Banner

"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)

Contributors

  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez

    We are a community of confessing believers who love the gospel of Jesus Christ, affirm the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.

    top250.jpg

    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook

    Blogroll

    Latest Posts

    Categories

    Archives

    Ministry Links

  • « Defending Divine Election - Six Video Teaching Sessions | Main | Moral Outrage, Evil and Fatal Inconsistencies »

    Theistic Evolution Is a Denial of the Gospel

    Jesus physical death was what paid for the sin that led to Adam's physical death (and that which brought death into the world). Therefore those who embrace theistic evolution are embracing an untenable position which is contrary to the gospel. And so to believe the "last enemy" was part of God's original creation is to profoundly misrepresent the gospel itself. It attributes to God that which is only attributable to man - death. And so Jesus would end up dying for something God did, not for something man did - a complete perversion of the truth.

    Therefore I find it more than a little disturbing to hear this view flourishing in some otherwise reputable Christian organizations. As Christians, such a view should be seen as outside the bounds of anything approaching historic Christianity.

    Posted by John on April 6, 2013 11:47 AM

    Comments

    Lots of Reformed pastors and theologians, especially Anglicans but also some others like the Presbyterian Tim Keller, adhere to this view. However, they seldom get criticized directly from within Reformed circles.

    FYI - I know it might be too hard for you to comprehend this, because you won't be able to respect one who holds a Theistic Evolutionary view long enough to empathize with the position (much like did the Catholic Church with Galileo, but i know we're wayyy to sophisticated for that tomfoolery). My point: fallacy of the excluded middle - classic parochial, manipulative, fallacy - All who believe in Theistic Evolution do not believe that death started with Adam, therefore they deny the Gospel.

    What about people who have a view of Theistic Evolution and believe death came with Adam? I know you don't want to think we exist, and comfort yourself by writing off our position as nonexistent, but we do exist. We believe Adam and Eve were real people, death came with Adam - they were the ONLY humans alive, the fall was real with a talking snake, etc... I know its fun to argue as if you can't be sane or are totally heterodox and hold to certain views, but in reality its nothing more than ignorant manipulation, scaring people into not really thinking through an issue. Disagree with me, find my logic untennable, say im a horrible exegete, or just irrational...but don't say I don't exist and DO NOT say I deny the Gospel, I don't, period!

    Stanley Nehaus

    I think you are deluded and hold to an intellectually incoherent, unsustainable position both theologically and scientifically. Your theology DOES deny the gospel of Jesus Christ outright. You said nothing to show why my argument was flawed ... so you are making orphaned assertions that are in search on an argument.

    That your theology denies the gospel does not mean I think you are necessarily unregenerate. We are not saved by a perfect understanding...but by Christ alone.... rather I am saying that you declare ideas directly contradictory to the gospel and need to be sharply rebuked. Such positions as yours should not be tolerated in the church of Jesus Christ. To equate evolution with Galileo would seem to demonstrate how little you know about evolution and genetics. Macro Evolution does not use the scientific method to draw its conclusions. There is no evidence whatsoever of anagenesis or phyletic change - completely speculative.

    John

    Ok, got it. I'll regress back to my make believe world where I continue to concoct Gospel destroying serum. Glad we got that straight. I was starting to wonder how I believed all that Jesus stuff anyway. Oh wait...that's right, your response, though full of polysyllabic words, was woefully, and insanely, messed up and wrong on so many levels. I tried addressing all of it but you are messed up on so many things here, and I know you won't care to listen anyway, that its not really worth it. I'll help you by slipping on my heretic cape and descend back to my God hating dungeon where I grow evil ideas to destroy the Church. Muhaaahahahahaha...you'll never know how silly you sound until you understand how plain and obvious Evolution is. Till then, have fun scaring people away from reality and from using their brains. GOOOOOO Ken Ham!

    I have to wonder if you guys would talk to each with the same degree of frankness if you were face to face. I would bet you would find more thought provoking ways to communicate with each other. This is a very important topic and deserves all the intellectual strength and grace we can must.

