Blog

by Steve Risner

We are three posts deep into a reaction to an article I found at sciencenetwork.uk called “Yes, you can be a Christian and accept evolution.” The other two posts in this series are here and here. You may want to catch up with those before continuing with this one if you haven’t read them already.

Much of what we have discussed so far has revolved around the idea that “evolution” has a variety of meanings and some are even scientific while others are not. Let’s move on today and see what this author thinks.

“So in theory God could certainly use evolution as a means of creation.” In theory, yes. In reality, based on the clear teachings of Scripture, He did no such thing at all, period. Universal common descent is void of evidence from Scripture or the natural world and, frankly, makes no sense and defies experience and the laws of nature and probability. He could have, but this is nothing like “He did.”

“…what do we do if it feels like scientific evidence is pointing us in the direction of one mechanism for creation, but Scripture points us in another?” Trust God first. Where you put your final or ultimate authority is where you’ll land. If you think man is smarter than God, you’ll trust man’s currently popular version of the humanist origins myth which will likely change in a few years. Or if the Bible is your source of ultimate Truth, you’ll allow Him the privilege of being more learned than you and you’ll accept what He tells you. “Science” is in conflict with the Bible when that science is a religious notion built on piles and piles of assumptions and extrapolations. True science testifies to the beauty of God’s creative works and His marvelous deeds. Origins cannot be a scientific study; it just cannot. You can’t observe, test, or repeat one-time past events. This is not difficult to understand at all; this is history. One’s philosophy and/or worldview will dictate what story of origins a person believes, but none of them are scientific. So science cannot point us in a direction that is contrary to Scripture when it comes to origins. Science has very little to say about it.

The author of this article then focuses on Psalm 19, a psalm of David. Regarding that psalm he says:

“…the big point he [David] wants to make about the heavens is that they communicate something about God.” Yes. They proclaim His awesome power and greatness. His magnificence is beyond comprehension. They don’t utter nonsense about the Big Bang or universal common descent or anything like that at all.

“Day and night, as we look up at the sky it is telling us something about the God who made it. The created world is like a letter from God to us saying ‘Look! I’m here! See what I’m like!’” This is why the unbeliever is without excuse. But it’s also a great reason not to hold hands with those unbelievers, trashing the Word of God and attacking Christians for their faith in Him and the truth of His Word. Don’t go beyond what is written. The Bible doesn’t tell us that nature will tell us the Gospel; it simply tells us that we have a Creator we are accountable to.

“It makes sense, then, for David’s mind to wander from one means of God’s self-communication to another.” Suggesting the “book of nature” is nearly as easy to understand or as clear a communication as the written Word of God is laughable and preposterous in my opinion. What we understand about nature is constantly revised. What we “knew” 10 years ago is hogwash today. What we “know” today will be tossed out in a few years. But the Word of God stands firm and is unchanging. He specifically tells us how He created, and less directly He tells us when He did that. There is no reason from Scripture—none at all—to hold a different view other than the one presented in the Bible. The only reason anyone does is because secularists and humanists have told their own tale of origins, and some Christians or churches have entertained it as possible even though the Bible is completely at odds with this origins myth. Nature does not tell us about the Gospel. It does not tell us any of God’s moral laws. It simply demands that we acknowledge our Creator and give Him the awe and respect He is worthy of as the Creator of everything.

“As nature illuminates for us something of what God is like, so does God’s written word, the Bible.” Again, acting like one is equal to the other is not only absurd, but it’s possibly a little blasphemous. Maybe that’s a little extreme, but I’d rather be accused by God of being zealous for His Word than being wishy-washy with it, allowing humanism to decide for me what the Bible means. I will correct this statement, however; nature does not tell us what God is like. Not at all. Nature tells us there is a God and that He’s awesome, that’s it.

“And Scripture goes further than creation can: it gives words to that which the heavens cannot articulate. The Bible spells out in detail God’s salvation plan for creation through Jesus, and gives us all that we need to know that salvation for ourselves.” Yes, I agree.

“So God uses both nature and Scripture to communicate with us about who he is.” Does nature really tell us truths about the Creator, or does it just make it clear to us that there is a Creator God? If it does speak truths about God, what are they? Are these the same truths as found in Scripture? If not, why not? If they are found in Scripture, why do we need to look to nature for them?

“The truth that we find in the pages of the Bible is God’s truth.” Why do you assault the Word of God by suggesting the clear teachings of Scripture are not true? That some other version of creation is more accurate and we needed light shed on this true version of our origins by atheists and other God-hating people?

“And the truth that we find by the study of the natural world using science is also God’s truth.” You cannot possibly argue that science discovers truth in many respects to nature. What we “know” now will be laughed at in the future as more knowledge is gained, much like what we “knew” 100 years ago is mocked today. That’s “God’s truth” in your mind? God’s Truth is the Good News, and what strategy for communicating the Gospel does not include some form of creation? To understand why we need a Savior, we need to understand creation and the events that transpired shortly after. The Gospel doesn’t make sense without a historical interpretation of Genesis. That’s just the way it is. Don’t argue with me about it; talk to the Lord who inspired His Word to be written the way it was.

We have come to a good ending point for this week’s post. I hope you’ve found this educational and thought-provoking. I always enjoy these. Take care and thank you 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.