Share 0
Share
A- A A+

Article from:

Journal of Creation  Volume 28Issue 3 Cover

Journal of Creation 28(3):35–36
December 2014

Free Email News
Refuting Compromise, updated & expanded
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $15.00
View Item
Refuting Compromise
by Jonathan Sarfati

US $10.00
View Item
Evolution's Fatal Fruit
by Tom DeRosa

US $10.00
View Item
Refuting Evolution 2, updated
by Jonathan Sarfati

US $13.00
View Item
Refuting Evolution 2, updated edition
by Jonathan Sarfati

US $10.00
View Item
One Human Family
by Dr Carl Wieland

US $19.00
View Item
One Human Family
by Dr Carl Wieland

US $10.00
View Item

An unbalanced perspective

A review of Christian Perspectives on Origins by Steve Badger and Mike Tenneson
Evangel University, Springfield, MO, 2011

book-cover

Reviewed by

Pentecostal churches are generally committed to the authority of the Scriptures so it was with some interest that I undertook to review this small booklet which claimed to give an overview of the various Christian perspectives on the origins debate. Both the authors of this booklet are ordained ministers in the Assemblies of God denomination, are qualified in the sciences, and have taught science at university level in the US.

According to the Preface, this little booklet is intended to address the major positions Christians have with regards to the question of origins. It purports to provide a philosophical, theological, and scientific examination of these positions and it recommends a reading list for those who wish to investigate further. The authors claim that they are not promoting any one view but are seeking to help the reader understand their own position better and why other Christians may hold a different view. They also recommend their ‘Top Ten’ reading list for those who wish to gain a deeper grasp of the issues so they can “form an opinion based on knowledge, rather than a dogma” (p. 5).

Misunderstandings of science

Anyone who has studied the creation/evolution debate would appreciate the importance of understanding the limitations of science. The distinction between experimental science and historical science has been well documented1 and is understood by creationists and secularists2 alike. However, nowhere in this booklet is this important distinction made, which leads to inevitable and misleading conflicts. The introduction states, “we pretty much accept most of the findings of modern science” (p. 7) and then gives examples of the achievements of experimental science, failing to recognize that it is in the arena of historical science that the conflict of belief systems arises. There is no conflict between the observations of experimental science and the Bible’s historical record of origins, and nor will there ever be, so long as the data and the interpretation of the data are clearly differentiated.

The authors then pursue a philosophical line, introducing some concepts of epistemology. The definition of evolution is then arbitrarily limited to biological evolution, ignoring the reality that the big picture molecules-to-man story of evolution is what is presented universally in not only popular science but also in university text books.3 The terms ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’ make an entry with the associated risk of obfuscating the essential difference between variation and evolution, which relates to the direction of the changes involved.4 Indeed, the authors mistakenly claim that macroevolution “involves the same processes that cause microevolution” (p. 10), which is manifestly incorrect. Microevolution is synonymous with adaptation, which involves sorting or deleting pre-existing genetic information and is an observable process. On the other hand, macroevolution requires the generation of novel genetic information through natural processes, which is entirely bereft of observational evidence and is an article of faith for the evolutionist.

Gospel disconnected from Creation/Fall

The section on biblical theology generally affirms the Divine inspiration of Scripture, but fails to recognize the authoritative role the Scriptures must therefore have over all disciplines, including (and especially) uniformitarian science. Furthermore, the authors fail to put the case for Genesis as history, which is directly deduced from the text of Genesis itself. The key theological point of the opening chapters of Genesis is the ‘very good’ creation and the subsequent Fall of man, which brought death and suffering into the world. Without this foundation, the theology of redemption as expounded by Paul in Romans5 and 1 Corinthians6 is essentially meaningless, and yet this link is omitted from the section on theology and, indeed, from the entire booklet! The primary reason the whole origins debate even exists is the link to the Gospel. If it were not for this, the topic would be little more than a curious side issue.

After a brief excursion outlining five different camps or general viewpoints on origins, the authors declare their hand more overtly with several proposed evidences for macroevolution, all of which have been thoroughly refuted in biblical creationist literature. These include claims the fossil record reveals transitional forms,7 including dinosaur to bird transitions,8 vestigial structures,9 and homology.10 Much of the argumentation amounts to appeals to the opinion of the majority of scientists (as if majority determined truth), including the extraordinary statement that the evolutionary story “generally ‘hangs together’” (p. 22).

What is their authority?

The authors clearly equate the interpretation of the natural world with the special revelation of Scripture, effectively making nature a 67th book of the Bible. They misuse Romans 1:20 to bolster their argument but, as pointed out by Andrew Kulikovsky:

“Romans 1:19–20 clearly teaches that general revelation proclaims to all humanity, past and present, that God exists, that He created the universe and everything in it, and that He is great and powerful. Thus, the physical world is not a second book of revelation from God, but a signpost pointing to God, the almighty Creator.11

The problem is that nature has been under God’s Curse since Adam’s Fall, so we need the unfallen special God-breathed revelation of Scripture to understand nature properly. As Louis Berkhoff observed:

“Originally God revealed Himself in creation, but through the blight of sin that original revelation was obscured. Moreover, it was entirely insufficient in the condition of things that obtained after the fall. Only God’s self-revelation in the Bible can now be considered adequate. It only conveys a knowledge of God that is pure, that is, free from error and superstition, and that answers to the spiritual needs of fallen man … . Some are inclined to speak of God’s general revelation as a second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the light of Scripture.”12

Straw men

As is so often the case with works which purport to present an even-handed view, the biblical creation position is either understated or misrepresented, and this booklet is no exception. It seems the overall tenor of the booklet is to persuade the reader of the reasonableness of some form of integration of contemporary scientific views on origins with the Scriptures. Such compromise has been shown repeatedly to never work without doing violence to the Scriptures.

The most concerning aspect of this booklet is that it fails to adequately represent the biblical creation (young-earth creation) position and makes no attempt to link the issue of origins to the proclamation of the Gospel. In the Top Ten resources list (p. 33) not one of the classic works presenting the case for biblical creation is cited! Instead, we find references to works from the Intelligent Design movement, Hugh Ross and various evolution-compromising authors. Only two books, Refuting Compromise (2004, 2011), by J. Sarfati, and The Genesis Flood (1961), by J. Whitcomb and H. Morris, representing biblical creation are referenced later in the bibliography. One can’t help but wonder if the authors actually read those two books. In any case, it is hard to imagine how they could so comprehensively overlook the vast resources of material that powerfully defend the straightforward reading of Genesis.

Space does not permit a comprehensive treatment of the many other errors and inconsistencies in this booklet, so only the key shortcomings have been addressed in this review. The booklet is intended for use by students and others seeking to grapple with the question of origins but it is at best a poor example of the scholarship necessary to do justice to the subject and at worst misleading in its lack of balance. I do not recommend this booklet.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Batten, D., It’s not science, 2002 (original version)–revised 2014; creation.com/its-not-science. Return to text.
  2. Mayr, E., Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, scientificamerican.com, November 2009. Return to text.
  3. Batten, D., Arguments evolutionists should not use, March 2014; creation.com/is-evolution-true. Return to text.
  4. Wieland, C., The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction), Creation 24(2):16–19, 2002; creation.com/train. Return to text.
  5. Cosner, L., Romans 5:12–21: Paul’s view of literal Adam, J. Creation 22(2):105–107, 2008; creation.com/romans5. Return to text.
  6. Cosner, L., Christ as the last Adam: Paul’s use of the Creation narrative in 1 Corinthians 15, J. Creation 23(3):70–75, 2009; creation.com/1-corinthians-15. Return to text.
  7. Batten, D., Gould grumbles about creationist ‘hijacking’, J. Creation 16(2):22–24, 2002; creation.com/gouldgrumble. Return to text.
  8. Oard, M.J., Did birds evolve from dinosaurs?, J. Creation 25(2):22–31, 2011; creation.com/bird-evolution. Return to text.
  9. Bergman, J., Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?, J. Creation 14(2):95–98, 2000; creation.com/vestiges. Return to text.
  10. Bergman, J., Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?, J. Creation 15(1):26–33, 2001; creation.com/homology2. Return to text.
  11. Kulikovsky, A., Scripture and general revelation, J. Creation 19(2):23–28, 2005; creation.com/genrev. Return to text.
  12. Berkhoff, L., Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, p. 96, 1932. Return to text.

