Lies evolutionists tell: Science follows the evidence wherever it goes

 I read an interesting headline in The Atlantic recently:

The CDC’s Big Mask Surprise Came Out of Nowhere.  The agency’s communication strategy has lagged so consistently behind the research that it’s brought new meaning to the concept of “following the science.”

Ah, yes. “Follow the science.” Due to the recent pandemic, I suppose nearly everyone has heard that phrase by now. And everyone who's heard it probably has an idea of what it means – basically, that we should make our decisions based on facts discovered by scientific inquiry. This quote, attributed to Neil deGrasse Tyson, summed it up this way: Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything.

That sounds somewhat noble, doesn't it? I mean, if we're interested in learning what is true, then we need to set aside our biases, look at the “facts” objectively, and face reality – whatever it is. We should do this regardless of what we want the truth to be.

https://unsplash.com/@j_alt99

In my experience in Christian apologetics, I've heard this concept expressed many times in the creation v. evolution debate. Whenever it's cited, it seems the intent of the evolutionist is two-fold: 1) to make himself look unbiased and clear-thinking and 2) make the creationist look closed-minded and unwilling to accept the truth in spite of overwhelming evidence.

As a Bible-believing, young-earth creationist, let me start by saying I didn't come to my faith by ignoring the truth. I believe in God and the Bible for pretty much the same reasons I believe anything – I've been convinced that what I believe is the truth! I attended public schools and graduated high school believing evolution. At that time, I waffled between agnosticism and atheism. It wasn't until I was a grown man that I became a Christian and, even then, I did not become a creationist until some years later. There are probably many others like me so to suggest we just believe creation only because we want it to be true is more of an ad hominem than an argument.

But besides all that, exactly how unbiased are evolutionists? Consider this quote from Scientific American:

“Creation science” is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism—it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.

The obvious question is: why does modern science look for only “natural mechanisms”? That sounds like a bias to me. It's a bias toward naturalism where they intentional exclude any possibility of a supernatural explanation in favor of natural one. On what grounds can they say that every phenomenon must have a natural cause? Nowhere in the universe can methodological naturalism be observed or tested so the idea even contradicts itself. This is why they call it a tenet – a belief or principle, similar to religious dogma.

Richard Lewontin, an American evolutionary biologist, made this very revealing admission [found here and attributed to Billions and Billions of Demons – January 9, 1997 ISSUE]:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

I'm sure Lewontin is probably kicking himself for saying that because his quote has been used by creationists for decades to expose the bias held by evolutionists. Of course, he's not the only one who has made comments like this. Some years back, Nathaniel Abraham, a creationist and biologist, was fired from his research position at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution because he didn't believe in evolution. His supervisor, Mark E. Hahn, wrote in a letter to him (source Boston.com):

You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work.... This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted.

By Hahn's own admission, research at his institution can only be carried out and interpreted one way – in light of biological evolution. Anyone who disagrees, will not be doing research there!

I could cite a dozen more examples like this but there's no need. We all see what's happening. If anyone looks at the evidence, thinking in advance there can be only a natural explanation for it, then he's guaranteed to find one. This is how militant evolutionists view science. When they say they go wherever the science leads, they're lying. The possibility of a supernatural creation is excluded a priori by their dogmatic tenet of naturalism.

What does it mean to be born of water?

https://unsplash.com/@bethlaird

John 3:1-5, There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

There are some people who think a person must be baptized in order to be saved. John 3:5 is a verse sometimes used to support this idea. The fundamental flaw in that argument, though, is the unproven assumption that “born of water” means “baptized.” I don't believe it does.

In all of Scripture, the term “born of water” occurs exactly once. Besides this verse, there is no other passage we can examine that might shed more light on the meaning of this term. Consequently, we only have the context of this verse to help us understand what Jesus meant by His statement to Nicodemus. Though this may not be an exhaustive list, there are at least 4 possible meanings to this term:

It could mean baptism

We should consider the possibility that it does mean water baptism. The words “baptize” or “baptism” occur approximately 85 times in Scripture. Yet even though baptism is frequently mentioned, nowhere is it called, being “born of water” or even associated with that term. The word "baptism" isn't used anywhere in this passage.  Also, nowhere else is the word “born” used in the same context with the word “baptize” or "baptism."  That is, there is no passage that says something like “born through baptism.” If someone wants to associate “born of water” with baptism, the burden should be upon him to do so. To simply say the term means baptism based solely on this context isn't sufficient.

Furthermore, to interpret this verse to mean, “one must be baptized and born of the Spirit” is antithetical to the rest of Scripture which says we are saved by grace through faith and not by any outward acts such as good deeds or circumcision (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 4:9-12, et al).

It could mean a washing by the Word

As has already been said, we are saved by grace through faith. Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” In other words, we can only believe by hearing the word. Then, by believing, we receive grace and are saved. There are a few passages that support the idea there is a “washing by the word.”

Ephesians 5:25-26, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.”

John 15:3, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”

John 13:5-10, “After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.”

This last verse is particularly interesting.  If a saved person is considered “washed,” “cleansed,” or “bathed,” then Jesus' words to Peter become clear: we never have to be “bathed” again. If we sin – that is, get our feet dirty – we only need to be restored by the washing of our feet. We do not need to become saved again.

I think “born of water” could fit with the idea of being washed by the Word but I cannot dogmatically insist they are the same thing.

An alternative translation of the Greek conjunction

In the clause, “be born of water and the Spirit,” the word translated as “and” is the Greek conjunction kai (Strong's word 2532, καί). According to Strong's, kai can mean, “and, even, also, namely.” This means an alternative translation of the subject verse could be, “Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In this sense, being born of water would essentially be the same as being born of the Spirit.

When Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, He told her He could give her “living water.” In John 4:13-14 we read, “Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” In this light, the living water would be the Holy Spirit, indwelling the believer and giving him eternal life.

Born of water could be a euphemism for physical birth

Even today, we refer to the amniotic fluid as “water.” When a woman's “water breaks,” we know the birth is imminent. In this passage, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Jesus is explaining our spiritual rebirth by comparing it to our physical birth. When Jesus is talking with Nicodemus, He said (v. 3), “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” To say, “born again” implies there was already a first birth. We know with certainty that Nicodemus understood this to mean the physical birth because of his response in v. 4, “Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?”

In v. 5-6, Jesus expands upon the rebirth. Read both verses together, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” To me, I believe His meaning is clear but let me paraphrase it this way: “A person must be born physically AND spiritually because that which is born of the flesh is only flesh but that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Later in the chapter, Nicodemus is still struggling to understand the concept of a second birth. In v. 12, Jesus tells him, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” So we see, yet again, Jesus is explaining a heavenly concept by comparing it to something earthly. Jesus did this often in His ministry. Consider the number of times Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like...” Then He would go on to use an analogy like farming or shepherding to make His point. Jesus was certainly doing that here.

“Born of water” meaning physical birth also comports well with 1 Peter 1:23, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” Our first birth, then, would be of corruptible seed, that is of the flesh. Our second birth, our spiritual birth, would be of incorruptible seed.

There may be other meanings of the term “born of water” that I hadn't considered. I'm happy to hear them but any other possible meaning must be supported by Scripture. Of these four, I believe a reference to the physical birth is the most likely meaning. I also believe a reference to baptism to be the least likely meaning.

Evolution is “just” a theory after all

To all creationists: do you want to see something funny? The next time you're having a discussion with an evolutionist, tell him “evolution is just a theory” and watch what happens. What usually happens is a long groan of exasperation, followed by a snort of derision, topped off by lots of eye rolling and head shaking. It's rather hilarious.

When he gets around to actually suggesting a rebuttal, you'll probably hear one of the following three things:

1) A scientific definition of the word, “theory,” and how it means a well-tested and well-substantiated explanation of some phenomenon or 2) a short quip saying, “Did you know gravity is just a theory?” or 3) both of these things. I'm not kidding. They always says the same things. It's like they all have the same playbook and that's the only answers they've learned. It's too bad because none of these responses really rebut the creationist's point.

