Be ye not unequally yoked
together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with
unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what
concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth
with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?
for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will
dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they
shall be my people (II Cor. 6:14–16).
Modern Times
Darwinism or, more accurately,
neo-Darwinism is taught in our schools and universities, we hear it on
the radio and television, and more worryingly in many of the
"churches" of our day. Reformed believers who attend
university are often for the first time (especially if they have had the
privilege of Christian schooling) forced to defend their beliefs,
debating and discussing with ungodly professors and peers. Dr. Gary
Parker, a former evolutionary biologist who (by the grace of God) turned
to the biblical creationist perspective, described Darwinism as a "world
and life view, an alternate religion, a substitute for God" and
hence was something he taught passionately, considering it his role to
"help his students rid themselves completely of old,
'pre-scientific' superstitions, such as Christianity."1
The tears he claims to have caused on the faces of his students are an
evidence and a reminder, not only of the distress such vigour in
teaching can cause, but of the contempt with which much of the
scientific world treats biblical creationism.
With evolution so widely proclaimed in
secular society, hearing it within academia is something we as
Christians have come to expect. More saddening and ultimately more
shocking, especially for those of us who have been brought up in the
truths of the Reformed faith, is that many in our day come to expect
this in "churches" that claim to profess the name of Christ.
Alan Colburn and Laura Henriques, two social scientists, carried out
research into the views of clergy from various denominations. Although
much can be said about the sentiments that run throughout the paper, one
statement they made struck me as particularly unbelievable:
The concept of theistic evolution
deserves special mention here because almost all the clergy we
interviewed probably held beliefs that we would characterize within
this category ... Almost all the clergy we interviewed subscribed to
the truth of evolution and natural selection as scientific
explanation and description.2
The "church" (and I use the term
in a secular sense) has become rotten, as it seeks to marry the truth of
the Scriptures with worldly humanism. "Almost all" the clergy
interviewed subscribed to the "truth" of evolution, as summed
up by Colburn and Henriques.
Further evidence of such teaching is not
hard to find. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a 2006
interview with the Guardian newspaper, is quoted as saying,
"My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of
creation rather than enhancing it."3 One must be tempted
to ask how the Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, fail to do
themselves justice? When has God ever failed to put His glory first
(Col. 1:16-18; Rom. 11:36)? Is the Archbishop suggesting that the
inventions of (foolish) men (Ps. 14:1; Ps. 53:1) better enhance the
doctrine of creation? "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God" (Rom. 9:20)! II Samuel 6:6-7 serves as a poignant
reminder to those who feel that the LORD requires the aid of totally
depraved men to heighten His glory. God in His anger struck Uzzah dead,
and so God strikes today. His Holy Spirit is grieved by the lies
proclaimed from the pulpits of these churches, and so, withdraws.
Ironically, the inventions of men, used to bring people into their
church’s, are the very tools God uses to make them depart, giving the
earthly seed over to the lusts of the flesh and the sinful inclinations
of the heart (Rom. 1:28).
The specific invention spoken of in this
circumstance is the lie of "theistic evolution." Essentially,
theistic-evolution is a man made doctrine that asserts there is a
"creator" God, yet at the same time adheres to scientific
humanism, maintaining the compatibility of the creation "story"
with modern scientific thinking on Darwinian evolution. In essence, it
is a marriage of convenience that has arisen due to conflict between the
literal biblical creation narrative and modern day evolutionary
thinking. As Parker describes evolution as a process of "time,
chance, struggle and death,"4 I will endeavour to
deconstruct theistic evolution according to this brief synopsis, in
highlighting its fundamental flaws, according to the creation narrative
as found in Genesis 1.
Time
We are all creatures of time. Genesis 1:1
begins with "In the beginning God." This teaches that God’s
omnipotence is the cause of all things; He is the foundation from which
all was, is and is to come. God is eternal, He has no beginning or no
end, but as for the creation, it clearly happened in time "the
beginning." Man is regarded (by evolutionists) as the highest step
in the evolutionary chain, yet according to Genesis 1, man was created
in the beginning. Christ reinforces this in Matthew 19:4, stating man
was created male and female, "at the beginning." This
conflicts with evolutionary and hence theistic evolutionary notions,
given that man arrived approximately 5 billion years after the
beginning. If this was the case, then how could Christ possibly say that
man was created from the beginning and still be regarded as the spotless
lamb of God?
The biblical narrative as penned in the
inspired scriptures clearly teaches a literal six days of creation.5
References to time are emphasised repeatedly through use of "evening
and the morning" (Gen. 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Verse 14 is also clear
in relation to the idea of time. Here we see the creation of days for
the purpose of "signs," "seasons," "days"
and "years." Would it not be absurd to suggest
million-year-old days, given that they were created for a specific
purpose, namely the length of seasons and years?
