EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
|
Last night I attended a debate at Biola University on the question of whether a Christian can be a Darwinist. Karl Giberson (author of Saving Darwin) argued that the evidence for evolution is “overwhelming,” that is has theological advantages, and that theological problems raised by Darwinism have answers. John West (author of Darwin’s Day in America) argued that Darwinism requires both common ancestry and the efficacy of natural selection acting on random mutation, yet the evidence for random mutation generating biological novelty is nonexistent. While the debate was over two hours, here are some interesting highlights. Since I reject Darwinian evolution, my comments will focus on the arguments of Karl Giberson.
Giberson was asked what evidence he considers the most primary and powerful for evolution. His answer surprised me, as he claimed that bacteria resistance to antibiotics (which he termed microevolution) can add up to macroevolution over long periods of time. Giberson is a Ph.D. in physics and one of the leading voices of theistic evolution (which he calls BioLogos). To be honest, this answer astonished me because the evidence for such a claim is completely not there. In The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe studied millions of generations of the HIV virus and the e-coli virus and demonstrated the exact opposite. His arguments have yet to be answered. Microevolution does not equal macroevolution. Theologically speaking, Giberson argued that evolution helps to get God off the hook for the problem of bad design (evil), because bad design emerges indirectly from processes of nature rather than directly by God. But this ignores the underlying problem, namely, that God has established the conditions under which bad design develops. God acts directly in the case of ID and indirectly according to theistic evolution. Yet God acts in both cases and is thus still responsible. What difference does it make whether a robber steals money from a bank with his own hands (by direct means) or employs a robot (indirect means) to accomplish the same thing? He still bears culpability. The same is true for a Creator God who raises Jesus from the dead (directly) or employs wind to split the Red Sea (indirectly). The theological advantages cited by Giberson vanish under closer inspection. Giberson favorably cited new atheist Daniel Dennett who coined the term “universal acid” when describing the consequences of evolution. In other words, if evolution is true, then everything about the world needs to be rethought. Thus, according to Giberson, Christian theology needs to adapt to evolutionary theory (not the other way around). He says the following ideas must change: the historicity of Adam and Eve, the worldwide flood of Noah, the days of creation, the image of God, and the fall of mankind. While some of these are more significant than others, it’s worth nothing that many theistic evolutionists aim not simply to wed evolution and Christianity together, but to completely overturn Christian theology in light of evolution. The only real question is, “How far are theistic evolutionists willing to go in reinventing doctrines of Christianity?” Giberson has shown the willingness to demote creation, so why not the cross? Why not the incarnation? As for his scientific proof for evolution, Giberson mentioned five “indisputable” evidences: (1) the fossil record; (2) biogeography; (3) comparative anatomy; (4) genetics; and developmental similarities; and (5) developmental similarities. Two key problems confront this evidence. First, even if his arguments are sound, they merely support microevolution or common descent, not Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation. Evidence for common descent is decidedly not evidence for natural selection. Second, all the evidence fits equally well from the perspective of design. For instance, while there clearly are similar features in different organisms, why can’t this equally be explained as the result of a common designer? After all, we regularly reuse designs that function well. The debate about Darwinian evolution is not going to end any time soon. In fact, it continues to heat up. If the evidence was really compelling, the church would have found a way to wed it with Christian theology by now (as some did with the finds of Copernicus). But the evidence is just not there. I have the audacity to hope that during my lifetime the truth about Darwinian evolution will emerge. |
Comments
The title of this article is very misleading. I clicked a link with that title, but all I got was another old argument on Darwin vs. Creation.
To answer the question posed by the title, the answer is YES, a Christian can be a Darwinist. A Christian can also be a communist or a registered nurse or a thief or a horse-trainer or a sailor or or a child molestor or a tax collector or a telemarketer or a doctor or a murderer.
This article and its title implies that one must disbelieve Darwin to be a Christian. Wrong. The one and only always eternal never-has-changed-never-will-change way to be a Christian is to have personal faith in Christ.