When a creationist calls evolution, “just a theory,” he usually means evolution is not a “fact” or a “law.” He's using theory in the ordinary sense. However, evolutionists claim there is a more technical meaning of the word “theory” within the scientific community. According to Scientific American:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

Now, it's typical for people in different lines of work to have industry specific terms or even specialized meanings for common words. It's called “jargon.” The word, “load,” for example, might mean something different to a truck driver than an engineer. Scientists claim to have a special meaning for the term, “theory.” I get it. But when you're communicating with the public, you need to use terms in the way the public understands them. I believe the hyper-sensitivity over the word is really just a red herring evolutionists use to try to derail the conversation. Let me explain.

If the word, theory, is supposed to mean a “well-substantiated explanation” of some phenomenon, why do evolutionists habitually use the word “theory” when talking about abiogenesis? We have never observed life rising from non-living matter in nature; neither have we been able to artificially create life from non-living chemicals. There is no “well-substantiated explanation” of how it happened so there can be no theory of abiogenesis. All they have are guesses – wild guesses – about how it might have happened but none of the guesses have actually produced a living thing. Still, they call them “theories” about the origin of life. Why do they do that? It could be that they are trying to minimize the embarrassment of having no natural explanation for the origin of life by assigning to their guesses the “scientific” term, theory. It could be that they're really not as concerned about the technical definition as they pretend to be.

The other thing, though, is that, even according to the scientific definition, a “theory” is still just an explanation of something. It may be “well-tested.” It may seem to explain the thing well. But at the end of the day, the scientific meaning of the word isn't terribly different than how the non-scientist means it. They both mean explanations.

Here's an analogy I've used before: I can open a carton of eggs and see there are a dozen. That's an objective fact. But why are there a dozen eggs? In other words, why do they sell eggs in dozens rather than, say, in tens? If I had to inventory eggs, it's easier to count by tens than by twelves. If I had to guess, I would say it's because there are more ways to divide dozens than tens. If a farmer ships eggs to multiple families or a family is feeding several members, how many ways the eggs can be divided evenly is important because it reduces left overs. This could be my hypothesis and I could test it by questioning farmers or doing historical research into the practice. Maybe my hypothesis will be confirmed or maybe not. Regardless, why there are a dozen eggs will never be an objective fact in the same sense as there are a dozen eggs. Do you see? No matter how confident we may be with the theory, it will never be held in the same regard as the fact.  So when a creationist says, "evolution is just a theory," he's objecting to evolution as a sufficient explanation of modern biodiversity.  There's no need to quibble over the technical meaning of the word.

Now, on to the next point. When evolutionists say evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory, they're playing another word game. Here, they're trying to conflate the phenomenon called gravity and the theory of gravity. We know that gravity exists. We're also very successful in describing how it behaves. We can use it to make predictions – like how much would astronauts “weigh” on the moon? In these way, gravity is an observed fact. What we're not sure about is what causes gravity.

Newton believed gravity is a force, something like magnetism. Einstein didn't believe gravity was a force but suggested that mass actually bends spacetime causing objects moving along the curved space to intersect with each other. Whatever the truth is, the debate isn't over if there is gravity but rather what is gravity.

The theory of evolution is no where near on par with the theory of gravity. As I've already said, we're very successful in describing how gravity behaves. We're a little more fuzzy on the details of evolution. In short, scientists still aren't sure when, where, or how things evolved. They're constantly rearranging animals on the so-called, “tree of life.” Nearly every day, a new discovery is made that overturns things they were once “sure” about. Evolution also makes NO predictions (I'm sure I'll be writing about this sometime). We certainly can't predict where evolution is leading.

So, to all my friends who believe evolution: please stop saying evolution is like gravity! And please stop lecturing us about the technical definition of the word theory. At the end of the day, your theory still just your attempt to explain the facts and it's still a very poor explanation.

Why the appendix is NOT evidence for evolution

Ordinarily, I would never consider a sit com to be representative of any group but I'm going to use a scene from The Big Bang Theory as the backdrop for a discussion about the appendix. I'm doing this for a couple of reasons. First, I don't think anyone would argue that a vast majority of evolutionists consider the appendix to be vestigial so it's not like the show misrepresents this attitude. Second, it's just a funny scene and I'm going to exploit it for the sake of making my blog more interesting.

Enjoy!

