Tools of Satan?
Published: 10 January 2013 (GMT+10)
In some feedback by R.S. to Philip Bell’s recent article Perils of Theistic Evolution, it was argued that the preaching of theistic evolution is being used by Satan to destroy the Christian faith. Mark M. of the UK disagrees. His email is reproduced below, interspersed with a response by Dominic Statham.
But how do you really know that Satan is using those who are theistic evolutionists and not those who are young earth creationists? After all he is a deceptive one.
According to evangelist Mark Cahill, “The number one answer I get for there not being a God … is evolution”
Indeed; and from the beginning, Satan’s strategy has been to ask “Did God say?” (Genesis 3:1). He is saying the same today and many people are listening. More and more prefer to believe the world’s view of origins rather than the plain teaching of the Bible.
Jesus said, “By their fruit you will know them” (Matthew 7:20). This surely applies to the fruit of a person’s teaching as well as that of their personal life. Jesus made this clear to the Pharisees, particularly in respect of their rejection of the ministry of John the Baptist: “John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him” (Matthew 21:32). Philip Bell’s article makes clear that evolution undermines some of the most important Christian truths. This is hardly good fruit.
The simple fact is that many, many people who would come to know Christ do not and will not purely because they are put off by YECism. Many others raised as creationists leave the church daily because of it.
The religious studies scholar Professor Huston Smith wrote, ‘Martin Lings is probably right in saying that more cases of the loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution … than anything else.’
People do not reject Christ because of the preaching of any biblical truth, including the truth about creation, but because they love darkness (John 3:19). Moreover, it appears that many justify their atheism by embracing evolution. The religious studies scholar Professor Huston Smith wrote, “Martin Lings is probably right in saying that more cases of the loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution … than anything else.”1 According to evangelist Mark Cahill, “The number one answer I get for there not being a God … is evolution.”2 This suggests that people have great difficulty reconciling the doctrine of evolution with Christianity, rather than a belief in biblical creation.
Young people, raised as creationists, leave the church because they have not been taught the facts. They suffer years of secular, evolutionary indoctrination at school and are never told the other side of the story. The bankruptcy of the claim that evolution is well supported by science is easily exposed. At the same time, the evidence supporting the biblical account of creation and Earth history grows by the month. (See, for example, here). Despite this, many youngsters in churches reach adulthood never having been told these things.
I’ve witnessed both scenarios enough times to see that YECism benefits Satan far more than a loving God who would not work so hard to alienate so much of the humanity He loves.
It is surely the teaching of evolution that benefits Satan. We have to agree with Cornell Professor of Biology, Will Provine that, on balance, “belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people”.3 It is surely evolution that alienates people from God too. As argued by the philosopher of science, Professor David Hull, “Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.”4 How can theistic evolutionists answer this?
I know many other Christians who accept science fully, evolution, big bang and all the rest, yet remain devout to God and his word throughout their lives. And through their wonder at the real deeper miracles of His creation, bring many others into faith. So it is clearly not science that is doing the damage but denial of it!
If these Christians were really scientific they would know just how strong the scientific arguments against these ideas are. Nobel Prize-winner Professor Sir Ernst Chain FRS described the theory of evolution as a “hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.”5 The same can be said today. The theory of evolution is maintained by a commitment to philosophical naturalism, rather than science. That this is true becomes clearer by the month, as more and more top evolutionists admit that current theories of evolution cannot begin to explain what we find in the natural world.6,7,8,9,10
There may, indeed, be those who have believed what the world has to say about our origins and continued to believe in Christ for the duration of their lives. But it is necessary to look at the bigger picture. Fruits take time to manifest and the effect is seen over a number of generations. Since people in the church began to compromise the plain teaching of the Bible (starting in the early part of the 19th century), there has been a gradual erosion of biblical authority, in both the church and society as a whole. We are now seeing this accelerating, as more and more churches compromise on traditional Christian morality and the governments of western nations pass more and more anti-Christian legislation.
Is some of the derogatory language used here to describe scientists and fellow Christians who are not creationists always the sort of language Christ would use to describe His fellow man? Or is it closer to that of hate filled Satan? Is the fact that such hateful words come into your minds so readily not another clue that you may be the ones following the wrong path?
Speaking for myself, I do not use derogatory language to describe fellow Christians and I believe that people can believe in evolution and belong to Christ. I refer to such people as compromised or deceived. While CMI firmly believes the theory of evolution to be a lie, we do accept that one can be genuinely saved and, at the same time, in serious error in this matter of origins and biblical authority. The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines some of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity, such as the origin and meaning of sin and death and therefore the Gospel itself. It weakens and destroys the very foundations of our faith. Hence, I must conclude that even believers may be used as tools of Satan in this area. Moreover, it would be naive to imagine that all theistic evolutionists professing to be Christians are saved. In the parable of the weeds, Jesus did teach that there would always be the unsaved in the church (Matthew 13:24–30). When one sees those who, fully aware of the doctrinal implications for the rest of Scripture, strongly oppose biblical creation and passionately urge others to embrace theistic evolution instead, it’s hard not to be reminded of the fierce wolves among the flock (Acts 20:29), even when they appear outwardly as gentle sheep in other respects (see Matthew 7:15).
Belief in evolution seems to be like the tale of the emperor’s new clothes. Everyone is telling everyone else there’s lots of evidence supporting Darwin’s theory because everyone else is saying so.
I feel frustration towards theistic evolutionists, not hatred. Their ignorance of the scientific facts is enough to bring me to tears. They are convinced that science has shown evolution to be true because so many scientists say so. However, when I ask these scientists for the evidence for evolution they are unable to answer me. It seems to be like the emperor’s new clothes. Everyone is telling everyone else there’s lots of evidence supporting Darwin’s theory because everyone else is saying so. When creation scientists present the evidence against evolution it is not seriously considered. The evolutionist’s mindset seems to be ‘however strong an argument against evolution appears, it cannot really be valid because evolution is a fact.’ With this approach, however, a person can never discover that they are wrong.
The Bible is God’s word, and as such must have been written to last forever. From the earliest desert nomads who first knew Him, with no scientific knowledge through to our own scientific age and beyond. It cannot therefore always be as simple as it seems. God is loving but also beyond our comprehension.
Your comment appears to imply that the contrast between the Bible’s view of origins and that of evolution is somehow compelled by the need for ‘desert nomads’ to understand creation. This does not fit the facts however. If God really ‘created by evolution’, the many children’s books on evolution show that this can be presented very simply.
The Bible is indeed God’s eternal word and, like its author, its truth and message do not change (Hebrews 13:8). The unchanging nature of the Bible’s history is in stark contrast to the theory of evolution which changes radically on a regular basis. Professor Provine wrote, “Most of what I learned of the field [of evolutionary biology] in graduate school (1964–68) is either wrong or significantly changed.”11
What never ceases to astonish me is that people don’t realise that ‘facts’ which are no longer facts were never facts in the first place. The ‘facts of evolution’ which people were taught fifty years ago were never based on science in the way people generally think of the term. If they were, they would still be facts today. Yet many of the previous generation became theistic evolutionists based on these ‘facts’. The same is true of this generation. They are embracing theistic evolution based on today’s ‘facts’. Tragically, they don’t realise that these latest ‘facts’ are no more scientific than yesterday’s ‘facts’ which have now been consigned to the rubbish bin.
The fact the two creation stories clearly contradict each other in the order in which things were created is another clue that you may be wrong.
I assume you are referring to the alleged contradictions between the accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The sceptics claim that Genesis 1 teaches that the plants were made before man, but Genesis 2:5–7 that man was made before the plants. This is easily answered by the context. Genesis 2:5–6 refers to the plants that God created specifically for Adam and Eve to cultivate, not plants in general as found throughout the earth. They are described as being shrubs and plants “of the field” (Genesis 2:5), rather than the earth as a whole. These had not yet been created “because there was no man to work the ground” (Genesis 2:5). It is ridiculous to argue that this refers to the plants created in Genesis 1:11, as Adam could not possibly have tended all the plants in the world. Genesis 2:9 speaks specifically of the Garden of Eden and how God made “trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.” These were also created specially for Adam and Eve, and speaks of God’s exceptional, loving care for the first couple. Regarding the order of animals being created, see also Genesis contradictions?
I wonder though, how you could possibly think that, overall, a position like yours, that claims that the Bible contradicts itself, would be either more pleasing to God or more likely to have people commit their lives to following the Christ it portrays? How could they ultimately trust the Bible, which claims to be the very Word of God, on anything?
I will pray that you publish this for those who use your site.
- Smith, H., Evolution and Evolutionism, The Christian Century 99(23):755, 1982. Return to text.
- Personal communication with Calvin Smith; creation.com/enemy-revealed. Return to text.
- Provine, W.B., ‘No free will’ in Catching up with the Vision, Margaret W Rossiter (Ed.), Chicago University Press, p. S123, 1999. Return to text.
- Hull, D., The God of the Galápagos, Nature 352:485–86, 8 August 1991. Return to text.
- Chain, E., Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society, Council of Christians and Jews, UK, 1970, p. 25. Return to text.
- Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin Books, UK, 1999. Return to text.
- Kauffman, S., At Home in the Universe: the Search for Laws of Self-Organisation and Complexity, Oxford University Press, UK, 1995. Return to text.
- Mazur, S., The Altenberg 16: An expose of the evolution industry, North Atlantic Books, USA, 2010. Return to text.
- Morris, S.C., Life’s Solution: Inevitable humans in a lonely universe, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2003. Return to text.
- Shapiro, J.A., Evolution: A view from the 21st century, FT Press Science, USA, 2001. Return to text.
- Provine, W.B., A Review of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 18 Feb 1999; http://web.archive.org/web/20040709130607/fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/NAS_guidebook/provine_1.html, last accessed 8 December, 2012. Return to text.
By faith I accepted Christ as Saviour in 1981 through believing the Bible was God's Word, and as God doesn't lie, I simply believed all that was written in God's Word was true.
As a Christian I started reading the Scriptures with enthusiasm, starting at Genesis. - At the beginning. I read the account of creation and the fall at face value. "God said ...." and I believed Him; it was a matter of faith, why should the very first words of God be anything other than truth? I learned of Satan's ploys, "Has God said..." I learned of the flood as described by God, I accepted it by faith, I read many things which previously I had only half accepted. I later read of strange animals in Job 40 and 41, I was filled with wonder as I realised what they were. I only became aware of creationist publications after I had trained as a missionary with New Tribes Mission about five years later. I had succumbed for a short while to a gap theory of creation but this was exposed as error by the teaching I received from NTM.
Why do I say all this? At that time it seemed that a belief in creation and to a lesser extent a belief in a young earth were the norm, today it seems to be the exception. "Has God said ..." appears to be gaining ground with many Christians, newer Christians especially. Our culture in the West has changed over the years. Evolutionary, geological and cosmological teachings are promoted as never before. Biblical teaching is diminishing, churches are compromising on the truth of the Word and people are asking if the work of CMI is satanic!
I thank God for raising up men such as you, to teach the wonder of God's creation, helping in this spiritual battle to turn Christians back to "God said, ... and it was very good."
And I thank you.
Back in the late '80s and early '90s, when I was a missionary in China, I had a vision to become a creation evangelist, like Ken Ham. I saw, especially in China, how evolutionary teaching was blinding the eyes of people from accepting Christ as Savior. The problem seemed to lie in not getting past the first few chapters of Genesis. Shortly after the time of 9/11, when I began reading materials by Ken Ham, I started to become discouraged with the YEC position- that insisted that there could not be any physical death before Adam's sin according to Genesis 2:17 "....for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." I was taught in my church to take everything in Genesis 1-11 literally, but I found a problem with that in this verse. Notice that the words "day" and "die" cannot possibly mean a literal 24 hour day and physical death, because we know that Adam did in fact eat of the tree of knowledge, and lived on to the ripe old age of 930. The only way that "Yom" here can mean a 24 hour day is if "Die" means something other than physical death- as in spiritual death, or separation from God (which is consistent with the rest of the Bible). In no way can both words be taken literally. If, if fact, "die" here means spiritual death, then there should be no problem with the possibility that there was physical death on the earth prior to this event. I was deeply discouraged by Ken Ham's remarks that insisted that there could be no physical death before Adam, or else we might as well throw our salvation away, since it means that Genesis is lying, and if Genesis is lying, then we might as well throw out the whole Bible. I have since continued to remain a YEC, but I am much more open to considering the contributions of OEC , and yes, even theistic evolution.
In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word 'yom' is combined with numbers (‘first day’, ‘second day’, ‘third day’, etc.) and with the words ‘evening and morning’. In this context, 'yom' means an ordinary 24 hour day.
In Genesis 2:17, 'yom' is prefixed by the preposition 'be', indicating that it does not refer to an ordinary 24 hour day. Hence the NIV translates Genesis 2:17 as "when you eat from it you will certainly die." Numbers 26:65 uses the same Hebrew verbs and the same grammatical construction: "For the Lord had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness" (KJV). Again, the Israelites did not die that very day but over the following years.
God's judgement of Adam clearly involved physical death as well as spiritual death as God said to him, "to dust you will return" (Genesis 3:19). This clearly implies that Adam would not have died had he not sinned.
Theistic evolution (TE) and OEC place death before sin and therefore undermine crucial biblical doctrines such as the goodness of God and the origin of death. God is perfectly good and made a world that reflected his perfect nature. Suffering and death invaded this world because of our sin. This is crucial in defending the character of God.
Acceptance of TE or OEC also seriously undermine the authority of Scripture. Most people (especially Hebrew scholars) can see that Genesis teaches special creation over six ordinary days (see http://creation.com/oxford-hebraist-james-barr-genesis-means-what-it-says). So if TE or OEC are true then Genesis is wrong. We simply cannot afford to compromise on this.
To claim that 'God used evolution' and millions of years of death and suffering and random accidents is to diminish the God of creation and to trivialise His holiness, wisdom, omnipotence and majesty. Evolutionary teaching clearly erodes the bible's authority and gives immoral people an excuse to reject God. I believe that was precisely the objective of those who invented and pushed evolutionary theory in the nineteenth century (and those like Dawkins who push it now). Evolution is an anti-God religion, a man-made belief system, intended to explain the origin of life and the universe without recognising a divine Creator. Thus, it is ironic that anyone who believes in Almighty God should consciously accept and promote the worldwide atheistic religion that actively undermines God's word and His authority (ie: by believing theistic evolution instead of the historical facts of Genesis).
It is vital to remember Christ's teaching in all these things
Indeed. And Christ clearly believed in a young Earth and special creation. See, for example, http://creation.com/jesus-age-earth.
While I was a physics undergraduate, I started to examine the evidence for the existance of God. I wasn't a Christian at the time, although I grew up in a Christian family, and I hadn't shown much interest in Christianity since going to uni. I was starting to drift away from what I had been taught as a child. After all, if I could start by tearing out the first 11 chapters of Genesis, why should I bother to take the Bible seriously at all? It simply didn't seem honest to me to "reinterpret" Genesis to mean something it didn't say... I figured that if God had made the universe by the Big Bang and the variety of life we see via evolution, He could very easily have said that in a way that ancient people could have read. To talk about specially creating Eve out of Adam, for example, if the two just evolved from hominids, wouldn't make any sense at all. The more I looked at the Bible, the less sense theistic evolution made.