The genealogies, as recorded in the Old and
New Testaments, require a young earth. On the other hand, evolutionary
thinking according to modern science requires billions of years in order
to account for multiple, complex and ultimately impossible mutations to
take place. We can see that the timescales afforded by young earth
creationists and evolutionists are diametrically opposed. Undeterred by
this, theistic evolutionists marry the two, suggesting that days, as
recorded in Genesis, refer to billions of years, thus giving "time"
for evolution to take place. Ham suggests that the Genesis narrative is
the only place in the Bible where the meaning of the word "day"
is contested.6 This contestation does not arise from within
the Scriptures, where the historical narrative infers literal 24 hour
days, but instead, and crucially, arises as a result of man’s looking
outside of the Scriptures and endeavouring then, to add his theories to
them.
Chance
Chance may be defined as "a
possibility due to a favourable number of circumstances." Chance,
is also a fundamental part of modern day evolutionism, even more so
today according to neo-Darwinian theory than it was in Darwin’s. Yet
just as the timescales afforded by both creationists and evolutionists
are diametrically opposed, so the evolutionary idea of "chance"
is opposed to the creationist view of God’s command and design in
creation. God commanded, and "it was so" (Gen. 1:7, 9, 11, 15,
24, 30). When God commanded, it happened instantly, according to His
plan and design (Ps. 33:9; 148:5). In this way, he created the
firmament, the solar system, flora, fauna, man and gathered the land
mass together so that is stood in the water and through the water (Ps.
33:3-9; II Peter 3:5). There is no compromise between "chance"
and "plan and design." Theistic evolution however suggests
that God paradoxically used "chance" to create. This idea is
fundamentally flawed, especially when we consider the methods (struggle
and death) they claim God used.
Struggle and Death
Struggle and death have been highlighted as
key concepts in evolutionary theory. Theistic evolutionists transfer
these, as methods that God used in "creating by chance." As
reformed believers however, we wholly reject this error.
Struggle and death are unnatural, they are
not natural. The bible teaches us that struggle and death entered the
world as a result of sin (Gen. 3:16-19; Rom. 5:12; 6:23). Before sin,
however, there was no death; "it was good" (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12,
18, 21, 25) or "very good" (Gen. 1:31). The logical conclusion
that we draw here, is that in a world without death (as the pre-fall
world was), there can be no evolution. Likewise, in a world without
evolution, there is only "In the beginning, God." Paul the
apostle clearly warns us in saying, "Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8). We do
wisely to take heed.
Wider Implications
Not only does this get to the heart of the
issue, but it highlights the tragedy that is theistic evolution.
Evolution ousts the need for God and completely denies Him, giving
"atheism credibility" (according to Richard Dawkins). Theistic
evolution attempts to compromise, by bridging the man-made gap between
the Genesis account and Darwinian evolution. It makes this attempt to
soften the truth of the gospel, to make the church seem more
contemporary and compatible with secular thinking. Its acceptance
however has not lead to an increase, but rather, a falling away, as the
truth of the gospel is diminished and scoffed.
Denial of "death by sin" is an
outright attack on the very truth of the infallibility of Holy
Scripture. If the Genesis account of creation is false, then perhaps so
is the virgin birth—perhaps Christ did not suffer and die—and even
if he did come once, then perhaps He will not come again! II Peter 3:3
warns us of such scoffers. Theistic evolution opens the door to them
and, in doing so, attacks the very hope of the child of God.
Worse still, theistic evolution logically
must conclude that Christ is an ineligible sacrifice, wholly incapable
of bearing our sin. The Heidelberg Catechism states that "one
who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others" (Q. & A.
16). Likewise, the revelation of Holy Scriptures testifies to the truth
of a literal interpretation of Genesis (Matt. 19:4, Mark 10:6; I Cor.
11:9). If these interpretations given to us by Christ and the Apostle
Paul (through whom Christ speaks), then surely this makes Christ a liar.
Can a liar satisfy for the sins of God’s people? Theistic evolution
completely removes the hope of the Christian, marrying the light with
the darkness, in an unholy union. What fellowship has the light with
darkness (II Cor. 6:14-16). "Buy the truth, and sell it not"
(Prov. 23:23).
Thankfully, despite the apostasy that we
see in this evil day, God is a merciful and loving God, and so preserves
His true church, a remnant, adopted into His family by grace and
preserved by His power. As our sure record, we have the Scriptures, God’s
special revelation to us (II Tim. 3:16). And so, let us marvel at the
beauty and wonder of the creation. As Bavinck explains so well, may it
strengthen our faith, confirm our trust in God, be a source of
consolation in our suffering, inspire praise and thanksgiving and induce
humility and meekness in us, His people.7 Praise be to God.
__________________________________________
1
Gary Parker, Creation, Facts of Life. How Real Science Reveals
the Hand of God (USA: Master Books, 2008), p. 11.
2
A. Colburn and L. Henriques, "Clergy views on Evolution,
Creationism, Science, and Religion," Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, vol. 43:3 (2006), p. 435.
3
Available from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/21/religion.uk
(accessed 20 February, 2010).
4
Gary Parker, Creation, Facts of Life. How Real Science Reveals the
Hand of God.
5
James Laning, "Created in Six Literal Days," Standard
Bearer, vol. 86:8 (2010), p. 187.
6
Ken Ham, "Did
God Create in 6 Literal Days?" (2006).
7
Herman Bavinck, In the Beginning. Foundations of Creation Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).