Evolution is supported and endorsed by governments, the media, our major educational institutions and many big businesses. But look at this site and see how much can be achieved with a little effort from God's people in supporting such outreach. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Michael I., United States, 18 September 2016

Great article and thank you for the review! I recently watched a movie titled Creation or Evolution featuring John Halford, that originally aired in 1996. In the opening statements I was excited when he mentioned he was a theologian and science teacher. I was quickly disappointment to learn of his compromised view shortly into the film. For me, it always goes right back to suffering and death being a result of original sin and the pointlessness of redemption without it. I'd also like to mention, a good friend of mine recently came under attack by an atheist that is seemly bent of showing him our faith is wrong. My friend had no answer to his attacks at the time but I was able to direct him to creation.com. He is on fire now, studying and learning all he can to be prepared for his next encounter. God bless you guys, keep it up!

Guy W., United Kingdom, 16 September 2016

This issue is very revealing and indeed it reveals a chasm between those who really believe the Bible and those who cherry-pick according to what is 'socially acceptable' and politically correct... I am sure that the saints in the AoG would not all accept the position of the upper echelons of the AoG as a denomination... It is certain though that the prophecy given in Romans 1:17-32 speaks of our age and that God is using the Creation ministry to expose the deception to all men whether they be non-believers, partial believers or full believers in God's Word. For us believers it is thrilling but also challenges us to pray for and reach out before the door closes and we disappear.

Peter Z., Australia, 16 September 2016

I am so utterly Disillusioned with Evengelicals, and even with Creation Ministries International over this issue.

Firstly; Andrew S. Kulikovsky in the CMI article; "The theological corruption of the Evangelical Church" clearly and strongly states to embrace evolution as a Christian is a form of an " idolatrous view of God " an "abuse and neglect of Scripture" ' Distortion of the Gospel and the Christian mission", very heavy stuff, idolatry is one of the most serious sins, (the article above also rightly explains how Destructive Theistic Evolution is), then CMI publishes "Can Christians believe evolution?" by Moritz, and basically says "Sure an evolution believing Christian can be saved" So one article says its idolatry and abuse of Scripture, another says "Well if you abuse Scripture and embrace an idolatrous view of God you can still go to Heaven, no worries". Paul in Galatians says "But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!" (NET Bible) What is the point of this site therefore if you think Paul is wrong in Gal 1.8. Sorry, but CMI and Evangelicals are such hypocrites.

Mark Harwood responds

The article by Moritz makes a clear case that Christians can indeed believe in evolution and still be saved. I am one who was in that position for many years until the Lord led me to the truth of creation. CMI's position on the matter is not hypocritical since no Christian is fully mature with perfect doctrine in all areas. Thankfully, God's grace and mercy is available to all, even me.

Clive J., Australia, 15 September 2016

Am dismayed (but not terribly surprised) by your report that a publication of the Assemblies of God takes an unbiblical stand on a young, non-evolutionary creation. Please don't accept that all Pentecostal churches believe this way, as the United Pentecostal Church absolutely does not agree with their position. Also, I am aware of the contacts I have in the AOG whom do not believe their churches stated position on this most fundamental belief.

Mark Harwood responds

Pentecostal churches generally hold a high view of Scripture and CMI is privileged to speak in many such churches around the world.

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
11450
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.