Blog

by Steve Risner

We’re in the fifth and final week on this topic of “Can you be a Christian and accept evolution?” which was a question posed by an article I found on sciencenetwork.uk. You can find that article here. You can also find the first four of my blog posts on this here, here, here, and here. Thanks for reading. Let’s jump right into it.

“Psalm 19 compels us to listen carefully to both science and the Bible on this issue.” No, it doesn’t. They’re giving equal footing to nature as they do the Bible. Again, this is very similar to paganism—the worship of nature. I suggest trusting the Lord and His clear teachings on this. Is God so inept He couldn’t communicate well enough to get the message across to us? He required atheists or, at the very least unbelievers or those who reject Scripture, to point out the truth to us? I find that hard to believe.

“…is there a way to take both Scripture and science seriously and accept a mainstream view of evolutionary theory?” Not even close. The author says, “Well, yes!” like they’re excited to be a heretic. But the truth is if you don’t have reading comprehension issues, there is no way to reconcile universal common descent and the creation narrative in Genesis. It’s simply not possible. Suggesting you can reconcile these tells me you’re either not very bright, don’t understand what either are telling us, don’t care and just want to be able to walk both sides, or some combination of these. Yes, it seems quite evident that God made the biosphere capable of limited adaptation. That seems like something a loving God would do. It also seems like we can observe this happening in nature. But don’t be confused; this is not at all related to abiogenesis and universal common descent. Before you throw your hands up and say, “Abiogenesis isn’t part of evolution,” let’s be honest. First, this discussion is about far more than universal common descent. It involves the totality of the humanist origins myth from the moment of the Big Bang up until the emergence of man on the scene and all that allegedly evolved between the two. Secondly, abiogenesis is intimately linked to Darwinism and is taught alongside Darwinism in every textbook we have available to us on the topic.

“I suspect that after another century or so of good science and good Biblical scholarship we’ll be able to draw some firmer conclusions.” Again, the “truth” found in what this person is calling science is far from complete and will be changed many times over in the next 100 years. The Bible is the unchanging Word of God. This person wants to skew the meaning of Scripture to fit into some humanistic interpretation of nature that is misapplied to history. Atheism requires deep time; Creationism does not at all. There is no reason to believe in deep time unless you first have bought the humanist origins myth as true before looking at the evidence – then you HAVE to believe in deep time. But, again, the topic of origins cannot be a scientific one. The Bible is truth; I believe this, and I’m biased this way. Everyone is biased in some way, though many will deny it. Are you honest enough to admit it? But future scholarship of the Bible will only work to further the decay of the Church from the Truth found in Scripture. Many of the scholars who want to tell us about the Bible these days are secularists. They have no regard or love for the Bible and only look at it as a book of myths and legends with the occasional nugget of historical truth. Nothing supernatural. Nothing applicable to the human condition. Let the Word of God say what it says. Accept it or reject it, but don’t reject it and act like you’re maintaining some high regard for Scripture or the Lord who inspired it.

“But the very existence of these men and women – scholars committed to the authority of Scripture who also accept evolution – proves that it is indeed possible to be a faithful Christian and agree with the scientific consensus on this issue.” Not at all, but even if it did; so what? And, again, many if not most of these scholars are not believers. They are not “committed to the authority of Scripture.” Even while Paul was doing his missionary work, there were those who poisoned the Gospel or even slightly changed it, making it something other than what it was. The author is trusting now in the authority of men (although I’ve not heard of most of these people in their list) and position rather than in the written Word of God. There are some Christians who will say that abortion is okay—it’s a woman’s choice. Does the existence of these people mean this idea is good? Some Christians will say that the man is the dominating force in his home and if he sees fit to beat his wife and kids, that’s his right. Does the existence of these people mean this is right? Some Christians think there are other ways to heaven other than Jesus Christ. Jesus said He is the only way—that no one comes to the Father but through Him. Does the existence of these people mean it’s okay to seek God elsewhere? Some people, like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, think their faith and the faith described in the Bible are harmonious. Does that mean it’s true since they exist? I hope you’re seeing how utterly preposterous this is. The existence of heretics (not saying all these folks are heretics mind you) does not mean heresy is respectable and equal to the Truth.

“Paul’s aware of the complexity involved in interpreting God’s truth rightly, and he knows Christians will come to different conclusions on things.” These complexities didn’t involve creation, did they? He seemed pretty unwavering on that as did Peter and John. Jesus seemed convinced the Word of God was true on the matter of creation, too. Again, the way theistic evolutionists argue, they suggest we can’t know anything from Scripture. That’s simply not true, though it is a logical conclusion of their beliefs. It’s simply wrong.

“You don’t have to choose between two things that you hold dear.” This is such a strange statement to me. Who holds evolution or, more specifically universal common descent, dearly? The fact that the Lord Almighty built life with the ability to have limited adaptive powers is awesome. But I don’t see how someone would hold common ancestry dearly. Are we putting way too much emotion into something that is nothing more than man’s attempt to explain nature and life without God? Jesus tells us we can’t serve two masters. Our hearts can’t handle it. The two masters in this case would be Christ and nature. It just doesn’t work to worship the creation and the Creator.

“Paul’s emphasis in these matters is that we are free in Christ.” What a terrible misapplication of this thought. We are free from the power of sin. We are free in Christ to do what we ought to do. Prior to that moment of salvation, we were not capable of doing the good we ought to do. With Christ in us, we can. Freedom in Christ doesn’t mean we can believe anything we want. It doesn’t mean we can toss out any of the Holy Scriptures we don’t like. It doesn’t mean anything like what this person is suggesting it means.

