Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.
This article is from
Journal of Creation 25(3):33–36, December 2011

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

The tragic toll of toxic teaching

A review of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Karl W. Giberson
HarperOne, New York, 2008


Reviewed by

This is the story of how a professing Bible-believing Christian young-earth creationist, Karl Giberson, became a committed Darwinist who now enthusiastically opposes those who have concluded that God has played an active role in creation. Giberson even argues that those who believe evidence exists for intelligent design in nature are ‘anti-science’. Evolution, he argues, can explain all life and the entire natural creation. As will be illustrated, his arguments against design and for naturalistic evolution are irresponsible.

Until college, Giberson was a creationist—creationist Henry Morris was one of his boyhood heroes, and his “dog-eared copies of Henry Morris’s classic text of scientific creationism and Christian apologetics, The Genesis Flood and Many Infallible Proofs” were among his most prized possessions (p. 1).

The college connection

What happened to change his worldview is the subject of his book. In short, he attended Eastern Nazarene College. In his Bible class, his Bible professor “assaulted my literalist reading of Genesis, suggesting that Genesis should be read as poetry … to make matters worse, the science faculty—despite claiming to be Christians—all seemed to accept evolution” (p. 2). He added that even his “fellow students, at least in the science division” were also evidently all evolutionists.

By the middle of his second year Giberson was “sliding uncontrollably down the slippery slope that has characterized religion since it began the liberalizing process just over a century ago” (p. 6). He realized that acceptance of evolution forced a radical reinterpretation of the Bible, and he eventually rejected the account of Adam and Eve, and most of the core teachings of Christianity itself. In his search he writes:

“I turned with some optimism to religion scholars, but found they had little to offer. Some of them strangely insisted on the historicity of some portions of the Genesis story, while allowing that much of it was not historical. The fall, for example, was sometimes an important part of elaborate theological systems, serving the critical function of getting God off the hook for a creation filled with so much suffering. So even though Adam and Eve were not actual characters themselves and Eden was not a real place, they at least represented something historical. Once upon a time human beings did something to ruin God’s perfect creation, and this is where it all went wrong [emphasis in original]” (p. 9).

A matter of convenience

He adds that by his third year in college he “was now wearing scientific spectacles almost all the time” and, as a result, non-evolutionary explanations for life “looked a little too convenient to me”. Giberson writes he “had come to the point where, by definition, nothing could ever be explained by reference to God [emphasis in original]” (p. 110). An example of the ‘too convenient’ explanations he rejected was the view of those theologians who

“… drew a provocative connection between the fall and redemption (1 Cor. 15:45). The first Adam made the mess; the second Adam cleaned it up. I could never see, though, how theologians could be so comfortable with a mythical interpretation of Eden, but insist on an important historical role for its resident. Paul’s ‘first Adam’ was indeed the original sinner, but he didn’t live in the Garden of Eden, he didn’t name all the animals, and he may or may not have been married to Eve” (p. 9).

As Giberson continued to struggle with the many challenges to his Christian faith he encountered at the Nazarene college, he learned that even the religion scholars there

“… were quite accepting of evolution. An Old Testament scholar … assured me that ‘Genesis was never intended to be read literally’. He and his colleagues had made their peace with evolution … [and] were surprisingly disinterested in the struggles of those who, like me, were trying to hold on to some version of their childhood faith, while portions of its foundations were slowly removed” (p. 9).
Giberson ended up reducing historic Christianity and the Scriptures to myth.

Fanciful fables?

Giberson ended up reducing historic Christianity and the Scriptures to myth. He calls the Genesis story an ‘old fashioned fairy tale’ that is ridiculous because it includes such things as a ‘magical garden’ and ‘talking snakes’ (p. 8). The clear impression Giberson leaves in the reader is that Genesis is ridiculous because, as an antisupernaturalist, he accepts the line of reasoning that rejects all of Jesus’ miracles and every act of God in physical nature, calling into doubt both Old and New Testaments.

Giberson never addresses the logical implications of his conclusions except to note that evolution is not only the doorway to atheism but, as Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett argued, evolution is a ‘universal acid’ that affects everything and with

“… undisguised glee he outlines how evolution, which he calls ‘Darwin’s dangerous idea’, eats through and dissolves the foundations of religion. The theory of evolution, which he thinks is the greatest idea anyone ever had, destroys the belief that God created everything, including humans. ‘Darwin’s idea’, he writes with approval, ‘eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized worldview’” (pp. 9–10).

What’s left of Christianity? After reading this book at face value, one could be forgiven for thinking— not much, certainly not its foundation, although Giberson unsuccessfully tries to argue otherwise. Giberson admits that

“Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost my confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science. Dennett’s universal acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to these stories—the fall, ‘Christ as second Adam’, the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred” (p. 10).

Under the heading “Dissolving the Fall” Giberson writes, “Clearly, the historicity of Adam and Eve and their fall from grace are hard to reconcile with natural history.” The reason is “the geological and fossil records make” the case against Adam and Eve compelling. He adds that once

“… we accept the full evolutionary picture of human origins, we face the problem of human uniqueness. The picture of natural history disclosed by modern science reveals human beings evolving slowly and imperceptibly from earlier, simpler creatures. None of our attributes—intelligence, upright posture, moral sense, opposable thumbs, language capacity—emerged suddenly. Every one of our remarkable capacities must have appeared gradually and been present in some partial, anticipatory way in our primate ancestors. This provocatively suggests that animals, especially the higher primates, ought to possess an identifiable moral sense that is only quantitatively different from that of humans” (p. 11).
Figure 1. Karl Giberson

The case against

In fact, the case against human evolution is compelling, as I and others have documented. Giberson seems totally unaware of this devastating case. In trying to hold onto a remnant of Christianity, he argues that “Christianity, as its name suggests, is primarily about Christ”, yet Christ and the early church fathers clearly accepted Adam as the first man, the Fall, and all the rest that Giberson rejects (See Romans 5:12–21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22). Giberson also makes numerous egregious claims, such as:

“… ‘scientific creationism’ (also called ‘creation‘ science’) and ‘intelligent design’, [are] sibling perspectives insisting they are unrelated. Despite being largely devoid of scientific content, these movements have captured the hearts and minds of over half the country, although they remain, for the time being at least, banned from America’s public schools” (p. 17).

His claim that “the science of evolution grows increasingly robust and secure, even as America’s schools find the topic increasingly harder to teach” is directly the opposite of reality.

He does admit that the goal of evolution “is to win … the cultural-war … not to discover the truth” (p. 172). The book is miss-titled—it should be “Why Creationism is Wrong”, because little to no effort was expended to “save Darwinism”.

Chemicals plus magic equal creation

His story of evolution starts about 3.5 billion years ago with simple chemicals that evolved into cells; then some of these cells clumped together to form multi-celled organisms and, eventually, humans evolved, all due to time, the actions of natural forces, chance, and luck (p. 191). No role for God; none is noted. It’s all magic—molecules become people and “a central nervous system can become intelligent” and “light-sensitive cells can become sophisticated and turn into eyes” all due to ‘mother nature’ (p. 192).

The mistakes in this section are everywhere. One example is, in contrast to Giberson’s claim, human embryos do not have gills, or tails like a dog (p. 200). Similar genetic ‘mistakes’ in different organisms are not irrefutable proof of evolution as he claims, but are likely due to hot spots or a dozen other reasons (p. 203).1 In contrast to his claim that the four nucleotide codons (A, T, G, C) for amino-acids are ‘without exception’ universal (p. 203), exceptions do exist.2

Giberson concludes that evolution from molecule to man is “quite simply, true” (p. 206) and that “God’s signature is not one of the engineering marvels of the natural world”, but ‘evolution’s signature’ is an engineering marvel (p. 210). The fact is, all of the ‘proofs’ that Giberson gives for evolution have been refuted, often by evolutionists themselves.

After giving many historically early examples of intelligent design (ID)—then called natural philosophy— he notes that scientists and philosophers with few exceptions until Darwin believed that “God’s fingerprints were everywhere” in the creation (pp. 28–29). He then argues for several hundred pages that ID is found nowhere in the natural world yet notes even those who reject Christianity acknowledge that ID was everywhere, writing:

“Even those starting to reject Christianity and the Bible found in nature a compelling witness to God as creator. Thomas Paine, who penned the notorious Age of Reason, in which he claimed to ‘detest’ the Bible ‘as I detest everything that is cruel’, found in nature a clear revelation of God’s power and benevolence. The Bible, Paine contested, was written by men; God wrote the book of nature. The Bible was parochial and recent; nature was ancient and universal, available to all people at all times. Such celebrations of nature were common across Europe and in the New World. Everywhere, science supported belief in God through its revelations of both God’s wisdom and concern for creatures. This tradition of natural theology nurtured the young Charles Darwin who set sail on the Beagle [Emphasis in original]” (p. 29).

Darwin’s ‘big picture’

Darwinism was central in overturning this once dominant worldview. Darwin originally believed that the natural world revealed a benevolent and wise Creator, but as he experienced life, Darwin “began to wonder why so much of the world looked neither wise nor benevolent” (p. 31). Darwin eventually rejected the historic Christian answer to the problem of evil by reasoning that maybe

“… we just don’t see the big picture; perhaps sin and the fall are responsible for some of the problems; maybe we don’t understand the phenomena well enough; and so on. But these responses are woefully inadequate and little more than patches on an ancient ship riddled with holes and taking on water” (p. 32).

Giberson also appears to negate the validity of not just core Christian doctrines, but also the Scriptures as a whole:

“The gospels, noted the critics, disagree on such basic history as Jesus’s resurrection. Matthew places two women at Jesus’s tomb, Mark places three, Luke more than three, and John only one … . Now that we understand the importance of history, how can readers put faith in the historicity of an event chronicled by such unreliable reporters?” (p. 47).
The cost of ‘saving Darwin’ was to sacrifice Christianity.

The ‘problem’ of the synoptic Gospels

Even the explanatory notes of many translations document that this ‘problem’, which could have been dredged up from ‘gutter atheist’ websites, is a non-problem: several women visited Jesus’ tomb, as Luke noted, and Matthew mentioned two of them, Mark three, and John only one. No contradiction. Giberson’s reason in noting such examples is an attempt to save Darwin by demolishing the opposition, namely science and Christianity. Giberson claims that Darwin was a “reluctant convert to evolution and ultimately agnosticism”, because Darwin was convinced that he had demolished, not only Christianity, but also the major evidence for the existance of God, namely the evidence from design (p. 38). In the end, Giberson has gutted Christianity so that only an unrecognizable shell remains. The cost of ‘saving Darwin’ was to sacrifice Christianity.

Giberson also supports indoctrinating students into Darwinism and against both creation and ID, even concluding that:

“As noble as it might seem to ‘balance’ education, the reality was that creation science was nothing but a tiny intellectual backwater championed by a handful of minor fundamentalist scientists. If every tiny opposing viewpoint received the equal time that Louisiana wanted for creation science, the public schools would be opening their doors to astrology, Holocaust denial, alien visitation, and countless other preposterous topics” (p. 109).

A trial of faith

He is especially opposed to ID, claiming that at the 2005 Dover Trial “the key ID people—deeply religious people—in the trial were actually lying and knowingly misrepresenting their case” (p. 113), as if being ‘deeply religious’ was a negative trait not welcome at Eastern Nazarene College, at least by some of the science professors. Instead, Giberson favors secular atheistic science. Having read the entire trial transcript, including the Judge’s opinion—which was almost totally plagiarized from the ACLU brief—plus four books on the trial, I am not aware of any credible evidence that the ‘key ID people’ lied or knowingly misrepresented their case as Giberson claims (p. 113).

Giberson correctly notes that those who oppose Darwinism are “Christians concerned about the pernicious effects of evolution steadily eroding traditional American values” (p. 117). Giberson is only helping to erode these values, as are many theologians:

“Dayton, in Arkansas, at the Supreme Court, in Dover, and on every legal field where creation and evolution met, there were always strong religious voices in support of evolution. Biblical scholars and theologians from all but the most conservative Christian denominations were every bit as opposed to creationism as the scientists … . I have found, for example, after more than two decades as a faculty member at an evangelical college, that the most vigorous opposition to creationism comes from scholars in religion departments rather than in scientific disciplines. As strong as the scientific evidence against creationism has become, the biblical and theological arguments for rejecting it are perhaps even stronger. Expert scholars of religion made this clear in each of the trials” (p. 119).

Bad design?

Giberson’s theological solution to the problem of evil is that God is not the Creator, therefore He is not responsible for floods, earthquakes, sickness and what Giberson claims is the poor design of the human body. His examples that “the human body is riddled with … bad design” (p. 163), including knees, the back, the larynx, and junk DNA have all been refuted.3 Furthermore, ‘bad design’, even if it did exist, does not prove no designer exists. He implies that God was responsible for almost nothing historically. To Giberson, God is largely a word, and not a meaningful tangible part of reality. Giberson also indicates that he teaches soft atheism in his classes, and most of his courses include atheistic attacks on creationism and ID. Few differences—certainly not any practical ones–exist between classical atheism and Giberson’s soft atheism.

In his attacks on creation and ID, Giberson employs less name calling than atheists and, in a few places, condemns the common ad hominem attacks against Darwin doubters, such as calling them wicked. This kinder, gentler approach to proselytizing for soft atheism may be more effective than the in-your-face, nasty and bold atheism, such as that by atheopathic Professors Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. Since Giberson believes he has destroyed the most common argument given by people for believing in God, the argument from design, why does he still believe in God? He is very forthright in explaining why:

“I understand how honest thinkers and seekers after the truth like Daniel Dennett and Michael Ruse can end up rejecting God. Like that of most thinking Christians, my belief in God is tinged with doubts and, in my more reflective moments, I sometimes wonder if I am perhaps simply continuing along the trajectory of a childhood faith that should be abandoned. As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God. My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God, and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails. I can sympathize with Darwin as he struggled against the unwanted challenges to his faith” (pp. 155–156).

In other words, he ‘believes’ in God because of peer pressure. In reality, his faith is moribund, since it is not based on Christian foundations, but rather on naïve readings of atheists and secular writings. This attribute is hardly one that will inspire young Christians struggling with their faith who attended Christian colleges. Also, Paul, in Romans 1, tells us that there are no truly honest thinkers who become atheists; rather, they are ‘without excuse’.

Giberson admits that ID is a solid argument for belief in God (p. 156) yet the story of his fall into unbelief is repeated hundreds of times today. I personally know of dozens of cases where Bible-believing Christians rejected the core teaching of Christianity due to Christian or secular influence, including Drs Stanley Rice, Louis Leakey, George Gaylord Simpson, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, and even Darwin himself. Parents spend from 20 to 50 thousand dollars for a Christian college education, and some end up with an anti-Christian education that is the doorway to atheism—and no small number of students from these colleges end up as atheists.


In conclusion, except for its thin veneer of close to meaningless theism, this book is almost identical in content and conclusions to the many atheists’ books on the market published to disprove the major arguments for God, the cosmological and teleological arguments. The reasoning in this work is also very similar to the writings by atheists and others against creation and ID. Even mocking believers is present, although not quite as vicious. When I was an atheist we used to call people such as Giberson ‘useful idiots’ who were making major contributions to destroying their own religious edifice.


  1. Truman, R. and Terborg, P., Why the shared mutations in the Hominidae exon X GULO pseudogene are not evidence for common descent, J. Creation 21(3):118–113, 2007. Return to text.
  2. See Tourancheau, A.B., Tsao, N., Klobutcher, L.A., Pearlman, R.E. and Adoutte, A., Genetic code deviations in the ciliates: evidence for multiple and independent events, EMBO J. 14(13):3262–3267, 1995. Return to text.
  3. See the articles under creation.com/bad_design. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

John W.
This man never was a "Bible believing Christian" or he would not have become a believer in evolution.
Michael H.
"An Old Testament scholar … assured me that ‘Genesis was never intended to be read literally’. He and his colleagues had made their peace with evolution … [and] were surprisingly disinterested in the struggles of those who, like me, were trying to hold on to some version of their childhood faith, while portions of its foundations were slowly removed”