Jesus Himself did not write any books on How To Be A Christian nor did He dictate any lengthy detailed list of what and what not to do to be a Christian.
Jesus Christ did make simple requests such as "Follow Me", "Believe in Me", "Trust Me", "Obey My Commandments", etc.. Such requests as His require merely the faith of a child, not the intellect of a debater.
Please don't believe the religionists who tell you what all you have to do, think, say, and act like to be a Christian. They just want you to be like themselves.
Instead, believe what Jesus says for you to do.
One can no more be a Christian Darwinist than a black horse is white. The terms are mutually exclusive as DARWIN himself admitted! A Christian cannot be one who practices sin; and you practice the art of lying. Therefore, you are NOT a Christian; you are a practicing sinner. As Jesus told the woman taken in adultery, "Go, and sin no more." When you cease blaspheming God, then you can repent and become a Christian. Christians must be Christ-like; therefore those of us who are being like Christ "have to do, think, say, and act like to be a Christian. They just want you to be like themselves." One cannot believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, and still be Christlike. Oxymoronic. The terms are mutually exclusive!
Be careful, one can no more be a unloving Christian than a white horse can be black.
Rob I agree with everything you are saying. Thank you for your post. I found this link to be rather misleading myself. I do consider myself a Christian and I believe that there is some sort of evolution at hand. Do I think that scientists have it all figured out 100%- no. I am sure I will get bombarded with comments about "proof", I have studied in Anthropology and the sciences so I feel that I have room to comment and form an opinion. That's the great thing though about living in this country is I am able to form and have an opinion. I am also respectful of those who don't share those same beliefs as I do and I don't cast judgement- we all know who that right is entitled to.
Rob, you correctly point out that there are certain identities that are compatible. However, there are other identities that aren't. You can't be both married and a bachelor at the same time. Likewise, you can't be an atheist and a Christian at the same time. Bringing it closer to home, you can't believe, at the same time that God made everything "very good" (Gen. 1:31; having made animals herbivores) and that creation was always a bloody, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest. Likewise, a Biblical theology demands that we understand that we screwed up God's perfect creation and that God will ultimately restore it to its original state (and even better), while Darwin sees that it has always been screwed up and therefore any "restoration" is rendered meaningless. Choose you this day!
Rob,
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you you correctly cite the command (not requests - these are not optional) of Jesus to; "Follow Me", "Believe in Me", "Trust Me", "Obey My Commandments", etc... You also correctly state that these commands require merely the faith of a child. But what do you do when reading your Bible and Jesus states Adam, Eve, Noah and Creation as historical facts? You can not have it both ways calling Him Lord while rejecting his words. Do not try to twist His words by calling these references allegories or some type of fictional story. That would be a theological error of "not rightly dividing the Word of Truth" that deserves its own separate discussion. The word of God does not twist or bend even a little. He did not tell us to BE children but to only have the faith of a child. Paul even tells us to grow up and leave childish things behind.
I am ashamed that while in high school in the 70s I flippantly stated that Darwin and the Bible can be compatible. How unlearned and arrogant I was to throw out such nonsense. The more I learned, the more I quickly understood how directly at odds the two ideologys are. Even Darwin admitted as much. How true it is said that a little bit of science will lead you away from God but a lot of science will lead you back to Him.
You seem to have some issues with other people and how they do not live up to your ideal of what a Christian should be. Forget them and find better examples. May I suggest Paul in the New Testament or if you want a contemporary try Billy Graham. Even so, only follow them as they follow Christ. Forgive, and forget, the rest.
BTW:
Your comment that you can be a thief, murderer or child molester is nonsense and reveals a basic lack of understanding of what it means to be a Christian. You can be a Christian nurse but not a Christian thief, that is an oxymoron. Do you understand what it means to be washed in the blood of the Lamb, to be forgiven? Old things have passed away, all things have become new! I am not a thief. I am not a sinner. I am the righteousness of God in Christ. Christianity is not a code of conduct, though we do desire to conduct ourselves according to His commands. It is not a list of morals that we choose to to follow, it is a relationship with Him that makes us want to follow Him and by doing so, we will live biblically moral lives.
A real Christian is required to be 100% sold out to Christ ... you can't be sold out if you are not 100% in agreement and acceptance of the truth of the Bible. Part of that truth is that God created man and woman, the earth and all in it, on it, and around it, and the universe.
Jesus Himself quoted Genesis and the Creation story, which means that He believed in the truthfulness of the Creation account!!!
A Christian CANNOT be a Darwinist, because the whole aim of Darwinism is to try to explain Creation without God!
A person cannot be a mass-murderer, a child molester (are you kidding me) or anything of this nature and be a Christian at the same time. Apostle Paul says that NO murderers, or thiefs, or homosexuals and so on WILL inherit the Kingdom of God. He then adds "... and such WERE many of you". He assures that if you WERE a murderer, who has repented and is NO MORE a murderer, and the same with the other sins he quotes, you can inherit the Kingdom of God ... but NOT if you STILL ARE one of the above mentioned!
Read your Bible carefully and without preconceived notions and if you believe that it is God's unchanging and absolute Truth you will realize that you CANNOT be a Darwinist and a Christian at the same time!
In Christ - Mario Hristov
Faith in Christ alone is what the BIble states is required for salvation from sin. However, a genuine Christian should also desire to understand and believe the entire Scriptures no matter whether the subject is salvation or the question of origins. It speaks to the issue of the authority and accuracy of Scripture. It also has to do with having a world view that is biblical in its foundations. If the Genesis account of creation cannot be believed, or must be twisted and compromised to accommodate man's unproven theories about origins, then how can we trust those Scriptures when they speak about salvation and moral issues?
I appreciate Sean McDowell's comments in Can a Christian Be a Darwinist? I can say as a Christian and a scientist (for almost 30 years), "that the evidence for 'evolution' " is not overwhelming. In fact I believe that testing evolution (the macro type), in the laboratory, actually falsifies it- proves it not to be a fact . Jerry Bergman has listed over 2,000 scientists, and estimates that the actual number is about 10,000 who are skeptical of Darwinism. This list can be found on the internet.
As well, I agree with comments that whether one agrees with Darwin or not does not define a Christian. Belief in Christ's atoning death, accepting His forgiveness, and choosing to follow Him and His principles defines a Christian. But I can say that evolution has been and is used as a stick in which to ridicule and deny any sort of Creator, and in particular the concept of sin and the need of a savior. Many university students, including Christians, have been forced to be indoctrinated with the evolution ideology (not a theory- as it is falsified) to receive their higher education degrees. Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them", and I believe the fruit of evolution ideology is a bad fruit.
I encourage students to stand strong in their faith in God as the Creator, Lawgiver, Redeemer/Savior, and soon coming King.
John G. Leslie MD,PhD
YOU ARE SO CORRECT Dr. Leslie!
A darwinist cannot be a Christian nor can a Christian be a darwinist. "Can an Ethiopean change his skin? or a leopard its spots?. . ."Jeremiah 13:23. The bedrock of Christianity is Christ's death on the cross and a world that happened by accident has no reason for a sacrificial savior. If this is correct then we are all yet in our sins and there exists no pracitical reason for laws. That is why so-called atheists deny God, it makes a lawless society practical and we see the results of this thinking in our nation today. It is manifested in our war against the unborn and against all children. It is manifest in the attacks against Christianity by the ACLU, the Godless judicial system, and our morally bankrupt legistators. Christ also said, "Repent, for the Kingdon of God is at hand." It is amazing how repentance and faith can clear the thinking and bring us into the full joys of brotherhood. Rather than look at the past we should be looking to the soon coming Messiah. Are we really ready for that event? Lewis Pettengill
I concur with Dr. John Leslie's position. I have also been a scientist bridging the physical and biological fields for three decades as well. As John Leslie notes, the fruit of evolutionary ideology is bad, and you can obtain a more detailed review of this view from Tom DeRosa's book "Evolution's Fatal Fruit".
Evolution of *material* creation need not be at odds with Christian faith. If evolution is true, then it is, as many Christians recognize, simply evolution of material creation - bacteria, animals, plants, etc may all evolve according to how God created the material world. Of course, the soul didn't evolve, but as faith teaches, was created directly and intentionally by God. So God could have allowed, even directed and designed an evolutionary path that led to Man's body, though he "made" man by taking matter (whether it was literally a lump of clay or perhaps the body of an animal doesn't matter) and infused into it a soul made in His image and likeness. At that point, there was a new being which was Adam.
You say:
"Theologically speaking, Giberson argued that evolution helps to get God off the hook for the problem of bad design (evil), because bad design emerges indirectly from processes of nature rather than directly by God. But this ignores the underlying problem, namely, that God has established the conditions under which bad design develops."
I am a devout Christian, well-educated in my faith, and I disagree with both of you on this point. God doesn't create or design evil, either directly or indirectly. Nor is he responsible for the conditions under which bad design develops... EVEN if evolution is true. This is because, while God created the world, animals, man, etc., and "it was good", evil did enter the world, but through no fault of God. Rather, it was through original sin, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, that creation was in a sense broken. Sin has many consequences, and one is that even material creation no longer retains its original perfection that God created it with. By nature God cannot create evil. Evil is the absence of good. When good is rejected through sin, man in a sense isolates himself from his Creator, who is the source of all good. Because God respects our free will (so that we can have the ability to freely love him), he doesn't force himself upon us. But every time we sin we make ourselves less good and more evil. And our sins damage not only ourselves, but our relationships, and our world. That's how I understand it. So it's fully possible that God created the world and designed evolution into the material unfolding of the world, and even directly intervenes in evolution to create new species from other ones (seems much more likely than the idea of macroevolution happening by random means). But any responsibility for that evolutionary process leading to "bad design" or evil lies with Man, and possibly with the fallen angels, because through sin evil entered the world.
This "argument" is the most direct and speaks loudest above all precceeding arguments and truly allows/sees God as God and not a being in mans image. Man allowed sin and all that follows into the world. If it were not for this horrendous "mistake" and the underlying desire to be like God, which obviously persists to this day, the world would be very different and evil truly would not exist. Evolution also entails or allows a bad outcome. Therefore it is also evil and the workings of a sinful fallen mankind. Darwinism and Christianity are at odds and can never be reconciled.
It should be noted that Behe is (was) associated with a propaganda outfit that started out touting an extension of Creation Science and later repudiated Biblical explanations in favor of a mix of bad science and selective quote-mining of vetted sources.
Behe is being disingenuous if he says HIV hasn't evolved. HIV has added brand new DNA since the 1980s. That's new data that didn't previously exist.
:)
And the Catholic Church underwrites evolution as the best explanation of biological diversity and so on. That's a lot of Christians. So the church has indeed found ways of assimilating natural selection.
John,
Where are you getting your Catholic Church info???? Not so! Please cite.
Just google it. There's quite a bit of material out there about it.
More, Catholic schools all teach evolution--and you will never see ID taught in Catholic schools. All my nuns (and this was in the sixties) told me that Genesis is allegory. It's been the position of the church for quite some time that the best science available is compatible with scripture.
You know, other entities also reject the various iterations of creation science. Take the US Army, for example. They know there's no way to create vaccines against bio agents without the predictive power of evolutionary theory. Not one Intelligent Designer is hired by them to develop ways of protecting the troops, because there are no industrial, defense, or medicinal uses for Intelligent Design, because it's not science.
Another clever bit of disinformation given to us by those "christians" who want us to doubt evolution is that evolution says we came from nothing. You'd think people who call themselves Christians would try not to lie publicly, because evolution doesn't deal with origins, it deals with change over time. Other scientific disciplines deal with things that more closely concern a strict literalist interpretation of Genesis, such as Cosmology. But don't worry, well-funded politico-religionist groups are expanding their reach to those disciplines as well, in an attempt to sell opinion that's in agreement to a very narrow sect of Christianity as real science.
The lessons of the Cold War taught us that a real commitment to hard science could scare the living daylights out of our Communist foes, and put us in the forefront of technology and commerce and so on. No one, during the era of the space race, would have thought of attempting to hijack science curriculum with a putrid mixture of bad theology and bad science. Now we face challenges even greater than we did during the Cold War, and we have people attempting to put science education in retrograde. How is this Christian?
Francis Schaeffer did us a service by tracing the historical background of the nature/grace divide, showing how one brand of faith drew a strong line between the two, and "upper story" truth (grace) is different than "lower story" truth (nature). The problem with that division is that it loses unity of truth as well as unity of worldview, and ultimately relegates God and faith to the ethereal with little or no relevance to reality. Hence the necessity of a "leap of faith" and the prevalent "Christian" faith in faith, rather than faith in the revealed word of God. Note how any theistic evolutionist must do two things: marginalize major parts of the Bible, and diminish the activity of God in the real world. The results are sad: a profession of Christianity with little real substance and also praxis that is far removed from vital Christian relationship. That's where the western church is, with few exceptions. The answer is that a person can have a Christian label and be a Darwinist, but they have redefined even what Christian belief. If you change the definitions, you can think you win any argument. But it is an empty victory. Worse, it will lead to great disappointment when it really counts - in that day when people will defend themselves by saying "Lord, Lord" and He will answer "I never knew you."
John,
I would say that evolution IS bad science. Many in the educational establishment and the scientific establishment have taken evolution as fact , with very little critical thinking applied to it. There is no direct evidence of macroevolution, but a lot of "just so" stories. Evolution is seriously lacking in evidence, for there is no detailed evidence showing macroevolution and if it is even possible in some simple fashion! This does not help evolution as a theory and brings into question the integrity of the scientific community for their grand proclamations about evolution being fact and there unwillingness to look at the alternatives. Microevolution is assumed to be evidence for macroevolution. For evolution to be true, the details of macroevolution must be proven. Typically, the scientist in the lab takes some lifeform (e.g. bacteria) and apply an environmental extreme to the test and then observe the changes. They then sit back in their chairs and say, "Ha, this proves evolution for the lifeform changed!" Their narrow-minded fixation on evolution prevents them from seeing what really is going on. Life has to be robust or it would just cease to exist. This robustness is actually evidence for design! Just ask any engineer what is easier to design for - one environment or a multitude of environments? They know from experience that it is much harder to design for a multitude of environment. Life is evidence of an extraordinary design if we look at its complexity - operating at the micro and macro scale; reproducing itself; having the ability to repair itself; detailed interacting systems; extreme computing and cognitive abilities; etc. Even bio agents are proof for design. So evolutionists have stolen one of the greatest evidences for design without even realization of it.
Now in your response about origins, you are using the classic ploy used by naturalists to avoid applying reasoning to their philosophy. No origin: no evolution. No first cell: no evolution. Not having evidence that fills in the missing gaps: no reasonable theory of evolution!
The cold war taught us that naturalistic thinking based on humanism leads to a failed society. The point is that naturalism is not natural for it does not work! I challenge you to look at science for yourself and watch out for the bandwagon mentality that is present in academia and the scientific community today.
Thanks for a nicely written article, Sean.
The title's a bit off, mind you. And it poses a question to which the answer is surely trivial. Can a Christian be a Darwinist? After setting aside issues of what, precisely, counts as 'Darwinism,' surely the answer is not only 'YES' but 'OF COURSE yes.'
If a Christian cannot be a Darwinist, then I'm not a Christian. That ought to disturb my denomination, the Evangelical Methodist Church (EMC), for I'm a card-carrying member and an erstwhile officer of my local congregation. (And surely an evangelical church, at local and denominational levels, would hold "being a Christian" (however self-describedly) a necessary condition of membership.
Most EMC members I've encountered are not only not evolutionists but indeed are classic Young Earth Creationists (YECs), believing in a 6000 year-old earth, a week-long construction project from the first hydrogen atom to the first human, and a more or less rigid rejection of evolution at ant level. Mind you, the church has no published doctrine on the subject, and for that reason I feel free to stay and worship there as my church home.
The content of the so-called Creation/Evolution controversy interests me less as time goes on. But my interest in the debate's rhetoric grows. Challenged by the YECs around me, I made it a personal project to read a substantial volume of popular creationist literature of the sort Christians generally read. A few books became one hundred and more, the project still continuing.
My experience: I am frankly embarrassed, as a well educated person and as a Christian, by the calibre of much of this literature. Vacuous arguments, old howlers from decades past, long since dealt with, are regularly trotted out as if fresh. Snippets of empirical evidence tending in creationist directions are presented as if entirely dispositive, by themselves fatal to evolution, with a dusting off of hands and a smug cry of "Q.E.D." Much on the creationist side of the debate is spoken in voices as shrill, as accusing, as any on the side of "evil-lution." Ad hominem accusations fly. (See, for example, Jonathan Sarfati's books and John MacArthur's Thinking Biblically.)
Noting some remarkable exceptions, so much of this literature is, in content and tone, sloppy, lowbrow, patronizing, sometimes intellectually dishonest. Hovering about the whole is a whiff of desperation.
But interestingly, I find members of my and similar churches do not derive their similarly dense and obtuse beliefs from this literature, or from church-based instruction. Rather, creationist members of the EMC church, as I've encountered them, seem to derive their views from the cheesiest end of American Christian popular culture--televangelists' occasional anti-evolutionist diatribes, raving radio preachers' histrionic claims that evolution is the source of every plague from homosexuality to hangnails. Bott Radio Newtork's two-minute "Creation Moments,' and the like.
Might be time for us Christians, on both sides of this controversy, to seek a little "renewing of our minds," tp quote Romans.
Cheers,
Brad
I really appreciated the question and agree with everyone else who wished it had been answered a little more clearly. I am not in agreement with the kind of venomous language of the second poster, but I will say that I think that Darwinism is contrary to scripture in more ways than the origin question. I think that the survival of the fittest is something that God doesn't abide by, He seems to elevate the weak, and by the way opposes those who are known as the "fittest." Basically I think that if someone is going to call themselves a Darwinist and a Christian they need to do a little more research about what Darwinism actually is.
One small part of the article had to do with God's creation of Adam and Eve with the implication or out right claim that such creations were imperfect in design and so the whole ID case must then be tossed out with the trash. I should point out that Adam and Eve were created as perfect beings and given the opportunity to remain that way in the Garden of Eden as long as they never ate of the fruit of the tree which permitted them a knowledge of good and evil. For in the day thou eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt surely die, is a reference to their ingesting a substance which would corrupt their perfect bodies and subject them to a mortal condition we call death.
Many Christian organizations teach the original sin as some kind of sexual theme, others give a vague slight of the natural sin all mankind has inherited. Truth be known, the choice to become subject to corruption was built into the Plan of Salvation from before the foundations of the world had been established. This perfect plan provides each human being the opportunity to chose, either to be obedient to God's laws and return through the power of the Atonement, or to subject his/herself to the temptations afforded by Satan which lead the souls of men away from God. The plan is perfect and includes a place for that which is not perfect.
If you are a Calvinist there is no free will. If you are an Arminian, my understanding is that you have limited free will, but still some amount. Therefore, I take it that you are a Calvinist. Feel free to email me.