“In Christ you’re free to hold to young earth creation and you’re free to embrace evolution. You’re free to sit somewhere in the middle, and you’re free to be undecided.” Just because I feel it’s worth stressing again: we are not “free in Christ” to believe anything we think sounds okay. In fact, we know the path is narrow. Compromise is not something the Lord appreciates in us. He tells us in Revelation He’d rather we were hot or cold, not lukewarm. We are not “free in Christ” to toss out entire sections of Scripture or foundational doctrines merely because a man or woman who was likely an unbeliever told us what they thought about origins that differed from the Bible. Again, do not be confused: origins is not science. You cannot observe one-time past events. You cannot make predictions about one-time past events. You cannot experiment on one-time past events. This is especially true if those events are surrounded by conditions we are in the dark about.

“…heeding Paul’s command to ‘accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you.’” This is what creationists tend to do. We do accept brothers and sisters who may be led astray concerning creation and the authority of Scripture. Some are fairly radical about it, but in general, we can accept them while simultaneously rejecting their bad theology. We have more similarities, in most cases, than differences and if we believe that Christ is the Son of God, that He lived a sinless life on earth and was crucified for our sins, only to rise again on the 3rd day and ascend into heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father, we are brothers and sisters in a spiritual sense. But I would advise believers who have rejected what the Bible tells us about creation and the Flood to get a good footing because the slope is rather slick. I’ve witnessed too many who follow this path and eventually reject the Lord altogether.

The author then, in their notations, explains that St. Augustine of Hippo is on their side here. This is simply not true. While St. Augustine had a complex view of Genesis that evolved over time, he held to a literal interpretation. This author also says Augustine did not conform to a 24-hour day time frame for the days of creation while he did maintain a historical interpretation of the book of Genesis. This is true. Augustine believed it was possible the Lord used the word “day” in the Genesis account of creation when, in fact, He created on each of those days in moments rather than 24 hours. In reality, we have no reason to believe God required 24 hours each day to complete His work. But each day is marked by something that He did unique to that day, in a specific order and consecutively. While evolutionists like to use him by misapplying his statements, Augustine was very much a Biblical creationist. He had some questions concerning exactly what happened on each of the days of creation and how long each day took (was it 24 hours or was it only seconds or minutes?) but he held firmly to the historicity of the narrative.

I pray this series of posts has helped you, the reader, understand some of the ins and outs of this debate. Evolution is a thing that happens. But evolution is also a competing story for how God created everything there is. It depends on what you mean by “evolution” when you use the term. It can describe living things or the cosmos or any number of other things when we talk about it in this debate. God gave His creation the ability to adapt to different environments within a limited degree. He’s awesome that way. Praise Him for His mighty acts! He is worthy of all our praise!

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.

by Steve Risner

This is week four on this topic of “Can you be a Christian and accept evolution?” I found an article with that says, “Yes” to this question, and I took issue with much of what they had to say. Before reading this post, I would recommend making sure you’ve read my other posts here, here, and here. This post will make more sense then. Let’s jump into it.

“We’re not free to disregard the Bible because it feels outdated.” So, why are you doing this? The Bible is timeless in its principles. And when it comes to history, how could anyone argue that changes? History happened. It was recorded. No amount of time passing can change what happened.

“We’re not free… to disregard science because its conclusions are inconvenient for our theology.” As many evolutionists are, the author of this article is confused. They think “science” is what we’re talking about when it’s nothing more than philosophy or religion. Scientific “conclusions” like gravity, pH, electricity, and so on are things you can bank on by and large. But stories about chemicals turning into life and that simple life form diversifying into all sorts of highly complex, very specialized organisms is a very naïve belief system. Feel free to discard any other religion’s take on origins if it conflicts with the clear teaching of Scripture. In short, if you read the Bible and you look at nature and they don’t seem to agree, you’re very likely misinterpreting nature. One of these revelations is a written communication from God Almighty. The other is essentially art, which can be open to a million different interpretations, and none may be correct or complete. When in doubt, side with the Lord and His Word.

“Psalm 19 urges us to take both science and Scripture seriously.” It actually does not do this at all, but theistic evolutionists want it to say this, so they feel justified in rejecting Scripture. Placing the two on equal standing is not a good idea at all. In fact, it’s a terrible idea and is akin to paganism. God gave us His Word for a reason. Nature, while able to point us to our Creator, does not speak divine truth to us. In fact, the nature we’re seeing now is cursed. The Fall was accompanied by a curse that God placed not just on mankind but on all of creation. In fact, Paul tells the Romans (and us) that “creation has been groaning” since the Fall. The creation is essentially ill. The story it may be telling us now is nothing like the story it would have told us in Eden before Adam and Eve disobeyed God for the first time, introducing sin into the world. So, taking fallen man’s skewed interpretation of a cursed creation over the perfect Word of God is insane, in my opinion. What rational person would suggest we can understand more or even as much about God from nature as we can from the book He gave us?

“At the same time, we’ve got to be realistic and humble about how good we are as fallen and limited people at interpreting God’s truth.” This is partially true. We don’t know everything from the Word of God. But we can read His thoughts in His message to us, and what He clearly tells us about creation is undeniable. Either believe what it says or reject the Word. It’s up to you and where you put your final authority. I hate to repeat myself so much, but the truth here is still the same. We are fallen, and they get that right in this article. But we also have the Word of God, which is what He wanted us to know, and He has preserved it for us. Trust Him rather than sinful man’s take on origins. Man has been at war with God for nearly 6000 years. Do you think you can trust him more so than the Creator of all that is? And, again, what is easier to believe: that we grossly misinterpreted the clear teachings of God from His Word which He left for us, or that we misunderstood something we saw in nature, or we drew the wrong conclusion about something we saw in nature or we went a little too far in that interpretation—going beyond what we actually know to be true?

