WHAT DOES THE ABSENCE OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS SAY ABOUT DARWIN’S THEORY?

If macro-evolution is true, then gradual descent should be documented by the fossil record through “numberless transitional links.” Interestingly, Darwin confessed “the extreme imperfection of the geological record” – the utter absence of the necessary transitional forms. However, he believed that this “imperfection” would be corrected by subsequent fossil finds:

·       But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-view-of-the-fossil-record/

·       He who rejects these views on the nature of the [fossil] geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation.

Sadly, for Darwin and today’s evolution establishment, this “extreme imperfection” has become even more extreme to the point that some admit that the transitional forms just aren’t there.

Naturalistic Evolution and its Impact on Morality

What is the necessary impact of naturalistic evolution on morality? Evolutionist George Simpson affirmed:

·       Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.  He was not planned.  He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal…

Here are some moral implications to such a worldview:

1. If we are animals, then there is no reason to not treat us as animals. We cage animals and use them for experimentation. Why not also humans?

2. If we are just “a state of matter,” this deprives us of any dignity as humans. As such, we are just sophisticated wet machines. What happens when a machine no longer has a socially recognized use? It is thrown onto a junk heap.

3. If we are just the “result of a purposeless and natural process,” there is no intrinsic meaning or value to our lives. We therefore, do not have unalienable rights based upon the fact that we are created in the image of God. And without these rights, we have no intrinsic protections, but what society might temporarily grant.

4. If we have evolved, then some are more evolved than others. This has and will inevitably give rise to racism and its ill-effects.

Without God, there is absolutely no basis for objective moral law. Consequently:

1. We no longer can make any substantive moral judgments on anything, since we cannot say that there is any moral truth that judges rape, genocide, kidnapping… We cannot even say that ISIS’ conduct is wrong!

2. Psychologically, we condemn ourselves to a schizoid existence. In our heart, we know that rape is wrong, but in our mind, we believe that morality is just something that is made up.

3. We have deprived ourselves of our common moral language. There is no adequate way to determine who or what is right. We cannot blame our husband for beating us up, since, for him, the assault felt right. This will alienate people and undermine society.

4. Without objective morals, there can be no objective purpose to life. Therefore, purpose and meaning is something that is just subjective and will change as our feelings change. Our lives therefore are without stability and definition. Life then is reduced to the sensuous and the immediate where virtue can have little role to play.

5. We no longer have an adequate rationale to stand against our anti-social impulses. Why resist selfishness and why deprive ourselves if selfishness is just an idea we made up? Why resist hate and revenge if we think we can get away with it?

The Horrible Impact of Evolution on Morality

What is the impact of evolution on morality? One evolutionist wrote me:

·       Rape has a good side evolutionarily speaking. A strong sex drive perpetuates the species but is countered by the woman choosing an enhancing male, not an abandoning one. Genocide is good in hindsight if it unites peoples and makes survivors stronger. Not good for the annihilated tribes.

According to the “wisdom” of evolution, the most heinous behaviors are justifiable. If “rape has a good side,” well, I’m sure that many would not need their arm twisted too far to perform this “good” public service. Any reservations we might have will easily be overcome by this assurance that, by raping or killing, we are doing the “good” thing.

This is not merely an academic or ephemeral issue. It impacts our every-day lives. Serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, talked about the impact of evolution on how it released him from the grip of his very necessary inhibitions:

·       “As far as we know, we only have one life and we share this planet with billions of other life-forms that have the exact same purpose as we do.”

If evolution is true, then we are just another animal to be used for the benefit of the powerful.  His case is not isolated. Many have documented the destructive role played by evolution in our two World Wars.

This, in itself, doesn’t negate Darwinism. However, a theory that carries such a high price-tag should be re-examined.

The Impact of the Christian Evolutionist on the Church

Jesus criticized the religious leadership for slamming shut the door of salvation:

• "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.” (Matthew 23:13) 

How did they close salvation’s door?

• "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." (Luke 11:52)

They took away the “key of knowledge” which was intended to open the door to salvation. How did they do this? Did they destroy the Scriptures? They didn’t need to do that. They merely perverted its teachings, obscuring the beauty and clarity of the Word.

Today, we have a new crop of Pharisees and “teachers of the law.” These too are part of the educated elite, who “have taken away the key to knowledge.” Who are they and how have they done this? These are the theistic or “Christian” evolutionists (CEs). They have perverted Scripture by claiming that the first few chapters of Genesis are merely allegory and not creation history. Why do they take this position? Well, if Genesis is not really an account about how God created the physical world, but rather a spiritual allegory, then this allegory cannot contradict the claims of evolution! Therefore, we can live together happily ever after with both Darwin and the Bible.

