Theistic Evolution
Theistic evolution is a movement within Christianity (although, it could also be within the other theistic religions – Judaism and Islam) that states that God cares for and interacts with his creation. However, this group claims that it is through Darwinian processes that God brought about life.[1] In other words, God created life and then he slowly evolved it into the way it is today. In essence, this group attempts to marry evolutionary theory with Christianity. Whereas, conservative Christianity resists the current scientific interpretation of the data, theistic evolution has no difficulty with it, since it teaches that man arose through evolution. Theistic evolutionists claim that, “man evolved from pre-human ancestors, and over a period of time the Image of God and human sin were gradually and mysteriously manifested.”[2]
One of the central proponents of this view, Francis Collins, believes that the progenitor of all humanity was not the biblical Adam. Collins wants Christians everywhere to abandon the conviction of the belief of the Genesis account of creation, Adam’s genesis, and Adam’s role in the redemption story. Collins states, “But what about the Garden of Eden? Is the description of Adam’s creation from the dust of the earth, and the subsequent creation of Eve from one of Adam’s ribs, so powerfully described in Genesis 2, a symbolic allegory of the entrance of the human soul into a previously soulless animal kingdom, or is this intended as literal history?”[3]. What Collins and BioLogos are trying to do is to reinterpret Genesis 1-3 in such a way as to fit with evolutionary theory. Collins believes that since many sincere believers have interpreted the creation account in Genesis different than the literalist approach that other Christians should not be so quick to discount the trustworthiness of science and the evolutionary claims concerning the origin of life.[4]
Scientist, evolutionist, and professed Christian, Denis Lamoureux, who is a writer and supporter of the BioLogos movement, claims a few things about interpreting the biblical account of origins. He claims that the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis feature three characteristics: divine theology, ancient science, and ancient poetry (his explanation of divine theology and ancient poetry were, by far, the shortest of these three sections in his article; might this display a lack of understanding).[5] He claims that the divine theology is delivered using “ancient scientific understanding and ancient poetic literary techniques”. Lamoureax later writes, “…if Genesis 1 were written today, the literary style might include a scientific format with mathematical formulas, and the science could feature the evolutionary discoveries of modern cosmology, geology, and biology”.[6]
Theistic evolutionists have made their message clear. We, as Christians should abandon traditional beliefs about the nature of creation and of Adam, because, thanks to science, we know more about the way the world works than the authors of Scripture. Should we accept the syncristic and eisegetical approach of Collins, Lamoureax, and BioLogos towards faith in God and in evolutionary theory? I will attempt to display that it is the theistic evolutionists who are standing on shaky and dangerous theological ground.
My Argument against Theistic Evolution
Since this is still considered an in-house argument within Christianity, it makes sense that my argument against theistic evolution will involve an examination of various texts from the Old and New Testaments.
Adam, Paul, Christ, the Fall, and the Atonement. I believe that the view that Adam and Eve were the historical, and not representational, first people on this earth is a biblical and theological necessity. I believe that, to be biblically consistent, a Christian must view Adam and the first historical person and as the progenitor of the whole of humanity. The Bible is littered with references to the historical Adam. The genealogies found in Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1, and Luke 3 all originate from Adam. There is no reason, biblically speaking, to suspect that Adam is included as a mythological figure; while it is true that many genealogies exclude names, there is no known data that supports the inclusion of mythological or fictional figures.
Jesus seems quite convinced when he is using a reference to Adam and Eve to support his teaching on marriage (Matt. 19:4-6). Jude 14 also seems lacking any doubt in regards to the historicity of Adam. Paul also seemed convinced that Adam was the historical progenitor of humanity, as he spoke of Adam being formed first and the woman coming from him (1 Cor. 11:8-9 and 1 Tim. 2:11-14).
If Adam is not the historical first person of all humanity then Paul’s theology falls into the realm of nonsense, as his role is crucial to Paul’s presentation of the gospel. In Romans 5:12-21, Paul uses the original sin of the historical Adam to contrast the work of Christ. Throughout this part of Romans, Paul speaks of Adam in the same sense as that of Christ, in that the historical work of one man (Christ) is able to free us from the historical sin of one man (Adam).[7] If Adam is not what I have claimed him to be then Paul’s whole argument would fall apart – it makes no sense for Paul to compare Jesus (a historical man) to a mythological or symbolic man. Not to mention, what would be the point of a historical atonement if Adam were a symbolic or mythological figure? Theistic evolution weakens the theological basis for the incarnation.
The theology that Paul presents is that of a historical Fall (sin) that introduced death into the creation (Rom. 5:15), this historical problem requires a historical solution – Christ crucified on the cross. If Adam was not historical, where did sin come from? If Adam wasn’t then what do we make of the Fall? When it comes to the origin of sin, we have three choices to choose from: (a) it entered the world and man through the Fall of the historical Adam; (b) it was already there and evil is crucial to (a part of) creation; (c) it is person dependent, in that each person brings his own sin into the world.[8] Option ‘a’ has been the historical view within Christianity for centuries. Option ‘b’ sounds like an off-shoot of Gnosticism, Monism, or Manichaeism; all of which have been branded heresies by the Church. Option ‘c’ fits within Pelagianism, which was deposed as heretical during the era of Augustine. Theistic evolution cannot accurately account for the biblical data on the issue of original sin. The only option that makes sense of the biblical data would be option ‘a’, the traditional Christian view; the others fall vastly short.
In Acts 17, we have an account of Paul speaking to a non-Jewish audience – Athenian philosophers. He preached to them the message of Jesus Christ and of the Resurrection; but not only that – he also spoke of God’s creation. Even though he spoke to these philosophers in the Stoic fashion, he did not waver in, nor seem embarrassed by, his view of Genesis 1-3.[9]
The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way to him and find him. (Acts 17:24-27a)
Paul seemed convinced of the truthfulness of the biblical account of creation. I believe that I can make a stronger argument, though. Jesus is described in the prologue of the Gospel of John as thus, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3). Jesus is God incarnate, one with the Father, was with God at the event of creation, and made all things. This same Jesus seems convinced of the truthfulness of the whole of the Mosaic witness, which includes God’s creation of the world and everything in it. Quoting Jesus from the following Gospels:
Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? (John 5:45-47)
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ (Mark 10:6)
If Jesus believes in the truthfulness of the Genesis account of creation (and, according to the apostle John, made all that is), shouldn’t we believe it as well?
Other Objections to Theistic Evolution. Theistic evolution leans too much on the driving force that is necessary for life to have occurred per evolutionary theory – randomness. I challenge the notion that randomness can exist in a universe that is orderly. Especially if the word random means, “a haphazard course, without definite aim, direction, rule, or method; lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern”.[10] This notion cannot exist in this universe, even under the current paradigm taught by Darwinists. Darwinists might interject, at this point, and say that order in the universe is only interpreted into the system. But then, in the same breath, they claim that the universe is a closed system that is operated by cause and effect relationships. How if the universe is not orderly, how can cause and effect relationships: (1) exist; (2) affect change; (3) result in anything that may resemble something useful or functional? I believe that the obvious answer is that it could not. This is because, for any mechanistic, cause and effect, relationship to be operative order must be presupposed as, at least, the foundation for said system.[11]
Not only is a concept that demands randomness untenable according to what we know about the physical universe, it also disagrees with the clear teaching of Scripture. Scripture testifies to a purposefulness and order in the work of God in his creation.[12] While the driving force behind evolution is purposelessness randomness, the driving force behind creation is the omniscient and benevolent Trinitarian God of Christianity. At the end of verses 10, 12, 18, 21, and 25, of the 1st chapter of Genesis, God saw, in reference to an act of creation, “that it was good”. This seems radically inconsistent with the notion that God directed millions, billions, or trillions of mutations to get the desired effect, per theistic evolution.
Theistic evolution proposes that God takes a kind of hands off type of oversight of his creation; but this, too, seems radically inconsistent with the clear teaching of Scripture. Here are various pieces of Scripture that presents God taking a very active and involved role in the maintenance of his creation:
Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? (Exodus 4:11)
You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth. (Psalm 104:14)
The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. (Psalm 104:21)
These all look to you, to give them their food in due season. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things. When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. (Psalm 104:27-30)
Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? (Matthew 6:26)
But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? (Matthew 6:30)
And they went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves, and they ceased, and there was a calm. He said to them, “Where is your faith?” And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that he commands even winds and water, and they obey him?” (Luke 8:24-25)
For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! (Luke 12:23-28)
But in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. (Hebrews 1:2-3)
Conclusion
Because so many other doctrines have their foundation within the book of Genesis, I claim that it is the most important book within the Bible. If the beginning of the book of Genesis is not a historical text then much of our understanding in many other parts of Scripture, including and especially much of the New Testament, should fall under a dark cloud of suspicion. However, the testimony of God’s revelation is clear and true. Christians who wish to subscribe to evolutionary theory, in the face of the clear testimony of Genesis, in an attempt to explain the origins of life, only cloud up that revelation.
For many Christians, the Bible is the framework, or the lens, by which they view their lives and this world. Theistic evolutionists would agree with this statement, except for the creation account within Genesis. These same Christians who attempt to superimpose the majority of Scripture over their lives, will then, attempt to superimpose their scientific beliefs over the Scriptures. Why are they so willing to surrender this? One of the dangers of doing this is the practice of eisegesis, which is the opposite of exegesis. Exegesis is the practice of attempting to understand what Scripture teaches and apply it to one’s life so that it is changed; while the opposite of this, eisegesis, attempts to change the interpretation of what Scripture clearly teaches so that it matches with what is believed and practiced by the person already. In other words, the only thing that eisegesis, which I believe is the form of biblical interpretation that theistic evolution employs, changes are the Scriptures, while the person’s life remains the same.
I am not questioning the salvation of those within the theistic evolution camp. But I do doubt, with great concern, the nature and effectiveness of their interpretation of Scripture. Theistic evolutionists are only willing to believe Scripture where it already agrees with, or does not discuss, their presuppositions about metaphysics. Where Scripture refutes their views of metaphysics, they seem to feel justified and free to re-invent the clear message(s) of those Scriptures. This is a serious issue that puts those that embrace both evolution and Christianity on dangerous theological ground.
Theistic evolutionists are clearly saying that they believe that they know better than Paul and the other authors of Scripture, when it comes to origins; because, it is clear that Paul and the Scriptural authors believe in the Genesis account of creation. However, as if this wasn’t bad enough, they are also claiming that they know better than God. Scripture is God’s revelation and word to us so that we can understand him, his creation, and us more fully and rightly. This gets right at, what I believe, is the heart of the issue – idolatry. In Romans 1:18-23, Paul addresses the Gentiles at Rome on the issue of man rejecting of God. In these verses, Paul explains that God is angry because man has not honored him, thanked him, or worshipped him as God. The wrath of God is on man because, as sinners, we want to be first – we want to be God. This is the fundamental problem with man; we honor and exalt ourselves and our thinking as human beings and fail to properly worship God. When we say, or act in such a way that says, that we know more than God, we are acting as idolaters. This, I believe, is the position that theistic evolutionists put themselves.
Theistic evolution fails to preserve the clarity and internal integrity of the Bible. It is a practice in eisegesis; as well as a form of idolatry. Christians must be willing to look foolish in the eyes of the world; we must be willing to stand for the truth of God. R.T. Kendall elaborates on this point, “…every generation of Christianity has its own stigma by which the believer’s faith is severely tested. In the first generation of the church it was to say that Jesus of Nazareth is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Around the turn of the first century the cutting issue came to be whether to praise Christ or Caesar. About the turn of the fourth century the issue largely focused on the question whether Jesus Christ was co-eternal and consubstantial with God Almighty. In Luther’s day it was whether one was justified by faith or works. The most hotly contested issue of any day is that which is true but which makes the minority view look foolish and makes the believer look a fool. Athanasius stood alone in his day when he stood for the full deity of Jesus Christ. The world is against you, they would say to Athanasius. Flashing back his eyes, he retorted: ‘If the world is against Athanasius, then Athanasius is against the world.’ Behind the question of creation versus evolution is the very nature of faith itself, namely, whether we will believe God as a consequence of what he has said, putting his own integrity on the line; or whether we follow so-called empirical proofs at the level of nature. The nature of faith consists in this: Do we believe the word of God for its own sake or pay homage to the empirical method before we can trust the Lord?”[13]
I take my stand with God, his revelation, and by the measure of faith the he gave me. Therefore, I reject theistic evolution as a legitimate explanation of origins on Scriptural grounds.
[1]http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism (cited: 08 November 2011).
[2]Denis O. Lamoureux, “Evolutionary Creation: Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate,” Crux, 39 (June 2003), 14-22
[3]Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006) 206-207.
[4]Ibid, 209-210.
[5]Denis O. Lamoureux, “Evolutionary Creation: Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation Debate,” 14-22.
[6]Ibid.
[7]A.B. Caneday, “The Language of God and Adam’s Genesis & Historicity in Paul’s Gospel,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 (Spring 2011), 27.
[8]Michael Reeves, “Adam and Eve,” Should Christians Embrace Evolution: Biblical and Scientific Responses (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009), 45-46.
[9]Kenneth D. Boa & Robert M. Bowman Jr., Faith Has Its Reasons, 2nd ed. (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2005), 10.
[10]Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2004), 1029.
[11]Jason Poe, “Random” – Is It a Dirty Word? (on-line) accessed 12 November 2011, https://hasonpoy.wordpress.com/; Internet.
[12]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 276.
[13]R. T. Kendall, “Faith and Creation,” Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific Responses (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009), 109-110.