by Steve Risner
After an abnormally long hiatus from writing, I had my interest piqued when someone online posted an article from sciencenetwork.uk about how it’s okay for Christians to believe in evolution. This platform seems to be an extension of the UCCF, University and Colleges Christian Fellowship. The article is titled, “Yes, you can be a Christian and accept evolution.” It was decently written and made some good points, but along the way, they often seemed to talk out of both sides of their mouth. As a Biblical creationist who has studied the topic for over 30 years, below is what I feel needed addressed from this article.
The article begins by saying that their title is controversial. They’re correct. But it’s only controversial because people have forsaken sound logic and given up basic reading comprehension skills to toss out what the Bible clearly tells us about creation and when it happened. They’ve accepted the humanist origins myth first and then tried to cram the Bible’s narrative into that—melding two different religious views on the subject of origins.
But they move on to say, “…[the biology students are] being taught in lectures seems to totally contradict what their Christian community has told them they should believe about creation.” This is disingenuous. It’s not that biology is teaching something contrary to some unfounded, odd interpretation of Scripture. This statement would be honest if it said, “…seems to totally contradict what their Bible has told them they should believe about creation.” This is obviously what the Bible shows us—God created the heavens, earth and all that is in them and He did it in 6 days. Adam was created on day 6, and from Adam to Jesus was about 4000 years give or take. Jesus lived 2000 years ago or so. This can be drawn from the Biblical text and corroborated with external sources. A belief in universal common descent is nowhere to be found in the pages of Scripture. In fact, much to the contrary.
“…it’s a choice between the authority of God’s word and the weight of scientific evidence.” This is why it’s hard to trust evolutionists. They say things out of both sides of their mouths, or they bait and switch, or they simply don’t understand what the basics are. It’s a choice between two competing worldviews. What they’re referring to as “science” is not science at all. Yes, evolution is a fact. But universal common descent is a fabrication and not scientific at all. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and evolutionists refuse to understand how the limits of science work. This is a clash of philosophy or, more accurately, religions. We don’t argue the facts or deny them. As Biblical creationists, we just understand that facts and opinions about those facts are not the same thing and don’t carry the same weight.
“But what if you don’t have to choose?” You don’t; this is a false dichotomy. Science and the Bible are not in conflict. However, the humanist origins myth and the Bible are seriously at odds.
“…evolution does make sense of the data.” I studied this for over 30 years in high school, college, and grad school. If you mean evolution as small changes in a population over time due to a variety of reasons, sure. If you mean evolution as in universal common descent, not at all. Not only does it not make any sense, but it’s also naïve. The number of perfectly timed and perfectly placed mutations necessary for real change to occur is beyond any reasonable person’s ability to stretch reality.
“…this doesn’t mean you have to give up on the God who inspired Genesis.” Sure. But believing in universal common descent does mean you have to reject what God said in Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, the Gospels, Paul’s writings, Peter’s writings, John’s writings, and a host of others. You are welcome to be inconsistent and carry internal contradictions, but don’t encourage others to follow you in this lunacy. As a follower of Christ and someone who trusts God’s Word, I reject the humanist origins myth—that is the Big Bang and all the cosmic evolution that had to take place after that, including abiogenesis and universal common descent from a single common ancestor.
“And if your non-Christian course mate thinks the gospel is compelling, but they couldn’t possibly believe that the world was created in the space of one week – that doesn’t have to stop them from following Jesus.” The Truth is offensive to those who are at war with God. Compromising the Truth of Scripture to win souls means you’re selling them a false Gospel. If you are embarrassed by the Bible and if you’re twisting the words of Scripture so you can win a friend, you’re not being honest with them or yourself. Can your friend believe a man dead 3 days rose from the grave under His own power and authority? It’s much harder, in my estimation, to believe in the Resurrection than it is to believe in the creation and Flood narratives.
“…you can be a Christian and accept evolution.” Very few people contest this, regardless of how you define evolution.
“In reality, we use the word ‘evolution’ in an everyday sense to mean any of a whole spectrum of related ideas.” This is what we’ve been saying forever. Evolutionists like to bait and switch or, more specifically, motte and bailey. It happens all the time. They say one thing and get you to agree and then, without indicating it, they use the same word but apply a completely different definition.
“‘Accepting evolution’ could just mean agreeing with the statement that organisms change and adapt to their surroundings over time, which is easy enough to observe in nature.” Few do not understand and accept. This is actually scientific. It’s observable. It’s demonstrable. Creationists do not argue against this at all. This is what most evolutionists will get creationists to agree to, but then they switch meanings (see below).
“…did everyone else look at peppered moths as a case study?” This is glorified as a wonderful example of evolution when it has nothing at all to do with it. Both colors of moth existed before and after “selection.” The relative numbers of each may have changed for a period. That is not evolution and is not at all related to universal common descent. And, as this article points out, it’s one of the best examples they’ve got, yet folks still believe this nonsense. If this isn’t indoctrination, I don’t know what is.