Isn't that hilarious? Anyway, back to business. As I've already said, the appendix has been touted by evolutionists as the champion of vestigial organs. The theory of evolution virtually demands that there be vestigial organs and so, when the label of “vestigial” can be attach to some structure, they are quick to trumpet it as evidence for their theory. I cannot recall ever having a discussion of vestigial organs without the appendix being used by evolutionists as an example.

https://unsplash.com/@atlaskadrow

By way of definition, a structure is considered vestigial if it has lost all or most of its original function. Even if the structure has function, it can still be considered vestigial if it doesn't perform its original function. That definition is somewhat circular because it assumes the organ once had another function. The wings of flightless birds, for example, have been called vestigial only because they are believed to be descended from flying birds. If the wings were never used for flying, then they can't be vestiges of flying wings, can they? I believe penguins' wings have always been used for swimming. Do evolutionists believe penguins once flew? I guess they do but it's only because they believe penguin ancestors could fly that makes penguin wings vestigial. Thus I say their evidence is circular. //sigh//

Every definition I've heard of vestigial suffers from a range of weaknesses but I'm not going to quibble over the definition of vestigial now. Instead, I'm going to question the idea that the appendix is evidence for evolution at all.

According to evolution, the appendix evolved in some ancestor of humans and once served an important function (or at least it evolved to serve some function). Since we are descended from this supposed ancestor, we have inherited that structure but, over the many generations of mutation and selection leading from the non-human ancestor to us, the appendix has lost its original function. For this reason, it's sometimes called an “evolutionary leftover.”

Humans are not the only creatures with an appendix. Dozens of mammals have appendixes – but not every mammal. Here's where the theory starts to get thorny. According to the theory of common descent, we should be able to trace the appendix along the so called “nested-hierarchy” where all the animals which have an appendix also share a common ancestor. The problem is, there is no predictable pattern among the mammals with appendixes. The appendix appears in some species of primates, rodents, and even marsupials but is absent from the intermediate groups linking these species. It's not at all what we would expect if evolution were true.

Failed predictions are usually considered evidence against a scientific theory. However, the fact that the presence of the appendix follows no predictable pattern hardly raises an eyebrow among evolutionists. As is often the case, they invent ad hoc theories to explain the failed prediction. Here is a quote from Sciencemag.org:

In a new study, published online... in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times. [Bold added]

Give me a break. The structure “must have” evolved 30+ times? There's another possibility, you know. Namely that the seeming random appearance of an appendix is evidence that the creatures on the “tree of life” are not related in an evolutionary sense. I wonder if the scientists even considered that possibility.

When creatures that aren't closely related share similar features, it's attributed to convergent evolution. According to this idea, there is sometimes a “best” solution to make a creature better adapted to its environment and “nature” will happen on that same solution time and time again. In the case of mammal digestion, the appendix must have fit some important need so well that “nature” created one on at least 30 occasions! But that “just so” story, that the appendix evolved so often because it was the “best solution,” stretches credulity when many evolutionists claim the appendix is vestigial in most of the creatures that have one!

So let's wrap this up: The appendix appears in no discernible pattern on the so called, “tree of life” which calls into question the entire concept of common descent. We have to believe the appendix is so important that it evolved independently 30+ times but it's also so unimportant that most creatures that have one don't need it.

Hmmm. Please explain to me again: how is the appendix evidence for evolution?

Lies evolutionists tell: Microevolution over time leads to macroevolution

People who militantly defend evolution (AKA evolutionists) like to look down their noses on the “lay” public and smugly drone on about how science is the key to knowledge, how evolution is the most rigorously tested theory in science, and how they only go where the evidence leads. If that were true, why do they feel the need to tell lies to support their theory? I'm not talking about a mere difference of opinion – like how I believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and they think it's 4 billion years old. I'm talking about continuously repeating things that are objectively false. The sad thing is, many members of the public have heard these lies repeated so often, they assume they are true.

I've written series in the past where I list 5 or 10 of some of the most egregious examples but I'm not going to write a series now. Instead, I'm going to visit this topic from time to time and make each, entire post about a single lie. If you want to read all the posts published under this topic, click “lies evolutionists tell” in the label cloud in the left column.