You might think that this is only a trivial compromise, but it is not. The Jesus/Darwin marriage is a transaction that affects the entire body of Scripture. How? For one thing, the writers of the New Testament and Jesus regarded these early accounts as genuine history and not mere allegory. For example:

• Death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. (Romans 5:14)

• For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Timothy 2:13)

• For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

• So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)

• [Jesus] the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

• Enoch, the seventh from Adam. (Jude 1:14)

• When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.” (Acts 4:24)

• He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Hebrews 1:10)

• By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

• Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:3)

• In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (Hebrews 1:2)

• God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. (Romans 4:17) 

• Jesus replied, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Mark 10:5-9)

• “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. (Acts 17:26)

• For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

• But there is a place where someone has testified: "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?  You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." (Hebrews 2:6-8)

All of these verses regard to the first three chapters of Genesis as historical! (And we haven’t even examined the OT commentary on Genesis 1-3!) How does the CE respond? The CE often claims that the NT authors didn’t really regard the Genesis account as historical. Instead, they were merely using language – pious distortions - that they knew would be acceptable to their audience.

However, by resorting to such an interpretation, the CEs turn the NT into an absolute mystery. Everything written becomes suspect. Perhaps everything in the NT is not a matter of truth but pious manipulation. Perhaps Jesus really didn’t rise from the dead, as the Apostles had claimed. Perhaps the Apostles reported this so that the believer might have hope? The Bible then becomes a closed book, useless for little more than entertainment. However, the Bible consistently claims to be “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) and fully the product of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 2:20-21).

The CE has “taken away the key of knowledge.” They have closed the Bible, and they seem to be undaunted by this.

Do they understand what they are doing? Perhaps not! Jesus called the Pharisees “blind guides”:

• Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:12-14)

The Pharisees might have genuinely but blindly believed in what they were doing. Perhaps also the CE! In any event, they have done considerable damage to the church. Even Dale McGowan, Ph.D, Managing Editor of the Atheist Channel at Patheos, and author of Atheism For Dummies, acknowledges this, quoting Tullio Gregory:

• Once you cast doubt on man’s place in creation, the entire Biblical story of salvation history, from original sin to Christ’s incarnation, is also threatened. 

Even though he is a strong advocate for evolution, McGowan confesses that he is “conflicted” and troubled by message of BioLogos, a CE organization peddling evolution to the church:

• In a BioLogos video titled, “Adam and Eve: Engaging the Tough Questions,” an advisor notes that there are “a lot of proposals out there of when the first sin might have happened, what it might have looked like… we don’t have a simple answer on the question of the historical Adam…who were Adam and Eve, when did they live?” 

• This is always the first step in a crumbling theology – the suggestion that the answer is out there, it’s just very, very complicated. The problem is our ability to grasp the answer. But no worries, there are a lot of proposals. It all makes for an impressive simulacrum of rigor, an army of question marks in search of meaningful questions. 

As McGowen points out, Biologos has undermined both the clarity of the biblical message and the church’s assurance about it.

The CE has often counseled me that we “have to be humble about our interpretations of Scripture.” However, they are not at all humble about their dismissal of the first three chapters of Genesis as history. Nor are they humble about dismissing the NT’s clear assertions that Genesis is history. It would therefore seem reasonable to apply Paul’s invective to the CE:

• I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:6-8) 

Let us pray that they will no longer hide behind mystery or “that the answer is out there, [but] it’s just very, very complicated,” but would repent!

The “Christian” Evolutionist: Peddling Darwin to the Church

How does the theory of evolution impact Christianity? Bruce Malone, President of Search for the Truth, writes:

• “Acceptance of evolution is a poison which will destroy true Christianity. The evidence for this can be seen in the decline of the evangelical belief in Europe as the acceptance of evolution has increased.” 

Marvin Olasky, Editor in Chief, World Magazine, has also observed its impact:

• Disavowal of biblical teaching about creation is particularly serious because that perspective underlies so many other positions: In dozens of once-Christian colleges a slip-sliding-away from the first three chapters of Genesis has led to abandonment of the rest of the Bible. (World Mag. October 4, 2014, 60)

Why does this happen? The two worldviews (WV) are in direct opposition to each other. While the evolutionary WV posits a bloody fight for survival from the get-go, the Bible presents a picture of peace and harmony before the Fall. The living creatures didn’t evolve through a fight for survival. Instead, each species had been created according to its “own kind” (Genesis 1:12, 21, 25). Instead of pain and the shedding of blood, even the animals had been created as herbivores (Gen. 1:30). Humankind didn’t evolve but instead was directly created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7). Instead, of a world where every beast was fearfully fighting for its life, God regarded His entire creation as “very good” (Gen. 1:31). In fact, it was so good, that Adam and Eve went naked, experiencing no shame and no fear of being devoured. Nor did they devour. Death wasn’t introduced until sin brought it forth (Gen. 3). In fact, there is not a verse in the entire corpus of Scripture that gives the slightest encouragement to evolution!