    Ben,

    You are sooo right. I am a total chicken in person, and quite quiet and would never do that. This subject upsets me sooo much though. It is so misunderstood and guys like me are so often slandered, as happened here by John, because of their willing ignorance on the subject. I have spent the last ten years being verbally abused so much, NEVER EVER listened to, just yelled at and called a heretic and stupid for believing in Evolution. I am always a Church wrecker, hate the Bible, deny the Gospel, etc... I have yet, ever, to have any fellow believer to ever sincerely listen to something I have to say. So, I get a bit punchy and am sorry to you and John for revealing that weakness and sin in me. It is so hard to keep your cool, its like a self protection. I know I am called evil, though I deny nothing of any of the Gospel, and LOVE the Bible and read it voraciously am a 5 Point Calvinist and love theology. I guess if I thought it were possible to have a cordial conversation on the matter I'd try it, but honestly i revert to mockery in hopes that someone would realize that I'm not quite as evil as they make me out to be. Cheers.

    Stanely,

    You sound like a very thoughtful and passionate man. I completely understand how you feel. I am a member of a very Dutch Reformed Church and there are some very stanch 7 literal day folk there. Not that I have a problem with them believing that, but unfortunately some make it a make or break issue. I myself would land more where Tim Keller lands, but I try hold my position humbly. I think the hardest part of dealing with people who I have serious disagreements with is knowing "when" to engage them in debate. If I think the conversation will go south quick I will just let them speak and dismiss myself politely. If I believe I can have a thoughtful and respectful back and forth I will engage. Just as it is by grace alone that a person is saved, so it is by that same grace that we grow in the knowledge of God's word and world and he is real good at conforming his children into the image of his son. Grace and peace you all of you my brother.

    Stanley,

    Give me a try , would you?

    You lay down the terms for interacting and ill comply with Jonh's consent.

    Tell in a nutshell why I should believe you? Tell the basis for it also , if you would?

    The difference between John's and Stanley's view on the creation of Adam is (probably) that John thinks the dust quickly turned into a living soul when God breathed into the nostrils, where as Stanley thinks some things (what people usually call "evolution") happened before God breathed into the nostrils. The above two positions are closely tied with the two different views on the time scale the word "day" in Genesis 1 represents. So John's argument, in effect, can come out as saying that reading "day" in Genesis 1 not as a 24 hour period as we know it today is a denial of the gospel. That would be an extreme position.

    Couple of things.

    1) Scripture is not being interpreted in a way that any Christian would for any other doctrinal issues. To postulate a pre-fall animal death is completely speculative and being read into Scripture. Christians do not read into the Text a belief that is not there and declare it to be sound doctrine. This is the definition of liberal theology and is shameful to come from someone who believes the Bible is the Word of God. I am pretty sure you would think the same on other important doctrines like justification (like if we just decided to add the doctrine of Purgatory as true even through the Bible said nothing of it). Your science appears to be just like your theology ...it is also speculative. If you can so easily accept such wild speculation to establish your theology then you obviously can in your science.

    2) Scripture is already clear that CREATION as a whole is in solidarity with men in this world ... it in "bondage to corruption" because its head, brought it there. And likewise when men are set free, the rest of creation also follows. In other words, the fall and the gospel have direct impact on the whole of creation, not merely individual men.

    "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." Rom 8:19-24

    Lastly to call this "verbal abuse" without demonstrating from the Text that there is pre-fall animal death or somehow attempt to demonstrate from the Bible how I am wrong, is itself abusive. Calling yourself abused is a tactic, not an argument, and downright shameful. I made real arguments and your response is to get others pity for being abused. This is not an argument from logic, or facts or truth or any real response whatsoever.

    This discussion is not one of the age of the earth. Try again. :) Follow the argument above ... it is about how the death of Christ and His redemptive purpose is being denied at its core by embracing the concept of macro evolution.

    This post is one of numerous examples of what we DO NOT need in this debate. Why not acknowledge the fact that the other side of this debate is made up of well-meaning believers instead of throwing bricks?

    I do not hold to, nor would I defend theistic evolution.

    However, most Reformed people I know of who hold to such a position would not argue that there was actual human death before the fall. Nor would most of them deny Adam's historicity, nor his being the first real human.

    Granted there are some that take a more liberal stance than that.