So he chose to join the ranks of those who harbored no sympathy for him:

“… ‘scientific creationism’ (also called ‘creation‘ science’) and ‘intelligent design’, [are] sibling perspectives insisting they are unrelated. Despite being largely devoid of scientific content, these movements have captured the hearts and minds of over half the country"

How could his seemingly fervent childhood faith wither so easily? He is just following the Parable of the Sower:

"And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: / But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away." (Mark 4:5–6)

As for me, I demonstrated the opposite trajectory. The summer before I went to college, I encountered the Flood model for the first time. It felt like an epiphany. At the same time, I shed myself of fundamental heresies I had unwittingly absorbed.

In the middle of college, I encountered Creation.com. I used my access to academic material to test the truthfulness of the site. As far as I can see, this organization is a true witness.

No death before sin — no carnivores before the Fall — painted too beautiful a picture. I realized evolution had been hardening me to what felt like an evil of nature. So much for the "progress" of Victorian times.
Telicia N.
To Stephen L:

I encourage you to trust God's Word:

"But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:14 -17(NKJV)

Maybe you should prayerfully consider challenging your tutor's beliefs in this area, or at least find out why he believes what he believes.

Praise to God for giving you a supportive family! Keep seeking the truth (Matthew 7:7-11) and I pray that God will strengthen your faith in Him and his word, and open the eyes of your tutor.
Mike R.
Very good review of the book (by Mr. Giberson). I will not waste time reading the book now. Thank you for taking the time to read and digest the book for this review. He, Giberson, is an example of the current trend for Christian schools to hire educators who are not grounded in the Faith but take the 'job' as work and not a vocation.
Guy G.
Giberson is truly dancing on the Titanic; he's going the way of Templeton without even realizing it...
Paula S.
Stephen L: Take heart, knowing that God will NEVER abandon those who belong to Him and who have the mindset of an honest seeker! Many of us were where you are now, with little support from anyone but those who have written all the books on this subject. I can say that for myself, the more I studied genetics the more I realized that evolution was a complete farce, theistic or otherwise. But what really convinced me was learning the history behind evolutionary teaching and how it came to be so widely accepted despite the highly dubious evidence supporting it. I would suggest reading some material concerning philosophy of science to help you understand the mindset behind those who blindly accept and teach evolution. A good start is "The Long War Against God" by Henry Morris, also "The Soul of Science" and "Saving Leonardo" by Nancy Pearcey. There are many others but I found these especially helpful and interesting.
S. H.
To Stephon L... Thank you for your comment and your honesty. I do pray that God will help you through this difficult process. Maybe it's worth considering a different training route? Or seeking the support of other non-Methodists / ministers in your town who do believe the Bible?

To be honest, as many have pointed out in reference to the article, I find it quite staggering that those in positions of authority within Bible colleges or 'theological' seminaries can continue in their positions without believing in God.

I've been reading a book about revival in the last hour and am so sad that much of Methodism has fallen so far from the nation-transforming message of Wesley and others. Lord, we agree with you for an awakening for Jesus and Bible truth.

There is some hope - many Methodists are partnering with 'Pioneer' network of churches, so maybe you could find someone from a Pioneer church who could support you.

Anyway, stay strong my friend and know that God's Word is completely true! Be encouraged that you have not been wrong all these years! It is your tutors who are wrong / misguided. Lord, please change their hearts! Remember also that many people used by God didn't have official 'theological training' (e.g. Howell Harris in Wales!)
Len M.
1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
Daniel J.
“the science of evolution grows increasingly robust and secure," even as America’s schools find the topic increasingly harder to teach”

Is he living under a rock? Evolution has been being destroyed by every new discovery of complex molecular machines in living organisms that are far better than anything we humans could build if we were trying to build it. Oh, but we can just put it together by leaving soup in place for a few million years, that'll work.

