Theistic evolutionists “bewitched”?
Genesis and evolution can’t both be true
by Adrian Bates
Published: 26 November 2009(GMT+10)
The October 2009 issue of NZ Baptist ran a “debate” consisting
of an article by a proponent of a literal, six-day creation and one by four theistic
evolutionists.1 The theistic
evolutionists, Graham Finlay, Jonathan Gauntlett, Graham O’Brien and Andrew
Shelling, describe themselves as “Christian Scientists who believe that both
Genesis and evolution can be true.” That of course depends on what
they mean by the slippery term “evolution”, but from the content of
their article it becomes clear they are talking about an evolutionary progression
from pond scum—to animals—to man.
That a group of evolutionary scientists, with a vested interest in the ruling academic
establishment would claim biblical justification for their stance may be at least
a little understandable. But what is incredible is that their rejection of a plain
reading of Genesis is seen as acceptable to many Bible-believing Christians. The
Apostle Paul’s statement says it all: “You foolish Galatians! Who has
bewitched you?”2
Paul had to remind them how they became Christians—when they received the
Spirit “by believing what you heard”.3 This brings the Holy Scripture to centre stage.
What would Jesus do?
Belief in the Word of God is vital to our Christian faith and destiny
Jesus demanded His disciples follow His example of reverence and belief in God’s
Word. Did that include belief in the plain meaning of Genesis? Absolutely! When
asked about marriage Jesus quoted from Genesis 1 and 2 as straightforward history.4 His question, “Haven’t you read?”
showed He expected his questioners to accept its plain meaning. His answer, selecting
verses from Genesis chapters 1 and 2, showed His commitment to accept the account
as plain, totally truthful, accurate history. The parallel passage in Mark 10:6 shows that Christ, the Creator Himself, believed
that Adam and Eve were present “from the beginning of creation”. Not
towards the end of creation, after millions of years of death, struggle and bloodshed,
but just as a plain reading of the text would have it, at the beginning.
Jesus said …
- “The one who will accuse you to the Father is Moses
… for if you had believed Moses’ writings you would have believed Me.
But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My Words.”5 Refusal to accept the Genesis
scriptures is clearly “disbelief of Moses”.
- “Whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous
and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in the
glory of his Father with the Holy angels.”6
- “He that rejects me and does not receive My words
has one that judges him on the last day: the Word that I have spoken, the same shall
judge him in the last day”.7
- “Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall
not pass away.”8
“Has God said?”
Contrary to the attitude that Jesus modelled, theistic evolutionists, with dogged
tenacity, reject belief in the plain reading of Scripture
These theistic evolutionists reject a plain reading of Genesis 1–11. They insist it is a primitive, inaccurate
story that must be overruled by the “fundamental findings of modern science.”
However, when they invoke “science” they really mean science
squeezed into a naturalistic, evolutionary mould. But actually, the evidence
of variation and natural selection does not fit at all comfortably into that mould—whereas
it fits the 6,000-year creation model like a glove. Contrary to the attitude that
Jesus modelled, theistic evolutionists, with dogged tenacity, reject belief in the
plain reading of Scripture and exalt naturalistic “science” to a position
of authority higher than the Word of God. But the Bible is very clear that to elevate
anything to a higher position than God’s own Word is to erect a false idol.
“Believing impossible things before breakfast”
In Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6, Jesus places the creation of mankind at ‘the
beginning’. But secular dating doesn’t have humans appearing until “modern”
times, i.e. billions of years after some kind of “big bang” beginning.
Thus theistic evolution along with all other old-age schemes (e.g.
Gap Theory, Day-Age Theory, Framework Hypothesis) founder at this point.
Having rejected the plain meaning of Genesis 1–11 these theistic evolutionists attempt
to salvage respectability within the church by insisting that their evolutionary
version of creation over millions of years and the Genesis account, with its six
24-hour days, “are both true”. Let’s go back to Paul’s situation
with the Galatian Christians. They had been listening to the Judaizers stating that
salvation was to be received via the law and via Christ. Both were
true! But of course this defies common sense and logic. Paul is so shocked by their
attitude he says, “You must be under a spell!” In other words
this was madness! On Mt Carmel, Elijah confronted God’s people over their
issue with the same sort of contradiction. “How long are you going to limp
along believing two contradictory opinions? If God be God follow Him! If Baal be
God follow Him.”9
So, today as in Elijah’s time, God’s people are limping along, facing
the same temptation to embrace irrationality over Genesis. Some of the issues are:
- Theistic evolutionists are comfortable with physical death and suffering in
the world before sin yet this flatly contradicts Romans 5 verse 12 and the perfect “very good”
creation of Genesis chapter 1. It also makes nonsense out of the coming restoration,
to a sinless, deathless paradise, through the removal of the Adamic Curse (Rev. 22:3).