I am continually amazed at how many people get side-track by the evolution vs creation debate. I have come to believe that, ultimately, it doesn't really matter what you believe about how this world came into existence. No matter how He chooses to create something, He is still God. The bottom line is do you believe Him, do you trust Him? He leaves that decision up to us...it's called free will. Just like Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, we have a choice to make. Accept Him or reject Him. You decide.
If one is to believe evolution as Darwinism suggests, then one must also consider the result of original sin, of which Christ delivered us. If the result of sin is death and death started with the sin of Adam and Eve, then the times, tribulations, birth and death resulting from an evolutionary process prior to Adam and Eve renders original sin and the atoning sacrifice of Christ moot. If you believe in evolition as Darwinism suggests, then you cannot believe in Christs purpose so you cannot be a Christian.
I'm presently reading a fantastic book called "God and Evolution" by David L. Wilcox. I highly recommend it to everyone interested in this subject. (Judson Press). In it he states, for example, that Ellen G. White (7th Day Adventist "Prophetess") is the one whose "revelations" started the "young earth flood geology" doctrine. Listen to these two extremes and think a minute:
Richard Dawkins, athiest, postulates in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" that the universe just "appears to be designed."
"Creation Scientists" who believe in the 6 literal day translation of Genesis postulate the Creation is young but just "appears to be millions of years old".
How ridiculous are both of these premises!
Wilcox gives evidence of ancient and recent "creations" (brown bears diverging to form polar bears is a interesting example) that could not possibly have accidentally been created by natural selection and random mutations alone. A Divine Designer had to have manipulated the original gene pool to form polar bears with all their attributes perfectly suited for their environment. God apparently is still creating, just like any artist. HOw could He ever, for ever, stop??
Check it out.
I think, as always, we need to let the bible settle this issue, and we don't have to think very deeply or read very far to know that biblically, evolution cannot be true, and if it is, we're all in a lot of trouble. Think about what Paul says in Romans - "Through one man, (Adam), sin entered the world, and through sin, death entered the world." (Paraphrased) Then, along came Christ, God manifested in the flesh, the last Adam, to take away sin, thereby solving the problem of death and giving us eternal life through out faith in Him. A glorious gift, with much of its beauty found in its simplicity.
But here's the problem with evolution: if evolution is true, then there was death in the world before there was sin, since evolution is based on the death of the less genetically-favored creature. For starters, this makes the bible untrue, and that's a huge issue all by itself. But here's the critical idea:
1. If evolution is true, there was death in the world before sin.
2. Therefore, sin is not the cause of death.
3. Christ came to take away sin...
4. Therefore, if evolution is true then Christ's sacrifice to take away our sin cannot solve the problem of death and give us eternal life because sin is not the source of death. Death existed before sin existed, therefore the two are not connected, and solving one problem cannot solve the other. If evolution is true, there is no eternal life through Christ's atonement for sin.
That's a pretty big issue, theologically. In light of that, the question becomes this: Can a person who is a Darwinist be a Christian when being a Darwinist means that you believe the Bible is not true? And can a person who is a Darwinist be a Christian when being a Darwinist means that you believe that Christ's death on the cross cannot give you eternal life?
Just some food for thought FROM THE SCRIPTURE.
Scott
What did Jesus mean when he said "Let the dead bury the dead."? Was he sugggesting one corpse bury another? Clearly the "death" referenced in the Garden of Eden does not pertain to physical death. "Do not eat ... for on that day you will surely die" (paraphrased). Adam and Eve were specifically told that on the day they eat of the forbidden fruit, they would die. But they lived long physical lives, years and years, beyond that day. They didn't even have children until after that day. Clearly the "death" Jesus came to overcome was not physical death, but the spiritual death that happened when Adam and Eve fell.
There were many negative results from eating the forbidden fruit deliniated in Genesis, but physical death was not among them. When they ate, they were cast out of the garden and sentenced to manual labor for food and pain in childbirth, but they did not die - even though the earlier verse said they would. That is because the earlier verse refers to spiritual death - the death of the soul when sin creeps in.