As I was looking at the question of whether evolution is true--I was thankful as well for all the pro-evolution material available--I found a book which very clearly examined the evidence. Unfortunately, it took an Old Age view of the earth :o(, but at least its analysis of the biology was good. That helped me to see that there were good scientific reasons for questioning evolution, and saved me from drifting away from any openness to the Gospel.
Thankfully, I eventually became a Christian, and good creationist resources were important in reassuring me that the foundations of the Gospel, beginning in Genesis 3, were solid.
I now find that the creation/evolution is very important in witnessing.
Theistic Evolution can NOT find a fit within Scripture. All those who say the Creation ideas separate us from God, I ask who is their god?
For any Christian to say they believe in evolution is beyond my comprehension. To discount the first 11 chapters of God's word and then say you believe the New Testament's account of Jesus being the creator of the universe is unbelievable.
Saying that soteriology is not linked to creation is a bit of a stretch. Romans 5:12 is part of the heart and soul of soteriology, identifying a single source for the introduction of sin in a previously unstained environment. Romans 5:12 presumes the creation-fall narrative as recorded in Genesis 1-3. Thus, if the need is Jesus, the problem is sin. The source of sin is the Fall, and if man had not been created and had not fallen in accordance with Romans 5, then the need for salvation is not valid since the entrance of sin into the system would also be invalid. Thus, the creation-fall cycle is indeed inextricably linked with soteriology.
Your comments in this paragraph so closely reflect how I feel about this subject that they brought me to tears. "I feel frustration towards theistic evolutionists, not hatred. Their ignorance of the scientific facts is enough to bring me to tears. They are convinced that science has shown evolution to be true because so many scientists say so. However, when I ask these scientists for the evidence for evolution they are unable to answer me. It seems to be like the emperor’s new clothes." I cannot express my gratitude to the work you and your colleagues across the world do, because I cannot understand how Christians can accept evolution when the plain truth is not only written in Genesis 1, but also, by God's own finger, in tablets of stone, that He created all things the exact way He stated. How can anyone 'allegorise' that and still call themselves 'bible-believing'? Thank you so much for this article, and I pray that the brother you were replying to will have his eyes opened to the light of truth and be filled with joy in knowing the truth. Blessings to you.
‘GUESS THE VOICE’
Simple game for those with some spiritual discernment: guess who these two voices belong to.
Voice one: “God said: in six days”
Voice two: “Did God really say ‘in six days?’”
If you had no problem discerning each voice, please pray for those who can’t.
“My sheep listen to my voice” (John 10:27)
It's a pity that statements such as "the plain meaning of Scripture" are not qualified by "in my opinion". Dominic Statham is claiming infallibility here and refusing to acknowledge alternative interpretations that go back many centuries.
Anecdotal statements connecting evolution with atheism from individuals do not constitute proof: it is easy to make a case for almost anything using this impoverished technique. It also ignores the plain fact that many evangelicals believe in evolution. Anecdotes from a 1945 Noble Laureate is not a proper argument. This is a scientific question and should be looked at scientifically.
"I refer to such people as compromised or deceived." This does betray an extraordinary chutzpah about this non trivial subject. Comparing theistic evolutionists to gospel "wolves" is even worse!
"The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines some of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity, such as the origin and meaning of sin and death and therefore the Gospel itself." This opinion is disputed.
"Their ignorance of the scientific facts" These so called "facts" are disavowed by the scientific community. The later discussion by Statham about "facts" is remarkable in not being aware that the "pot is clearly calling the kettle black".
The article which was quoted as saying "According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found." (note the only actual quote was the word "ancient") in fact said: estimates of "time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA)" varied between 46 and 59 thousand years ago so refuting YECism
"It's a pity that statements such as 'the plain meaning of Scripture' are not qualified by 'in my opinion'. Dominic Statham is claiming infallibility here and refusing to acknowledge alternative interpretations that go back many centuries."
Ought I, then, also to qualify the Nicene Creed with "in my opinion"? Actually, prior to the nineteenth century, the clear majority of commentators believed in a young earth and special creation. Belief in a young earth, for example, appears to have been unanimous amongst the church fathers. (Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, ch. 3.) See also http://creation.com/church-fathers-flood and http://creation.com/orthodoxy-and-genesis-what-the-fathers-really-taught.
"Anecdotal statements connecting evolution with atheism from individuals do not constitute proof."
Presumably, then, you would level the same criticism at Mark M's statement, "The simple fact is that many, many people who would come to know Christ do not and will not purely because they are put off by YECism. Many others raised as creationists leave the church daily because of it." Moreover, I presume you consider Mark Cahill's experience (along with many other evangelists) to be strangely unrepresentative.
"Anecdotes from a 1945 Noble Laureate is not a proper argument. This is a scientific question and should be looked at scientifically."
Given that I provide a reference, I hardly think this can be described as anecdotal. Moreover, if Chain considered neo-Darwinism inadequate to explain the natural world as he saw it in 1970 (the date of the reference), what would he say if he knew what we know today about the indescribable complexity of the cell and DNA? The gap between what Darwinism can explain and what we observe in the natural world grows by the week.
"'The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines some of the most fundamental tenets of Christianity, such as the origin and meaning of sin and death and therefore the Gospel itself.' This opinion is disputed."
Indeed it is disputed. However, as we demonstrate in many of our articles, the arguments of theistic evolutionists are extremely weak!
"The article which was quoted [http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics] as saying "According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found." (note the only actual quote was the word "ancient") in fact said: estimates of "time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA)" varied between 46 and 59 thousand years ago so refuting YECism."
This depends on the rate at which you understand the 'molecular clocks' tick. Interestingly, one secular scientist 'dated' Mitochondrial Eve to around 6,000 years ago. (See http://creation.com/a-shrinking-date-for-eve.)
This is my take on the issue
Theistic Evolutionists say, "Did God really say?" Creationists say, "God spoke".
The very idea that CMI should be a tool of satan, is illogical, even stupid. There is no way to argue truthfully for this strange thought. Standing on (in!) the Scripture(s) is rather a defence against evil. Keep up the good work, and be (still) courageous!
Sad to see how theistic evolution can be held up by Christians when it places sin and death in the wrong order. The Bible is clear enough: first sin then death. With theistic evolution you get man, death, then sin. If you can't get the first part right nothing else that follows works.
My college chemistry professor, a strong evolutionist, stated that the chemicals in existence today, originated from the stars. He respected my beliefs as a YEC, but said he would not tolerate any scientific explanations I would put forth in his class.
If an evolutionist and a YECist were to start from the very beginning, each would find a huge barrier. In the beginning was God. But where did God come from? Or, in the beginning was the big bang. But where did the supposed "stuff" of the universe come from and if nothing else existed, what would have caused that stuff to explode? These are the two main philosophical views of the origin of our existence. Neither view can go past this point.
Now move forward with time. YEC: Life comes from life. God created everything. Man sinned. All of creation is in decay. The creation evidences are overwhelming. From the results of the Flood accounts to the major ice age resulting from the Flood to the creatures trapped in the fossil record from the Flood and other geologic events since to the Tower of Babel in explaining our various languages to the time periods of our ancestors, the Bible has recorded these events so well.
All evolution has as evidence is the hope of a single missing link. Evolutionists reinterpret, falsify, deceive, and distort to acquire their evidences (these are the true tools of satan). It is just a fictional story with no valid meaning except to attempt to understand our existence apart from what God has stated within the Scriptures.
Evolutionists can be saved, but they must ignore mounds of evidences in favor of creationism. Why is this important? Because if there was no creation as stated in the Bible, there would be no reason for Jesus to save the world.
Yes. It is that simple.
Excellent rebuttal CMI.
