions of years ago and slowly, over eons of time, became more and more complex and specialized, changing from pond scum to, eventually, people through a series of mutations and natural selection) is a belief system. As much as evolutionists want it to be based on evidence, it's not at all—not at all!" I challenged that misleading dogmatism under the post in question (I'm about to submit a reply to BCPeter there). It's based on evidence - not on an ancient 'infallible' book from a pre-scientific era.

Steve Risner said...

If you feel that science can tell you what happened so long ago no one was there to see it and no one understands the conditions that would have been there to allow it, I'm afraid your level of understanding is so dull on the topic that we probably can't further discuss it.
It's absolutely a fact that many stories have been told about these past events no one has a clue about, but to suggest that's science makes me chuckle. If integrating a few scientific facts into your story confirms it as "science" then I suppose Star Trek is a fact as well.