Having said that, on to the next lie!

Microevolution plus time equals macroevolution

It's a fact that animal populations change over time. Natural selection is a real thing and animals can adapt to their environments. This is all observed and no creationist I know denies this. The question is this: when populations “change” does it mean they “evolve”? The short answer is, no. Let me explain.

https://unsplash.com/@purejulia

Natural selection is an observed phenomenon that removes traits from a population that aren't suited to the environment. Imagine a hypothetical population of rabbits. In a wooded environment, white rabbits, for example, wouldn't be very camouflaged. Grey or brown rabbits would be harder for predators to spot so they might get eaten less often. The white rabbits get eaten, the darker rabbits live to reproduce, and, over time, all baby bunnies are born with grey/brown coats. The gene for white fur is eliminated from the gene pool and the grey/brown population is better adapted to that environment.

Are you with me so far? Then let's move on.

Well meaning creationists sometimes call the small changes we observe, “microevolution.” They may even say something like, “I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.” That is, they believe the small changes that can turn a wolf into a dog, aren't the kinds of changes that could turn a dinosaur into a bird. I agree for the most part, but I discourage using the word, “evolution” to describe it. Evolution doesn't happen – neither “micro-” nor “macro-”.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, call any kind of change, “evolution.” When creationists say micro- but not macro-, it doesn't make any sense because to the evolutionists, the only difference between micro- and macroevolution is how long the change occurs. After all, if we can see small changes happening, they could accumulate over time (as in, “millions of years”) to become big changes. Here's a quote from Berkley.edu that makes this very point:

Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

At first hearing, arguments like this can sound very persuasive. Don't be fooled. There are at least 3 reasons why the types of changes we observe could never accumulate to become the big changes necessary for evolution to occur.

The changes must be in one direction

Even the most famous examples of “evolution” usually involve slight variations back and forth around the mean. When Darwin observed the finches in the Galapagos, he noted the differences in the sizes of their beaks. In the 150 years since then, we've seen that beaks tend to be larger during periods of drought and smaller during periods of rain. In other words, after a century and a half of observation, there has been no accumulation of small changes. There has only been back and forth variations in response to back and forth changes in the environment.

For evolution to be possible, the changes must continuously be in one direction – like finch beaks only getting bigger. Back and forth changes over time means there are no net changes – not even microevolution.

The change cannot have a boundary

In another famous example of “evolution,” the peppered moth, a population of moths changed from mostly light, to mostly dark, to mostly light again in response to changes in the environment. You can see immediately that this is another example of back and forth variation like I just discussed in my first point. However, there is something else at work here.

Suppose the change did occur in only one direction. In the case of the peppered moths, for example, what if the population only continued becoming dark? Eventually, the entire population would become 100% dark and the change would stop. The change in the frequency of the dark allele could not increase any more. If anything, it could only decrease and the population would start becoming light again (see point number one).

The change must be adding something

In order to turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. The imagined first-living-thing didn't have hair. Neither did it have scales or even skin. It didn't have bones or blood or organs of any kind. For evolution to be possible, organisms would have to acquire new traits. To turn a microbe into a man, it would require millions of traits being continuously added generation after generation. “Changes” in a population, that don't add new features to the population, cannot allow a population to evolve.

I've said before that natural selection is the opposite of evolution. Natural selection can only remove traits from a population. And like I've just explained, evolution requires populations to acquire traits. You can't acquire traits by continuously losing traits – it doesn't matter how long it continues! Think back to my example of rabbits. Continuously removing white rabbits would never add, say, blue rabbits to the population even if it continued for millions of years!  Think about it: removing colors from a population, will never add colors to the population. You cannot turn a molehill into a mountain by continuously removing dirt.

Time is like a magic ingredient in a fairy tale, that can turn a frog into a prince... it just takes millions of years! But as you can see, time alone isn't enough to turn the small changes we observe into the kinds of changes that could make evolution possible.

If you want to say evolution is possible, show me some examples of animals acquiring new traits. Don't show me examples of natural selection and say, “just give it some time.” That's a lie!