    Perhaps there is a need for nuance or greater precision when talking about 'theistic evolution'?

    Or perhaps it might be better to engage the question about whether or not there was animal/plant death before the fall?

    Either way, in the former position's tenets, I don't see a denial, either explicit, implicit, nor inferential, that denies the Gospel.

    I humbly agree with John on this issue. Our God is not a God of confusion. Why do men try to argue with God? He says it was seven days, and that He created Adam first, and that through Adam came sin and death. Why is that so hard to believe? If science doesn't jive with that, then I suggest we give it a few years till it does. Such has been the history of science. In the meantime, it would seem to be an opportune time to exercise that ever important gift: FAITH. For without faith, it is impossible to please God, and we must receive the kigdom of heaven as a child -- humble, trusting, dependent, etc. But I hope someone can explain (in simple terms, say, for a child) how theistic evolution AND the gospel can both be logically believed at the same time?

    Jonathan, as a former theistic evolutionist I came to the conclusion that John did. Biologos, a site I frequented during that time, taught me this. They didn't throw everything out entirely but, they were getting close. It was more of a neo-orthodox and liquid modern (what we dub post-modernism is actually liquid modernism) where you could basically make up your own answers so far as you accepted evolution.
    I do respect Keller, as he is inconsistent on the issue believing in a literal Adam from evolution. However, it is just that, he is being inconsistent. There are plenty of believers on both sides of the debate but, since when can't we show them that they are wrong? I firmly believe that there is something in their subconscious that wants to be accepted by the academic world. Of course we all sin, so we can't fault them but, just show them the light.
    Anyway, back at Biologos, if you didn't know the Christian message, you would have thought it was Darwin + Jesus and that science contains more answers than the Bible, which of course to them, isn't infallible.
    I commend John for taking such a bold and much needed stand.

    Trent, thanks for your comment! I appreciate your tone and your honesty. However, that's what I wasn't picking up on in the original post. It struck me as a bit alarmist -a sort of quick-witted way to prove that theistic-evolutionists are just dead wrong and shouldn't be trusted. I understand that may not have been intended, but the brevity of the post matched with the importance of the topic made it seem that way.
    That being said, it appears that BioLogos is trying to take a more conservative approach. Granted they are a group that holds a variety of theological opinions, all hold to inspiration in some form or another.

    Marty, the compatibility issue depends on your definitions of "theistic evolution" and "the gospel." If you clarified, I'm sure someone who is a theistic evolutionist would gladly explain it to the best of his or her abilities! That would be beneficial to everyone to at least hear how someone on that side of the debate deals with the apparent discrepancies. Thanks!

    I have never given theistic evolution much attention, so there may be more to it than I am aware; but I cannot imagine a scenario in which my understanding of scripture would be enhanced, at all, by embracing theistic evolution.

    The only possible exception in my mind would be the forming of man from the dust of the earth. Everything else God spoke into existence. Just as Lazarus was raised and the sea was instantly calmed, the command of God is creative. It is reality. There is no room in my mind for anything else there but spontaneous creation especially since Paul likens it to the new birth, also spontaneous by all accounts in the NT.

    But man wasn't spoken into existence; he was formed and breathed into. I need to study within scripture to get a deeper understanding of the significance of that.

    At any rate, I just don't see theistic evolution being helpful in any way to a whole bible understanding. It certainly isn't necessary, as it seems to serve more to distract and cloud than it does to clarify and glorify God and Christ to us.

    That has been and still is my perspective on the issue.

    Well said, Kaleb. I would ask anyone who is able to, to give the salient points of Theistic Evolution, and then show how this is a coherent theory, using sound Scriptural (Reformed) proofs. Then lets discuss the merits or lack thereof without getting into Straw Man arguments.

    As soon as one accepts Genesis as the literal, historical account that it is, the matter is settled.

    So what are all of you struggling with, really?

    New to posting here, interesting comments. I am glad that there are many here interested in a loving approach to others with whom they disagree, but also that they are not afraid to point out important inaccuracies in another's position.

    I was raised as an atheist/evolutionist (how did I come to the faith? Same way everyone else does: the grace of God!). I don't claim to be a PhD expert in the relevant fields (paleontology, geology, etc) but then most commenters on this subject aren't either. I have a bio degree and an MD, and a more than casual interest in this subject.

