evolution

Darwinism and the Next Generation

Sean McDowell — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:15:27 -0800

Recently I was interviewed by Jonathan Morrow for his excellent new book Thinking Christianly (Zondervan, 2011). He asked me about Darwinism as well as reaching the next generation. Here is my brief excerpt. Enjoy!

Jonathan Morrow: It is commonplace to hear about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. Have you found this to be the case? Can you talk a little about the role that Darwinism plays in our culture?

Sean McDowell: There’s a well-known joke for lawyers that says when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. However, when you don’t have the facts, use emotion and state your case with absolute certainty. This is precisely what is going on with claims about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. We live in an information age, and materialist theories such as Darwinism are slowly going the way of the Dodo. Intelligent design (ID) is on the move. Many Darwinists know this, which is why they focus their primary attacks on ID being religiously motivated or based on ignorance and avoid engaging the actual arguments. But they can ignore the substance for only so long.

People often ask, “Couldn’t God have used evolution?” Certainly. God can create however he wants to. Yet it’s important to remember that Darwin intentionally devised a materialist explanation that excluded God from the process. Nature is the selecting mechanism, not God. If God somehow guided the process of evolution, we are no longer talking about Darwin’s theory but about some form of intelligent design. And if God is not part of the process, then it’s a short step to removing him altogether.

While I have significant reservations about evolution (see my Understanding Intelligent Design with William A. Dembski), my bigger concern is the role Darwinism now plays in society. Evolution has become an ideology. It is the creation myth that justifies the dominant worldview in Western culture — naturalism.

Since evolution is viewed as the “creative” force, then all aspects of nature must be “Darwinized.” Thus, we have books such as Literary Darwinism, Financial Dar- winism, and Evolution and Ethics. Everything, including morality, religious belief, psychology, sexuality, marriage, and more, must be seen from this perspective. These ideas are disseminated to young people through our universities. This is why atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett called Darwinism a “universal acid.” He’s right. If evolution were true, then everything demands a Darwinian explanation. But if evolution were false, then this would be a colossal mistake.

There is a temptation to avoid this controversial topic in the church. Why not just talk about Jesus? Remember, the Christian story makes sense only if we were created by God and then rebelled. Otherwise, what’s the need for a Savior?

Belief in God as the Creator is not simply blind “religious” faith but something we can know to be true (Psalm 19:1–2). I’ve seen young people come alive when they discover the evidence for intelligent design. It gives us confidence in our faith as well as in the God of the Scriptures. This is not a truth we simply store away in our minds, but one that transforms how we think about ourselves and other people. We really are made in the image of God, who loves us and has a plan for our lives. We can see the divine fingerprint from the tiniest cell to the depths of the universe.

Jonathan: From your perspective as a Christian high school teacher who also speaks to thousands of students each year, how well prepared do you think students are to leave our churches and live out their faith in college and beyond?

Sean: This question is the driving force of my ministry. We’ve all heard the statistics of young people leaving their faith in college, and it rightly concerns us. There may not be a silver bullet to fix this problem, but there are some areas which we must address.

Part of the problem is that the worldviews of this churched generation are largely unbiblical. According to the National Study of Youth and Religion, 18 percent of conservative Protestant youth have either a deistic or pantheistic view of God, 48 percent believe many religions may be true, and 42 percent are not assured of the existence of evil spirits. We need to teach substance. But we must connect this truth to their lives and relationships.

Young people are also relationally hurting. Many are lonely, depressed, and searching for real meaning. It’s difficult for young people who struggle with broken relationships and have emotional baggage to develop a biblical worldview. Many kids leave the church because they never built healthy relationships with their parents or other Christian adults. If we want to teach the biblical worldview effectively, we must first help kids get emotionally healthy.

This is why I deeply believe in mentoring. Jesus was a mentor. My hope is that mentoring will become as normal in the church in the future as small groups are today. Young people simply cannot survive temptations and intellectual challenges without caring, involved adults coming alongside to guide them.

Could Monkeys Write Shakespeare?

Christian Buckley — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:22:47 -0700

Could Monkeys Write Shakespeare?

Can I fly? Can a duck shoot a shotgun? Is a bike still a bike without wheels?

I could list a bunch of other stupid questions but this one has more importance.

For some time now the evolutionary proof involving random typing by monkeys in an attempt to recreate Shakespeare’s works has been ongoing. The basic idea is that enough monkeys with enough time and enough chances could produce the same works as Shakespeare.

Enter this story on BBC.COM:

“Virtual monkeys write Shakespeare

A few million virtual monkeys are close to re-creating the complete works of Shakespeare by randomly mashing keys on virtual typewriters.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15060310

Funny how the title of this story is the opposite of what the story really says. Actually the story is that they are not even close and will never be.

The problem, as highlighted by the story, is that after a smidgen of math and common sense, it became clear that based purely on random action with no design or rules for phrase selection there was less than a snowballs chance in hell – even though there is no hell – but you get the point.

Thus, what was added to the experiment was a very simple twist – we will accept those random outcomes that get us closer to our known goal (Shakespeare’s Works) and discard those that don’t. We can then begin to amass the correct results and eventually get to our goal. But that is not randomness – that is design with a desired and known outcome.

What started out as a proof for random evolution ended as a proof for the fact that random evolution is not possible within the time the world has been around unless you know what you are trying to evolve into. Stated simply – you might be able to evolve a human randomly if you have all the parts (the letters) and know what a human is (Shakespeare’s Works) and know how to put them together (selecting the word fragments that are correct) to reach the desired outcome – but again probably not in the time the world has been around.

Basically – I can build a car if you give me all the parts, an instruction manual the tells me how to put them together and points out every error I make, and a picture of the car to work from. Not likely I will randomly build a car with a bunch of parts I have to put together with no rules or idea for the result.

Ignoring the math and logic, the interesting point is this. The story is not that monkeys can’t do it. That would be obvious to my 8 year old if I asked her the question at the Zoo while looking at a monkey: “Hey daughter – do you think that Monkey could write Romeo and Juliet? Are you okay dad? Seriously are you okay? Mom! Dad is not okay.”

The story is that the writer would rather misstate the headline than accept the truth and its consequence.

Oh, and is a unicycle a bicycle? Seems obvious but google it if you have nothing to do.

The Evolution of March Madness: How Come Talent is “God Given” When there is no God?

Christian Buckley — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:20:18 -0700

The Evolution of March Madness Evolution:

How Come Talent is “God Given” When there is no God?

I don’t profess to be an expert on evolution or the defense of creation. I can’t explain the mutative process and how only some mutations are passed down and some are not. I can’t explain how natural selection, in combination with randomness and time, has produced human beings. At the end of the day, I really can’t explain why, “Evolution means that we’re all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.”

What I can tell you is that most of the world that has a platform to talk about it, at least in the media, seems to reject any possibility for a creator. Not hard to see that.

But what I find really interesting is that same “media” – the one that finds the idea of God as creator synonymous with garden gnomes as mischievous creatures that ruin my strawberries -- uses the phrase “God given talent” quite a bit. As I was watching the NCAA Tournament over the weekend, and the Oscars before that, and the Super Bowl before that my ears just continued to be pricked by commentators constantly referring to a standout actor, musician or athlete as having “God given talent.”

It’s the go to phrase when there just seems to be an astounding difference between say Lebron James and the next best athlete. Like when the Jamaican runner Usain Bolt smashed the world record in the 100 meter dash a few years back and there was no way to explain it really other than aparently God given talent. When an actor, say a really young one, just has an unparalleled ability to present that art or when a phenom artist or musician just pops up – God given talent.

ABOVE LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By1JQFxfLMM

Not once have I ever heard a media personality say, “What amazing evolutionary talent that player has” or “just look at the power of mutation, natural selection, and time at work.”