Why I reject theistic evolution

https://unsplash.com/@brett_jordan

Too many Christians have fallen for the idea that evolution is a fact. It's the result of a concerted effort by many secular educators who tirelessly work to conflate “evolution” with “science,” loudly proclaim “the science is settled,” use legal maneuverings to squash any discussion in the classroom not helpful to the theory, then mock and ridicule anyone who doesn't get in line. Unfortunately, in some cases, these tactics have worked and some Christians, who otherwise profess to believe the Bible, are convinced the Bible can't be correct about a six day creation.

In an effort to protect the inerrancy of the Bible, these same Christians have adopted a compromising position, saying that both the Bible and evolution are true. Through much mental gymnastics and questionable hermeneutics, they have developed a theory of origins called “theistic evolution” which basically says that everything secular scientists believe about our origins – the Big Bang, the millions of years, the gradual deposition of the geological column – are all true. The only difference is that theistic evolutionists add the qualifier, “God-did-it.”

There are several reasons I reject theistic evolution so I thought I'd make a post and discuss a few of them. I thought about making this a series; instead, I'm going to make all my points in one post. It's going to be longer than usual so I apologize in advance.

It is contrary to a plain reading of the Scriptures

One way to “reconcile” the Bible with evolution is to claim the creation account isn't meant to be understood “literally” but rather as a poem or a parable. Genesis, they will say, only tells us that God created everything but science tells us how. I beg to differ. The Bible very clearly tells us how; God spoke and it happened. Genesis 1 offers a detailed account of the creation week. It's very specific, detailing the events of each day: on the first day, evening and morning, God did this; on the second day, evening and morning, God did this; etc.

What other parts of the Bible do we read in the same way some Christians read Genesis? Think about these questions:

How many days was Jonah in the whale?

How many days was Lazarus dead?

How many days did Joshua march around Jericho?

How many days did God take to create the universe?

It's easy to answer the first three questions. It should be just as easy to answer the fourth. Yet, because some Christians put their faith in science above the revealed word of God, they get confused over what should be an easy question. How many days was Jonah in the whale? “Three,” they answer. How many days did God take to create the universe? “We don't know,” they answer. What? Um, yes, we do know!

A usual argument employed is to say that the word “day” can mean something other than a day. True, but it can also mean a day. In fact, it usually means a single day. When God commanded the Jews to work six days and rest the seventh (Exodus 20:8-10), do you think they asked themselves, “I wonder how long the Lord means by 'six days'?” In the same commandment (v. 11), the Bible says, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them.” In that context, how can anyone seriously suggest that “six days” really means “millions of years.” Genesis 1 modifies each use of the word "day" with the modifier, "1st day," "2nd day," etc. It also modifies each use with the phrase "morning and evening." When Genesis 1 so emphatically uses the word "day" in the same way we would describe an ordinary day, why should I even bother to consider that it means something other than a 24-hour day?

It diminishes the character of God

Evolution is a very slow, cruel process. Richard Dawkins describes nature this way:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives whimpering with fear, others are slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

An often spoken criticism used by atheists is, if God is good, why do bad things happen? To believe in evolution is to believe God intended the world to be full of death, disease, and suffering. It is saying that bad things happen because God wants them to happen and the bleak picture Dawkins paints of nature is exactly how God planned things to be. It would be a very capricious god who would waste billions of years of pain and extinction only to look back on everything he had made and describe it all as “very good” (Genesis 1:34).

There is also the fact that God said He made everything in six days as cited above. Theistic evolutionists often claim God simply explained the creation in terms that an unscientific people could understand. In other words, God is a liar and an imbecile, who couldn't figure out how to explain “billions” to uneducated readers so He just said, “six days.”

To say God used evolution to create us in an insult to who God is. I believe in the all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God of the Bible who spoke the universe into existence. How dare people make Him into the clumsy, cruel, and deceitful god of evolution!

It diminishes the sacrifice of Jesus

One reason some Christians capitulate on evolution is that they don't see it as an important issue. They claim the origins issue isn't relevant to salvation so let's not worry about that and just tell people about Jesus. What these same people don't realize is that our understanding of our origins has a direct effect on our understanding of Jesus.

Jesus came to fulfill the law. He said this overtly in Matthew 5:17, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. But what does it mean to “fulfill” the law? He accomplished this in several ways. A Savior was necessitated by Adam's sin in the garden. When Adam fell, he brought death into the world and death has passed on to all men because all have sinned (Romans 5:12). But even as God judged with the Curse, He also promised a Redeemer, the Seed of the woman who would crush the head of the Serpent (Genesis 3:15). Jesus fulfilled that promise.

When Adam and Eve sinned, the Bible says their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked (Genesis 3:7). They tried to cover themselves with fig leaves but God killed an animal and made skins to cover their nakedness. This is the first recorded death in the Bible and ushered in an era of sacrifices where the followers of God would sacrifice animals as a covering for their sins. But the system of sacrifices proscribed in the Old Testament was only temporary; they were pictures of the ultimate sacrifice that would come: Jesus, the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The death of Jesus did away with the need for animal sacrifices. He fulfilled the Law by covering our sins permanently with His own blood.

But what if there was no Adam? No first sin? No Fall? According to theistic evolution, death is just the way it's always been and not the judgment for sin. Then what did Jesus fulfill? It would be like having the answer to a question that was never asked. 1 Corinthians 15:45 says, “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” If the first Adam never lived, what need is there for a second Adam to quicken us? The Incarnation of Jesus was only necessary because there was a literal Adam; if you remove a real Adam, you diminish the need for Jesus. One, outspoken atheist, Frank Zindler, described it this way (as quoted by William Debski):

The most devastating thing, though, that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.

https://unsplash.com/@samuelmartins7

It gives the wrong impression of death

The Bible is very clear that death is the judgment for sin. There are several passages that illustrate this: For the wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, Romans 5:12. He which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, James 5:20, et al.

Christ conquered death for Christians but, for the lost, death still holds sway. We seldom know when death will overtake us so we need to make a decision for Jesus while we have the opportunity. If a person dies before he has repented, he has forever lost the opportunity for salvation. Ezekiel 18:21-23 says, “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” God wants all people to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). The certainty of death and the realization that we will someday be judged by God should create a sense urgency about our salvation.

In an interview with the NY Times, Bill Nye made these following comments:

NYE: I think the fear of death figures prominently in creationist thought. That the promise of eternal life is reassuring to people who are deeply troubled by the troubling fact that we’re all going to die. And it bugs me, too. But I press forward rather than running in circles screaming.

NY TIMES: And ultimately, death is a part of evolution.

NYE: It’s the key. The key is that you can pass on improvements by having kids. And there aren’t enough resources for any population to go completely unchecked, whether the population is humans or crickets. There isn’t enough for everybody, so you compete. And this is one of Darwin’s enormous insights.

According to Nye, death is the key to evolution. You see, it's not just that death happens during evolution, death is prerequisite to evolution. It's the hero of the story. Because it plays such a key role in evolution, some people almost regard death as noble. Biologos, a group that identifies itself as Christian, has an article titled, Death and Rebirth: The Role of Extinction in Evolution. Wow, “death and rebirth”! It almost seems to put evolution on equal footing with the Resurrection! In the article, the author makes this claim:

Extinction is actually a common feature of life on earth when viewed over long (e.g. geological) timescales. By some estimates, over 99% of the species that have ever lived have gone extinct [this is a lie, by the way].... Such an extinction event (of a single species, or perhaps a handful of species) alters the environment of other remaining species in an ecosystem. This, in turn, may influence the ability of some of these remaining species to reproduce compared to other species.... As the ecosystem landscape shifts due to loss of species, new biological opportunities, or niches, might arise. These new niches are then available to support new species to fill them.

There you go. Animals go extinct but that makes way for new animals to evolve. It's the circle of life. When a tsunami or earthquake kills thousands of people, critics often say that such tragedies are evidence there is no God. They also say that such events have happened frequently in the world's history and that they are mechanisms that give some species the opportunity to evolve.

The role of death in evolution is the complete opposite of what death truly is. Death is an intruder into the creation. It is the consequence of Adam's sin and later, of our own sins. It is an enemy that will one day be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26). Death should be dreaded by the lost and they should seek a way to avoid it. The gospel – the good news – is that there is life in Jesus!!