    My question for the 'theistic evolutionists': what makes you think that the literal interpretation of Genesis, the 'special creation' option if you will, is NOT the accurate depiction of what happened to account for life on Earth? Is there something in the Biblical account that makes your position more likely? Or are you looking at data from the 'book of nature', finding that it contradicts a certain interpretation of Scripture, and (not unreasonably) looking for an alternative interpretation that (presumably) does not do violence to the text, and allows for the findings from nature?

    If the former, I'm open to correction, but it seems awfully unlikely. I've read Genesis etc over and over and can't find anything in it that would make the 'theistic evolution' option MORE likely. Possible? Perhaps barely. But more likely? Not.

    If the latter, knowing the inherited tendency of Man towards denial of God and His truth, I take a very skeptical view of the pronouncements of 'Science' concerning Man's origins. I know both from the Bible and from common sense/experience that God is and has created us. The Bible's testimony is obvious. Common sense/experience reveals that we are moral beings. The nonpurposeful 'molecules to man' hypothesis does not allow for morality and hence can't be true.

    Knowing that God has made us, why would I pay attention to what atheists have to say about Man's origins? Show me a panel of folks with PhD's in the relevant fields, who are Biblical inerrantists, and are members in good standing of properly constituted churches that are Reformed at least in their soteriology, who tell me that 'theistic evolution' is clearly revealed in the data derived from Nature, and I will take another look at it. Until then I can't see why I should bother.

    Jeremy, like yourself, I don't claim to be an expert in the field of biology. But I did want to offer some of my thoughts on the issues you raised. I am a theistic evolutionist and I am also reformed in my soteriology.

    First of all, when I read Genesis, I don't see theistic evolution there. I don't try to read "from the dust" as being some sort of evolutionary allusion. Instead, I consider the possibility that the beginning of Genesis was written as something other than concrete history. That seems to sit uneasily with most evangelicals today, but I'm not opposed to it. (I'm not arguing here, just giving my perspective.)

    To answer one of your questions, I do feel the need to read Genesis in light of modern science. But I don't do so arbitrarily. I do so out of a committment to the fact that God's work in nature is purposeful and valuable for study. Additionally, I think that the need to "reread" Genesis is due to the western church's resistance to evolution in the past. Let me clarify: as a theistic evolutionist, I don't believe Genesis 1 is a literal account of material origins; thus, Genesis has no true account of material origins. Pair this with the absence of a plausible view of material origins for many years of the church's existence. What happens is that the church comes to see Genesis 1 as a literal account of material origins. When Darwin comes on the scene, anything that tries to make room for a different account is just a "rereading." I think this is the case, an therefore I want to be open to the possibility that Genesis may not have been written as literal history.

    There are two types of biological change: horizontal (remixing of existing genetic information, breeding, etc.) and vertical (entirely new information being added to the genome via mutations & natural selection). Horizontal change is observed all the time, vertical change is theoretical, but never observed. Keep this in mind, horizontal change is perfectly consistent with the biblical worldview (change within kinds), vertical change (change from one kind to another) is not biblical, but is absolutely necessary for an atheistic worldview. There is nothing in observational science that forces us to believe in vertical change, and so to call vertical evolution scientific is a big stretch. It is merely a historical hypothesis that originated from an ungodly worldview. Theistic evolution puts you outside the camp orthodox neo-Darwinists, and is certainly not necessitated by the biblical text. Because of the widespread acceptance of evolutionary theory among centers of higher learning, the only reason I can see a Christian wanting to embrace it is to appear acceptable in the sight of the world. I often hear people claim that if you don't believe in evolution you're either ignorant or don't understand. I disagree, and there are many in the scientific field who reject theistic-evolution as a viable option for biological systems. Trying to separate evolution from the naturalistic worldview that birthed it seems absurd to me. In the final analysis, it comes down to authority, God's word vs man's fallible interpretation of nature. Check out http://creationwiki.org and this video: http://youtu.be/Wf32BXMSN7A

    God bless, Kyle

    Theistic evolution is not taught or insinuated anywhere in the bible. IT is a high-sounding-nothing teaching that shows again the unprofitableness and silliness of the sinful human mind that denies the clear word of God for fables.
    One can not affirm Theistic evolution and by the same mouth affirm the inerrancy of scripture.
    IT is also to make a god after man's image who is not able to bring about creation in 6 literal days. The God who created the universe did not weave it with needles and cotton wool. Rather He brought it about by Omnipotent power. To deny a literal creation is to deny the miracles of the bible and that is to deny Jesus Christ and that is to be an Apostate and liable to death.
    Theistic evolution should not be entertained by anyone who professes Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ affirmed the existence of a literal Adam in this conversation here, Matt 19:3-5"Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?”He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female,and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?"
    So, in Jesus's understanding Adam and Eve existed as real beings and the ordinance of marriage was established then.
    Be careful with much learning it can lead you from TRUTH that saves.

    I am a Chemist by training and science has to be subservient to special revelation and not otherwise.
    Thanks for listening.

    I'm sorry Stanley hasn't returned!

    Herdsman, not only that how could a theistic evolutionist say they are a reformed person in light of these verses too:

    Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, (Luke 24:44, 45 ESV)

    Now to take it a little further into those words, I'd point these bright well educated men to Psalm 19, the whole Psalm.

    I'll quote from it a verse that seems to make Genesis a material record of material in evidence on your point:

    The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat. (Psalms 19:1-6 ESV)

    and

    You don't needs to be to smart to understand neither no!

    The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; (Psalms 19:7, 8 ESV)

    Finally I suppose if there was a Verse in the Bible that could convict a sinner about their theoretical worldview this verse from Psalm 19 would be one to use:

    Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me! Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression. (Psalms 19:13 ESV)

    I don't understand why Christians are so attracted to theistic evolution. They have compared it to Galileo, but have the same Christians ever studied physics? If so, are they claiming evolution is proven with mathematical precision? Is it observable (macro evolution)?

    Are they also claiming that the verses Christians used in the past against Galileo are as clear, and as relevant to the Gospel, as the verses used for Creationism? John made some very good points in his original post and in a follow up comment. The allusion to Creation everywhere in Scripture is very strong evidence this is neither a side issue, nor something that can be easily interpreted as symbolism.

    If they are able to place the pronouncements of speculative, non-observable science as an external authority to guide the interpretation of Scripture (instead of looking at Scripture's context itself), where does it stop? Why not try to interpret the Scripture's commandments about homosexuality in light of the modern "authoritative" pronouncements of psychology?

    In the end, using an external authority to guide the interpretation of Scripture is nothing more than placing that authority over Scripture itself, and thus making man's understanding ("science") the final authority. It is not very different from having the Rome declaring what Scriptures must mean, which in practice ends up being Sola Ecclesia instead of Sola Scriptura.

    The whole idea of linking theistic evolution with a literal Adam and Eve seems quite desperate. Why? Because it is neither supported by modern, neo-Darwinian biology nor by the Scriptures. It is clearly a desperate attempt to join both, and when you do, you end up being faithful to neither. No committed Darwinian scientist will accept such a literal Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, nor will they believe the first humans could even think in moral terms, let alone speak, or have such advanced behavior as Cain or Abel. And nowhere in Scripture is such a thing expounded. Why believe in a literal Adam and Eve that were at first animal hominids placed in a literal Garden of Eden, when the Bible clearly states Adam was made from the dust (more than once, as in "dust to dust") and Eve from his side? So the part about God creating them from the dust is symbolic, but the part about the talking serpent is literal? Really? I'm sorry, but desperate is the most charitable word I can use for such a notion.

    So, I didn't get back here for a few days and a lot has been said. So, here is how I'll try to answer the issue here. All facts must, by necessity, be consistent with the Bible, this we would never be in dispute over. If a non-evolutionary view is what the Bible teaches then it must follow that it can never be true in the world or cosmos. However, if the Bible would allow for some formulation of an evolutionary view then the cosmos would necessarily bear that out. The opposite is true as well. If the cosmos bears out evolutionary evidence then the Bible by, necessity, WILL be in some way complicit with it. The creation and the Bible, both being issued forth from the same author, will always be in accord with one another.