How does the “Christian evolutionist” (CE; They used to call themselves “theistic evolutionists” until they realized that as “Christian evolutionists,” they could better gain acceptance in the churches.) explain this blatant contradiction? Easy! Create a false and deceptive distinction! They claim that evolution is only concerned about the physical world and the Bible is only concerned about the spiritual world. Miraculously, this contradiction disappears, since the two systems are concerned about entirely different things!

This, of course, is laughable. Evolution is quite interested in also explaining the origin of morality and religion (the spiritual world), while the Bible has a lot to say about the physical world! Just one example is necessary: A theology of the Cross (spiritual world) depends on the history (what actually happened in the physical world) of the Cross. If Jesus didn’t historically die on the Cross, there can be no theology of the Cross.

There are many other examples of the same thing. Clearly, Jesus understood Genesis 1-3 as teaching something about the physical (historical) world. And what God had accomplished in the physical world was essential to the spiritual or theological world. For example, when the Pharisees challenged him about divorce, He based His answer on the physical work of God in Genesis 1 and 2:

• "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' [quoting Gen. 1:26-27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together [quoting Gen. 2:24], let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6) 

If Jesus regards Genesis 1-3 as historical, Christians have little choice but to also regard these accounts as historical. Meanwhile the CE claims that they are allegorical. However, no New Testament book denies their historicity. (However, this doesn’t deny that they also have a deeper allegorical meaning.)

All of the NT regard Adam as historical, without giving the slightest indication that Adam might simply be allegorical. In fact, if Adam is merely allegory, then Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must also be allegorical, since they are connected by the same genealogy.

Meanwhile, CEs even deny the historicity of Adam and the Fall. CE Karl Giberson, past co-head of Biologos Foundation, wrote:

• 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)

Nevertheless, he assured his readers that he is still a Christian. However, a couple of years later, he wrote negatively of the Old Testament Deity as a:

• “tyrannical anthropomorphic deity,” “commanded the Jews to go on genocidal rampages…but who believes in this deity any more, besides those same fundamentalists who think the earth is 10,000 years old? Modern theology has moved past this view of God.” 

I suspect that most CEs have also “moved past this view of God.” The CE must not only deny Genesis chapters 1-3 but also everything that the NT says about these chapters. Also, by separating the Bible from the physical world, they have dismissed apologetics, the proof of the faith. Without the physical evidence, it is hard to prove the spiritual assertions of the Bible. Here’s one example:

• The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Romans claims that the evidence for both God’s existence and character have been made plain, so plain that no one has an excuse. However, against the claims of Scripture, the CE claims that the physical world offers no evidence of God. CE Ron Choong, founder of the Academy for Christian Thought, claims:

• Darwin suggested that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God. That is correct!

Well, if Choong is right, the Bible is wrong in claiming that we are “without excuse” for not recognizing the evidence for God’s existence.

The Apostle Paul had reasoned with the Athenians in favor of the goodness of God:

• Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." (Acts 14:17)

However, if unguided evolution is a fact, Paul’s argument about the goodness of Paul is wrong. The Athenians then should thank evolution (or chance) and not the hand of God for these “blessings!”

In fact, if the CE is correct, the entire worldview of the Bible has been undermined, as Giberson suggested. Instead, Paul claimed that Jesus is the “second Adam,” reversing the death that Adam had brought into the world:

• For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) 

If the Bible is wrong about Adam and how he introduced death into the world, what reason do we have to believe that it is right about Jesus! Jesus’ work corrects the evil done under Adam. According to the worldview of the CE, Jesus’ work, since it didn’t reverse the Fall, must have reversed the death and struggle for survival introduced by the Father’s original bloody creation design! Of course, such a notion is theologically unsupportable.

Paul also supported the Genesis account of death and the Fall in this way:

• For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Romans 8:20-21) 

Romans does not claim that creation had been created in “frustration” and “bondage to decay.” Instead, it claims that creation was “subjected to frustration” and “decay” by God’s will in agreement with the Genesis 3 account of the Fall.

However, these insurmountable problems have not stopped the CE from pushing Darwin into the church and regarding it as ignorant, as Ron Choong does:

• Darwinism exposes Christianity’s weakness in keeping up with the growing scientific knowledge. We use the fruits of scientific technology and blissfully ignore its implications for a contemporary and comprehensive worldview.

Why doesn’t the CE care about the very obvious contradictions between these oppositional worldviews? Jesus alerted us to the dangers about serving two masters:

• "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:24)

The CE has made it abundantly obvious which master has won his devotion.