“When it comes to science, we can only ever work with a partial data set, and it’s not like we can do repeatable experiments where we re-run the last 4 billion years to confirm our hypothesis.” This is why origins is NOT a scientific topic of any kind. It’s impossible, and people will assault the integrity of the tool that is science by trying to force it to be something it is not and cannot be. Universal common descent is not repeatable. It’s not observable. It’s not able to be experimented on. It’s not able to have predictive power since it’s historical (you can’t predict something that will happen in the past). They’ve demolished their entire argument here by being truthful about why universal common descent is not science. It is rare to find a theistic evolutionist so honest about this, and it’s refreshing. I’ve literally conversed with hundreds over the years. Many are hostile toward the Bible and those who believe what it says. I’m thankful this person is genuine here.

“When it comes to Scripture, we’re all too prone to bringing our own presuppositions and cultural baggage to God’s word and reading into it what we want to read.” Fortunately, as a Biblical creationist, I’ve not done this to the best of my knowledge. This is precisely what others (old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists) do all the time. You need not twist Scripture with your own cultural or whatever biases to understand the creation narrative and the rest of the history found in Genesis. The book literally spans 1/3 of all of history. It’s all very important for understanding our condition and the solution that the Lord has given to us. There is no way to justify abandoning what everyone in the Bible and for almost 2000 years after Christ understood about creation. None. The cultural differences do not change what the clear teachings of ALL of the Scriptures are concerning creation (a short and incomplete list can be found here). And the culture changed over time from Adam and Eve to Noah to Jacob and his family to Moses and then David up to the time of Christ. Different languages are represented in the Bible. Different time periods. Even different locations. What culture would we be speaking about if that dictates how we understand the Word of God? If anything, the lens of our culture would force us to toss out much of Genesis and other creation passages. Thankfully, we don’t have to be blinded by our cultural biases, and we can accept God’s Word for what it says. I’ve found no reason not to after over 30 years of looking.

“Though God has genuinely made truth accessible to us via both means, we could be (and probably are) making mistakes in how we read either science, Scripture or both (and we won’t necessarily know which).” If you think it’s possible to misunderstand Genesis, then you literally cannot accept or know anything found in Scripture. None of it is able to be grasped if the opening chapters are in question. A 7-year-old can read or hear Genesis and understand the narrative. It’s very simple. The creation account, the Fall, the curse, the Flood, the dispersion, the covenant – it’s all important, all right there, and all easy to understand. Do we have everything right from Scripture? Of course not. But the odds of us having a perfect understanding of nature are far worse than us understanding God’s written communication to us. Especially if what we are trying to force nature to say to us is 100% opposed to what the Bible tells us. When there’s a conflict, trust His Word over anything else.

Again, time has run out and we are out of space for this week’s post. I hope this has opened your eyes to some of the issues with forcing the idea of universal common descent (often referred to as simply “evolution”) into the Judeo-Christian teachings on creation. Take care and come back next week as we wrap up 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.

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.

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.

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.

by Charlie Wolcott

It has been a while since I wrote about Evolution. I’ve addressed it with issues about Creation and why we should not accept millions of years, but I haven’t address Evolution in a while. This year, as I have been reading the Bible straight through again and from the start, I caught something that I hadn’t seen before. I always knew it was there but hadn’t made this connection so clearly.

In Genesis 1:26-27, God makes mankind in His image. This alone makes man stand out from the rest of the created beings. Only man is a reflection of God and His character and shares what are called “communicable attributes.” While animals do have emotions, they are not the same as human emotions. There are some similarities, but we are different. Animal emotions are instinctive, whereas man’s emotions are often a choice. We don’t recognize it often, but we can actually choose how we react emotionally to certain situations. Yes, there are cases where certain emotions are triggered, especially with fear and even more so with PTSD. But overall, while humans and animals may share the ability to have emotions, we do not share how they are expressed and triggered.

Man is the only created being that has morality. Dogs may be man’s best friend, but dogs do not process “right and wrong.” They process “happy” and “sad.” They process “treat” and “game,” but they do not process moral issues. Same with cats, same with birds, same with apes. Only man has morals and is held accountable for moral choices.

But I caught something in the zoomed-in account of the creation of Adam and Eve in the context of animal and human relationships that I had not seen with clarity until now. Adam was created first out of the dust of the earth. After Adam was created, God placed him in the garden, gave him a few instructions, but then said it was not good for him to be alone. So, to showcase how unique Adam was from all other creatures, God brought forth all the animals for Adam to name. But none were compatible with him. God didn’t have an oversight error here; this was all intentional. God put Adam to sleep and created Eve, using a rib as the base. God could have easily done something else, but he wanted the relationship between Adam and Eve to be different from everything else. This relationship is all about the Gospel, where Jesus is the last Adam and we, the born-again Christians, are the bride of Christ. Jesus is Adam, or rather who Adam was supposed to be. And we are Eve, as Eve was supposed to be.

But it is the fact that all the other animals were incompatible with Adam that stood out to me in the context of the origins debate. There are numerous old earth teachers who say that Adam and Eve were singled out from a population of hominids that evolved from the ape/human common ancestor, according to Evolutionary theory. In their version, Adam and Eve were merely singled out of a population, and what God made was not two individuals but rather populations. They struggle with the idea of all human life coming from two people, not understanding how genetics actually work (yet thinking they do). God didn’t say He made a population; He said He made man, a specific man, and this man was incompatible with any other animal species that God had made.

If Evolution was true, then this statement from God would be a lie. If apes and humans had a common ancestor, then Adam and his ‘nearest relative’ would have been compatible because he would have come from another creature. This would nullify the need to take Eve from Adam’s rib as a special creation to come out of Adam. Today, because Evolution has so muddied waters about what is what, few people can tell if a bone we find is ape or human. I have asked multiple old earth creationists how they deal with finding human fossils that are older than Adam when they proclaim that Romans 5:12 applies to only man. They all dodge this, and one even went as far as saying that we don’t even know what humans are or if those were actually human (when every scientist on the planet knows they are, independent of their claimed ages). They will question just about everything, especially the interpretation of Scripture, but they will not let the dating methods actually be questioned, even in light of the very doctrines they profess. They are so determined to hold onto what they think “science” says that they will even openly question God’s record to do so. Beware, because this deception is extremely powerful and extremely deadly.

Mankind and animals are not compatible. They never have been and never will be. There is no evidence anywhere that actually showcases this even to be an option. Many may try to cite the “Chromosome 2 Fusion” claim, however this “fusion” (which has no evidence it actually happened) took place, according to the evolutionary timeline, AFTER apes and humans already split. So even if such a fusion ever did take place, this would be a pure human issue in genetics, and this is actually evidence that apes and humans were NEVER related. And before anyone claims that this is just the mythology of the Ancient Near East, it’s not. The rest of the Ancient Near East taught something completely different than what the Bible teaches. But 1500 years after Genesis was written and 4000 years after Adam actually experienced this separation of man and animals, Paul relayed the same truth when defending the physical resurrection of the Christ. He knew biology too. He was educated. Paul made distinctions between the flesh of land animals, of birds, of fish, and of man. They are not all the same. They aren’t compatible with each other. They are only compatible with that which is their same kind. And every single observation in biology and all of recorded history backs this up. There has never been a single scientific study that actually showcases the different kinds ever being linked together in reality. It’s all speculation, extrapolation, and man making connections that aren’t there in the real world.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. That’s a good thing, too, because textbooks themselves often go out of date, constantly need revision, and still contain lies refuted decades ago because the editors don’t actually update them but just repeat them. The Bible has never needed to change because it contains the record of God who cannot lie. However, it still makes statements here and there that do deal with scientific topics. In every single claim it makes and touches regarding science, in every study when full and thoroughly checked out, the Bible has always had it right. We can trust this book. Mankind and the “great apes” have never been compatible. We have never been related. We humans are a unique creation, made in the image of God and those who submit to Christ and do things God’s way (which includes repentance of your sin and submitting to Him in faith) will get to enjoy paradise with Him forever.

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.

by Steve Risner

This week is the last in a series of posts focusing on Scriptures that a theistic evolutionist gave me, telling me they were 1) supportive of deep time and universal common descent and 2) that they were difficult for “young-earthers” to explain. We’ve looked at several passages and found that not one is remotely supportive of deep time or universal common descent. We’ve also found that, while none of them poses any sort of issue for a Bible-believing creationist, some were actually passages commonly used by creationists to support their position. It’s been bizarre to say the least.

Last week, I looked at a series of Scriptures, most from Psalms, that used figures of speech and/or poetic language to make their statements. I guess this was supposed to be tough for creationists because we read Genesis “literally.” But we don’t read every word of the Bible literally. That would be silly, and no one does this. For instance, if it says, “God has pitched a tent for the sun,” we don’t believe the sun has a tent around it that God built. If the Word says, “The skies proclaim the work of Your hands,” we don’t believe that the sky actually speaks or that God used His hands, getting them dirty and blistered, to make the universe. I think any elementary school aged child could determine these things without an issue. We read the Bible naturally, allowing it to be read as it was intended. We sometimes call this the plain reading of Scripture. Read poetry as such. Read figures of speech as such. Read narrative as such. You get the idea. As with so much of Biblical reading, context is critical to understanding what the text is trying to say. There are very often clues within the text or within other parts of the Bible that will tell us how the passage was intended to be read.

Today, we’ll start with Acts 1:7 which reads, “He said to them: ‘It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.’”

I have no idea how this is supportive of theistic evolution or problematic for Biblical creationists. No explanation was offered, so I have to figure it out on my own. The only connection I can make is perhaps that he’s suggesting this means we aren’t supposed to know when events happened in Scripture. But, really, that seems to be a ridiculous claim. God seems very interested in us knowing when events happened and remembering them. There are numerous holidays that He prescribed for the Jews, and there is a day of the week He commanded the Jews to set aside to remember His creative works. All of these days are set aside to remember something—usually an event. But the creation, one of the most important events in all of history, is one God not only told the Jews to remember with a holiday—He told them to remember it every week! If you are curious how Biblical creationists calculate the approximate time of creation, you can read about that in the blog post I wrote in March of 2019 called “Is Young-earthism New?”

Like so many other verses this person has used in this series, he’s totally taken the verse out of context and given it an application that is not indicated or appropriate by the context (if my understanding for his use of it is correct). Why did Jesus say this to His disciples? In verses 4 through 6 of this chapter, we find the disciples are told by Jesus to wait in Jerusalem until they are baptized with the Holy Spirit. They replied with a question: “Will you restore the Kingdom at that time?” Jesus’ response begins in verse 7 where He tells them, essentially, that God has determined when that will happen and they don’t need to worry about it. He goes on to tell them they’ll be baptized in the Holy Spirit and will be empowered to go and tell everyone about Him.

I can find no way to connect this passage to a belief in deep time or universal common descent or to even suggest that knowing when creation took place is not for us to know. That is a complete misapplication of Scripture. However, I find that many times, this is exactly why theistic evolutionists (this person is no exception really) get their theology wrong. They come to the Bible already believing in deep time and universal common descent and try to pluck out verses that will support that. They fail miserably since there is no Scriptural support for deep time or universal common descent. But having a very weak understanding of what the Bible says and how to read and apply the Word of God is a major problem, in my experience, with those who reject the plain teaching of Scripture about creation.

The last passage for this series will be 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which reads, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

This is interesting because theistic evolutionists want to essentially omit or completely rewrite the first 11 chapters of Genesis, but we are told here that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching…” I believe that the whole of Scripture confirms that God created everything there is in 6 days about 6000 years ago and that He caused a Flood to happen about 4500 years ago that wiped out all animal life and humans on earth except a small portion that was saved on the Ark. There is no way around this if “all of Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching.”

As I rack my brain trying to figure out how this can apply to the argument to support theistic evolution, I realize I just can’t think about the Bible as these folks do. This list was given to me by one theistic evolutionist, but I don’t feel he is unique in his misapplication and misunderstanding of Scripture. Old earth creationists have similar issues but theirs are not so nearly magnificent. Scripture could hardly be clearer as to the creation account—what God did, the order He did it, when He did it, and why He did it. It could hardly be more specific when the Bible tells us He destroyed all land animals and humans except a few He allowed to go onto an Ark built by a man and his family that God chose to survive. There’s no wiggle room here. Any argument is either based on semantics or is just a terrible misapplication of Scripture from them. Not a single text I have gone over here with you is remotely supportive of theistic evolution. Not one little bit. And none of them are even sort of difficult for a creationist to explain and apply to their beliefs on origins.

I am reminded of something Martin Luther said: “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are. For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.”

It comes down to this: Do you believe God Almighty or not?

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.

by Steve Risner

We’ve looked at Scriptures I was told support theistic evolution and create problems for Biblical creationists. Of the 6 references so far, not one even remotely connects to the topic of theistic evolution or deep time and, in fact, some of the passages of Scripture are quite supportive of the Biblical narrative on creation and the Flood. We’ve looked at 2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4, Romans 1:20, Job 12:7-10, Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:24. None of these passages hints at universal common descent or deep time. It’s uncanny to me that a person would make a big deal about how they can use the Bible to support their position (which is anti-biblical) and then provide references such as these to do so.

Because these references are so weak and because few if any are taken in context, I’ll just write a couple more posts on these. The bottom line is that there is not a single passage of Scripture that supports the theistic evolutionist in his belief in abiogenesis, deep time, and universal common descent among other things related to origins. Not one passage of Scripture. Conversely, the Biblical creationist’s entire basis for their beliefs on origins is founded in reading Genesis as well as other important portions of Scripture. Genesis 1-11 are critical to the origins beliefs of what some call young-earth creationists. I prefer the term Biblical creationist because that’s what we are—creationists who believe the Bible and gather information on origins from it.

This week, we’ll lump several Scripture passages together as they all seem to be suggesting the same sort of thing. However, please keep in mind I may not be applying these passages as the theistic evolutionist would like. I was not given an explanation at all for them, just a list. For most of these, the same one or two explanations will work, so we’ll list them and then talk about them.

Psalm 102:25: “At the beginning You founded the earth; The heavens are the work of Your hands.”

Psalm 19:1-4: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.”

Psalm 104:5: “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”

Habakkuk 3:6: “He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed—but he marches on forever.”

Deuteronomy 33:15: “With the choicest gifts of the ancient mountains and the fruitfulness of the everlasting hills.”

Ecclesiastes 1:4: “Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.”

None of these verses are used to support universal common descent, but instead they are used to create issues for Biblical creationists. It’s a weird idea, really. We all know that “literalism” is a thing and I do not know of any person who adheres to it exclusively. Literalism simply means you take everything literally. So, if the Bible says, “The heavens are the work of Your hands” that HAS to literally mean God used His hands to build the heavens—though maybe with some large hammers, saws, and some good lumber. When the Bible says, “In the heavens, God has pitched a tent for the sun” this HAS to mean God built a tent to go over the sun. Obviously, no one believes these things so BAM! They think that Biblical creationism or YEC is destroyed by this.

Except no one believes this way. No one says every word in the Bible is 100% to be taken literally. It’s a silly idea, and if ever there was a strawman fallacy, this would be a great one! We choose to read the Bible “naturally” as Ken Ham is known to say. Let it be read the way it was intended. We allow for figures of speech and idioms and things like that. Often, poetic language and prophetic language are not to be taken exactly as they are written. That’s okay. It doesn’t mean you can willy nilly pick what passages you want to read literally and which ones are to be read figuratively. That creates major issues, like the one we have in the Church today where so many have abandoned God’s Word, claiming it either says something it doesn’t say at all or claiming that even though it says something it really means something entirely different. Figures of speech are just that. Like, “It’s raining buckets” or “That’s as dangerous as forked lightening” or “They’re so good they’ll make you wanna slap your mama.” We don’t mean these things literally, and no one is ever confused by these things. But apparently, theistic evolutionists don’t get it. They think if you take Genesis 1-11 as a historical narrative, you are bound to take every written word in the Bible as a literal statement. It’s nonsense and no one that I know believes this. I find it hard to believe that they think we believe this way; perhaps it’s just a defense mechanism.

I’m not sure how else to explain this other than to say poetic language and figures of speech do not have to be taken literally. This is not inconsistency on the Biblical creationist’s part. It is understanding communication. Genesis is clearly written as a historical narrative. In fact, it is more consistent with that format that other texts in the Bible that no one argues about—like Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles. Its language and word usage demand a historical reading, and it is continuous with the rest of Genesis. There is no break or change of content between chapters 11 and 12. The entire book is written as historical narrative. It’s not poetry, although if it was it wouldn’t mean it’s not true. It’s not figurative, although elements of it can be applied to other areas of our lives.

There are nearly 2 dozen major doctrinal positions that come directly from a historical reading of Genesis. Few of these make sense if you read the Biblical text a different way.

To further understand the topic of how to understand Genesis and other passages of Scripture related to origins, you can read these blog posts:
What Is the Plain Reading of Scripture? and Part 2
Genesis: the Polemic and Part 2 and Part 3
The Genesis Myth and Part 2 and Part 3 and Part 4

Thanks for reading! Let’s stand on the Word of God and reject the humanist origins myth for what it is—a way to pull people from the Truth.