    Here is my problem, my handling of the issue as a theistic evolutionist. I see a world, science, as bearing out with screaming clarity - as clear to me as the reality of the sun shining in my face, no exaggeration here - evolution. I assume the Bible, then, must be in complete agreement with it - even if that means I must adjust my previous assumptions about some texts - the same thing we had to do when Galileo discovered the earth was not the center of the universe. I understand that this has implications that could, if one is careless, threaten the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, perspicuity, etc... Because I believe the Bible cannot and will not contradict reality I have to believe the Bible is at least, if not more, consistent with evolution if it does not explicitly teach it. I don't expect anyone to find that convincing, but it is how I process it. I assume, at all levels, that because the Bible is true that science HAS to reveal what the Bible teaches. If it does not then either the Bible is wrong or I was wrong in how I understood the Bible. Regarding evolution, I am forced to assume that my previous understanding of a non-evolutionary world was faulty and based upon ignorant eisegesis rooted in faulty traditionalism.

    To be fair to my opponents, I see your concerns and if I were going the direction you are afraid these things went I'd join you in condemning them. However, there is a category - whether you want to accept it or not - of theistic evolution that does not end in the conclusions you fear.

    For me to deny theistic evolution I would have to deny basic, obvious, science. It would be like asking someone to deny the existence of DNA biological cells because the Bible does not talk about it. It is a fact. Just because the Sunday School material, Ken Ham, and the rest of the non-evolutionary thinkers have put forward convincing but fallacious arguments - that only work in environments with people never care to study the conclusions by reading the opposing views from primary sources - does not mean that Evolution is any where close to debatable. Having grown up a traditional Ken Ham thinker on creation I know this. The use of the term macro evolution itself shows how incredibly ignorant and unthinking, unstudied, people are on the matter. Merely a 5 minute study on the matter outside the Sunday School material would show someone how ridiculous such a distinction is - these people have never tried to distinguish between species as the task is virtually impossible. Evolution not only is continually proven to be accurate by science, but EVERY SINGLE argument against it is empirically proven fallacious. Studying bacteria and the flu virus is sufficient to prove non evolutionary thinking false - but I'm sure that effort will not be employed, and if it is it won't be through the biological journals of scientists, it will be through non-evolutionary pseudo scientists interpretation. I was against all forms of evolution until I studied it. Any position that cannot hold up to scrutiny is no position at all. This is what I found with evolution. This causes me to think carefully as I come to the Bible, I don't have all the answers as to how it worked or how it all played out, but I know the Bible is true and so is Evolution. I cannot square it all together, and quite frankly, I don't feel I need to because I KNOW for a FACT they are both true. Given the fact that I have never heard a non-evolutionary argument that comes close to disproving or contradicting evolution that cannot be fully rebutted, including the sacred and silly "irreducible complexity" argument - that even a sixth grader would understand is not only horrible science but also is based on an uncogent syllogism - fallacy of the undistributed middle.

    I know you have to protect the traditional view of things because something different is scary and you cannot figure out how it would all fit with orthodoxy - thus logical ends arguments help feed the desire for maintaining orthodoxy and make clean lines in what is acceptable on these matters. I don't expect you to read anything I say to help you see how wrong all that is, but - for whatever its worth - I hope you can at least understand that theistic evolution is not quite the horrific beast you seem to think it is. That probably won't happen, but whatev's - its my attempt.

    It is interesting to me that you don't find the argument for irreducible complexity compelling. Are you suggesting, for example, that the ATP Synthase Enzyme could have developed purely by natural processes? If so, I would really like to know how you could empirically prove that. Genetic remixing happens within a system (in a cell, in bacteria etc.), but how did that system develop in the first place? If God created the first cell, I would like to know what scientific journal reports this, and how you could empirically prove that. In other words, at what point in the evolutionary story of things do you insert God's actions? Since you know for certain that evolution is true, why is it necessary for God to be part of the picture, since natural processes are allegedly sufficient in and of themselves to explain all of life anyway? Now if you're saying that it was absolutely necessary for God to intervene at some point(s) in the past, then I challenge you to provide a scientific journal that emphatically states the necessity of God in evolution. However, if there is nothing lacking in evolution itself as an explanation for all of life, then it follows that God is not necessary in that explanation, only for those who happen to be religiously minded.
    Why bother trying to reconcile a mindless (and "proven") process with an intelligent creator?
    Furthermore, was Job ignorant of evolution? (Job 12:7-9).

