BIOLOGOS AND EVANGELIZING THE CHURCH FOR DARWIN
The Biologos Foundation has been generously funded to push evolution on the church. To achieve their goal, Biologos has recently come out with a book containing 25 testimonies in an attempt to prove that Christians can come "to terms with the science of evolution while maintaining a vibrant Christian faith."
In the introduction, Karen Applegate writes:
However, there are reasons for skepticism about Applegate's claim:
1. It is difficult to know if someone does in fact have a "vibrant faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." Besides, the fruit of serving these two masters—EVOLUTION AND FAITH IN CHRIST—may not become evident for decades.
2. Many credentialed scientists disagree that there is "overwhelming scientific evidence for [macroevolution]." Some even contend that it is both mathematically and evidentially impossible.
3. There are many indications that marrying Darwin to Jesus has already proved to be highly destructive of the biblical faith.
For one thing, it is dangerous to allow our presuppositions to dictate biblical interpretation.
The Church has a sad history of embracing errant scientific theories like “geocentrism” and "steady state theory," lest she be seen as backward and mindless. In order to do this, the Church imposed these presuppositions on to the Scriptures, coercing the pertinent verses to agree with the later discredited theories.
Today, theistic evolutionists (TEs) insist that there is no contradiction between Scripture and evolution since, according to their paradigm, evolution is about the physical world while Scripture is about the spiritual and theological.
However, such a distinction is utterly insupportable. For example, the theology of the Cross requires the actual, physical, historic event of the Cross. If Jesus did not historically die for us, there can be no theology of the Cross.
To make matters worse, TEs insist that the Bible is often wrong about scientific and historical matters. According to this line of thinking, who cares about these errors? After all, the Bible is only concerned about spiritual matters, as TEs assert.
However, Applegate fails to acknowledge these core problems. Instead, she claims that it is the church's unwillingness to accept evolution that has had the most "devastating impact":
• Pastors and educators in our community see firsthand the devastating impact of the false creation-or-evolution dichotomy our Christian subculture has embraced so thoroughly.
TEs lament the fact that Christian college students are torn between their faith and evolution. This kind of tension is unavoidable. However, TEs erroneously conclude that there is only one way to resolve this tension—by showing that Jesus and Darwin can live together harmoniously.
TEs conveniently fail to mention another solution—that evolution is neither biblical or scientific.
However, Applegate insists that the two are easily and fruitfully harmonized:
• The stories collected here give overwhelming evidence for the fact that serious Christians, who love Jesus and are committed to the authority of the Bible, can also accept evolution.
I also have a collection of stories. I have had dialogues with many TEs and have found their faith and confidence in God's Word to be horribly compromised. They have spiritualized their interpretation of Scripture—carving out a “hallowed” space for evolution—to such an extent that they can no longer be confident about the Bible’s teachings or even the authority of those teachings.
Consequently, their views have become indistinguishable from secular university culture. And this has happened to such an extent that atheists feel more at home on theistic evolution websites than creationists.
At one site, after I made this observation, I asked for opinions about same-sex marriage. I got two answers, both affirmative!
Meanwhile, they claim that we need to be humble about our interpretation of the Scriptures. If only they were equally humble about their interpretation of the scientific evidence!
SOME THOUGHTS:
GOD DID IT OR DID NATURALISM DO IT?
Does the hypothesis of Intelligent Design explain anything? Some argue that the idea of an uncased Causer is necessary. Others retort that to say that “God did it,” is a cop-out, which explains nothing.
Interestingly, theists and non-theists do science the same way and invoke the same immutable and elegant laws of science to both explain and predict. However, when we try to account for these laws or regularities, the very foundations of science, we separate into warring camps, one side invoking “naturalism,” the other “supernaturalism” (ID).
Can naturalism explain the existence, immutability, and elegance of the “natural” laws better than ID? It would seem that neither hypothesis should be summarily dismissed.
THE EXISTENCE OF THE NON-MATERIAL SOUL
Is there any evidence against the existence of a spirit or soul? Atheist Michael Shermer offers one piece of evidence. When someone has a stroke, they can lose their ability to speak. Therefore, when the physical brain is damaged, so too is any related functionality.
This is certainly true with a TV. When one physical element goes bad, so too the picture! However, does this mean that watching is TV show is just about what is contained within the TV? Of course not! The TV is merely a receiver of programming originating from the outside.
Could the brain also be a receiver for something non-material?
THE ULTIMATE DRUG
Is religion the “opiate of the people?” Perhaps? But perhaps atheism is just another drug used to silence the conscience, guilt, shame, and the fear of judgment.
CONSCIOUSNESS: A PRODUCT OF MATTER?
Is consciousness merely a product of matter? Consciousness seems to transcend like our love and appreciation of music transcend a set of musical notes.
And the laws of science – are they also just a product of matter? Well, matter is always in flux but not the laws. Matter undergoes change but not the laws. Matter is localized but not the laws.
Perhaps there are many things that require an extra-material explanation.
IS THE QUESTION OF GOD IRRELEVANT TO SCIENCE?
Atheist Peter Atkins insists that the question of God is not only irrelevant but in opposition to science. Opposition? Yes! Instead of seeking scientific answers, the theist merely invokes God to say, “God did it.”
Is this assessment accurate? Not according to Isaac Newton, who argued that there are two distinct forms of questions. For example:
• “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
According to Newton, God establishes, underpins, and sustains His creation with His elegant, immutable laws. If this is so, then every finding of science acknowledges God.
In light of this, invoking God does not detract from doing science. Instead, it attempts to explicate science.
VALUING LIFE
What enables us to value life and to live it to its fullest? According to atheist Peter Atkins, “Because there is no afterlife, we are forced to grasp [and value] this life.”
But how can we value a life that is essentially valueless? According to the humanist Max Hocutt:
∑ “To me [the non-existence of God] means that there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of social conventions devised by humans to satisfy their needs…If there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no good reason why anyone should pay it any heed.” (Understanding the Times)
How then are we to live a morally purposeful life if there is no absolute/objective morality or value? Instead, life becomes reduced to a merely physical existence. Therefore, when the good feelings and health leave us, we are left with nothing to value.