The atheist's taunt, "Where did God come from?" is a very weak and philosophically unsound argument. For example, the laws of thermodynamics indicate that the universe has not always existed. (The universe is heading towards 'heat death' as all its energy is slowly being exhausted, so it can't have been around for ever.) It is therefore reasonable to understand that the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. It is also reasonable to understand that the universe's ultimate first cause had no beginning - something had to exist in the first place to start it all off. Christians believe this first cause to be God, who is outside of time. (See also http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf.)
Some atheists argue that the universe created itself from nothing, but this has absolutely no basis in either science or rational thought. Alternatively, they can speculate that some material first cause always existed, in which case they effectively refute that skeptics argument that Christianity is philosophically unsound because it posits the existence of an eternal, uncreated deity.
When it comes to origins, it is surely Christians who have the intellectual high ground, not the atheists.
Let God be true and every man a liar. The Bible says Satan is the father of lies therefore every lie comes from him whether directly or otherwise. Jesus is the truth "I am the way the truth and the life'' and His word is the truth including The Book of Genesis which declares God created the world in six literal days. My conclusion.... theistic evolution is a lie and therefor a tool of Satan.
If you believe Genesis 1 and 2 are the 'infallible Word of God', then you will see the world and all science within that paradigm. No amount of information which may counter that will convince you otherwise of its verity. If you believe Jesus to be the living Word of God, as I do, then you will not idolise the Bible and call it the Word of God, nor deem it to be infallible. I do not worship a book. The Word I worship is 'living and powerful' and not restricted to pages of 'holy writ' whose authority is the Roman Catholic church which deemed it so.
The book of Genesis has at least two authors, hence the Elohim of Genesis 1 and the Jehovah (a post Moses word) of chapter 2, a melding of two historical legends put together. Personally I don't think God would take 6 days to create this planet or the universe. He would do it in the twinkling of an eye, just by declaring it so as He is beyond and outside of time.
However there is important symbolism in the Genesis story that we can draw from, such as being made in God's image (does this mean God is humanoid?). However rather than dogmatically asserting that it happened exactly as Genesis described (who was around to record this?) I applaud Mark M for raising the issues he has, for which the vast majority of your respondents unquestioningly dismiss.
The Bible is full of historical dogma, written within the paradigm of the particular scribe who penned the words. The Genesis story is an ancient creation story, and certainly a lot better than some others such as the Hindu idea of the world being on the back of a giant turtle swimming around in celestial soup. Many theistic and progressive creationists view it allegorically rather than literally. Are they wrong and you right? The letter kills....but the Spirit gives life.
"If you believe Genesis 1 and 2 are the 'infallible Word of God', then you will see the world and all science within that paradigm." Similarly, if you believe in evolution, you will interpret all observations according to that paradigm. As many articles on our website make clear, however, the data fit the biblical account of creation and Earth history far better than they fit the evolutionary story.
We do not worship the Bible, but the God who has revealed Himself and spoken through the Bible. If you do not worship this God, what god do you worship? It will surely be a god of your own making and imagination.
The two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are complimentary as I make clear in the article.
"Personally I don't think God would take 6 days to create this planet or the universe. He would do it in the twinkling of an eye, just by declaring it so as He is beyond and outside of time. " I think you are very brave to determine for God what he should and should not do.
Presumably, you also object to Christ's dogmatic assertions that Genesis is to be taken literally?
@Kenneth R.--The U.S. is on track to becoming as lost as the U.K. They've tossed God out of schools and continue to teach evolution. Atheists actively campaign to erode Christianity in our society, and few Christians are standing up to defend our faith. Unbelievers use words like "intolerant" and "judgmental" to try to shut down the few believers who have the temerity to defend our faith--with great success. Violence increases, evil reigns, and people ask "How can God let these horrible things happen?" People reject Him and then cry over the consequences. What right do they have to wring their hands and blame God?
I was a theistic evolutionist because evolution was the only thing taught in school. I never thought too deeply about whether it was logical because the church taught me it was a matter of faith. When I found CMI and began reading their wonderful articles, a weight was lifted from my heart. Now, at last, I can embrace God's Word without reservation and know that science doesn't contradict the Bible, but supports it. I thank God for CMI in my prayers daily. May God continue to bless this ministry.
Mark is wrong. Theistic evolution IS a tool of Satan. It postulates the sequence: matter + random evolutionary factors + mutations + selection by deaths + long ages + God(?), which contradicts and nullifies the plan of salvation that God put into being to save the world from sin's slavery. Just one of these steps is enough to prove it: the innumerable deaths. From the first page to to the last, the Bible reveals 1) how sin entered the world; 2) that this resulted in death and separation from God who is life; 3) God's manifested intention to save the sinners; 4) the means employed to reach the goal, namely Jesus and 5) the destruction of death as the last enemy (1 Cor.15:26).
This plan was prophesied and then perfectly implemented - a plan accurately presented (Gen.3:16); promoted (Gen.22; Is.53); and realised Mt. 26 to 28; Rev. 21, reveals the result of a well planned one, and not the result of a long series of supposed chances which are doubtful just because of their endless happenings (as pure chances I mean). Plan which, a part of what already said, deals with the biggest of the problems = EVIL! How can evilution solve the problem? Or should we say that because evolution doesn't even recognise the problem (which mars every action of our humanity) cuts itself out revealing itself as irrational? Evil revealed in selfishness is gnawing at this poor humanity under the banner of humanistic freedom!
One has to wonder which Jesus Theistic Evolutionists and even Progressive Creationists worship? According to the Gospel According to John, Jesus IS THE CREATOR! If someone does not believe that God created ALL things (EX 20:11) in 6 literal days (sorry Dr. Ross but a literal day has only 1 meaning - a 24 hour day) but only started the ball rolling and then stepped away, then what Jesus are they placing their faith in? Some of Satan's deceptions are more fine-tuned today then they were back in Elijah's day when the pagans worshiped Baal - usually made of wood or stone.
What I cannot understand is why we take man's word over God's word. If God had created in a different way then He would have said so. We constantly try to make ourselves smart, but we will look like the fools in the end. There is no in between lines in the Bible. It says plainly and clearly how God created... Thanks for always shedding light on what God has written.
On what basis would people turn away from God because of young earth teachings? There are plenty of places they could go to to have their ears tickled with theistic evolutionism - why wouldn't they just go there instead? No need to turn away from God because of that.
On the other hand, there are clear reasons for people turning away from God when theistic evolutionism is presented. This teaching undermines the authority of Scripture, and hence our understanding of God, and can easily lead to a dismissal of God altogether.
P.S. It's great to read articles like this and to see all the mature responses from like-minded people. It helps and encourages one to gird up one's loins and continue in the fight for truth.
That's one of the problem with many Brits. Like Esau they have sold their birthright for a bowl of lentils. Britain probably has more virulent, anti-Christian atheists and defenders of evolution than any other country on the planet, and many Christians have bought into the idea that anti-creationism (evolution) can somehow be wedged into the first chapter of Genesis. After all, Darwin evolved from that soil. Too many British Christians just want to fit in so that no one will call them names. It's truly tragic what has happened in that country.
Look, sedimentary rocks must be laid down quickly in water, and fossils must likewise be preserved very quickly. There is absolutely no other way demonstrable in science. But beside Evolution et al, we must now consider the facts of intricate design and the symbiotic relationships of plants, animals, insects and microbes. The astounding organization of what we once considered to be 'simple cells' demands an intelligence far greater than mankind's. Meanwhile, the Big Bang theory embarrassingly suggests that everything came out of nothing, and the fact remains that science cannot tell us what life is, what time is, or where energy and motion came from. Please, let's not demean ourselves with arguments about things that we neither know nor understand. Satan surely laughs at such lunacy.
Well done CMI as you continue to proclaim the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ and point people in the direction of an awesome creator God!
I do believe that "Mark" is out in left field. I have never known of a case where a prospective believer was "put off" by young earth creation...that is nonsense in and of itself. Whenever I have witnessed to someone and they bring up the age of the earth, I simply state that we don't know exactly how old the earth is...because we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before they fell into sin. That answer has satisfied any opposition on that count, and based upon the evidence that we have (when not doctored over by evolutionary unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions), I think the earth is between 6,000 - 10,000 years old, and definitely not very much older if it is.
Keep up the good work, CMI!
Theistic evolution is not a result of knowledge, but ignorance.
The theory of evolution is based on a denial of the absolutes of God and His Word. Satan has deceived the whole world. Beginning with the first couple and continuing through today, he has succeeded in persuading men and women to doubt and reject God. In humanistic philosophies, man’s reason is used to impose judgment on God’s Word. But even man’s governments are under the control of Satan. Consider Luke 4:5-7 - The devil led him (Jesus) up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.”
I'd say the reader in the UK has already fallen into satan's trap.
Thank you Dominic and CMI for continuing to defend the inerrancy of Scripture.
When I was a young man and a new Christian there were many thoughts and ideas that I had that were causing me real mental anguish as I had not yet properly understood what the Bible said about them.
The infallibility of the pope, praying to Mary and the “saints”, evolution, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. occupied my thoughts. Fortunately for me our loving Father had given the gift of faith that the Bible was totally true. I didn’t ask for it or earn it. It just was. Now understanding it was of course a different matter so some 40 years later I am still working on a more perfect understanding of It. Over the years I have had many individuals preach and teach truth to me, to whom I am thankful. Many of my questions were put on shelves in my mind to await the day when God in his wisdom and mercy would provide answers for me. When I learned of young earth creationists and read the materials available a weight was lifted from me. I don’t want to aggrandize or to diminish learning the ridiculousness of evolution but it has been a blessing over the last 30 years.
I was no less “saved” before this understanding but my salvation has been sweeter and less stressful because of it. So keep going my dear brothers and sisters, my fellow building stones with the particular giftings that our gracious and loving Father has given you/us.
My experience when I first accepted Christ was when I still believed what I was taught in school, that we evolved from the apes. My life was a mess, I didn't want to live and was scared. When a minister led me to Christ (at 33) my life changed and I knew God was real. More evidence was a dramatic healing in my body. When I went to a creation seminar years later I was so excited to find the Creation story in the Bible was true. Every time I see evidence of Dragons being created the same day as man and evidence of DNA or bone marrow I get excited all over. I have to learn man's teaching to believe in millions of years. I don't get it from just reading the creation account in my Bible. I'm almost 70 now and so grateful to Creation Ministries. The main thing I found was that the whole earth along with animals is under a curse from Adam's sin, not just man alone. If death didn't come in with Adam's sin, then Jesus' death on the cross wouldn't cancel that power of that death in my life and others. The timeline also makes a lot of sense to me also. For years I was afraid to look at science in case it proved the Bible wrong, now I chose to look at the evidence to prove it is true and God is real to me today. To me it all comes down I to choose to believe.
Fabulous article. Compliments to CMI for the tireless work they are doing. May the God of creation bless them in every way.
Satan is using every tool he can to undermine the Christian "truth".
Theistic evolution is one of those tools and arguing (for) it is another one of those tools. In fact, the word 'evolution' is a misnomer ... the proper word is "evolutionism" which is a belief system about the past that has no god.
My 'one line' sermon is simply, "Anyone who wants to argue with the Christian God and His Word (the Bible) is going to lose".
"Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge". Anything else is a waste and results in a death sentence. Cheers, Herb
As many have said prior to this, evolutionism/ creationism is not a salvation issue. However, the extents of our understanding and belief that God is responsible for the existence of the physical creation mirrors our willingness to believe him in the spiritual. If we cannot see that he created the world in 6 days, why should we believe that he raised a man from the dead. If we cannot believe that he spoke the universe into being, why should we believe that there will be a final day (at which humans will be present) on which fire will rain from the heavens and consume the planet.
My argument is that limiting ourselves to theistic evolution also places limits on our belief in the power and supremacy of God. The full experience of God comes to those, who like Elijah, are willing to place undivided faith in the word of the living God and oppose the world. Unlike in his day, the text is complete, and we have no need of miracles to support God's word - it stands alone.
Ultimately, denying the power of God's text will make the truth of salvation more difficult to access, not easier.
I read through the comments on this article and came to realize the church is losing ground because of the hard-headedness to accept evolution. No doubt you get those who exploit the theory for their own causes, but nature is not that simple and your worldview will influence your interpretation of any findings. To me evolution shows the greatness of God and the patience and care He is known for. Why the Church is quiet on issues in Cosmology? Why is the Church not attacking the work in the LHC or even physics and chemistry? God is greater than nature and our thinking around these things. To say Evolution is destroying the authority of God's Word is to accept the tail to wag the dog. Evolution only explains the how, and if the theory is falsified it will not diminish the character of God.
The true Church of Jesus Christ could never 'lose ground' in God's eyes by failing to embrace compromise, whether evolutionary or otherwise. How exactly does evolution (a process that makes God seem limited in power and knowledge) show the greatness of God? This couldn't be further from the truth! But you contradict yourself anyway, by asserting that the falsification of evolution wouldn't diminish His character (which clearly includes His greatness)! You're trying to have a two way bet.
It seems to me that some conclusions on the side of theistic-evolutionists are the result of their ignorance of Who God really is ("Did really God say that?" Was the Satan's first attempt to mislead Eve. Suggestion that works even today). The basic problem is "full knowledge" whatever field may be the subject. Do we "really" know "in depth" what we are talking about? Like, to find contradictions in God's word (Genesis 1 and 2). A God, to be really A GOD, must be able to do things that - seemingly - go away from HUMAN logic; see Day - Night alternation before sun's creation. If this is difficult for a God to do in order to manifest His power, which kind of god is he?
Thanks for great articles. In short, surely if one does not accept the Word of God as literal (except of course where God tells us we may allegorise), then one is not actually believing in God. The Lord states categorically that He created everything in 6 days, Christ reiterated this in scripture. If we are truly saved and thus a child of God, we MUST accept and trust the Word.
It makes me sad and annoyed that "Mark" used emotional language to try to make people at CMI and any who support the ministry (look bad). To me it smelled of emotional blackmail backed up by human reasoning untaught by the true word, the word of God in the Bible. The Bible is sufficient to teach us all we need to know concerning the nature of God and ourselves and the relationships that flow from that. Once you go down the "I feel I must give the greatest attention to the authority of secular science because their arguments are very persuasive" path, you are confused and help to lead others away from the truth of the gospel. Keep up the good work CMI.
I agree with Trevor (see above). Jesus did come to bring a sword and by no means can we back down from the truth as plainly written in the scriptures. But let us also consider our own hearts, understanding that it is by grace that we are saved, not of ourselves and not because we belong to the Young earth camp. The blood of Jesus covers our sin, and in time with gentle grace filled persuasion may our brothers come to understand that we cannot claim to love the one who died for us and reject his words.
To Dominic Statham and the CMI team, throughout the discussion, you have been accused of using derogatory, hateful language akin to that of hate-filled Satan, being judgemental, using guesswork and vilification, and using rash words and poor exegesis. Yet you maintain dignity, and keep directing readers to God's Word. Praise God for your wise choices of words. May your work continue to be a blessing to so many.
I find this kind of mindset quite mindboggling. I cannot comprehend how people can take these kind of positions. And the person claiming "Is some of the derogatory language used here to describe scientists and fellow Christians who are not creationists always the sort of language Christ would use to describe His fellow man? Or is it closer to that of hate filled Satan? Is the fact that such hateful words come into your minds so readily not another clue that you may be the ones following the wrong path?" says to me that he must have a very poor understanding of the English language - hate and derogatory? That seems more in keeping with people who claim evolution to be scientific to me. A Christian who would behave out of hate needs to have a good hard look at themself - I'm very curious as to where he believes this exists within CMI articles.
Scientists either DISCOVER OR UNVEIL that which already exists or they may use scientific principles (-Research-) to make or invent things; such as with the cloning of animals. In either case they CREATE from the things that already EXIST. So either we believe that things 'JUST HAPPENED' as taught by the Evolutionist which defies logic OR we believe that behind all of the things which occur in our world (the things of Nature) there is a Supreme CREATOR, God - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen.1:1), as too the plants, trees, animals (insects and birds) and human beings. William Paley's example of finding a watch on the beach must presuppose a Creator behind its existence, is such a fine example here.
To deny the Creation account of Genesis is to deny the Creator, to deny the fall in the Garden of Eden and to thus, by extension, to deny the purpose of Jesus and Gen. 3:15.
Many Thanks for this article and Philip Bell's original article
Both are clear responses and I would just like to affirm and remind readers of the importance of Biblical authority and truth.
When we talk about deception, even if a Christian only reads the Genesis account of creation from a teaching viewpoint rather than historical truth (which it is), the lesson we learn and need to seriously consider is the question "Did God really say?
In regards to genuine Christians who hold to theistic evolution - the issue is not whether they are saved or that they are not fellow brothers and sisters in Christ - But rather we cannot have true fellowship (koinonia) in this area of embracing "Evolution".
It has been said many times by CMI that we are to destroy arguments (not people) and our warfare is not against flesh and blood (people) but the one who asks the question "Did God really say ?"
I also affirm Trevor M's response in regard to the "Sword of the Spirit"
The Divine definition of the false shepherd is:
'to the Law and to the Testimony!
If they do not speak according to this word, it is becuse there is no light in them" Isaiah Ch. 8 Verse 20.
I am reminded of the words of Jesus from Matthew's Gospel: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
We know that the word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit. Where the the truth of God's words and those of Jesus are adhered to there will not be a superficial peace maintained but there will be a division that occurs between those who hold to these truths and those who do not. This division will occur in spite of the most rigorous attempts by believers to be gentle, courteous, and affirming of those holding to an opposing view. It seems like the issue of God's creation of the world and His claims with regard to this is an area of ongoing acute division. Should we stop declaring the truth because of this. God forbid!
Is it possible to have sin in your life and still be saved? Of course. Likewise, is it possible to be in error theologically and still be saved? Of course. We all come from sin and error to the Truth that is God, but then begins the process where we are gradually transformed into the likeness of Christ - and of course that includes areas of theological error. So can you remain devout and also evolutionary? No. Once the Holy Spirit attends to this error in your life you must take steps and make decisions, just like in any other area that Christ deals with us.
Judgemental? Of course it is. We are supposed to use our God-given intelligence to judge what is right and what is wrong. We have the Word within us, the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures to point us to the Truth.
Indeed, not judging and particularly not judging correctly, is the cause of the problem that this very issue this article is dealing with. How about we learn how to correctly judge, instead of trotting out the tired 'judgemental' cliché. Whether it is sexual immorality or theological error we are told to judge those of our congregation and bring them to Truth.
Mark M., like so many of his worldview, make many claims of fact without evidence to support those claims.
He claims that creationism drives people away from Christianity, yet presents no evidence. In my experience, and from statistical data of church growth/decline, those churches that support a creationist doctrine are growing, while those that reject creationism in favour of concensus 'science' are declining.
One of the more famous examples of the results of rejecting a creationist worldview is the late Charles Templeton, who was formerly an associate of Billy Graham, but eventually renounced, not only Christianity, but God himself.
It is indeed true, you can tell by the fruit...
The argument presented by Mark M. about the use of derogatory language and Jesus would be laughable if it didn't demonstrate a gross lack of knowledge of scripture from someone who claims to be a Christian. Jesus referred to his fellow man, pious religious folks actually, as "Sons of Satan" and "vipers" and "white sepulchres". He warned his followers against wasting their time on people who were "swine" or "dogs". All of these terms would have been most derogatory in Hebrew vernacular. Hmm... maybe we aren't Christlike enough in talking about our fellow man while we inject the political correctness of the world into the church.
I would be curious to know why Mark M. of the UK believes in evolution in the first place. Even putting aside Divine Creation, I concluded from my own research that modern science is tending to disprove the General Theory of Evolution rather than affirming it, which raises the question: if life could not create itself, what could? Very recent studies are concluding the natural selection plays an almost insignificant role compared to adaptation, and that requires a genome of such complexity as to be unexplainable in evolutionary terms. If anything, I sense that science is tending to prove the creation of complete organisms by "kind", just as the Bible states, but specific evolutionary processes like adaptation have developed the myriad of "species" from original "kinds". Even evolutionists of the stature of the late Stephen Gould have long pondered the appearance of fully formed creatures. Having studied both Francis Collins "The Language of God" and Denis Alexander's "Creation or Evolution - Do We have to Choose", I am more than convinced that evolution and Scripture cannot be synthesized, and the reasoning is far more complex than simply the length of the ages or the method of creation.
This discussion sounds so judgmental and the participants should reconsider whether this is an issue important enough to die for. When it comes to the details regarding HOW God created, . . . everybody is just guessing. The YECs put all their eggs into their uninspired definition of the word “day” even though Genesis 2:4 uses “day” to refer to all the seven previous days. There are far more people turned off of belief in God because of evil than there are of evolution. It is highly probable that the existence of evil from a good God drives many people to evolution as an alternative that does not have to reconcile the “evil” issue. Almost everyone believes in “adaptation” which is defined as micro evolution by most Christians. Many Theistic Evolutionists believe that the evidence shows that God used a form of micro evolution to produce the thousands of species of some of the more complicated insect families or the like. Whether God used a natural process like adaptation to “create” a variety of living things or He instantaneously created all the vast numbers of beetle species individually, should make no difference to a Christian believer. The main fact is, God did it, and that is all that really counts. To vilify fellow Christians because they do not believe in a specific definition of the word “day” seems to me to be elevating some Bible translators to a position equal to God. What if the YECs are translating the word “day” incorrectly, and all the Genesis 1 “days” are defined the same as the Genesis 2:4 “day,” will God be mad at them? I doubt it no more than I think He is mad at those who view “day” to mean an “indefinite period of time.” At least, that is my prayer because I want to support my entire Christian family and if rebukes are in order, I hope
All the challenges made in your comment have been amply and repeatedly dealt with on this site. Use the search engine and type in the terms 'length of creation days', 'problem of evil', 'adaptation', etc. CMI advises against the use of term microevolution (see here and here).
Theistic evolution, far from resolving the problem some have with the 'existence of evil', merely lays the blame for suffering and death at God's door; for those serious about exploring this issue, we refer you to the many and varied articles listed here.
Nobody was vilified in this article. Rather CMI's has consistently maintained that Christians should read and understand Genesis as history (including literal Creation days), just as the Lord Jesus Christ did (and taught).
Can theistic evolutionists be blood-bought followers of Jesus? As far as I am concerned, the issue of theistic evolution is more of an "authority" issue than a scientific one.
It is obvious to all that the Bible teaches creation rather than evolution. For a person to accept evolution, he is accepting the words of scientists over the Word of God. In other words, Darwin trumps Moses.
I can see how a person can be a theistic evolutionist when he first becomes a Christian. After all, that's what he's been taught since kindergarten. But for a person to continue to reject the authority of the Bible AFTER he's studied the ramifications of his beliefs makes me seriously question the person's salvation. In the end, of course, his salvation is between himself and God. But I will urge him to examine himself, to see if he is truly in the faith.