"America’s schools find the topic increasingly harder to teach.” I can't believe he actually said that. Evolutions role in our schools has been increasing ever since the Scope's Trial. It's not only being taught in secular schools now, it's freaking being taught in our Christian Colleges WHICH IS THE REASON HE BECAME A BELIEVER IN EVOLUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE!! He is not unaware of that, so why on earth did he write that?! He was definitely not thinking clearly.
Jonathan W.
Giberson says he remains nominally "Christian" for his family's sake and other pragmatic reasons.
I wonder if his parents have read his book, what they must think. How sad indeed.
Gerry T.
I have always found it amazing how people such as Giberson can reject every tenet of the Christian faith, yet still profess to be Christians. Perhaps he should re-title his book. How to Have Been a Christian and Believe in Evolution.
Joseph M.
Karl Giberson’s problem seems to be not being grounded in creation subjects and surrounding himself with heretical people. The scripture that comes to mind is:

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the one, who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither— whatever they do prospers.

Robert B.
Your closing sentence contains the tidbit that you were previously an atheist. I suspect that you also had a worldview that embraced naturalism and evolution. You journey seems the mirror image of Giberson's path from Christian belief to his current "Closet Atheism".

I went to your CMI bio hoping to see something by way of testimony there, but came up dry. Alas.
Eric M.
Can you list some American Christian colleges that haven't swayed towards an anti creation view? I'm looking to sign up for an online seminary and I don't want to waste my time with a school that's doesn't trust Gods word.
Tas Walker
You could ask the college the questions connected with Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
Caleb L.
Wow! What a sad "testimony" of someone who gave up the foundations of our faith for the folly of man! I just was so happy that Dr. Randy Guliuzza exposed these errors in his debate with Giberson. (I am praying for a DVD of that debate.) Keep up these articles and reviews, CMI! God bless!
Trent W.
Sounds like he is merely an atheist or agnostic who has yet to come out of the closet.
Mike N.
Our schools grade 1-12 are all about the indoctrination of the LIE of evolution. Then, some of our seminary's are the "icing" on the cake. It's no wonder our education system is churning out Godless children. The "professing Bible-believing Christian young-earth creationist, Karl Giberson" is no different. I am reminded of 1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

It's much worse than true biblical Christians understand. We have many Tares among the wheat, which is one reason why the church is weak and getting weaker. We must get off the bench and get engaged with preaching the gospel to every creature. Secular Christians as I call them, are giving the atheists ammo everyday by compromising the Word of God, i.e., Genesis 1-11. I can hear the steps of the Messiah.
Abhishek P.
I think it's hapeening everywhere these days. A lot of students who go to bible college are evolutionists
george M.
1cor.3.18 Let no man decieve himself. if any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world,let him become a fool,that he may be wise.
This guy needs to become a fool again. A fool for Christ I am.
james p H.
uh....sounds to me like he was totally retarded or some-thing, eh?
Michael Denton wrote "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" in the mid-1980s....nearly 30-odd yrs ago....and that book alone pretty much demolishes Darwinism.....by the time Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" appeared, abt a decade or so later, the coffin lid was pretty much nailed shut!!.....so......it's perplexing how those clowns at his "Bible College" could'v convinced him of the veracity of evolution.....unless he was just intellectually lazy, wilfully stupid or just plain, old-fashioned retarded!!
Andrew C.
Dear CMI family,

Such an all too familiar story. Years ago I taught science in public high schools and I always found the students wanted to know the information for and against each origin theory. They wanted to make up their own minds not be told what to believe or what 'science' tells them to believe. Is it possible for CMI to list secondary and tertiary institutions that present both theories as part of a socially responsible curriculum. It would mean that parents can provide opportunity for their children to hear both theories rather than the repressive mind control attempted by those who are too scared to be challenged by the Author of Life and true science!! (Faith in self-organising inanimate unintelligent matter is clearly the false religion of the foolish but force is the last resort of every false religion)
Stephon L.
Thank you for writing this. I know exactly what is being said here. Although I am not at a College I am in training to be a Methodist Lay Preacher. The main thing I am being taught is to doubt Scripture; particularly Genesis 1-11, which they call a 'myth'; to be honest I'm not sure what they mean by 'myth', it seems to mean anything apart from being the truth. I have found myself beginning to doubt Scripture, and thinking, 'have been wrong all these years?' I have little support out side my family. My Tutor seems to believe anything and all religion is equal!
Thank you again for this article and for all you publish; you site is becoming a solace for me.
R. D.
A curious read, Mr. Gilberson's book, clearly. In parts your heart aches for him, in others you cannot help but be exceptionally angry that such useful idiots are not outed by their college establishments and dismissed from their positions on grounds of gross breach of trust.