    Now take everything you've said about evolution, but instead, insert the resurrection of Christ. What if I said, for instance, that it is beyond question that the resurrection is scientifically and historically proven to be false, but that I believe the bible to be true as well. I don't know how it all fits together, but it has to, because I know for certain that the resurrection is false (are there not modern historians who would say you're nuts for believing in the resurrection?) At what point do you call into question the consensus of the "experts"?

    If you believe that the minor variations that we observe today are sufficient to explain all of life, then it seems to me that you've bought into the idea that evidence can communicate by itself outside of a worldview. And of course, fallen man has infallible knowledge about the past. Why try to separate evolution from the naturalistic worldview that birthed it?

    1Tim 6:20, “O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge––“
    1Cor 15:36 Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies. 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare seed – perhaps of wheat or something else. 15:38 But God gives it a body just as he planned, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 15:39 All flesh is not the same: People have one flesh, animals have another, birds and fish another. 15:40 And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. The glory of the heavenly body is one sort and the earthly another. 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory.”
    Please pay close attention to verse 38. It says it is God who gives bodies their different natures as He planned. Planned is in the past tense, which means the boundaries of what creatures can be are already set and God is the power and agency by which it happens and not evolution or some other unintelligent force. This is so set such that there is distinction between the heavenly and the earthly bodies and the glory of the different stars. The text here argues that the stars glow differently not because one has more hydrogen to burn and the other less, but because it is God who planned and fuels them that way.
    Having established that it is God who determines intra and inter-species differences by a creative decree, let us go to mutation. Mutation and adaption to an environment assumes that the cell or creature pre-exists. Mutation has no creative power in and of itself and neither does it possess intelligence to know what it should mutate the cell or organism to.
    What happens in the cells is just chemical and biochemical transformations that are directed by the information and rules and boundaries that God encoded in the cells. Each type of organism has just enough information to continue to reproduce that kind of organism, but never to grow to be another species. A tomato seed will beget a tomato plant, but never an orange tree no matter how many mutations happen to it. This is why a rabbit cannot bear a kid with a cat if there was ever to be a union of that kind. A human being cannot impregnate an animal because the instructions that are encoded in their genes are not designed to mix and match. The individual cells have no ability to reason in themselves what other creature they want to be.
    Self-assembly of cells to form Adam and Eve is not taught in the bible and is not possible if considered carefully. If that is what happened? How did the cells determine that Adam had to have two legs, two hands, two eyes and that his eyes would be on top of his nose and mouth below the nose? Why did not the eyes show up on the knees or in the back and how did they know that these things needed a Central Nervous system to control them? How did evolution determine that the heart should be on the left side of the human body and not in the thighs? That kind of knowledge and understanding can only happen when you are dealing with a very intelligent being who assembled the parts together in one unit at the same time.

    To assign that ability to organic and inorganic molecules is to be idolatrous and to think too mechanically about human beings. The elements that constitute matter did not decide by themselves to be what they are. They are what they are because God made them to be so and their different behaviors are governed by what God encoded in them. Yes indeed mutation happens, but it does not happen as to generate a higher species such that a bacteria will over time mutate and organize to become an elephant. Yes, there are mutations in elephants or any other species and these happen because the body is trying to minimize damage to itself. The body itself has a repair mechanism that comes into play when say DNA or RNA has been damaged.
    However, the repair mechanism is there to keep the status quo than change it to make a new species. When you take your car to the shop it is so that it keeps functioning as a car and not to make it an elephant. Table salt is Sodium chloride and shall remain so until Christ comes because that is all that it can be outside being displaced in reactions with other chemicals.

    "Macro Evolution does not use the scientific method to draw its conclusions. There is no evidence whatsoever of anagenesis or phyletic change - completely speculative."
    this tells of how ignorant of science you are, there is PLENTY of evidence you are just in denial

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "g" in the field below: