INTERPRETIVE PROBLEMS FOR THE “CHRISTIAN” EVOLUTIONIST

“Christian” evolutionists (CE), led by the Biologos Foundation, deny that Genesis is about historical facts. One just wrote:

·       Creationists…are proponents of the strictest form of biblical inerrancy and literalism. And in this mode they are actually advancing a mirror-image of scientism, in which God’s revelation, both in Scripture and in creation, is meant to convey a list of facts.

However, to deny the historical facts of Genesis is to encounter insurmountable interpretive problems. How then do we interpret the genealogies of Genesis if they are not historical, or the New Testament references to the creation account as historical? Can we understand these accounts when torn loose from their historical context? Let’s take a look at the account of the creation of Eve, which the Apostle Paul had certified as an historical event (1 Corinthians 11:7-8):

·       So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:21-24 ESV)

This had followed God’s proclamation that “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18) and then led Adam to examine the animal kingdom. Of course, Adam could not find a suitable match among them. He might have also observed that they each had their partners, something that God would remedy through the creation of a woman who would be closer to him – one flesh – than the animals were with their sexual partners. God often provides after awaking our longing, showing us our need.

Paul had also argued for role distinction based upon the historicity of this account:

·       For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:13-14, referring to Genesis 2 and 3)

Had these things not historically taken place, Paul’s reasoning would have been flawed at the core.

However, the CE comes equipped with a different interpretive context. Since Adam had evolved from a long line of pre-humans, he should already have been surrounded by numerous choices. What then does the CE make of the fact that Adam had been alone, and God had declared that it wasn’t good for him to be alone. Perhaps the CE might take this to mean that Adam’s female companions were just not moral, intelligent, or even educated enough for Adam?

Why then would God have Adam name and examine the animal kingdom for a helpmate, while he was surrounded by a range of eligible human/hominoid females to choose from, even perhaps his own sisters? And why would Adam be delighted when presented with Eve, unless she was the only female human available? Why would he say, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh?” Why hadn’t Adam been satisfied with the other female humans? Perhaps, he was a narcissist who was only delighted with a female made out of him.

What spiritual message does this impart? That narcissism is what God blesses? That we should consider cloning our future mates?

This, of course, is all ridiculous, but it should expose the CE fallacy. When the CE undermines the historical context in favor of the imposed context of evolution, it is impossible to arrive at the intended theological meaning.

After all, can we fault Cain for killing his brother Abel? Wasn’t it just a matter of the survival-of-the-fittest, in conformity with God’s grand plan of creation? When the CE rejects the historicity of Genesis, he also rejects the Word and wisdom of God. He is left in confusion, without the assurances of Scripture. Consequently, the CE imbibes the “truths” of his professional culture.