“Or we could use ‘evolution’ to mean the idea that all species, humans included, are descended from a single common ancestor, a single-celled organism swimming around in the primordial soup several billion years ago.” Yes, you can believe this, but it’s at odds with actual science and is completely at odds with what the Bible clearly tells us in multiple places about creation. Even the words of Christ Himself contradict this belief in universal common descent. Why trust man’s skewed interpretation of data he’s collected from a fallen world—beliefs that will be overturned by the next generation—rather than trust the Words of Almighty God who was there and told us about it? Do you believe Him or not? What other supernatural or historical events do you not accept from Scripture? Atheists, who are openly at war with God, need the Big Bang and universal common descent for their faith to exist. It’s the only reason such things are accepted. But to make their situation not look so utterly naïve, they slap the label “science” on it so they’re arguing from the smart guy’s position. It’s not true at all. Naturalism explains a lot, but it cannot explain origins, not even close.
We will rest here and pick it up again next week. I hope you find this quote-by-quote approach useful. I would encourage you, if you are interested, to search some of the key words in today’s blog post in the Worldview Warriors blog page to see other posts that have been written on the topics. Thanks for reading!
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.
6 comments:
It's clear that this is a case of the division between science and religion, and an irreconcilable difference between Bible literalists and Bible scholars, who use hermeneutics and other tools of interpretation, whereas others simply pick it up, read it and swallow it unconditionally.
Thanks, Jim. I appreciate you reading and commenting. While you say this is a "clear case" I find there is no supporting evidence for such a claim. This discussion has NEVER been science vs. religion (I get into that later in the series). And there are plenty of Bible scholars that take God at His Word. Of course, the further we get from the original writing of the Bible's books, the less likely a newer perspective is going to be applicable. Most scholars were in agreement on a great many things prior to humanism infiltrating the Church as a whole. But many if not all the "scholars" you would reference are likely not believers at all. This means I cannot trust anything they say on the topic.
What tools do you use in interpreting the Bible, Jim? How often have you read it and how many times cover to cover?
*SMH* Peppered Moths. There were dark and light moths before the Industrial Revolution. There were dark and light moths after the Industrial Revolution. Pictures of them on tree trunk are faked because they are placed there dead. They almost always reside under leaves, in shade. But all this gives license to show evolution as viable? Silly Rabbit. I am gonna need more than that to throw my faith away for "puppetry of moths" -- so-to-speak. ( One of my favorite uploads: https://youtu.be/LCH0TsNq9dA )
Good day, Papa Giorgio
You are absolutely correct! The peppered moth story, which I was told as a child in middle school as support for universal common descent, has no connection to it at all. The respective numbers of organisms carrying a particular trait changed--one went up while the other went down. This has nothing to do with how the moth came about, how its color scheme arose, or anything of the sort. And it's one of their better examples. A failure for sure.
Thanks for reading and for commenting.
Jim, have you run off?
"But do not forget [ignore; miss] this one thing, ·dear friends [L beloved]: To the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one day [C our perception of time is not the same as God’s; Ps. 90:4]."
It is my understanding that the 6 days of creation are actually 6,ooo years (evolution) with the one day of rest being 1,000 years of rest (evolution continuing).
“Let there be light”
It is my understanding that this is the "big bang".
Science has proven that our universe continues to evolve.
Through modern technology, we can see science catching up to the bible. Many scientist have made it their mission to prove the bible incorrect, yet end up believing that the bible is correct.
It is my understanding that there is no separation of science and the bible, but a melding of science and the bible.
I have found that by reading the bible as a historical text, rather than a religious text, I have been able to be more objective.
Initially, cognitive dissidence set in as I unpacked what I learned through christianity. Once I got over my cognitive dissidence and continued to let curiosity lead my studies, I came to the above understanding.
Many speak about the "inconsistencies" of different events in the bible, i.e. Emannuel's (Jesus') origin story. I have chalked that up to the equivalent of three witnesses telling the police what they saw happen at the scene of a collision. Although the heart of what happened is the same, the telling of events are different. Different people see/remember/recount different details.
Another example people use for inconsistencies is the "stranger" allowed to observe Passover. When reading the bible the stranger is allowed, the stranger is not allowed. Once people take the time to decipher the original words translated "stanger" in English, people will see the different types of "strangers" that are allowed to observe Passover and which "stranger" is not allowed to observe Passover. The "error" is not the bible as much as it is the translation of the original words into English (for those reading the English versions).
What is the take away?
Science is catching up to the bible and, with research, people will see that biblical "errors" are not so much "errors", as they are misstranslations from the original languages to English. I cannot speak about other languages, as I do am not fluent in the other languages that I know.
Post a Comment