Why God and Theistic Evolution Do Not Mix
[Posted with permission from author]I remember as a boy (1950s) standing in the back of the church hearing adults confidently stating, "Man will never get to the moon. If God intended for us to be on the moon, He would have put us there." It made sense to me. But, on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong became the first man to land on the moon. This is only one illustration of the Church's perceived reluctance to recognize the potential achievements of science. Christendom has been credited for protecting such theories from "the earth is flat" to "man will never fly." The scientific community frequently views religion as an obstacle to advancement, while the church historically has feared science.
Many feel a need to change the tarnished picture of science and the church. So, in an effort to erase the "image of ignorance" historically earned, Christians are demonstrating a greater respect for scientific findings. Science and the church have become friends. Nowhere is that seen more clearly than in the widespread acceptance of Theistic Evolution. This theory has something for both camps. The church is pleased to acknowledge that God started the process. Scientists are glad to see religious people bow to their scientific theories. It's the best of both worlds, sparing the church from academic embarrassment suffered in the past.
But, is it possible this "theological/scientific friendship" is a compromise? Theistic evolution is a theory which states God created elementary forms and allowed evolutionary processes (natural selection, random mutations, etc.) to develop, refine and complete life as we know it. Does acceptance of this view undermine God's creative activity? Does it yield to science more respect than it deserves? The answer is "yes." God and evolution (evolving from simple lifeforms to more complex - fish to humans) are enemies not friends. Christians who hold evolutionary concepts are flirting with ideas contrary to basic biblical principles.
Creation and the Bible
The Bible is clear on God's creative process. He spoke all things into existence. It was instantaneous. He spoke and it was so. The Psalmist wrote, "For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm"(Ps.33:9). The writer of Hebrews affirmed the Psalmist in Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." There are some who debate the length of each creative day recorded in Genesis 1. Were they periods of 24 hours or thousands of years? Those who lengthen the day do so to accommodate the scientific data which suggests an older earth. However, the crucial question focuses on the process not the time elapsed. God's creative work was immediate. It makes little difference whether the "Genesis Day" was 24 hours or a thousand years. [ed.note... That is, it didn't even take him all day.] God acted and time advanced.
How do we know earth's creation was instantaneous? First, the grammatical structure of the Genesis text indicates an immediate action. The recurring phrase is "And God said..." If His command incorporated a natural process, the text would read, "And God developed", or "And God built", or another phrase conveying the idea of continuing development. Second, we have the example of Christ in which all (with one exception) His miraculous works were simultaneous with His spoken commands. Speaking equaled accomplishment.
Other Considerations
If God started the process and backed away allowing evolutionary progression to complete the task, Christianity is faced with certain inconsistencies. First, if humankind evolved, so did humanity's values. Basic definitions of right and wrong would continually change. For example, apes and humans do not operate under the same value system. If one evolved from the other, the value system necessarily must evolve. The "absolutes" we see in Scriptures would only be principles developed over eons of time. That which is the product of change is at risk of changing again. Theistic Evolution places "certainty" in jeopardy. How do I know the law that says "thou shalt not kill" will be valid 100 years from today?
If Theistic Evolution is true, all life becomes "common." That means there is no difference between "animal life" and "human life." The same "spark" energizing fish is the same "spark" energizing humans. The difference could only be in the degree of complexity as organisms evolve. The contradictions to Christian teaching are monumental. The Bible distinguishes between human life and all other forms of life. Only humanity was created "in the image of God." Animals are for food and clothing, thus, their life is expendable. However, the taking of human life is prohibited. What is the difference? Man/woman was created in God's image. There is a divine significance to human life. To ignore that basic principle is to suffer under the social ills of the day. The logical extension to Theistic Evolution is abortion and euthanasia. If all life is "common", the societal rules are similar for both animal and human kingdoms. If society "puts down" a suffering animal, it should extend the same mercy to a suffering human.
The core problem facing those who mix God and Evolution is in the compromise of absolutes. When life is interpreted in an evolutionary context, everything is in a state of change. There can be no eternal moral values. There can be no principles of Scripture which cannot change. Ultimately, the very gospel to which every Christian clings is in peril. Who's to say the process of change is complete?
Final Thought
Christians have a responsibility to investigate and follow truth. True science and Christianity are brothers not enemies. But, God's children begin their analysis on basic assumptions quite different than many in the scientific community. We must be aware of those differences. We must guard against compromising God's eternal truth to gain respectability from a world blind to the obvious footprints of God.
Pastor Dennis Clark
Pendleton Baptist Church [more articles]
e-mail: dkclark7@msn.com
1 Comments:
But, haven't our valued evolved? I mean, we still say "thou shall not kill." But, as not the death penalty been lessened over the years? The OT speaks of harsh, cruel, brutal deaths for what today we consider rather petty crimes (adultery, for example). Today, a death penalty is reserved for what our court system decides is true evil - mass murders, etc. Isn't that an evolution of values since the crime's punishments have been lessened? (Note, I'm not debating whether the death penalty is necessary or even Christian.)
I hope I don't come off as attacking or negatively. I'm only asking for and encouraging honest debate :)
Post a Comment
<< Home