Evolution photo

Theistic evolution is the idea that God used Darwinian evolution to create the life forms we see in the world today – including ourselves – human beings. I suppose some believe that this kind of approach helps resolve the tension between Christianity and “Science”. By “science” people mean not the process of coming up with and testing a hypothesis until we get better and better models for how things work (which is how REAL science works). I think what is actually meant by “Science” here is the Naturalistic worldview which sees the Universe as a Closed System in which all things are explainable in terms of the Laws of Physics as we discover them. In my view, such a worldview can never be made to harmonise with what the Bible teaches about almost anything, and it is a waste of time trying to win friends and influence people by making concessions to this way of thinking.

It has been pointed out that Naturalism is really a philosophy about what is real and what isn’t. It has a set of assumptions and rules of reasoning which may not be questioned by “true believers” in the so-called “Science” which is really not what actual science is all about anyway. Just because real science has undergirded a lot of technological development and explained a lot of physical phenomena does not mean that science which proposes to tell us about what allegedly happened millions of years ago should be trusted – so called “historical science”. There are many reasons for this and you could look at a site like creation.com to get some ideas why this is so. Not that I agree with everything they say at that site, but they make some good points. However, this is not the main point of this article.

What I wish to point out is that “theistic evolution” has no real answers to the question of the Origin of Sin. Furthermore, I don’t think you can believe in Theistic Evolution and also believe that the Gospel of Luke is telling the truth when it gives the genealogy of Jesus way back to Adam, the first human being – according to Genesis 2. So theistic evolution is potentially OK if you want to believe in some kind of deity being involved in the ongoing process of “natural selection” leading to entirely new species  – but it doesn’t work if that God is the the One who inspired the Bible and had the Son of God referring to Adam and Eve as real people involved when God instituted marriage.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’” (Matthew 19:4) – Jesus.

As for the deity of theistic evolution, I’m not sure what he, she or it does except set up some initial conditions and some physical laws which, like clockwork, bring us to where we are today. It reminds me of Deism, a popular 18th century Enlightenment belief which soon led people into atheism and skepticism as soon as Darwinism gave them a kind of meta-narrative which could do away with the need for any Creator God to exist.

The biggest problem I see with “theistic evolution” is it doesn’t explain the Origin of Sin. Where did sin come from if there were no first human beings who deliberately rebelled against their Creator and His laws? The Bible teaches that God made Adam and Eve. If this is to be regarded as a fairy tale for ignorant Jewish shepherds and artisans who couldn’t possibly have understood the real truth, it still leaves us with the problem of where sin came from.

Who were Adam and Eve’s parents? Some kinds of almost human monkeys that were one genetic mutation short of full humanity? Or did Adam and Eve never exist? Is Luke’s genealogy of Jesus a lie? Where do the lies end in the Bible?

If there was no Adam and Eve, at what point did the hominids become morally responsible to a Creator? Did their sinfulness evolve also? If it evolved by naturalistic means, why should these hominids be responsible for it? In fact, if Naturalism is true, how could anyone ever be responsible to God for anything that they do or think? It doesn’t really make sense at all. We might end up with sin being redefined as some sort of collective social injustice which developed for reasons that secular anthropologists or Marxist social theorists might be best qualified to analyse. But the whole Bible narrative really falls apart on this point. 

Just as oil and water do not mix, so Biblical theism and Darwinian evolution as an explanation of human origins do not mix.

As for Darwinian evolution, I for one do not see the evidence for it. It never seems to happen today. Fossils are few and far between. Changes observed in micro-organisms do not produce multi-celled organisms as a result. And all our genetic engineering shows that significant changes CAN be made – as long as there is an engineer who is planning and designing such things. It doesn’t support Darwinian evolution as a theory of origins – quite the opposite.

My advice to Scientists who are also Christians is to stick with your own field of scientific research. Do not buy into the lies of Scientism and Naturalism which you may assume your learned colleagues in other disciplines have very good reasons to believe. To me the whole system of thinking is implausible and mathematically impossible. It was conceived in order to deny God. You don’t need to buy into this philosophy in order to be a scientist. And furthermore, we need scientists with enough courage to stand up and defend the Bible. If you won’t or can’t do that – what a shame that is. You are ashamed of some of Jesus’ words and he will be ashamed of you. You lend your voice or lack of it to the destructive agenda of unbelief, no matter how much you protest to the contrary. And if you think I am being unfair, kindly reply and tell me your views on the Origin of Sin, and why people should be considered guilty for it at all.

Dear Christians, please ignore any so-called Christian leader who believes in evolution. They don’t really know what they are talking about.