BELIEF IN EVOLUTION IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE AS MANY HAVE LEARNED

I have seen the way that theistic evolution (the belief that we can be a Christian and an evolutionist - TE) devastates the faith of believers, rendering the teachings of the Scriptures beyond comprehension (even making it subject to the “truths” of evolution). If Genesis 1-11 are not teaching history, along with theology, as TE claims, then all of teachings of the Scriptures will be regarded with uncertainty. Consequently, the beliefs of the TEs have become almost indistinguishable from their university community.

Let me try to explain how. Any lie will eventually requires other lies to cover for it. The same principle pertains to the TE claim that Genesis is not about history but merely about spiritual lessons. Let me give you one simple example to show how this claim will pervert our interpretations of even the NT. Jesus explicitly claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical as well as theological (and perhaps even poetical):

·       He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female (Gen. 1), 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] joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Had not God actually and historically created and joined Adam and Eve together, Jesus’ argument would have fallen apart.

Even worse, if Jesus’ words do not suffice to prove that He believed that the events of Genesis 1-11 are history, then there is little reason to think that any of NT commentary on these chapters should be regarded as an affirmation of their historicity.

The TE has taken the liberty to twist any verse into conformity with his initial twisting -  that Genesis 1-11 is not about history. However, once he takes this liberty, there is no end to other liberties he will take to bring Scripture into conformity with his worldview. However, by exercising such “liberty,” he can come up with just about any interpretation he wants. How does he justify this? By convincing Himself that we must judge the Scriptures from our own “superior” vantage point. What then happens to his faith?

Consequently, if the theological foundation of the Bible - Genesis - isn’t sound, nothing built upon it is sound and secure. Professor Karl Giberson, the former co-head of the Biologos Foundation, a TE group committed to advocating for evolution to the churches, had written:

·       Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science. Dennett’s universal acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred. (Saving Darwin, 9-10)

Giberson claimed that the corrosive power of evolution would now stop after he had kicked aside these foundation blocks. However, he had stepped out on a slippery slope which eventually led him to reject the God of the OT. By now, he might even be an atheist.