“Christian” evolutionists (CE), and this is how they refer to themselves, believe in both evolution and in the Bible. They claim that we can have both without compromising.
However, we should be quick to observe that the Bible presents, right at its foundation, a very different worldview. It claims that God created animals after six sets of days and nights, each producing after its own kind. Each had been an herbivore, and God considered everything He had created as “very good” (Genesis 1:31), suggesting that there had been no sin and death.
Meanwhile, evolution claims that God created through natural selection, the bloody quest for survival and dominance, over billions of years. This means that sin and death were from the beginning, part of the “glorious” plan that God had originated to create the species.
In contrast, the Bible holds that sin and death found its origin in Adam and Eve and the resulting Fall (Genesis 3; Romans 8:20-22). In other words, sin and death came because of our rebellion and not because of any fault in God’s plan.
Clearly, evolution is at odds with the Bible and its theology. If God’s ultimate plan had relied upon the survival-of-the-fittest, then who could blame Cain, evidently the fittest, for killing his relatively unfit brother, Abel! Besides, Christian theology depends on the Fall to explain the work of Jesus, the “second Adam.”
How does the CE reconcile these very evident tensions? Easy – the CE regards Genesis 1-11 as non-historical. According to their formulation, science is concerned about the physical world, while the Bible is concerned about the spiritual or theological world and not history or science. And since the two are dealing with entirely different worlds, there can be no possibility for contradiction, right?
Wrong! For one thing, the Bible makes no such distinctions. Instead, we find that theology is directly and inseparably connected to the physical world. For example, we cannot have a theology of the Cross without a history of the Cross – that Jesus actually and historically died on the Cross.
Besides, the contexts of the Bible argue persuasively that theology and history (the physical world) are interconnected. For example, the many genealogies tell us that Adam and Eve were historical:
· This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died. When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died. When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan. (Genesis 5:1-9; ESV)
This narrative also affirms the historicity of God created the first couple in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). And the problems of the CE do not stop here. Every time that the NT refers to the verses of Genesis 1-11, they invariably refer to them as an historical account of what actually happened. For example, when Jesus was asked about divorce, He answered:
· “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning [actually and historically] made them male and female [ Gen. 1:26-27], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has [historically and actually] joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)
Had God not actually and historically created and joined them, His argument against divorce would have immediately fallen apart with the simple challenge:
· Well, this is just a parable. Therefore, if God didn’t historically make them one, then we are free to divorce, since we are not undoing the work of God.
Therefore, to not regard Genesis 1-11 as history is to contradict the entire NT commentary on these chapters.
When I confront CEs with these insurmountable problems, they respond:
· We have to be humble about our interpretations.
If only they were as humble about the TOE! However, with such “humility,” they have condemned themselves to uncertainly about the entirety of the teachings of Scripture. If they cannot accept the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles at face value, they cannot accept anything that the Bible teaches. This leaves them in a state of confusion and uncertainly.
Consequently, since they are confused about the teachings of the Bible, they have left themselves vulnerable to everything that this world has been teaching them. As a result of this, I have observed that their views are indistinguishable from those of the educated elite, the universities.
I have challenged them about this on many CE Facebook groups and on numerous occasions, asking them, for instance, if they believed in same-sex marriage. None have ever answered this question in the negative.
I have also noted that they never evangelize the non-Christians who frequent their groups, until I shame them into doing so.
Why the reluctance? Without any confidence in their faith in Christ, they understandably will not put their neck out on the chopping block. They have condemned themselves to worldliness. And, if they lack the confidence to speak for Christ, they also lack the confidence to be a Christian in any area that might place them in opposition to their university-educated peers.
Consequently, they think that I am judging them. Although I do not tell them they are unsaved – I will leave that to our God who examines the heart – I point out their inconsistencies and compromises. In love, I think that this is the very thing that our Lord would do.