- Theistic evolutionists insist that Genesis is not a “literal, historical
description of how the natural world originated” and that Adam and Eve of
Genesis chapters 1–3 are just “allegorical”, or mythological.
This means that the theological truth of mankind’s fall into sin must also
be mythical. It also means that any application of the normal rules of historical-grammatical
interpretation is rendered hopeless. The meaning of any portion of the Bible would
effectively be “up for grabs”.
- Theistic evolutionists insist that the fossils are millions of years old, “ranging
from the late pre-cambrian [sic] to now”, thereby denying the reality of Noah’s
Flood as the global catastrophe described in Genesis 6, 7 and 8, and as subscribed to by Jesus.
In short, to say “Genesis and evolution are both true” is as illogical
as to suggest that Jesus both did and did not rise from the dead.
Consider this
Our “views” can be defined as our beliefs, and belief in the Word of
God is vital to our Christian faith and destiny. It is my “view” that
will decide whether I go to heaven or hell! Yet many churches are committed to “accommodating
all views”, and this becomes their highest priority. What this often indicates
is lukewarmness to any sincere concern about the plain intended meaning of God’s
inspired Word. Surely such an attitude dovetails with the Lord’s description
of the wretched Laodicean church. So often in churches today the role of leadership
is seen as the art of “keeping the peace” rather than “keeping
the faith”. Elijah himself would be told he was not welcome at many churches—because
he was intolerant of “other views”!
What goes around comes around.
The more things change the more they stay the same. Since the beginning, the attack
of Satan has been aimed at undermining the Word of God. His first recorded words
were, “Did God really say?”10
Adam and Eve believed his “views” and brought disaster upon themselves.
Yet it seemed such a small thing to just accept Satan’s “view”
instead of God’s plainly spoken word. Today the “fruit” held out
by theistic evolutionists is the “view” that “modern science”
must be used to supplant the plain meaning of God’s Word. Think for a moment
about the breathtaking arrogance when they say in one breath, “All Scripture
is inspired” but then tell us not to believe the plain meaning because we
need evolutionists to tell us the real (and very different) meaning. That
would mean that for some 2,000 years, Christians have been completely misled by
the Bible, until such latter-day “insights” came along (coincidentally
from those committed to undermining any sort of belief in a miracle-working God—see Darwin’s
real message: have you missed it?).
It’s also not as if Genesis is on about trivial issues. The core of the gospel
concerns the way in which Christ’s sacrifice overcomes the twin problems
of sin and death. And Genesis is all about the origin of sin and
death. When we consider that our “view” of Scripture decides our destiny,
we can be absolutely sure that God has made His meaning, particularly regarding
such gospel-vital issues, very, very plain to anyone who is open to accept what
He says. Even a 10-year-old can understand it. Atheists know full well that evolution
flatly contradicts the Gospel.11
Ignorance as such is not a sin, nor are genuinely mistaken opinions. But wilful
ignorance falls into a different category altogether. For someone to have looked
seriously at the words of Genesis and to maintain that it is not straightforward
historical narrative, as Jesus and the NT writers all took it, seems incredible.
It seems that the question on that great day will not be “Did you understand
it?” but “Did you believe it?”
The Remedy
The remedy for all willful rejection of God’s Word can also be derived from
Paul’s words in Galatians: “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin,
you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also
may be tempted.”
A reader’s commentGary W., Australia, 19 December 2009
A very helpful summary of important issues in regard to Creation and the literalness of Genesis 1-3.
I would add another arrow in the bow about death and the fall, re Romans 5 is to look at Isaiah 11:6. It doesn’t matter if you give it a premill or amill interpretation the argument still stands that there will be a future restoration which brings peace between the wolf and the lamb, the leopard and the goat. At present they are enemies due to the fall, and if they were enemies before the fall [those imaginary billions of years] it would be of no relevance as descriptive of restoration.
Perhaps that is just further evidence of the consistency of Scripture. |
Related articles
References
- NZ Baptist Magazine, October 2009. Return to
text.
- Galatians 3:1. Return to text.
- Galatians 3:2. Return to text.
- Matthew 19. Return to text.
- John 5:45. Return to text.
- Mark 8:38. Return to text.
- John 12:48. Return to text.
- Mark 13:31. Return to text.
- 1 Kings 18. Return to text.
- Genesis 3:1. Return to text.
- Frank Zindler, in a debate with William Craig, Atheism vs
Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996, said: ‘The most devastating thing though
that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now
that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity
is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin.
If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no
need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical
or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely
the death knell of Christianity.’ Return to text.
| Expand this site. Besides the 7,000 fully searchable articles on this site, we want to add many more ways to reach a media-soaked culture. But it requires expertise to do it. Help us expand our methods of outreach.  | | |
|
