Your Brother Daniel
For more great blogs
as this one go to Daniel’s blog site at:
www.Mannsword.blogspot.com
Converting the Church to Darwin
Theistic evolutionist
(TE), Nathanael Yates, doesn’t think that the evolution-creation debate and the
conclusions we come to on this issue matter:
· As a Christian it doesn't matter to me whether
the Earth, and all that is in it, was created by a process of evolution or
creation.
· Debate around evolution and creation in the
church is an interesting intellectual discussion, but doesn't concern
salvation. Suggesting that it is may actually make nonbelievers who believe in
evolution less receptive to Christianity.
· I don't believe that debate on this issue is
likely to improve our character and relationship with God.
However, many have
testified that this issue matters profoundly. In God: the Evidence, former atheist, Patrick Glynn, cautions about
the persuasiveness of Darwinism in rejecting the biblical faith:
· “I embraced skepticism at an early age, when I
first learned of Darwin’s theory of evolution in, of all places, Catholic grade
school. It immediately occurred to me that either Darwin’s theory was true or
the creation story in the Book of Genesis
was true. They could not both be true, and I stood up in class and told the
poor nun as much.”
In fact, many present
evolutionists also testify how Darwinism weaned them from the faith of the
childhood. Bruce Malone, Founder of Search
for the Truth and one who returned, also testifies of the persuasiveness of
Darwinian thinking:
· “Prior to graduation from college, I had not
once been shown any of the scientific evidence for creation either in school or
in church. Little wonder, that by the time I started my career [as a chemist],
God had little relevance in my life. It wasn’t as though I had any animosity
toward God or religion. It simply held no relevance to the world around me.
This should be no surprise when the subject never came up in school and
everything seemed to be explained without reference to a Creator.”
I’ve often observed
that those who adopt a theistic evolution stance, abandon the physical world to
Darwin, leaving only the spiritual world to the Bible. Consequently, the entire
apologetics enterprise – this takes what we know of the physical world and uses
it to validate the spiritual – is undermined. For instance Ron Choong, founder of
the Academy for Christian Thought,
writes:
· “Darwin suggested that there is no scientific
evidence to support the existence of God. That is correct!”
Try telling that to
former atheists like Anthony Flew! By abandoning this crucial evidential basis
for the Christian faith, we inevitably compromise it in favor of what we regard
as more certain – Darwinism! Choong
writes:
· “Darwinism exposes Christianity’s weakness in
keeping up with the growing scientific knowledge. We use the fruits of scientific
technology and blissfully ignore its implications for a contemporary and
comprehensive worldview.”
Marvin Olasky, Editor
in Chief, World Magazine, has
observed the impact of this kind of compromise on the integrity of
once-Christian schools:
· Disavowal of biblical teaching about creation
is particularly serious because that perspective underlies so many other
positions: In dozens of once-Christian colleges a slip-sliding-away from the
first three chapters of Genesis has led to abandonment of the rest of the
Bible. (World Mag. October 4, 2014,
60)
Why does this slide
seem to inevitably occur? I think that there are many reasons for it. Once we
“spiritualize” the first three chapters of Genesis, upon which everything else
rests, emptying it of any historical content, we create for ourselves a highly
slippery slope upon which no one can stand.
I’ll just offer one
example. If Jesus had entirely spiritualized Genesis 1-3, the TE would have been
able to stand more securely. However, He understood it historically:
· "Haven't you read," he replied,
"that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' [quoting
Gen. 1:26-27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no
longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together [quoting Gen.
2:24], let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)
Genesis records the
historical work of God! How does the TE answer these kinds of objections? He
pleads that “We have to be humble regarding our interpretations.” In other
words, we cannot have any sense of assurance about the teachings of the Bible
as we can have regarding evolution.
Yates does not seem to
be concerned about any of this and therefore concludes:
- As a church we should spend less time debating amongst
ourselves and focus our energies on what we all desire: salvation for all.
If only this were
true! Instead, for the TE, it seems that “salvation for all” is a matter of
converting the church to Darwin.
Start
with Denying Adam; End by Denying God
My Response to a
Theistic Evolutionist:
Based upon the Bible’s
own testimony regarding the historicity of Adam and Eve, responsible
interpretation must conclude that
they actually existed. However, many theistic evolutionists (TEs) deny their
historicity, while claiming that they merely interpret the Bible differently.
However, their “interpretation” is Darwin-driven as one TE readily admits.
In “Saving Darwin: How to be a
Christian and an Evolutionist,” The TE and former co-head of Biologos, Karl
Giberson, writes that you can comfortably marry both Jesus and Darwin. However,
I appreciate the fact that he admits that there is a price:
·
“Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as
I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific
creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern
science. Dennett’s universal acid [his theory of evolution] dissolved Adam and
Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the
events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected
to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and
nearly everything else that I counted sacred.” (9-10)
Nevertheless, Giberson assures his readers that the acid stops there and
will not go any further. Perhaps he really meant this. However, Darwin’s acid
knows no limits, and our compromise with the text of the Bible opens the door
to even more compromise – a slippery slope. Consequently, a few years later,
Giberson wrote that the OT God is a
· “tyrannical anthropomorphic deity,” who
“commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages…but who believes in this [OT]
deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the earth is
10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God.” http://biologos.org/blog/exposing-the-straw-men-of-new-atheism-part-five/
The TE will inevitably
move “past this view of God” – the God whom Jesus accepted as His Father! I
appreciate the fact that Giberson had been transparent about its implications.
However, most TEs will not be so, and will insist that they have just as high a
regard for Scripture as the creationist.
This is the very thing
that Jesus had warned about:
· “No one can serve two masters. Either you will
hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise
the other.” (Matthew 6:24)
Devotion to Darwin
will inevitably undermine our devotion to Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment