Monday, December 7, 2015


The Biologos Foundation, a “Christian” group committed to foisting evolution on the church, likes to feature coming-out stories. The latest are the confessions of Mario Russo, who had been a committed creationist but was “converted” at seminary into a committed Darwinist. (Although he doesn’t mention the seminary by name, Erskine Theological Seminary was his terminal seminary where he received his D.Min.

I eagerly read his coming-out testimony, awaiting the biblical evidence for his conversion. However, this is as close as he came:

·       "The opening chapters of Genesis were offering a story far greater and more majestic than I had ever realized. God wasn’t trying to discredit a scientific theory that didn’t even exist at the time Genesis was written. God was trying to show his people how incredible and powerful he was. He was giving his people a national identity and identifying himself as their God and King—not even a hint of anything to do with evolution."

According to Russo, God spent the opening chapters of Genesis to make only one point – “how incredible and powerful he was.”

Admittedly, biblical history contains theology. And the Genesis account is about theology, but it is also about history and how God created. Consequently, it does speak against evolution in a variety of ways:

1.     God spoke creation into existence (Gen. 1:3, 6, 9; Psalm 33:6, 9; 148:5). He didn’t evolve it through death and natural selection.

2.     Made created each species “after its own kind” (Gen. 1:12, 21) and not gradually by natural selection.

3.     There was no killing, and it was all “very good” (Gen. 1:31)

4.     Consequently, Adam and Eve had a relationship with God untainted by guilt and shame (Gen. 2:25).

There is no room for the survival-of-the-fittest, sin, and death in this portrait.  Instead, Genesis 3 makes it clear that we are at fault and not God’s original plan. Instead, evolution undermines the very foundations of biblical theology.

Did Russo derive a satisfying and comprehensive theology from his seminary experience? Evidently not! Paradoxically, he crows that:

·       "The fewer answers I had, the more wondrous God became."

Well isn’t seminary supposed to refine the mind and even provide answers? Instead, seminary seems to have mind-raped Russo, depriving him of his first love. However, Russo did derive some “answers” from his “education”:

·       When we speak of God as creator, we are speaking about the agency behind the cause. In other words, science gives us the mechanism by which life develops, and religion gives us the agency behind the mechanism. Science and religion are not in opposition to each other, but complement each other.

Of course, true science and Christianity aren’t in opposition. However, Russo has clearly assimilated the major selling technique of theistic evolution – that evolution and the Bible have distinct and non-overlapping sets of interests and, therefore, are not in opposition. While evolution is just concerned about the physical world, the Bible is just concerned about the spiritual.

This distinction, of course, is beyond ridiculous, as every serious evolutionist understands. Evolution is interested in everything – the evolution of morality, spirituality, and even religion. The Bible also demonstrates that there are no off-limits topics.

Sadly, even seminaries can be lethal to the faith. Just look at what has happened to Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, all of which had started as Bible Colleges.

No comments:

Post a Comment