Blog

by Steve Risner

Last week, we began looking at a writing from sciencenetwork.uk in association with UCCF, talking about how being a Christian does not mean you must reject evolution. We started going through this article nearly line by line. You can view the first installment of this series here. Let’s pick up where we left off:

“[Evolution is] often implied to mean ‘the belief that all of the living world (and indeed the whole universe) came into being by a process of natural selection, genetic drift, etc. that was totally random, began purely by chance, and was absolutely unguided by any kind of Creator.’” Most evolutionists would take issue with this oversimplification. But, yes, most evolutionists believe in the Big Bang, chemical and stellar evolution, the emergence of solar systems and planets, and eventually abiogenesis leading to universal common descent from a single common ancestor. Show me evolutionists who don’t believe these things are natural occurrences. There are likely some but very few. And when one says “evolution,” this is almost always what is meant. Why hold hands with atheists and other secularists to disrespect the Word of God while claiming to hold to some sort of truth? Was God not capable of informing us of His work and how He produced the universe? Was He just waiting for atheists/secularists like Darwin and Lyell and Huxley to explain the truth to us? In nearly all conversations, when the term “evolution” is talked about, this is what the discussion is about. They will start with “evolution” as the adaptation or small change due to a variety of reasons and then jump to “evolution” meaning this more naturalistic and unscientific approach to the living world.

“Do you see how that last definition is very different to the previous two?” We covered the previous two in the previous blog post. In the minds of most evolutionists, these uses of the word are not that different. If they are different, then most of the evolutionists I’ve interacted with (which is probably thousands by now) are dishonest because they talk about one definition and then assume it means the other is true as well. It’s very often we hear about “evidence for evolution” and the “fact of evolution” while what is being talked about are slight changes in a population over time—often adaptive changes that swing back and forth like the beaks on the finches that Darwin noted. If you’re going to talk about “evolution” like this, don’t confuse it with universal common descent. They are not the same thing and are hardly related.

“Clearly, Christians have to reject the idea of a totally random, unguided start to life with no Creator!” Clearly, the author of this article hasn’t interacted with many theistic evolutionists since nearly all of them that I’ve spoken with do, in fact, believe that random, natural processes did ALL of it without the assistance of God or without Him after He wound it all up and let it rip. So “clearly,” while Christians should reject a completely natural/materialistic origin for the universe and life, many (maybe most) do not. For a lot of them, God is something they throw on top of the mess as an afterthought. “Yeah, evolution is true, and random, unguided processes account for the biodiversity we see on earth, but, I mean, God was there.”

“…if by ‘evolution’ you mean evolution without a Creator.” This is interesting because the only real difference between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution is the theistic evolutionist will insert a Creator while the atheist has no need for one. In other words, there’s no real difference apart from the theistic evolutionist inserting a creator because he feels good about doing so. One of these is what the Bible refers to as a fool to be pitied. The only difference between them and the other group is one is honest enough to admit there has to be a Creator. They just don’t like to believe what that Creator told us He did. The Word tells us the existence of the Creator is obvious to everyone and that we are all without excuse.

“But rejecting evolution as a complete worldview doesn’t mean we have to chuck out evolution as a scientific theory.” For most, the distinction is hardly noticeable. And if by “evolution” we’re meaning minute changes—adaptations, epigenetic changes, degenerative mutations, population isolation, etc.—then sure. We not only can accept this but we should. It’s what we see all around us. But if we mean something more like a slime ball in some warm pond somewhere that began to diversify into fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and then mammals until ultimately man; well, no, sorry. That’s not science. That’s not factual. That’s not even remotely plausible let alone likely.

“We have a God who’s big enough and powerful enough to create any way he wants to, right?” Of course, and He explained in a great amount of detail how He did this. On days 1-6, He was busy, creating the universe, earth, seas and land, sun and moon, and sea, sky, and all the creatures. Finally, He created man in His own image. This is written very clearly in Scripture. Anything that doesn’t work with this is in opposition to the Truth of God and His creative acts. He could have done it any way He chose. He chose the way He told us about in the Bible (not just Genesis). I love how theistic evolutionists like to take the angle that “God is big enough to do it however He wanted,” but in the same breath they say, “There’s no way He could make the universe in 6 days. What? Is He some sort of magician?” I’ve had people say this very thing to me—people who claimed to be believers. I’m not sure what they believed in, but it didn’t seem to be the Bible or the God found in its pages.

“Either mechanism for creation is totally legitimate for God to use if he wants to.” Sure, but one involves a beautiful creative act while the other involves death, mutation, and genetic destruction. Which seems more God-like? Which one seems “good”? Which one was described to us in detail by Him? Which one was attested to by numerous Biblical authors? Abiogenesis and universal common descent are nowhere to be found in Scripture. Not a single hint.

“He’s God, after all!” So let Him be God. Let Him be the authority on the matter. Stop calling Him a liar.

“There’s nothing in the theory of evolution itself which says it couldn’t be designed and directed by God.” In the minds of most evolutionists, this is false. In fact, the theory of evolution is built on naturalism. The Big Bang and all that comes with it is built on naturalism. Naturalism says nature is all there is and is responsible for all that happens. Again, the only difference between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution is one arbitrarily inserts a creator to fill in the gaps. That’s it. Because they want you to believe it’s scientific, many proponents of the theory of evolution will indeed claim there is no room for God in the theory because, by definition, the theory only describes nature. God is not natural; He’s supernatural.

We’ll pause here again so we can digest this all and think about the implications. Is God God? Is He honest? Is He sufficient? Is He able to do what He said He did? Is He able to tell us what He did?

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.