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.

by Steve Risner

I’ve been walking us through some Scripture references that a theistic evolutionist told me supported his beliefs in evolution and deep time and were difficult if not impossible for creationists to rectify with their position. We looked at Genesis 1:11-12 and 24 (here) as well as 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 (here) and found not only is there no support for the theistic evolutionist’s beliefs here but there is pretty good support for the Biblical creationist.

As I continue to review this list of Scriptures that is supposed to be supportive of deep time and universal common descent and bad for Biblical creationists, it becomes more and more disappointing to me. I was hoping for something that would at least be remotely interesting or a challenge. The only challenge I’ve run into, honestly, is how to connect these passages to the theistic evolutionist’s beliefs. It’s a stretch for most to say the least.

This week, I’ll be looking at two more passages together because they, like the previous posts, have a similar theme. Rather than write two blog posts on the same theme, I thought this might be easier for us all. Today we’ll talk about these two passages:

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” - Romans 1:20

“But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.” - Job 12:7-10

My assumption is that these passages are being used to show us that God wants us to ask nature about Him and allow it to tell us things about the nature of God. While I believe we can glean a great deal from nature about our awesome Creator, I don’t believe either of these passages can be used this way if we care about context and proper application. This is strikingly reminiscent of the previous posts on this topic. Context is generally ignored.

This verse from Romans is often used by Christians to explain to the unbeliever that he is without excuse for his unbelief. Atheists and other unbelievers will say they find no evidence for the existence of our Creator. But the reality is the evidence is all around us—creation itself is the evidence for our Creator. The universe is overflowing with an abundance of evidence for a Creator and, more specifically, the God who left us His written Word—the Bible. The complex and specific information found in each of our cells demands an unimaginably intelligent mind to have brought it about; any other explanation is naïve and silly. The fine tuning of the universe for us to live right here on this earth is another example. The sophistication and remarkable adaptive abilities of life and the earth itself are great examples. The amazing bodies we find in space and their breathtaking beauty… the list goes on and on.

I am always in awe of the world around me. I love looking at landscapes, animals, and plants whenever I travel. My children think I’m weird because I take note of interesting looking trees and even photograph them just because they look cool. Maybe I am weird, but I see the work of His hands all around me all the time and I take a minute to appreciate it. Human beings are certainly without excuse if they do not know in their hearts that they have a Creator. How this helps the evolutionist, I can’t say, and no other explanation was offered.

When taken in context, looking at the previous verses in Romans, we find that this verse is exactly what I’m saying it is—a statement by the Lord on how no man or woman has a reason to reject Him since they can see the evidence for Him all around the world. These verses are not saying we can know ALL there is to know about God by looking at nature. That’s obvious, I would hope. But we can at least see He is the Creator, He enjoys order, He has instituted laws that the universe operates by, and His power is eternally unlimited. In other words, by looking at the things we can see around us, we can understand some things about the invisible or the unseen. Paul is here exclaiming the awesome and magnificent power of Almighty God and how necessary it is for Him to have created with such eternal power.

If we look at Matthew 7:7-8 and consider it with this passage from Romans, we find that God doesn’t expect us to gather all we know of Him from nature. Jesus says, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” Here we see Jesus Himself telling us that if we ask God, He will reveal Himself to us. He doesn’t say, “Look at the universe and ask the stars how old they are. Talk to rocks and see what they’ll say about the origins of life.” We don’t need to do that. God Himself has revealed such things to us in His Word. Nature can add to our understanding, but it is far from the source of our understanding.

The bottom line with this passage is that if an unbeliever claims there is no God, they are willfully ignorant. There is no connection to universal common descent, deep time, or even science.

The passage in Job, they will say, is another example of God telling—even commanding—us to use science to explain things about God. While I think you can learn from nature quite a lot, I find His Word to be the most revealing and most easily understood communication from the Lord about who He is and what He’s done. But the major issue with using this passage as a source for truth at all is that Job is speaking here. This is simply a quote from a man who is trying to figure out why he is suffering so much and why is God allowing so much tragedy. He’s responding to a friend who made some claims that Job found so elementary and so obvious. He’s going to suggest that even the dumb animals can tell him better than this friend, and/or he’s saying God is the One responsible for all that happens—good or bad—in our lives. Either way, there is no way to connect this passage to the topic of origins. Since we’re just quoting Job speaking here, we can’t even say his words are true or wise. Job, a man, could be wrong. God’s response to him shows us that’s most likely the case in a great many things.

Here’s the deal with allowing our study of nature to trump the clear teaching of the Word of God: science is the study of the world around us. We can learn a great deal of things from these studies. We can learn how electricity works, how atoms work, how to clean a grease stain, how to build a sturdy structure, how to find water, how to build an internal combustion engine, etc. We can learn a lot from studying the world around us. However, we’re not talking about science in its true sense when we’re discussing origins. Origins is a worldview topic. Science cannot tell you where the earth came from; it’s impossible. Science cannot tell you when the world was formed; it’s impossible. Science cannot tell us how or where the first life forms existed on earth; there is no way to determine this. These are all things we will believe based on our worldview.

The fact is that what we “know” today because of science will change tomorrow. What we think is right at the moment will likely change in the future. What evolutionists like to do is say “science” when they mean universal common descent or some other unfounded, unprovable imagining. They want universal common descent and deep time to be settled and unquestionable so they can act like you’re a fool or some sort of “science denier” if you want to think for yourself. But this isn’t true at all. They believe whatever it is that they believe at the moment, and they think you’re a moron for disagreeing with them because, you know, “all scientists agree” but won’t bat an eye when 10 years down the road they think something completely different. They then believe that someone is some sort of idiot because a person believes what the evolutionist believed 10 years ago. It’s a rather odd thing to watch. But the currently popular belief on origins from a secular standpoint is hardly a thing I would put my faith in. In fact, since I know what they believe now about origins will likely change in the future, I’m not sure what the point is. I rest on God’s unfailing and unchanging Word. It tells us things like how the world was created, how and when life was made, and a whole variety of other things that I find convincing and important.

All this is to say that neither of these passages confirms universal common descent or deep time. In fact, neither of these passages has any connection to the topic at all. Next time, we’ll look at more Scriptures that were told to me to be evidence from the Bible supporting universal common descent and deep time. So far, it’s been underwhelming.

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.

by Steve Risner

This week I’d like to look at some Scripture shared with me by a theistic evolutionist, as I did last week, that he claims supports his position of deep time and universal common descent (what some often just call evolution, but I prefer a more precise nomenclature). Last week we looked at 2 passages that were very similar: Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 1:24. This week, I plan to combine a couple as well since they, like the previous two references, are similar.

We’re looking at Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 this week. These verses read like this, respectively:

“A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

These verses, especially 2 Peter 3:8, are very commonly cited by evolutionists and old earth creationists – inappropriately so, but often nonetheless.

Why would the person who wants to believe in deep time present these verses for us to look at as evidence from the Bible? The reason is they want these verses to mean that if God says, “I did ‘x’ in a day,” what He really could mean is it took Him a thousand years. In other words, just because God said He created in 6 days that doesn’t mean that’s what He meant because what’s a “day” to the Creator?

Like many such questions concerning the meaning of a passage of Scripture, context is critical. What were these passages about?

Psalm 90 is a prayer written by Moses. It begins with a brief description of the greatness of God. He spends considerable time on the timelessness of God—that He is eternal and existed before we or the earth did. He speaks of how insignificant man is in respect to the great power and majesty that is our God. So, the verse here in Psalm 90 that is being used to prop up deep time and universal common descent has literally nothing to do with how God measures time. God created time, so how He measures it is important. But I think it stands to reason that if God says, “I did ‘x’ in a day,” that this is exactly what He means. If He says, “I made everything that exists in 6 days and rested on the 7th,” you can be sure that’s what He did. Otherwise, it seems the argument is, “God isn’t subject to time, so He might not get it right when He gives us a timeframe for something.” That’s literally what this argument is. But verse 4 isn’t telling us to forgive the Lord if He accidentally says “a day” when He means “a thousand years.” It simply means that while man frets over days and years because his time is short, it means nothing to the Creator who is beyond time and will never end. His time will never cease, so He’s not worried about getting something accomplished today because He may not have tomorrow to do it like us humans. God transcends time. That’s really all this is saying. It’s certainly not saying He took millions or billions of years to create the universe, and there is clearly nothing about universal common descent here.

The second and more commonly used Scripture reference, 2 Peter 3:8, essentially means the same thing, but the context is different. Here, Peter is here talking of the second coming of Christ. As early as the writing of this epistle by one of the closest friends of Jesus, people were already saying, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” Peter is encouraging his readers to not be disheartened that Christ hasn’t returned yet. While it might seem like a long time to human beings, the 30 or 40 years that may have passed since Christ’s ascension are not even the blink of an eye to an all-powerful Creator who is not subject to time. That’s really all this passage is saying. It’s a very applicable Scripture for us in our lives as we wait on the Lord. We may be praying about something or waiting for God to move on our behalf, and it might seem like it’s taking forever. “God, how long will this go on? How long before You move?” But to God, the passage of time is irrelevant, and He is always “on time.” Generations may pass, but God is still God, and He is still waiting for the appropriate time—which is often not our time. As Peter goes on to say in verse 9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” In God’s love, He wishes no person should perish without knowing Him, so He is waiting. “Just one more,” is often the way I’ve heard it described. The Father is looking down on the world while the Son is anxiously awaiting to return and the Father says, “No. Not yet. Just one more. Just one more.” How great is the love of our Lord for us?!

This argument used by people who are Christians but want to believe in deep time based on these verses is another failure. The argument falls flat when you apply it to other portions of Scripture. For instance, how many days did Joshua and the Hebrews march around Jericho? Was it 7 days, 7000 years, or some other time period? How long does the Fourth Commandment tell us to work? Is it 6 days, 6000 years, or some other time period? When Moses asked Pharoah to allow the Hebrews to travel 3 days into the wilderness to worship God, did he really mean 3 days, or was it 3000 years or some other time period? When Moses was on Mt. Siani receiving instruction from the Lord, was he there for 40 days, or was it 40,000 years or some other time period? The same goes for Jesus; when He was in the wilderness, did He fast for 40 days, 40,000 years, or some other time period? How long was Jesus in the grave? The Bible says He was raised after 3 days, which is pretty awesome! But was He really there for 3000 years? He would definitely need a resurrected body after that amount of time rotting in a tomb. You can see how this argument would mean we can’t know much at all in the Bible because anything can basically mean anything. What a silly idea, right?

Peter goes on to use this as an opportunity to encourage his readers, us included, to live lives that are blameless and Godly. Since we do not know when Christ will return and it will happen quickly and without warning, we should always be living a Christ-like life. You can read more of Peter’s words on this here.

Something very noteworthy here is that this chapter of this letter by Peter, a close friend of Jesus, confirms for us a few things about the Flood. If we read 2 Peter 3:5-6 we find, “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.” We can conclude from this that nothing the evolutionist believes is supported here, whether deep time or universal common descent.

We can also learn some affirmative things about our faith in the Bible being the trustworthy Word of God. First, it shows us that, according to Peter, who we believe is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Flood happened. Secondly, Peter explains that the entire planet was flooded during this event. Thirdly, it emphasizes that things do not plod on as they always have (an idea known as uniformitarianism). While there is a fairly consistent drone of marked change over time due to erosion and geologic disturbances like minor eruptions and earthquakes, there are major catastrophes that impact geology and the landscape tremendously and can make huge changes very quickly. This passage is often cited by creationists who believe the Bible (Biblical creationists) because it confirms that even the New Testament authors believed the Old Testament and its teachings on the Flood. The universality of this event seems pretty clear in this passage if the numerous references in Genesis to it being a global flood were not enough. It is a little surprising to me that a person who wants to make a claim that the Flood didn’t happen (a major tenet of Biblical creation) would reference this passage. Cherry picking can be a fun way to go about reading the Word… for some. This is the second blog post on Scriptures used by theistic evolutionists that actually support Biblical creationism (what they like to refer to as young-earth creationism).

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.

by Steve Risner

“Fiction can be fun, but I find the reference section a little more enlightening.” —Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

For months, I had been asking a theistic evolutionist I run into online for a list of Biblical references he had that he claimed not only supported what he believed (deep time, universal common descent, a local flood, etc.) but also were major problems for the Biblical creationist view (one that believes God created as He said in 6 days, that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they rebelled against God causing the Fall and curse of sin, a global Flood destroyed all land animals and humans except those in the ark, etc.). After he told me he had this list and would provide it, it took me a few attempts to actually get him to produce it. Unfortunately, his list did not contain any explanations, so I’m forced to decide on my own how these Scriptural references support a theistic evolutionist’s theology and how they create issues for those of us who believe what the Bible actually says on the topic of origins. Let’s take a look.

His first reference he includes is Genesis 1:11-12:

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

I’ll include his next reference, which is Genesis 1:24, because it is very similar.

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.

I’ve seen this before from other theistic evolutionists, and I have questioned our local Hebrew egghead Katie Erickson on it. I try to go back to the original language when I can to see if there is some sort of clue in the meanings, translations, or conjugation of words. She’s very knowledgeable on Hebrew and Greek, so I take these questions to her as well as looking through commentaries and such. Her take on it was this:

The verb for “produce” can also mean bring forth, or cause to come out, or something like that. But the earth is clearly the subject of that verb, and it is a jussive, meaning it's translated as “Let the earth bring forth...” rather than a more indicative statement like “The earth brings forth.” But yes, I'd say that translation is accurate. I don't understand how that could indicate abiogenesis or evolution.

The issue being raised here is that, according to this odd interpretation of Genesis 1:11-12 and 24, God is telling us that He allowed the earth or nature to produce all the life we see on the planet. It evolved from non-living matter and began as some sort of scum that eventually, through a series of lucky mistakes in copying itself, diversified into the millions of various species we see on planet earth right now and in the fossil record. That is what they claim the Lord is telling us when He says He told the land to produce vegetation and animals. I know it’s hard to believe this is where they think this passage is going, especially since no one noteworthy in the Hebrew/Jewish people or Christendom remotely suggested this until about 300 years ago.

As Katie suggests above, we can see the word usage here indicates that God was drawing out living things from the earth. He created them and caused them to reproduce after their own kind. The text this theistic evolutionist uses here to support his beliefs in evolution fails miserably and actually quite strongly supports the fact that God made everything (not nature or the earth) and that He produced them to create after their own kind. Both of these things stand in strong opposition to universal common descent. I would suggest, as many ministries around the world have done, that this verse actually is strong evidence for the Biblical worldview and interpretation.

If you look at the references again, you’ll see that not only did God command life to come about, but it clearly tells us that this is exactly what happened immediately. “The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” He commanded living creatures (animals) to come forth and produce after their own kind as well. So, we have no evidence for evolution at all here. None. The contrast couldn’t be more corrosive to the idea that universal common descent is what the text is trying to get across to us. If the land produced vegetation and animals that produced after their own kind, where is there room for abiogenesis and universal common descent? Short answer: there is no room at all.

Note that the texts above do not mention single-celled organisms or life coming from non-life in a simple form that would mutate over time into humans, bananas, honeybees, and anemones. It says the land produced vegetation and various kinds of animals after their kind. This is the exact opposite of what evolutionists believe the text says, or what they need it to say. It clearly does not support universal common descent and in fact strongly speaks against it.

It could just as easily be argued, using the “logic” of theistic evolution as applied to these few verses, that according to verse 20, sea life evolved from water. Does this mean fish and the other numerous kinds of sea creatures evolved from water? No. Because verse 21 tells us that God created all the creatures of the sea. “So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds…” The same idea can and should be applied to the verses in question here — that God created life, both plant and animal, on the earth. The same is said of our passage in verse 25 — that God made all the creatures of the land. It does not say that the land produced animals. Had our theistic evolutionist continued reading rather than stopping where it suited him, perhaps we could have avoided this strange situation of injecting a desired meaning into the text when it obviously isn’t there.

Contrary to what this evolutionist is telling me he believes, I believe that God, by the awesome authority of His will, produced the universe, the earth, and life in all its various forms. In other words, He commanded creation to happen, and it did. All the glory for such a creative act rests on God Himself. He created light by speaking. He created the earth by speaking. He commanded living things, both plants and animals (and other varieties), into existence with nothing more than His will. He required no assistance. He did not allow something or someone else to have any role in it aside from doing as He willed. He was the sole Authority that made it all happen. This is very different than the tale spun by evolutionists who want to walk some sort of imaginary line between Biblical truth and humanism/secularism.

In my view, God is the center and focus of creation, and He alone is the creative force behind all that exists. Therefore, He wields authority over all of it including myself. This is why I submit to Him and His plans and purposes for my life. I don’t feel the evolutionist can say this. At least, it does not seem possible to me that they could draw out their purpose from their Creator in the same way when they don’t believe they are a special creation made by God uniquely on day 6 of the creation week. They are the result of an accumulation of copying errors that brought fortune to them by allowing them to be. The difference seems like this to me: God has a special plan and purpose for my life so He created me vs. God wound up nature and allowed it to do whatever the heck it was going to do and it luckily spat me out because it messed up enough times.

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.