|
Evolution and the Bible Are Not Compatible
Introduction Many Christians today have abandoned the idea that the six-day creation account in Genesis should be taken literally. Some Christians that are very strong in their faith in Christ have chosen to compromise portions of the Bible with the man-made theory of evolution. Why are many of those who believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead unwilling to believe that God created the universe in the way He said He did – in six literal, 24-hour-long days? Evolution has not been proven as fact, and yet God-fearing Christians are giving precedence to what atheistic scientists tell them is fact over the Word of God! There are serious theological issues that must be addressed if one believes in an old earth or evolution, most of which are in direct conflict with fundamental Christian beliefs. When a person dismisses one part of the Bible, what is to stop that person from dismissing away other parts? Either the entire Bible must be true as the Word of God, or the entire thing is a lie devised by wicked men. Some Christians listen to secular scientists and think that “if science says it’s true, it must be true. Thousands of scientists who teach evolution as truth can’t all be wrong”. We have been taught in the public schools from a very young age that the universe is billions of years old, and this idea has been repeatedly ingrained into our minds so that it becomes accepted as an unquestionable fact. Evolutionists have told us that man is just another animal, and there is very little difference between mankind and other animals – by pure chance, we obtained certain survival advantages over other animals. Our existence is a cosmic mistake. Yet the Bible says something very different from what the secular scientists are saying. The Bible says that mankind is a special creation by God, and that the universe was created in six days at God’s command. To reconcile these conflicting ideas, some people have devised ways to believe what the Bible says while believing what the scientists say about the origin of the universe. It is not the purpose of this paper to get into a detailed discussion on the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. There have been plenty of excellent books written which thoroughly refute it, and provide strong evidence of creation. Here is a list of some of my favorites: Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe is the book that started the Intelligent Design movement. As a microbiologist, Behe presents several examples of how biological systems that are thought of a being simple are actually irreducibly complex, which means that the systems cannot work unless all of the individual parts are in place. Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson looks at the “evidence” that scientists have presented for evolution, and concludes that the “evidence” is so weak and flawed that it would not hold up in a court of law. He explains how and why evolutionists cling to their belief despite the evidence against it. Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells reveals the great lie that has been perpetrated in our schools. He examines classical arguments for evolution that are often in textbooks, and shows that they are myths, most of which have been long been proven false in the scientific community. Evolution of a Creationist by Jobe Martin describes the journey that a former ardent evolutionist took through observed scientific data, and came to the conclusion that everything has been created by God in six literal days. He gives many examples of observations that led him to this conclusion, and presents them in layman’s terms. It also provides many references to readers who are interested on learning more on specific topics. Darwin’s Leap of Faith by John Ankerberg and John Weldon demonstrates that it takes as much, if not more faith to believe in evolution as it does creation. They describe how blindly evolutionists cling to their dogma, even though the evidence against it is staring them in the face. Evolution is shown to be a religion, more faith to believe in than Christianity. Numerous resources are available on the web such as the Creation Research Society (www.creationresearch.org), Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org), and Revolution Against Evolution (www.rae.org), among many others. These sites are great resources for arguments against evolution, and provide much evidence for young-earth creation. a. Definition of Evolution When I talk about evolution in this paper, I am referring to macroevolution (or the General Theory of Evolution), which means that all species of animals that we see today are derived from a common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. It is the explanation of origins proposed by Darwin and most evolutionists, and is said to have resulted in the so-called "molecules-to-man" or "goo-to-you" evolution. They believe that mutations, operated on by natural selection, have resulted in the development of all the various types of creatures we see today. However, there is absolutely no proof that this has ever occurred, and much indication that it has not (see above references). Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut listed seven basic assumptions of the General Theory: 1) Non-living gave rise to living, 2) Spontaneous generation happened once, 3) All life is interrelated, 4) Protozoa (one-celled) gave rise to Metazoa (complex multi-celled), 5) All invertebrate phyla are interrelated, 6) Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, 7) Fish gave rise to amphibians, which gave rise to reptiles, which gave rise to birds and mammals. This is very different from microevolution, which is the well-known process used by animal and plant breeders to develop desired traits in new breeds. These people use intelligent selection to choose only those specimens having desired characteristics for breeding new generations. Microevolution also occurs in nature, but in a much slower time frame. Normal genetic variations provide the raw material for this change. This is the way, for example, that the original "dog kind" resulted in the present-day wolves, coyotes, and all the domestic dogs. This is shown by their ability to interbreed. This is also how bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics. The variation in finch beaks that Darwin observed was another example of microevolution. However, there is never an increase in genetic information, which might allow development into a more complex higher form of life. The genetic information is merely passed along from both parents. The genetic information may not show up for several generations, but it is always present in each generation. There is a definite limit to genetic manipulation - it can't make a new kind of creature. Microevolution is an observable fact that can be tested, observed, and repeated, while macroevolution is a theory that has never been observed or repeated. Evolutionist scientists have willingly deceived the public into thinking that the two are the same; they just apply to different time scales. They believe that given a long enough period of time, microevolution will lead to a new species. However, macroevolution has never been tested or repeated, even in the controlled environment of a laboratory with “brilliant” scientists working for decades. It has not passed the test of the scientific method, and is therefore not scientific fact. The so-called evidence that scientists have presented for evolution are not really evidence at all, but only interpreted as evidence. The scientists are making the assumption that evolution is fact, and the data is interpreted around this assumption. They then use circular reasoning by saying the data proves their assumption. The resources mentioned above provide abundant proof of this error by evolutionists. b. Definition of Old-Earth Creation or Theistic Evolution Theistic evolution is basically the belief that God used evolution to make the universe and all living things on earth. There are many variations on this belief, such as the Day-Age theory (the creation days in Genesis 1 are long time periods, billions of years long) or the Gap theory (a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 in which God created the world, destroyed it, then re-created it). Some prefer to be called progressive creationists, old-earth creationists, or theistic evolutionists. Some believe that God directed or set in motion the process of evolution, resulting in all that we see today, while some believe that God created the world in steps over a long period of time. The basic commonality with these theories is that the universe is billions of years old, in agreement with secular evolutionists and in disagreement with a literal interpretation of Genesis. These theories also reject the occurrence of a worldwide, all-destroying Flood as described in Genesis 7. For simplicity, I will refer to these theories as old-earth theories, or OE for short. c. Definition of Young-Earth Creation Young-Earth Creation (YEC for short) is the belief that “in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and all that is in them” (Exodus 20:11). The six creation days are considered to be literal 24-hour days, as we know them today. The events of Genesis 1 are sequential, with no gaps between them. The age of the earth is estimated by YECists to be between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. The created world was quite different that the world we see today, primarily because of man’s sin. Noah’s Flood, which was global in extent, was the primary mechanism of geological and climatological change that resulted in the earth that we see today. II. Evolution and Christianity are not compatible a. What God says about Evolutionists Many Christians are unaware of the disdain that leaders in the evolutionist movement have for God and anything “religious”. The basic underlying premise of evolution is rejection of God. It attempts to answer the questions “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” without God. As Christians, we know that it is impossible to answer these questions without God. He is our Creator and our purpose for living. Evolution denies the very existence of God, and shifts the glory of creation from God to man. Because of sin, evolutionists do not want to submit themselves to the authority of their Creator, and in their rebellion they have devised a theory that attempts to explain nature and our existence without Him. The leaders of the evolutionist movement have been blinded by sin and are called “fools” by the Bible. Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” God said that those who are considered wise by the world’s standards are fools in the eyes of God. I Corinthians 3:18-19 states that “If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.” Should Christians compromise what the Bible says for the foolishness of this world? Certainly in today’s world, scientists are considered wise, unbiased, and are highly esteemed. When someone wants to bring credit to their cause, they bring in a scientist to back them up. But they hold no more sway with God than any other man, for we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). There are many verses in the Bible that warn Christians to reject the teachings of the world. Colossians 2:8 says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Romans 1:20-22 speaks directly to evolutionists - those who have seen God’s creation and have refused to give Him glory for it: “For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Even though God has revealed Himself to us through His creation, evolutionists have rejected God as their Creator. Are these the people that we should be looking to for answers about the origin of life and the universe? Are their theories so convincing that the Word of God should be compromised? b. What Evolutionists say about God By its very definition, evolution leaves no place for God. Evolution is defined as chance mutations occurring over a large period of time. Prentice Hall's textbook “Biology” tells students it is important to keep this concept in mind: Evolution is random and undirected.” That doesn’t leave any room God to have anything to do with our origin or development, because God doesn't operate by chance or by random means. Evolutionists attempt to explain everything in science in terms of naturalism and chance. Naturalism (or materialism) is the belief that the entire history of the universe must be explained by and submit to the principles of natural science, entirely without a Creator. Our origins must be explained by processes that we currently see in nature, and nothing else. God is irrelevant and science becomes atheistic. The evolutionary process has to be completely natural, because that is the way science is defined by them. Here are some statements from evolutionists that reveal their rejection of God in science and in their own lives (many more can be found in the resources listed earlier): John Maddox, the editor of Nature, has written “it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science.” “Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.” - William B. Provine “God cannot be part of a scientific description…any description that implies a creator will probably be looked at as improper.” - Raymond Grizzle “There is neither need nor excuse for postulation of nonmaterial (i.e., divine) intervention in the origin of life, the rise of man, or any other part of the long history of the material cosmos.” - George Simpson “Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.” - Julian Huxley Charles Darwin rejected Christianity, saying, “I can hardly see how anyone could wish Christianity to be true.” He even referred to his theory as “the devil’s gospel.” He was “determined to escape from design and a personal God at all costs.” Evolutionists cling to their faith in naturalism, in spite of the evidences against it. They have made it absolutely clear that the origin of life must be explained by natural processes, even though there is evidence of supernatural influence all around them. This is best summed up by a statement from Marxist and evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin, who wrote in the New York Review of Books, Jan.9, 1997: ”We take the side of science (evolution) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have an a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism (or naturalism) is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” As seen in the above quotes, evolutionists have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator. Such is the wisdom of man. Are these the people that Christians should be looking to for answers to their questions of origin? For those who believe in the OE theories, the Word of God is being compromised for the “wisdom” of man! III. Implications of an Old-earth and Evolution a. Basic Differences in Origins In the book Collapse of Evolution, Scott Huse lists 24 contrasts between what the Bible says about creation and evolutionary thinking. Here are a few of them: Bible: God is the Creator of all things (Genesis 1).
Bible: World created in six literal days (Genesis 1).
Bible: Life appeared first on land (Genesis 1:11)
Bible: Birds and fish were created on the fifth day, and reptiles on the sixth day (Genesis 1:20-31).
Bible: Man before woman (Genesis 2:21-22).
Bible: Man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7)
Bible: Man’s sin is the cause of death (Romans 5:12).
Those who believe that the Bible and evolution are compatible must reconcile these differences, which is the premise behind the OE theories. The last three differences are especially troubling. If evolution were true, this would imply that 1) man has no authority over woman (clearly against Scripture, such as Ephesians 5:22-24 and I Peter 3:1-6); 2) man is nothing more than an evolved animal, not made in the image of God and without an eternal soul (if this is true, and Mary descended from apes, then wasn’t Jesus genetically related to primates?); 3) Adam’s original sin had no consequences on the world, because death and suffering had been in the world long before Adam (contrary to Romans 5:12), thus eliminating the need for a Savior, Jesus Christ. This is the core message of the Gospel, and evolution does not allow for it! There is no way to believe the message of the Gospel and evolution at the same time! b. The Moral Dilemma These (and many other) disparities lead to huge philosophical and theological differences between what the Bible says is true and what evolution implies for mankind. When God is separated from His creation (which, as we saw from the earlier quotes, has been the intentions of evolutionists), there is an absence of moral and philosophical absolutes. Sinful man becomes the author of his own standards. Since the God of the Bible is only a creation of man, a creation of one’s imagination, then all the teachings of Christianity and all moral standards that go along with it become null and void. They have no meaning for society – they only hold meaning to the person who made them, or those that choose to follow them. Using the Ten Commandments as an example, Phillip Johnson said, ”The rule that it is unconstitutional to put up the Ten Commandments as if they were authoritative comes from modernist (evolutionist) thinking. If particles somehow became complex living stuff, what becomes of God's commandments? Well, they are illusory, just as God Himself is, and so they have no authority. We are talking about the customs of an ancient Jewish tribe that has no authority over us and does not know as much as we do. They did not even know about evolution, so why should we listen to them? The Ten Commandments becomes obsolete, and we have to make up a morality for ourselves.” Johnson continues by applying this principle to a more personal scale: ”We saw what happened to the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not commit adultery. What happens to marriage? Previously marriage had been thought to be a divinely instituted sacrament, a holy thing which was established by God, and which human beings were not free to alter as they like…Once God's authority becomes illusory, then marriage becomes just an agreement between two people. What else could it be? It is a contract, another branch of contract law. You can quit your job when you want to. You can get out of a lease for an apartment. You might have to pay damages, it might be expensive, but you can do it. And so, of course, that is true of marriage too.” The spread of evolution and the resulting lack of moral absolutes have had devastating consequences in the history of society that most people are not aware of. Huse goes on to point out what some of these consequences have been: “The fruit of evolution has been all sorts of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice. It has served as an intellectual basis for Hitler’s Nazism and Marx’s communism. It has prompted apostasy, atheism, secular humanism, and libertinism, as well as establishing a basis for ethical relativism, which has spread throughout our society like a cancer. The mind and general welfare of mankind has suffered greatly as a result of this naturalistic philosophy. According to the Bible, man is a responsible creature. One day he will give an account for his life’s actions and motives. But when man is viewed as the product of some vague purposeless evolutionary process, he is conveniently freed from all moral obligations and responsibility. After all, he is merely an accident of nature, an intelligent animal at best.” Indeed, Hitler used evolution as his reasoning behind the elimination of what were in his opinion “inferior races”. When you take away God’s power and authority, you take away God’s rules. They become human rules, which you can change, based upon your own personal whims and what you consider to be inconvenient. Every man has license to set his own moral standards. Since the world has no meaning, and we evolved purely by chance, we have no greater purpose in living than to please ourselves while we are alive. Evolution tells us that we do not have to answer to a higher authority. Darwinist Aldous Huxley admitted his reason for accepting evolution: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world…is concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom…” The debate over creation and evolution is not just a debate about the historical details of Genesis. It is about whether God is real or imaginary, and therefore it is about morality. The debate over origins will always be a heated one because it determines the meaning of life and therefore the lifestyle that each of us chooses to live. It addresses the fundamental question of the existence of God. Evolution was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, because God is revealed through His creation. Evolutionists seek to take glory from God by denying His existence and place it upon their own gods of naturalism and chance. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Savior, and Judge, and we are held accountable to Him. He demands of us that we live righteously and submit to His authority. If people can avoid God, they can pretty much live as they please. It is very convenient and comfortable when God is made in the image of man, instead of man in the image of God. Christians should not be compromising what the Bible clearly states for a theory that has never been proven and whose founders intended to remove God from His creation and His authority from our lives. c. The Theological Dilemma Many leaders in the Christian and scientific communities would say that evolution and Christianity are totally compatible, because the OE theories allow them to accept the “science” of evolution but maintain their faith in God. But as we have seen above, the founders of evolution require that the God of the Bible had no part in the origin of life. The official view of Darwinian evolutionists is that God had nothing to do with evolution. Science is identified and defined by Darwinists as naturalism, which “assumes the entire realm of nature to be a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by anything from ‘outside’” (Johnson, 1991). Naturalism denies that a supernatural being could influence natural events, such as evolution. It asserts that science is our only path to knowledge, and that God, who cannot influence anything and of whom we have no knowledge, is of no importance. Young-earth or not, evolutionists reject the God of the Bible. The OE theorists are wrong to them, but are the lesser of two evils. The Young-Earth Creationists are wrong and are a threat because of their “wildly fanatical”, “anti-scientific”, and “extreme fundamentalist” stance against evolution. There are many theological questions that Christians who believe in the OE theories must answer. 1. Death and the Fall of man If God directed or set into motion the process of evolution, and mankind has evolved from primates (as evolutionists state), then who were Adam and Eve? They could not be who the Bible says they were, because the Bible clearly states that Adam was created from the dust of the earth, and Eve from the side of Adam. If Adam was created by God as half-man and half-ape, then why was no suitable helper found for him among the animals? It is also clearly stated that man was made in the image of God. If mankind was not made in the image of God, and instead is merely an evolved primate, then mankind does not have an eternal soul. Genesis 2:7 states that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being”. This was the only creature that God made that received the breath of life from God, and thus was the only one with an eternal soul. If man was not given an eternal soul, then there was no need for Christ to die for our sins to save us from eternal damnation. This is what separates man from the animals. We were a special creation by God, made in His image and intended to spend eternity with Him. If evolution is true, then we are mere animals with no need for salvation and no ultimate purpose for existence. Romans 5:12 teaches that because of the sin of man, death entered the world. If there were vast periods of time before the Fall of man, there must have been death before the Fall as millions of species died off. God declared His creation as “very good” after it was completed; would a world filled with death and suffering be declared “very good” by God? God did not intend for His creation to die, but He did give man a free will to obey or disobey. It was man’s willful disobedience to a direct command of God that brought sin and death into the world. In addition, the first reference to death in the Bible is Genesis 3:21, when God killed an animal to make clothing for Adam and Eve so their nakedness would be covered. Because of their sin, a sacrifice was required. This act foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ and the shedding of His blood to cover the “nakedness” of our sins. The Bible is clear that sin entered the world through one man, Adam, and that the redemption of sin came through one man, Jesus Christ. Romans 5:19 says, “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous”. The idea of original sin is the core message of the Gospel, and the whole reason for our need of a Savior. If the message of Genesis is weakened and compromised, then the message of salvation is also weakened and open to compromise. 2. The authority of the Bible Those who promote the various OE theories attempt to retranslate words in the Bible to give them the meanings to fit their theory. However, when you look at the original Hebrew or Greek text and evaluate the verse in its context and the context of the whole Bible, then there is no room for anything but a young-earth creation. Exodus 20:11 teaches that God created the world in six days, and rested on the seventh day. This is the basis for the Sabbath, and is the model for our calendar week. OE theorists often argue that the Bible is not referring to a literal 24-hour day as we know it. Certainly the word “day” has different meanings in different portions of the Bible, even within the creation account (Genesis 1:5 for example). However, when looking at the context of the word, the Genesis account of creation is clearly referring to 24-hour days. One evidence of this is that at the end of each day of creation, it says “And there was evening and there was morning” as if to emphasize to the reader that the day referred to was one rotation of the earth, or 24-hours. The symbolism of the six-day workweek and one day of rest (the Sabbath) for the Jews is lost with a non-literal interpretation of the creation account. Sometimes 2 Peter 3:8 is used to argue for non-literal creation days. This verse states that “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” However, this verse is a quote from Psalm 90:4, and does not refer to the creation week at all. It teaches that God is above time and sees all of history simultaneously. The order of creation does not allow for long time periods between them. Trees, vegetation, plants from seeds, and fruit-bearing trees were created on the third day. This is before the creation of the sun, which was created on the fourth day. If a day is billions of years long, how could any plant life survive that long without sunlight? Insects that are required for many plants to pollinate were created on the sixth day. How did the plant life survive and reproduce for billions of years without insects present? A reinterpretation of the word “days” requires a reinterpretation of the entire order of creation. You just can’t stick a few billion years into a “day” without rearranging the entire passage and context of Genesis 1. Noah’s flood is thought to have had little importance by those who promote OE theories. Often it is thought to be about a local flood that had little effect on the earth. However, ample evidence is found worldwide for the occurrence of a global flood that totally destroyed all living things on earth and drastically changed the topography of the world (see the web references mentioned earlier for details). Genesis 7:23 emphatically states that God “blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.” This verse does not allow room for the interpretation of a local flood. If the Flood was only a local event, why would God make Noah go through years of work to build an ark, when all he had to do to escape it was move a few miles away? Peter confirms the judgment of the world by a flood in 2 Peter 2:5 which says that God “did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly”. 2 Peter 3:4-7 prophetically states that people have forgotten that God once judged the world by destroying it in a flood, and people think “all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” However, Peter warns us not to forget how God exercised His wrath on a sinful world once, and that He will destroy the earth again, but with fire instead of water. This passage loses its meaning if one attempts to explain away the Flood account by saying it was a local event. Most importantly, if someone says that there was a vast time period of before man appeared on the earth, and the Flood did not happen, then that person must reconcile this idea with the words of Jesus. In Mark 10:6 (and Matthew 19:4), Jesus said “But from the beginning God made them male and female”. The Greek word for beginning in this passage can only mean the very beginning, or the absolute start of all things. Therefore, Jesus told us that God made man at the beginning of the world, not billions of years after the beginning of the world. Jesus also confirmed the Flood, comparing the days before the Flood to the days before His second coming in Matthew 24:37-39: “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.” Jesus was an eyewitness to these events and to the creation of the universe as stated in John 1:1-3: “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” If Jesus was lying or was mistaken, then He cannot be who He claimed to be –the Son of God – and His life and death were for naught. IV. Implications for the Christian a. An Issue of Faith Whether you believe in Darwinian evolution, Old-Earth theories, or Young-Earth Creation, faith is required. Creation or evolution can never be proven by scientific methods; therefore neither can truly be considered science. The scientific data are analyzed and interpreted based on the particular belief system of the scientist. Darwinian evolutionists have faith in natural, materialistic processes and random chance. Young-Earth Creationists have faith in God and His Word. Old-Earthers attempt to have faith in God and in evolutionist scientists at the same time. The debate will continue for the rest of history because no one can prove what happened. For Christians, we have faith that God was the eyewitness to the creation of the world. Jesus told us that He was there at the beginning. We have the Bible to us to tell us what happened and why we are here. This requires faith that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and not just a fairy tale made up by storytellers. The evolutionists or Old-Earthers may say “faith is not enough; give me proof” (which they do not even have for their own theories). But faith is what that God requires of us. It is through faith that we know that God spoke the heavens and the earth into being: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” – Hebrews 11:3 Note that this verse does not say “by the natural processes set forth by God”, but “by the word of God”. No natural, pre-existing processes or any long amount of time were required for God to create the universe. And it is by faith that we know this. Faith is a means by which God blesses us. Hebrews 11 lists many people in the Bible who had tremendous faith in God and His promises, and were blessed for their faith, either while on earth or in heaven. God even tells us that we cannot please Him without having faith: “Without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” – Hebrews 11:6 By the grace of God, faith is the means by which we are saved and obtain eternal life: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.” – Ephesians 2:8,9 These verses clearly indicate that God requires His children to put their faith totally in Him. However, Christians who believe in the OE theories are putting faith in a false belief system that was created by sinful, God-hating men, and inspired by Satan himself. Christians who subscribe to the OE theories deny the six-day creation or the global Flood. They claim that modern science has disproved the accounts presented within Genesis; therefore the Genesis account is no longer scientifically feasible. They deny the literal accounts of Genesis, yet believe the other scientifically impossible portions of the bible, even though many scientific evidences point to a recent creation and a world wide flood as told in the accounts of Genesis. The Bible tells us of many scientifically impossible events that Christians must accept as truth. Why is it that some of the events get dismissed and allegorized by theistic evolutionists or old-earthers, while other events are held on to and presented as the literal truth by these same people, despite their obvious scientific impossibilities? Why is it that the events such as a recent creation and the Flood, which actually have scientific data to support them, become allegories while the others with no scientific support are still held as fact? Here are a few examples of basic Biblical teachings that are claimed to be scientifically impossible and disagree with popular scientific beliefs: The creation of the world in six days. (Genesis 1-2) The creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his side. (Genesis 2:7, 2:22) The worldwide flood of Noah. (Genesis 6-8) Men living to long ages. (Genesis 9:29) Moses’ staff turning into a snake. (Exodus 4:3) The sun standing still for Joshua. (Joshua 10:13 Peter walking on the water with Jesus. (Matthew 14:29) Jesus turning water into wine (John 2: 1-11), healing the sick, and raising the dead. Jesus rising from the dead. (John 20,21) If we can allegorize the first three examples, perhaps we can allegorize the resurrection of Jesus. After all, both are scientifically impossible. Dead people don’t rise from the grave after three days. That would be the way to scientifically approach the text. Of course, there is a danger in presenting this kind of a watered-down Bible: the message of salvation is gone. The following quote by evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth summarizes why the issue of a young-earth creation is so important: “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” The debate over origins is not just about how the universe came into existence. It is about every single word in the Bible and whether we can take God at His word. There are places in the Bible that are symbolic, but the context of those verses always indicates that a symbolic interpretation is required. There is absolutely no indication in the Genesis creation account that it should be interpreted as anything but literally, just as the verses that tell about Jesus’ resurrection are to be interpreted literally. If God created the universe over billions of years, why did He not tell us this in His Word to us? Why would He confuse us by telling us He did it in six literal days, creating debate and strife among some Christians? Either we take all of God’s Word at face value, or we must reject it from Genesis to Revelation.
Bibliography Ankerberg, J. and J. Weldon, 1998: Darwin’s Leap of Faith: Exposing the False Religion of Evolution. Harvest House Publishers, pp. 392 Behe, M. J., 1996: Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Simon and Schuster, pp. 307 DeYoung, D.B., 2002: Theological Implications of Deep Time. CRSQ, vol. 39, p. 22-24. Huse, S. 1983: The Collapse of Evolution. Baker Book House, p. 122-124. Johnson, P.E., 1991: Darwin on Trial. Intervarsity Press, pp. 219 Johnson, P.E., 2001: Evolution and Christian Faith. A message delivered at the Evangelical Free Church of Hershey, PA, May 13. Martin, J. 1994: Evolution of a Creationist. Biblical Discipleship Publishers, pp. 210 |
Home
Articles Blog Faith Family Random Recipes Trips Weather Wedding |
||