Mark M. says, "The simple fact is that many, many people who would come to know Christ do not and will not purely because they are put off by YECism. Many others raised as creationists leave the church daily because of it."
I think not, sir. The truth is not the father of lies. Nor is the truth responsible for the decisions of people who reject it. It is THEIR responsibility.
I agree with others who say they have never seen creation drive people away, but have seen evolution draw people away from God. I had a friend whose heart became open to the Gospel when I explained to her why evolution was false. She then became a Christian, and continues to follow creationist thought. Perhaps it is only an experience of one, but I have yet to find anyone who was driven away from Christ by being told of Creation.
Reading this response, and the comments following here, I came to think of the heresy of gnosticism, that in the second century denied OT and creation, thinking that the Creator God was not indeed the Almighty, but a demiurge that had trapped souls in a prison of the flesh. The Church very strictly fought this heresy. I think that many "evangelicals", being "concerned" not to make any "unnecessary difficulties of creation-matters", are actually in danger of opening the doors to latter-day gnosticism.
In leaving the authority of creation vs evolution to secular scientists, they anyway express disbelief in the Bible as the more authoritative source of information on origins, which of course, is practical liberal theology. For if one really believes that God has spoken in the Bible, what is the offence in putting His word before that of fallible men? Few of the "evangelical compromisers" would say that secular science has authority on the Ressurrection of Jesus. They would not allow that, reasoning that the Ressurrection would be beyond the scope of science, or knowing that secular historians would not grant it as historical. They would, however argue that the historical circumstances would fit with a history of the first century A.D. So why not allow those same standards for Creation? That is, if the circumstantial data in nature supports Creation, why fight for allowing compromise with evolutionary ideas? I think much of it is due to fear of man, and the opinion or esteem of man, not a question of data or Creation-science or Creation-hypothesises being weak (if they bother to read up on it, in-depth, that is). Academic scorn hurts the feelings, and is used to pressure Christians into compromise. For what would the secularist do if evolution is wrong?
How can somebody be a saved Christian but believe in evolution?
It is mocking Jesus and denying Him and His word; He will deny them too and they have not the Father.
I am holding CMI in a very high respect and a blessing to the world, I hope they do not getting a bit warm.
We appreciate your support very much and can sympathise with what you have written. Certainly, there are those who profess to love and follow Christ as evolutionists, who then effectively deny Him by their words and admitted beliefs. However, as in many matters of belief, true Christians can be 'blessedly inconsistent' when it comes to evolution; I was one such person. So were some of my esteemed colleagues in CMI around the world, before 'their eyes were opened' to see the theological (and scientific) bankruptcy of the theistic evolution position. This article is helpful in thinking through this issue.
I have noticed that those who stand for theistic evolution always are too shy to use scripture to defend their view. Maybe it's because they do not trust it fully. Mark M. uses opinion and world-view as his evidence for what he believes, not the scriptures. Thank you CMI for standing for truth no matter the opposition! CMI defends what they stand for with the very spoken word of God, not the opinion of man! God bless this ministry and all who are a part of it!
This feedback reminds me of an article that I once saw on
In response, Greg Neyman, the mastermind of OldEarth Ministries, wrote an article where he claimed that people like Ken Ham and Henry Morris were lying and that the real reason that people are leaving the church is because "they are taught that they must believe in a young earth". The thing of it was, there was NOT ONE SHRED of statistical data cited to support this conclusion! Neyman was merely firing off an angry ipse dixit just because he was clearly being convicted by Ham pointing out the fruit of Neyman's compromise.
We are reading 1 Samuel at the time Saul was made king. Over and over we have read that God clearly presented the answers to all and so many kept rejecting His answers. God stepped back and let things happen as they would. Disaster always came. It continues today. Many times my faith has been given a firm shake by man but I keep returning to God for the answers. One can feel intimidated by words but in the end it is about our personal, one on one, relationship with God. Another person's opinion should never "devalue" your faith in God. That is what atheists and struggling individuals are doing. Intimidating by harsh words.
I believe that Mark and other Christians he knows, that he claims remain devout to God and His word while believing evolution, are I am afraid deceived. You cannot choose to believe one part of scripture and reject another. The word of God stands or falls on its entire message. Genesis is the foundation on which the rest of scripture stands; take it away and what do you have left? Come on, evolution? I think not. I have only had a basic education but I consider myself to be too intelligent to believe in such nonsense.
CMI is not a tool of Satan per se; but the main legitimacy of CMI proclaiming the gospel—yes, a true gospel thankfully—is its YEC banner. Most Christians writing in, seem to be motivated by CMI’s YEC approach & opposing evolution (we should!), rather than with a proper exegesis of Scripture. One example of a rash statement & poor exegesis: Bell’s answer to Douglas, “All 'millions of years' scenarios are attended with pre-Adamic death and suffering, which has a baneful, perilous effect on Christian faith.” CMI says this, not Scripture. You know the vss: “by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin”; “death reigned from Adam...” (Rom 5:12,14); “in Adam all die” (1 Cor 15:22). It says what it says: death reigned from Adam; it doesn’t say “pre-Adam.” How can anything pre-Adam perilously affect my faith if God says nothing about it in relation to my salvation? He does speak of other perils concerning my faith? “World” (kosmos) here means age; like we live in an evil age (world); not the habitable earth. If there are piles of pre-Adamite fossils under the earth (No! not proving evolution, nor negating what God declared “very good”; always such a trite CMI argument), what’s that got to do with my salvation God provided for; in Adam’s fallen world (not earth)? Why focus on “death by pre-Adamite fossils” where this “death” is biblically unsubstantiated in relation to Adam’s world of sin? The “world” in which we live, from Adam onwards, is under God’s judgement. Any pre-Adamite judgement—2Pet 3:5,6 which does NOT mean Noah’s deluge (search the Scriptures carefully on this); the Holy Spirit being careful to mention “Noah” & that judgement in 1Pe 3:20 & 2Pe 2:5)—like the deluge, and judgement to come, has important lessons concerning God’s ways with sin, not YEC.
CMI's presentation of the Gospel is not under a "YEC banner" at all. Rather, it is in keeping with the two 'Priorities' that head up our Statement of Faith (bold emphasis added):
1.The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2.The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And as this SoF explicity teaches (contrary to your assertion otherwise), it is CMI's approach to Scripture (not a 'YEC approach') that is paramount. Your criticism of me/CMI in relation to the answer to Douglas is therefore unfounded; the sentence I wrote cannot be divorced from the context of CMI's thousands of articles on this site which carefully exegete the Scriptures, including numerous articles that deal with the verse you have yourself quoted; indeed this very feedback article resulted from an article I wrote about the Scriptural imperatives in relation to theistic evolution and millions of years.
Finally, as a matter of simple logic, if sin entered the world at the time of Adam's sin and death reigned from Adam, sin and death were absent pre-Adam. Consequently, the irony is that your Gap Theory beliefs, quite apart from being scientifically untenable, represent a poor exegesis of Scripture and also contradict Christ's own teaching.
When debating atheists, over time you see the same old examples of what they perceive to be biblical contradictions being brought up, and even if you don't know the answer/explanation personally, you can come to CMI, and find the truth. You are then able to knock down every one of their arguments, thus strengthening your faith and by the grace of God weakening their hope that evolution is true.
Mark M's idea would be to agree with them, sounds like a super witnessing technique.
Super reply Dominic - will be sharing the link everywhere I can. Would be interesting to see his response.
This entire article should be made a centerpiece of your site. Mark really does represent a huge cross section of believers who are struggling, greatly trying to reconcile their love and faith in Christ with the lie of theistic evolution. Your responses really hit hard but show your concern for those trapped by their own ignorance and the lie of the enemy. Anyone who believes as Mark should really take the time to examine the so called facts......evidence can be very persuasive and the lack of, very enlightening.
Thank you, Dominic, for such an excellent reply. I thank God daily for the work of CMI.
Mark M. makes some quite outrageous claims and I doubt that he can verify any of them. To suggest that YEC turns people away from the Lord totally contradicts my personal experience as a Christian. Many times I've seen it help people to come to Jesus but never the reverse. How does he cope with Mark 10:6 which, in the NIV, says "But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female"? Seems quite straight-forward, obvious, unambiguous and totally denying of all evolutionary paradigms.
Mark accuses CMI of using 'derogatory', even 'hateful' language. Where? When? This sort of language is so common as to be the vernacular on many evolution sites but never on CMI.
Might I suggest that God gave us His word to be read at different levels as we grow but plain enough so that even the simplest of us can find Him through it? Plain enough so that we don't need the scientist, the intellectual, the philosopher or any other fount of human wisdom to explain and interpret it for us. A highly intelligent young man, a PhD, on a recent Alpha course at our church said that he couldn't accept what he was being told about Jesus because it was 'too simple, too easy". One of my own sons turned from being very close to making his Christian commitment to becoming an out-and-out evolutionist within a year of commencing a medical degree. I see and hear of so many who have lost their Christian faith because they have accepted the ubiquitous propaganda of evolution. I've never heard of anyone losing their faith when they understood the truth of God's account of creation.
One of your respondents commended to Mark that he make a proper study of the Bible. No better advice can be given!
I am a committed YEC I do not believe young earth is a soteriolgy issue.I do believe that alternative interpretations tend to undermine your own witness to the lost. As a new Christian I knew I was saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, however; I did encounter problems when attempting to answer questions skeptics would raise. Thanks to several years of reading great books like "GENESIS FLOOD" by Morris & Whitcomb, and hundreds of others by credible researchers and scientists from all disciplines, I have become a Bible literalist (in context) of course. As a result I have experienced a strengthening of my faith a stronger witness, and richer blessings in my life. I would encourage everyone to study up, there is a wealth of information out there. I'm convinced there are more evidences for a Biblical creation then any old earth/theistic evolution/ day-age or gap theories out there. When I witness I confirm the Bible, without hesitation, exegetically unless the context deems other wise. I have many Christian friends who don't share my Biblical view points, that's ok I don't question their salvation but I believe non Biblical interpretations tend to undermine your personal witness, esp. to a non believer, and rob you of the personal blessing God imparts to you. Of course there are a lot of shaky theologies being taught and Biblical ignorance is rampant, out right heresy abounds in some churches. The Church has been compromised I think in part because of their inclusion of post modern, secular, evolutionary teaching by so called science. I wish I would have discovered the young earth resources years ago, my Christian walk would have been more productive as a kingdom worker. CHURCHES SHOULD TAKE HEED. Thanks & have a blessed day Doug
While the age of the earth, in one sense is not a 'soteriology issue', in that a person may still be a Christian while rejecting the straightforward historical Genesis record (as you indicate), it does of course have serious repercussions for understanding salvation. All 'millions of years' scenarios are attended with pre-Adamic death and suffering, which has a baneful, perilous effect on Christian faith.
Marks difficulties manifest themselves with his last statement:
"The fact the two creation stories clearly contradict each other in the order in which things were created is another clue that you may be wrong"
As a Pastor, I have come across so many Christians who would prefer to believe the "wisdom of this world which is foolishness to God" against the truth of His Word "which has so many contradictions". When I ask them what contradictions they will very often be vague or completely wrong about such contradictions. The amount of study they do for their secular academic qualifications (School, college, university) to prepare them for, what, 40 years of the rest of their working life compared with their study of God's Word in preparation for this life and (billions of years!) in the life to come is so meager as to be almost non-existent.
Mark, I say this without hatred or ill feeling but certainly in sadness that your last statement reveals you to be a novice in God's Word and would encourage you to embark on a Bible reading plan that will take your through His Word in a year and then every year thereafter. Even so I guess you will still not have read this "cover to cover" as many times compared to the number of secular books, educational and fictional you would have read thus far and in the rest of your life time!
And what I say to you, I have said and still say to our congregation.
There are also many resources available to Christians that deal with so called contradictions in the Bible. Avail yourself of them.
CMI, keep up the good work!
Indeed, the approach to forming opinions that evolutionists take by its very nature removes their ability to even test whether they are right or wrong -- they're close-minded on purpose. To those of us who really care about finding the truth, it destroys their credibility.
Has Mark ever considered that it is really compromisers who are reading the Bible too simplistically? Same for atheists.
When I question those who hold to either of those views, the thought processes that seem to go on as they describe it when they read Genesis are merely "this sounds simple so it can't be true." For example, they read that God spoke everything into existence, and they assume that this summary is all that could possibly be behind it, then they just blindly reject it and go to evolution, even though it can be summarized in just as simple a way and often is.
It may well be that a historic understanding of creation causes some people to reject the Christian faith, but as has been pointed out, an evolutionary reinterpretation will cause others to reject the Christian faith, too, as has been documented. Likewise, an insistence on the biblical position of the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ might cause some to reject the Christian faith, too, but this does not mean we should reject a straightforward understanding of the Bible on these issues to make them more palatable. The Word of God should not be interpreted with the influence of whatever the latest trends or theories are in the hope that it will make Christianity more palatable to some who might otherwise reject it, whilst watering down the Word of God and ultimately causing a far greater number to reject it.
Excellent response Dominic, and much appreciated! "People do not reject Christ because of the preaching of any biblical truth, including the truth about creation, but because they love darkness (John 3:19)" - not politically correct of course, but, side-stepping all excuses, it's spot on sir. "Moreover, it appears that many justify their atheism by embracing evolution" - atheism, yes, and various shades of compromise, due to the "gradual erosion of biblical authority". Thank you all for your tireless efforts despite much opposition and accusation. Best regards.
The best reminder that God created the Heavens and the Earth is in [Exodus] 20: "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy, for in 6 days the Lord created the heavens and the earth..."
This command has to be ignored if evolution is to gain acceptance. Let us not forget God's sign and memorial that He is the Creator.
Straying from the plain meaning of God's word (i.e. the plain account of the creation written by Moses for the benefit of all, including the uneducated) or turning it in the direction we wish to go can result in even the strongest believer being used by the devil to put forth deceptive arguments.
But he turned and said to peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an offence to me, for you are not mindfull of the things of God, but the things of men." Mathew 16:23
The more I walk on the righteous road to salvation the more I realise and understand how and why the only way to determine what is truth according to God is to read AND study the scriptures, and not to listen ONLY to what a particular church, group or person says and thinks is the truth. It now amuses me to see and hear how some say something that clearly contradicts the scriptures (as well as the real science in certain areas, such as evolution) yet at the same time believe they are telling the truth. It’s as though a student answers a question in an exam the opposite way to that discussed in the text book expecting to have it marked correct. Even worse, the student refuses to accept the decision by having a heated argument with the teacher for being marked wrong, with the teacher pointing out [from] the text book but the student blindly ignoring it. We have plenty of examples of this in the real world when it comes to matters of scriptural truth. They include some churches, the names of which are fairly common so there’s no need to mention them here, which are actually following a different and false Christ. Thank God we have a reference book called the Bible to discern and filter out those groups and people who are anything but true followers of the Word of God.
Curiously, Mark M claims that many people remain devoutly faithful to God's Word and still believe in Evolution.
Such a thing is impossible, because God's Word is in total opposition to all the so-called facts of evolution. To paraphrase CS Lewis: "One is not free to simultaneously drink, and not drink. One must either drink or not drink".
The accepted meaning of 'devout' does not include going against the very essence of what one is devout about.