I guess the one good thing to come from this book, and others like it, is that it can help people learn the important lessons that compromise really cannot help but lead to either outright apostasy or a watered-down "Christianity" which is for all practical purposes no different from apostasy.

One can only pray that establishments like Eastern Nazarene College learn the lesson and that as new people come to head them over time, these people act more wisely.
Steve C.
I am amazed at the naivety of this man. You did well to expose his writings. In the UK there is a book called 'How to be a bad Christian and a better human being' by Dave Tomlinson, which is also a foolish book, and yet it is recommended by Christian leaders and magazines. Well done, CMI, in standing up for God's truth! I pray regularly for your ministry.
James M.
Faith in other people made him accept what he was taught.
Faith in other people makes him believe they have the evidence that proves evolution.
Fear of other people keeps him professing a faith he doesn't believe.
He is willing to lie about his real beliefs to keep his job an lifestyle.
He is willing to believe that those people he has faith in are not lying to keep their jobs and lifestyle.

James T.
This is a depressing article. Mr giberson sounds lost and confused. I kinda wish someone would show thiestic evolutionist the problems with evolution. Although if what you say is true some [not all] Christians who only believe in evolution just do so in order to gain worldly respect. I honestly would feel hopeless for them. But the thing that gets me confuse is that they are not gaining any real respect if atheist refer to them as "useful idiots" and laugh at them for trying to fit evolution with the bible.
Cecily M.
A good review by Jerry Bergman, with much helpful information in it, like all the CMI articles.

It is often useful, when witnessing concerning the authenticity and inspiration of the Scriptures, to begin with Peter’s letters. They are well established as authentic. All Peter’s words, therefore, can be accepted as written by the Apostle Peter himself and inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit Himself confirms this. Peter also commends the letters of Paul and gives them equal authority with “the other Scriptures” which would consist mainly of the books of the Old Testament.

Peter in his second letter says “... be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless; and account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3: 14 - 16)

Paul writes to Timothy “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Tim. 3: 16)

When they have read prayerfully all the letters of Peter and Paul, doubters can no longer be in doubt as to the authenticity and inspiration of all Scripture.

We must continue to pray for a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit to strengthen the faith of the weak and to get rid of the “dead wood” in the churches, to make way for the new wave of believers which will soon come, God willing.
Jennifer P.
The paragraph of Gilberson's quoted at the end of Dr Jerry Bergman's review is just jaw dropping and it is hard to comphrehend that Gilberson can live with such personal deceit and mendacity.

He accepts a salary from a Christian University and completely undermines their principles. Do they know or care ? Have his parents , wife and children read this statement of his ? The mind boggles if it is OK with them that he is playing them all as fools.

Talk about mental gymnastics holding to theistic evolutionary faith and the god of scientism which leads to all the entailed illogicality and nonsense.

"My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God, and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails. I can sympathize with Darwin as he struggled against the unwanted challenges to his faith” (pp. 155–156).

What are the unwanted challenges to his ( Darwins' ) faith ?
Darwin faith was indistinguishable from atheism !
Was the unwanted challenge that the Creator God revealed in real history and His Word is True ?
Jesus clearly stated that He is the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Him !

The parallel I can see between Darwin and Gilberson is that they both had no respect for their wives' faith. Emma ( Wedgewood ) Darwin was a Unitarian believer which is still today non orthodox and opposed to the Trinity foundational doctrine of Biblical Christianity. They both disguised their real position .
Ian H.
I wonder if Karl Giberson was ever exposed to the 10 Commandments in his Pre Eastern Nazarene College days when he presumably attended some kind of church? There is a universal church use of the word 'sin' but in my experience very little amplification of what the Bible defines it as.
The Bible claims Ps 19:7 'The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple'.
Karl Giberson certainly does not appear to have been made wise by any of his 'christian' discipleship. The key word is 'convert'

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.