Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and “progressive creationists”)
The following questions may help those who adhere to some form of theistic evolution (God used evolution to create everything) or progressive creation (God intervened at various points in the process of evolution) to realize that their position violates clear concepts revealed in the Bible — indeed much that is foundational to the very Gospel itself.
Concept violated: the goodness of God
The Bible says “God is good” and in Genesis 1:31 God described his just-finished creation as “very good”. How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, “nature red in tooth and claw”, to “create” everything?
Concept violated: Adam’s sin brought death and decay, the basis of the Gospel
According to the evolutionist’s (and progressive creationist’s) understanding, fossils (which show death, disease and bloodshed) were formed before people appeared on earth. Doesn’t that mean that you can’t believe the Bible when it says that everything is in “bondage to decay” because of Adam’s sin (Romans 8)? In the evolutionary view, hasn’t the “bondage to decay” always been there? And if death and suffering did not arise with Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, how can Jesus’ suffering and physical death pay the penalty for sin and give us eternal life, as the Bible clearly says (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:22 — For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive)? How can death be called “the last enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26) and “the wages of sin” (Romans 6:23) if it were originally part of the “very good” creation (see above)?
Concept violated: the divine inspiration of the whole Bible
If the Genesis accounts of Creation, the Fall, the origin of nations, the Flood and the Tower of Babel — the first 11 chapters — are not historical, although they are written as historical narrative and understood by Jesus to be so, what other unfashionable parts of the Bible do you discard?
The biblical account of creation in Genesis seems very specific with six days of creative activity, each having an evening and a morning. According to the evolutionary sequence, the biblical order of creation is all wrong. Do you think God should have inspired an account more in keeping with the evolutionary order, the truth as you see it, if indeed He did use evolution or followed the evolutionary pattern in creating everything?
Concept violated: the straightforward understanding of the Word of God
If the Genesis account does not mean what it plainly says, but must be “interpreted” to fit an evolutionary world, how are we to understand the rest of the Bible? How are we to know that the historical accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection should not also be “reinterpreted”? Indeed, can we know anything for sure if the Bible can be so flexible?
Concept violated: the creation is supposed to clearly show the hand of God
Dr Niles Eldredge, well-known evolutionist, said: “Darwin … taught us that we can understand life’s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.”1 Is it not philosophically inconsistent to marry God (theism) with evolution (naturalism)? If God “created” using evolution which makes Him unnecessary, how can God’s “eternal power and divine nature” be “clearly seen” in creation, as Romans 1:20 says?
Evolution has no purpose, no direction, no goal. The God of the Bible is all about purpose. How do you reconcile the purposelessness of evolution with the purposes of God? What does God have to do in an evolutionary world? Is not God an “unnecessary hypothesis”?
Concept violated: the need of restoration for the creation
If God created over millions of years involving death, the existing earth is not ruined by sin, but is as it always has been—as God supposedly intended it to be. So why then should He want to destroy it and create a new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3 and other places)?
- Niles Eldredge, Time Frames — the Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, 1986, Heinemann, London, p. 13. Return to text.