So how come when most of the enlightened part of the world thinks I have more in common with the UCLA or Florida mascots (bruins and gators) than a creative force do we still fall back on God as the final explanation for uncanny unexplainable human ability?

Maybe we just haven’t evolved beyond that silliness. Or maybe we just can’t get away from the fact that when we witness something truly amazing like a Jimmer Fredette jump shot – we intrinsically know that whatever is good and beautiful and astounding might not have trickled down from goo.

Jimmer Fredette Photo: Robert Beck/SI http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1103/ncaa-best-shots-tournament/content.34.html

Questions Christians Fear

Sean McDowell — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:12:20 -0700

What are the questions you most fear being asked about your faith? Even as a trained apologist there are many tough questions I hope don’t come up in my discussions with non-believers. Some questions are simply difficult to answer. But we can’t ignore the tough questions. Such an approach is cowardly and counterproductive for the kingdom of God. We must—yes, must—be prepared with an answer for the toughest questions (1 Peter 3:15). We have nothing to fear because the truth is on our side.

I recently had the opportunity to endorse Mark Mittelberg’s upcoming book entitled, “The Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask (With Answers).” This book is based upon a survey Mark sponsored with Tyndale Publishers through the Barna Group of one thousand self-proclaimed Christians. They asked each person what faith questions they would feel most uncomfortable being asked by a co-worker or friend. Some questions are expected but a few might come as a surprise.

In my opinion, Mark is one of the best “popular” level apologists today. He’s well aware of the scholarly research, but he makes it understandable, relevant, practical, and interesting. He has the same ministry heartbeat as Lee Strobel, his ministry partner and friend for over twenty-three years.

According to the Barna survey here’s the questions Christians hope no one will ask:

What makes you so sure that God exists at all—especially when you can’t see, hear, or touch him?

Didn’t evolution put God out of a job? Why rely on religion in an age of science and knowledge?

Why trust the Bible, a book based on myths and full of contradictions and mistakes?

Everyone knows that Jesus was a good man and a wise teacher—but why try to make him into the Son of God, too?

How could a good God allow so much evil, pain, and suffering—or does he simply not care?

Why is abortion such a line in the sand for Christians? Why can’t I be left alone to make my own choices for my own body?

Why do you condemn homosexuality when it’s clear that God made gays and that he loves all people the same?

How can I trust in Christianity when so many Christians are hypocrites-or, even worse, they're judgmental toward everyone who doesn't agree with them?

Why should I think that heaven really exists—and that God sends people to hell?

The purpose of this blog is not to answer these questions but to make you aware of how Christians are thinking. The purpose is also to challenge you to think about these important questions and to do a little soul searching. Sometimes it’s better to ask questions than to answer them. In fact, Jesus asked questions in the gospels, even though he knew the answers.

So, here are some questions for you: Are you prepared to answer these questions? Which one are you most confident to answer? Which one are you the least confident about? Why do you think Christians fear these particular questions? When was the last time you were asked one of these questions? How often are you in discussions with Christians (and more importantly, non-Christians) about these important topics? What does this reveal about you?

I suspect we fear these questions because we don’t want to look bad in front of others. None of us want to get caught off guard. But in reality, what this reveals is how self-focused we really are. Fear is always selfish. Love is always selfless. And that is why 1 John 4:8 says that perfect love casts out fear. When we focus on loving others we can often move beyond our fears. If we really care about our non-believing friends, we will take the time to think through these questions so we can provide a thoughtful answer when they ask.

If you want answers to these questions, and some practical advice of how to apply these answers to evangelism, pre-order a copy of Mark’s book! Or buy a copy for a friend. Either way, this books needs to get into as many hands as possible. It’s great stuff!

Interview With Rachel Held Evans

Brett McCracken — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:17:16 -0700

Evolving in Monkey Town is a great new book by a young evangelical author recounting her spiritual journey as she’s moved from the “all questions are answered” certainty of her evangelical youth to the somewhat more complicated, “questions are ok” place she now finds herself. It’s a great read, full of provocative insights and disturbing questions about Christianity–the sorts of things that lead many Christians of a certain age to abandon their faith. In spite of the spiritual crisis she recounts in the book, author Rachel Held Evans hasn’t abandoned her faith, just allowed it to evolve a little bit (hence the title). In this interview, she discusses some of the problems that led her to question her faith (hell, “the cosmic lottery,” etc), the damage done by “false fundamentals,” and what parts of Christianity she’d like to see evolve.

Why did you title the book Evolving in Monkey Town?

Being from Dayton, Tennessee—home of the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925—the title was just too irresistible. I’m really glad Zondervan decided to keep it, even after I submitted a list of alternate titles for them to consider, (including my husband’s suggestion of “Maturing in Ape Village,” just for fun).

In addition to being a fun play on words, the title points to a larger theme in the book: that sometimes faith has to adapt to change in order to survive. I think this happens on both an individual and collective level, whenever circumstances prompt Christians to reexamine what it really means to follow Jesus.

Who is the audience you’d most like this book to reach?

I wrote it with young (evangelical) adults in mind, but I hope it’s helpful to anyone who wrestles with tough questions about faith. My goal isn’t really to answer all those questions, but rather provide a little companionship for the journey.

In many ways, your book is a chronicle of your faith crisis, and one of the big issues you wrestle with is what you describe as the “cosmic lottery.” Could you describe this term, and how it posed problems for your faith?

I think Adah Price—a narrator in Barbara Kingsolver’s book The Poisonwood Bible—says it best. “According to my Baptist Sunday-school teacher,” she explains “a child is denied entrance to heaven merely for being born in the Congo rather than, say, north Georgia, where she could attend church regularly. This was the sticking point in my own little lame march to salvation: admission to heaven is gained by luck of the draw. At age five I raised my good left hand in Sunday school and used a month’s ration of words to point out this problem to Miss Betty Nagy. Getting born within earshot of a preacher, I reasoned, is entirely up to chance. Would Our Lord be such a hit-or-miss kind of Savior as that? Would he really condemn some children to eternal suffering just for the accident of a heathen birth?…Miss Betty sent me to the corner for the rest of the hour to pray for my own soul while kneeling on grains of uncooked rice. When I finally got up with sharp grains imbedded in my knees I found, to my surprise, that I no longer believed in God.” (p. 171)

It took me longer than Adah to ask myself these questions, but when I did, they irritated me like grains of rice stuck to my knees.

Aside from your very brief Reformed phase, it doesn’t sound like you’ve had a very good experience with Calvinism. Are there any aspects of the Reformed tradition that you appreciate?

I deeply appreciate the Reformed emphasis on undeserved grace. My Reformed friends are often the first to acknowledge their complete dependence upon the transformative work of Jesus, and I admire that a lot. It is perhaps a common misunderstanding that Arminians do not share this perspective on grace, that we believe ourselves to be the initiators of reconciled relationship with God. This isn’t true.

Arminians simply believe that God initiates relationship with all people, not just the elect. Both groups seem to agree that it is God who loves first and that grace is completely underserved. But I like the way Reformed leaders in particular have so poignantly expressed this through the years.

Hell seems to be a big problem for you, as it is for many Christians–especially the notion that every non-Christian will go there when they die. Do you still believe that hell exists? If so, who do you think goes there?

Short answer: I don’t know.

Long answer: I believe that one day Jesus will return to judge the nations and that everything will be set right. I wish I knew exactly how he was going to do this, but I don’t. One minute the Bible seems to support the notion of eternal damnation, the next minute it seems to support universalism. Most days I lean toward a sort of conditionalist (or annihilationist) view that God will get rid of evil once and for all, so that no trace of it remains, and then reconcile all things to himself. Regarding the fate of non-Christians, I like what C.S. Lewis said—“We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ. We do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him.” But I could be wrong, and I’m open to other people’s perspectives on this.

Our generation of evangelicals were often brought up with an apologetics mindset–always wanting to defend the faith or make the “case for faith” to the supposedly atheist, secular humanist throngs who had it out for Christianity. But you point out that most of your peers are actually not “searching for historical evidence in support of the bodily resurrection of Jesus” as much as they are “searching for some signs of life among his followers.” What role do you think apologetics should play in Christianity today, if any?

Apologetics are great as long as they help us love God and our neighbors better. People always point to Paul’s sermon at Mars Hill as an example of making a good case for Christianity, but what I love about that story is that Paul pulled from Greek literature and philosophy to make his point—seeking common ground rather than mocking what other people believed. So I think apologetics should continue, but perhaps with a different tone and emphasis, one that seeks to build bridges rather than conquer and destroy. And I think we have to keep in mind the fact that we preach Christ crucified—not the most logical thing in the world! Our best apologetic is a life transformed by the love of Jesus Christ, and that’s not something you can cram into an argument.

I thought this was an interesting statement: “I am convinced that what drives most people away from Christianity is not the cost of discipleship but rather the cost of false fundamentals.” What do you mean by false fundamentals?

Those things that sorta a get attached to Christianity along the way, but don’t really belong….or at least aren’t essential. In evangelicalism it tends to be things like young earth creationism, Republicanism, religious nationalism, a commitment to the culture wars, etc. It makes me really sad when friends feel they have to walk away from the faith just because they took a biology class or voted for Barack Obama. But there seems to be this impression among Christians and non-Christians alike that you can’t be a Christian and believe in evolution, you can’t be a Christian and be gay, you can’t be a Christian and have questions about the Bible, you can’t be a Christian and appreciate elements of other religions, you can’t be a Christian and be a feminist, you can’t be a Christian and drink or smoke, you can’t be a Christian and get depressed, you can’t be a Christian and doubt. The list goes on.

I’m inclined to say that the only fundamental requirement for following Jesus should be love—for God and for one another. But I usually get talked out of this by someone who makes a good point about maybe adding the Apostle’s and Nicene creeds…which is fair enough. :-)

Near the end of the book, you write that you are “learning to love the questions” and that you hope that “the questions will dissolve into meaning, the answers won’t matter so much anymore, and perhaps it will all make sense to me on some distant, ordinary day.” Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

In some ways the journey of faith is a lot like the writing process. In Bird by Bird Anne Lamott writes about how sometimes you have to write three or four pages of material that you will never use in order to get to “that one long paragraph that was what you had in mind when you started, only you didn’t know that, couldn’t know that, until you got to it.” Sometimes I think of my questions and doubts like that. I need to experience them right now in order to learn something in the future—maybe the answers; maybe something more important than the answers. I just have to have patience with the process in the meantime.

I think that’s what Rilke meant when he said to “have patience with everything that remains unresolved in your heart…Do not now look for the answers. They cannot now be given to you because you could not live them. It is a question of experiencing everything. At present you need to live the question.”

As Christianity evolves in the next decade or so, which of its present attributes would you most like to see go the way of the dodo bird?

Haha! I love the way you asked that question.

I’m hoping that over the next few decades we will talk less about the culture wars and more about reconciliation. I’d like it if we stopped trying to force the Bible into modern scientific paradigms and instead embraced it as an inspired, ancient text in which God chose to use the language and culture of the people he loved in order to communicate to them. And I hope we move from an individualistic view of Jesus in which he is our “personal savior” to a kingdom perspective in which he is the “savior of the world.”

Intelligent Design Is Alive and Well

Sean McDowell — Mon, 17 May 2010 10:21:25 -0700

Last year defenders of Darwinian evolution came out in full force to celebrate the 150^th anniversary since the release of “The Origin of Species” and the 200^th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. New books were released, lectures were sponsored, and “new” missing-link fossils were discovered (Ardi and Ida). The goal was simple: to convince the public that Darwin’s theory is overwhelmingly true and competitors such as ID and creationism are false. Were they successful?

Last Friday night Biola University sponsored an event with Stephen Meyer, leading ID proponent and author of “Signature in the Cell,” that shows ID is alive and well. About 1,500 people attended, and many more watched the event live by simulcast (some were even watching in Kenya!).

Before taking questions from two of his critics as well as the audience, Meyer gave a lecture on the DNA evidence for design. He discussed how Darwin’s main contribution was to “show” how design could arise without a designer. The world may appear designed, but according to Darwin, such design is illusory. Darwin is believed to have demonstrated how life could adapt without the need of any guiding intelligence (hence, “natural” selection rather than “intelligent” selection).

While Meyer has problems with Darwin’s explanation for the diversity of biological life, he is focused on a more fundamental issue: the origin of life and the nature of DNA. According to Meyer, the question is not where information is stored in DNA. And the question is not what DNA does. The enigma involves the origin of DNA—its source. Where does the information in DNA come from? (For an in-depth development of the argument for design from DNA, see Meyer’s new book, “Signature in the Cell.” It’s 500 pages long, but, in my opinion, provides one of the most compelling arguments for design).

There are three competing explanations for the origin of DNA. The first option is chance. But as Meyer points out, this explanation went out of vogue in the late 1960s because there are simply not enough resources (time and matter) in the universe for it to occur by itself. Specifically, the odds of getting one short protein of 150 amino acids are 1 in 10¹⁹⁵ (to give this perspective, there are only 10¹⁷seconds since the big bang and 10⁸⁰elementary particles in the entire universe). The chance that life could emerge by chance in the universe is effectively zero.

The second option is necessity. The idea is that just as there is an attraction in salt crystals, there would be an attraction in the origin of life. The problem, however, is that while crystals are specified (ordered), they are not complex. DNA is both specified and complex and cannot be explained in the same way as salt crystals. Bonding forces no more generate the information in DNA than magnetic forces in refrigerator letters are responsible for the message, “Take out the trash, mom.”

The final explanation is a combination of chance and necessity (a.k.a., pre-biotic natural selection). The problem is that this particular explanation begs the question. Natural selection only works if there is first an organism to select. Natural selection is only a factor once DNA and protein exist. Thus, it cannot be used as an explanation for the origin of the first DNA.

So, what is the best explanation for the origin of DNA? Scientists often use what is called “the inference to the best explanation.” In fact, this is the very reasoning Darwin himself used in the Origin of Species. Simply put, the best explanation posits a cause that is known to produce the effect in question. So, what is the best explanation for the origin of information? Natural forces are at a loss. But we know from our uniform experience that a mind can produce information. In fact, whenever we find information and trace it back to its source we always find a mind (e.g., books, computer programs, messages written in the sand). Henry Quastler famously said, “The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity”

Meyer was quick to point out that this is not an argument from ignorance, as critics often claim, but a positive argument from what we know about the source of information. There is not only the lack of a natural explanation, but positive reason to point toward intelligence. One of the most powerful things about this conclusion is that it is completely immune to a Darwinian attack. Even if Darwinian evolution were true, it would do nothing to undermine the case for design in DNA (Darwin’s theory allegedly shows how one species morphs into another, but it has nothing to say as to the origin of the first life).

After the lecture, his critics raised good questions, but Meyer was ready. They quibbled at some of the secondary issues, but in no way undermined his key claim that DNA is best explained as the result of a mind. One critic even said that he had no explanation for the information content of DNA but was confident there would eventually be a naturalistic explanation. Meyer was quick to point out that naturalists have failed to explain any of the most interesting questions of life such as the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, and so on.

Meyer emphasized that an increasing number of scientists are opening up to ID. Even though it may take another generation (or so), there is a renewed openness and skepticism about Darwin’s grand claims. We live in an information age where materialist explanations may be in jeopardy. This is true in the United States as well as in Europe, although maybe not quite as widespread.

That 1,500 people of all ages (from junior high all the way up) would come out on a Friday night for a lecture and discussion about DNA and the evidence for design shows that the ID movement is not dead in the water. In fact, it may be just getting started.

Should Christians Embrace Evolution?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:05:37 -0700

The title of the book Should Christians Embrace Evolution? caught my attention because I’ve been thinking about this for some time. The interesting question is not whether Christians can believe in evolution. Of course they can. There are many Christian apologists and theologians who believe in evolution that I deeply respect, such as Alister McGrath and Dinesh D’Souza.

The question is whether or not Darwinian evolution can be wedded with orthodox Christianity without doing damage to either one. For the past couple years I’ve read the main works of theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins (The Language of God), Kenneth Miller (Only A Theory), Denis Alexander (Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?), and Karl Giberson (Saving Darwin). They all seem to have a common goal: mold Christian theology to fit neo-Darwinian evolution. In other words, strip Christianity down to its bare bones so it can be consistent with evolution. After reading these works one thing become clear: theology can be molded and adapted to accommodate evolutionary theory, but not vice versa.

Should Christians Embrace Evolution? raises both theological and scientific objections to theistic evolution. In the foreword to the book, Wayne Grudem says that adopting theistic evolution leads to many positions contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Grudem criticizes our secular culture for accepting evolution as the grand meta-narrative for life, which he says, allows them to live without moral restraint and fear before God. As for theistic evolutionists, he criticizes them for acquiescing to this massive attack on the Christian faith and believing that although God exists, he is virtually an invisible deistic being “who makes absolutely no detectable difference in the nature of living beings as they exist today” (p. 10). It won’t be long, says Grudem, before people conclude that God isn’t even a part of the picture.

You may disagree with Grudem, but his criticism (as well as the rest of the contributors) shouldn’t be ignored. People quick to embrace evolution without considering the theological and scientific implications should read this book and count the cost. But don’t be fooled by the title. It’s not a two-sided discussion about what Christians should believe. The book ends with these words: “Should Christians embrace evolution? Our answer is an unequivocal ‘no’!”

One particular issue raised by this book is the historicity of Adam. The popular theistic evolutionary site (www.biologos.org) has recently had some posts about this very topic.

Karl Giberson, for example, is convinced that Genesis is not historical at all. He concludes, “The Genesis story of creation loses all contact with natural history and starts to look strangely like an old-fashioned fairy tale that might teach a lesson, but certainly makes no claims to historicity” (Saving Darwin, 8). To support this claim, he points to the fact that the word “Adam” in our English Bibles simply means “man” in Hebrew and “Eve” means “woman.” Giberson says, “I began to wonder how an old story about a guy named ‘Man’ in a magical garden who had a mate named ‘Woman’ made from one of his ribs could ever be mistaken for actual history.”

In his chapter, “Adam and Eve,” in Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Michael Reeves asks why we must choose between “Adam” being used as a literary device and as a reference to a historical person. Literary devices need not imply non-literal. There are many examples in the Bible where the two are compatible. He lays out a few additional arguments for the historicity of Adam.

Scriptural support for the historicity of Adam is also found in the genealogies of Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1, and Luke 3. While genealogies do admit names for various reasons, there are no known instances of the addition of mythological or fictional characters to an otherwise historical list. Furthermore, Jesus’ teaches on marriage (Matt 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9) as well as Jude’s reference to Adam (Jude 14) indicates that they viewed him as historical. And when Paul spoke of Adam being created first and woman being created from him he was clearly assuming a historical account of Genesis 2 (1 Cor 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:11-14). It is the assumption of both Old Testament and New Testament writers that Adam was indeed historical.

Perhaps the most significant difficulty with denying the historicity of Adam, says Reeves, is theological. Paul’s theology is based upon the historical reality of both Adam and Jesus. Consider Romans 5:12-21, where Paul contrasts the “one man” (Adam) through which sin entered the world with the righteousness of the “one man” (Jesus) through whom justification was offered to all men. Paul repeatedly compares and contrasts Adam and Christ, as if they are both historical figures. He makes a similar argument in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. Paul says that death came by “one man” (Adam) but also resurrection came by “one man” (Jesus). All died in Adam, but all were made alive in Christ. The New American Commentary: Romans clarifies,

Redemption is the story of two men. The first man disobeyed God and led the entire human race in the wrong direction. The second man obeyed God and provides justification for all who will turn to him in faith. No matter how devastating the sin of the first, the redemptive work of the second reverses the consequences of that sin and restores people to the favor of God. Only by grasping the seriousness of the first is one able to appreciate the remarkable magnanimity of the second.

Paul not only uses the same language in reference to Adam and Christ, but his very argument depends upon the historicity of both. Paul’s logic would unravel if his comparison entailed a mythical figure (Adam) and a historical person (Christ). Michael Reeves explains, “With a mythical Adam, then, Christ might as well be—in fact, would do better to be—a symbol of divine forgiveness and new life. Instead, the story Paul tells is of a historical problem of sin, guilt and death being introduced into the creation, a problem that required a historical solution” (p. 45). To remove the historical problem of sin is to seemingly transform Paul’s gospel. What would be the need of the cross, resurrection, virgin birth, and incarnation if sin did not ontologically enter the human race with Adam?

I’m not sure how to get around this problem, although I’ve read some creative attempts. But it’s only one of a few theological problems that emerge for theistic evolution. You may end up disagreeing with the authors of Should Christians Embrace Evolution? but they do deserve a hearing by thoughtful Christians.

McDowell Apologetics Update

Sean McDowell — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:12:31 -0800

A coupe of weeks ago I spoke at Snellville Baptist Church in Georgia. The youth pastor, Jody Shelton, is a friend of mine. Check out his brief blog about my visit there. You can listen for free to the three talks I gave: (1) Shattering the Myths of Evolution; (2) Understanding Intelligent Design; and (3) Why the New Testament Can Be Trusted.

Jody also gave a little shout-out for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students, which was just released last week. This Bible is revolutionary for students. I just received a message on Facebook from a fellow apologist, Lenny Esposito from Come Reason Ministries, who helped write some of the articles in the Study Bible. He received this note about the Bible from a brand new user:

"Wow! I have not been able to put this book down!! As it is, God's word is the most priceless treasure we have, but having all the added help with the articles, study notes, twisted Scriptures, bones and dirt, etc....I just wanna go on a retreat and disappear with just my Bible and not have to ever stop reading! Thank you for your obedience and faithfulness to our Heavenly Father! Praise God!!"

Check it out and spread the word!

Thomas Nagel Likes Stephen Meyer's Book

Brett Kunkle — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:48:47 -0800

Nice. Prominent philosopher Thomas Nagel--no friend to Christianity--names Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design as one of his books of the year:

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

Fair-minded and reputable observers like Nagel demonstrate that it is unconscionable for critics to simply dismiss ID. Meyer's argument is powerful. The book is an Amazon best seller. Go buy it. Now.

Missing Link a Dead End

Sean McDowell — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:50:09 -0700

Every so often some new fossil discovery is heralded as the "missing link" that will finally corroborate Darwin's theory. A few months ago the fossil "Ida" was released to the public (it was actually found years ago) and heralded as the "eight wonder of the world" that would finally silence Darwin-doubters. Ida was proclaimed in major newspapers, covered in a cable-TV special, and the feature of a new book. However, new discoveries are showing that it's a complete evolutionary dead-end. This should not come as a surprise to those of us who are skeptical of Darwinism, but it is surprise how strongly the media has come out against it.

Check out this link!