The existence of physical death prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve, has nothing to do with Jesus' mission to overcome sin. Sin is a ailment of the soul, not the body. Special Creation, Intelligent Design, or even evolution could be true or false and make no difference in the mission of the Messiah. Regardless of the physical origin of things as they have come to be, the messianic mission is to deal with the fall of man, to correct the problem of sin that entered the world through Adam and Eve's mistake.
Personally, I accept neither Darwinian evolution nor Special Creation, because neither one satisfies scientific findings. The preponderance of evidence, clearly overrides a 6 day (24 hour) creational period. Although the alegorical correspondence to epocs is compelling enoough to suggest that the story is at least metaphorical. The Darwinian theory also holds no water. Without external input, things, creatures, etc., do NOT tend toward greater and greater complexity. And Darwinian evolution, on its own, cannot answer the problems of "jumps" in advancement or deviations into completely different species.
The findings of science strongly indicate a very old universe and earth, as well as a clear "advancement" in the complexity of life. The advancement in complexity does not represent a haphazzard mutational adaptation, but the gentle nudge of Devine Design. As the environments and climates changed through the natural geophysical forces already set in motion at the Big Bang, God could gradually advance life in compatability with its environment. The result is what "looks like" but is not, natural selection. The continued advancement of life is the clearest indicator of continued Intelligent input.
If you take a look at Quantum Mechanics, you will realize that the moment by moment maintaining of the universe is far more intriguing than the creation of it. But, again, none of this changes the mission of the messiah, which is to deal with spirit - not matter.
~ Just John
It will probably take JUDGMENT DAY to settle this question of evolution OR God. On JUDGMENT DAY all men will believe in Creation. (Romans 14:11) "It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God."
(Philippians 2:10) "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,"
On JUDGMENT DAY, all men will see the power and magnificance of Almighty God, and unbelief will be vanquished.
Darwinianism is in direct oppostion to God, and like all ANTICHRISTIC beliefs, it is promoted by Satan. He has deluded its disciples into being subjective rather than objective with their thinking and reasoning. The evidence for Creation by Almighty God is even seen in the very world and universe in which we live (Romans 1:18-20), but without FAITH [Hebrews 11:6] in what God has revealed in His Word, Creation and the natural order that God has established will not be believed. There is no Biblical evidence for evolution as a fact, or even for THEISTIC EVOLUTION which some weak believers have embraced. (So much to say; so little space to say it)
Why is America decaying in morals and ethics.? It is because we have permitted the "removal of God" from the American conscience. Evolutionary "theory" is playing its role in this abandonment of what at one time was America's core beliefs and acceptance of God's absolutes. We are paying for that massive failure by seeing America fail.
Darwinianism (Evolutionary "Theory"), is a religion in itself. The high priest of this religion is behind the scenes orchestrating this lie. But be that as it may, it will not prevail -- JUDGMENT DAY IS COMING. PRAY FOR AMERICA TO RETURN TO GOD.
1. Michael Behe hasnt 'studied' anything in decades, much less HIV-1.
2. Lots have people have refuted Behe, including me. Behe admitted I was right. Thats why he doesnt bring up HIV-1 anymore. Youre 2 years behind the times.
3. E. coli is a bacteria, not a virus. But Creationists are experts in science, right man?
Nice article.
Yes, you can be a Darwinist and a Christian. It depends on how you define Darwinist, which can mean many different things. I was a Darwinist, in the sense of believing in standard evolution, for several years and a Christian. Then I read Phillip Johnson's stuff and realized how contradictory my beliefs were, so I moved a bit toward Intelligent Design. Taking Biology 101 had me believing in evolution for awhile. But then I went deeper and took university courses in Cell Biology, Metabolism, Molecular Biology, and Immunology. The complexity was exponentially beyond what I imagined and I didn't find evolutionary accounts convincing, so my "faith" in unguided evolution collapsed. It is ironic that life science, which I think is the field of learning that points most to God, is twisted to point people away from God.