Books
Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution
By Brett A. Rutherford
Lesson Thirteen
Is Theistic Evolution a Reasonable Compromise
What is Theistic Evolution?
Theistic evolution is an attempt to insert evolutionary elements into Divine creation. Proponents of this bizarre theory believe that God created the world using the mechanisms of evolution. In other words, God created the primeval ooze from which plants, animals and man would evolve. Their transmutation was then controlled by the Divine Creator until they reached maturity.
In a Wisconsin State Journal article on the place of evolution in the public schools, Joe Zaiman, co-chairman of the science department at Edgewood High School in Madison, Wisconsin summed up the views of the theistic evolutionists as he spoke of his approach to the issue of origins:
I really enjoy teaching evolution. If anything, I’m exploring the beauty of God’s creation. Nothing in the theory of evolution contradicts my faith. I have no trouble believing that God created all living things, including humans, and my best guess is that He used evolution to do it. It seems to be a good process.153
Another theistic evolutionist, Howard Van Till of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan stated: “Creation and evolution are not contradictory. They provide different answers to a different set of questions.”154 Even the head of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, has shown his support of theistic evolution. In 1996 he remarked that “fresh knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.”155
This unusual compromise takes two forms. In the first place, some theistic evolutionists believe that the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis are not to be taken literally. They hold the Biblical account of creation, the fall of man, and the subsequent destruction of mankind by a universal flood are myth, or an allegory. In the second place, there are some theistic evolutionists who would not necessarily deny that the first eleven chapters of the Bible are fact. However, they do believe the six days of creation are not 24 hour periods. Those who hold to this view present the days of creation as long periods of time. In other words, they believe each day of creation represents a lengthy period (perhaps millions of years) which would allow the Divinely controlled mechanisms of evolution to take place. This latter approach to origins is more commonly referred to as the Day-Age theory.
Where Did this Theory Originate?
It might surprise some to learn that the father of this school of thought is the great fifth century theologian, Augustine. In his work, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argued that the days of creation were not ordinary days. He also put forth the notion that the order of creation found in the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally. The fact that the Genesis account records the sun was made on the fourth day is listed by Augustine as proof for his theory. He reasoned that a day as we know it could not have existed until the sun was created to rule the day.
Augustine wrote that God “made all things together, disposing them in an order based not on intervals of time but on causal connections.” In other words, the days of creation are not literal 24 hour periods. He also argued that God created certain things fully developed while other things were made in “potential form.”156
Alfred Russel Wallace, who simultaneously formulated the theory of natural selection with Charles Darwin, also believed in a form of theistic evolution. Wallace believed natural selection was the mechanism by which all living creatures evolved with the exception of man. Although Wallace believed in human morphology, he attributed human change to Divine control. In other words, he believed that God guided man’s evolution while natural selection was the means by which animals and plants evolved.157 In this regard, Wallace differed from Darwin who applied natural selection to human evolution.
What are the Flaws in Attempting to Combine Evolution and Creationism into One Theory?
In the first place, theistic evolution is fundamentally anti-Biblical. Theistic evolutionists who hold to the Day-Age theory cannot support this idea by the facts of the text, nor can it be upheld by the original Hebrew. In Genesis chapter one, the Hebrew word “yom” is used to divide the activity of creation. This word is properly translated into English as “day.” According to Dr. Henry Morris:
In the Hebrew Old Testament ‘yom’ without exception never means ‘period.’ It normally means either a day (in the twenty-four hour sense), or else the daylight portion of the twenty-four hours (‘day’ as distinct from ‘night’). It may occasionally be used in the sense of indefinite time (e.g., ‘in the time of the judges’), but never as a definite period of time with a specific beginning and ending. Furthermore, it is not used even in this indefinite sense except when the context clearly indicates that the literal meaning is not intended.158
Furthermore, the text defines the length of each of the days of creation. In Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31 it is clearly stated that the six days of creation had an evening and a morning. If these days are long geological periods, does this mean there were millions of years of daylight followed by millions of years of darkness (evening)? How would those things God created during the years of daylight survive the millions of years of darkness? Life needs light to survive! Therefore, this theory requires a greater creation miracle than even a literal interpretation of the Bible demands! If one is going to believe in miracles why not just accept that God created the earth in six literal days? It makes more sense!
The length of each of the days of creation is defined once again in the Bible by Moses in Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” In other words, God created the world in six days to set the pattern for what would later become the Jewish work week. If the days of creation were long geological ages, consisting of millions of years, does that mean the Jews had to labor for six geological ages before they could rest?
Some theistic evolutionists who understand that the Genesis account of creation cannot be reasonably twisted to suit their theory simply dismiss the first eleven chapters of Genesis as myth or allegory. This view, if true, not only makes a liar out of Moses, but it also infers that the apostles Peter and Paul were not completely honest! In 1 Peter 3:20,21 the apostle describes the horrible events of the universal flood of Genesis 6-9 as if they had actually taken place. Was Peter misinformed?
According to theistic evolutionists, Paul also made a huge blunder when he wrote in 1 Timothy 2:13 that “...Adam was formed first, then Eve.” This cannot be right! Is the great apostle implying that Adam evolved into maturity before Eve? Obviously, Paul means that Adam was instantaneously formed from dust before Eve was created in a single moment from Adam’s rib. If the theory of theistic evolution is right, then Paul also made a mistake when he wrote in 2 Timothy 3:15 that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Obviously, if Peter, Paul and Moses lied, then all Scripture cannot be inspired of God for God would not give these men a message that was untrue (Titus 1:2).
More importantly, if theistic evolutionists are going to be consistent, then they will also have to accuse our Lord and Savior of deceit. Jesus Christ very clearly states, “but from the beginning of creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). This statement denies that man evolved over a period of millions of years. Christ believed God created man and woman in their mature physiological form from the beginning.
If the accounts of Moses, Peter, Paul and Jesus cannot be trusted, then one would be a great fool to believe any of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists have essentially undermined their own system of faith.
Another theological dilemma in which theistic evolutionists find themselves entangled relates to the soul. The spirit is that divine characteristic which separates man from the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:16,17, Ecclesiastes 3:20,21). Theistic evolutionists believe man has an eternal soul. However, their theory cannot explain when God gave him a spirit. Since the soul is that defining quality that separates man from the animal world, at what stage did man rise above the animal kingdom? This is not a problem for those who believe in a literal rendering of Genesis, chapter one, for man clearly received his soul at the moment of his creation. However, theistic evolutionists cannot decide at which stage in “human morphology” man received a soul. Did Australopithecus have a soul, or did man not obtain a spirit until the “Homo erectus” stage? Perhaps man slowly evolved a spiritual condition. Clearly, theistic evolution poses only problems and solves none!
In the second place, theistic evolution is an unreasonable theory because it is completely unscientific. This book has dedicated seven chapters to the exposure of the fraudulent nature of the so-called evidence for human evolution. There is not a shred of scientific proof which indicates that all life evolved from a single biological form. Remember, evolution is a theory! By definition, a “theory” is “unsubstantiated conjecture.” If evolution has no scientific basis, then theistic evolution is also unfounded.
Conclusion
Of course, evolutionists and theistic evolutionists are quick to point out that the Bible is not a textbook of scientific detail. Theistic evolutionist Nancy Piraino says of the Bible and creationism: “It is based on faith.” She went on to say, “The theory of evolution is based on science. To me that’s a very clear line.”159 One cannot say enough about the ignorance of this statement! Although it is true that the Bible is not intended to be a scientific textbook, it does not mean that it is scientifically inaccurate. It is also true that accepting the Genesis account of creation is a matter of faith. However, it is a faith that is grounded firmly in supporting evidence. Despite what Piriano has said, the acceptance of the theory of evolution is also a matter of faith. Sadly, it is a faith without supporting evidence. Therefore, an evolutionist exhibits greater faith than a creationist. As the great orator and statesman, William Jennings Bryan wrote: “If evolution were true, every square foot of the earth’s surface would teem with conclusive proof of change. The entire absence of proof is the strongest possible proof that evolution is a myth.”160
Could God have used the mechanisms of evolution to create the world? The answer is “yes.” Did God use the mechanisms of evolution to create the world? The answer is “no!”
Review Questions
1. What is theistic evolution?
2. What prominent religious leader publicly proclaimed he believed in a form of theistic evolution?
3. What are the two forms of theistic evolution?
4. Who is the father of theistic evolution?
5. What prominent scientific figure believed in a form of theistic evolution?
6. Give the definition of the Hebrew word “yom.”
7. How does the Genesis text define the length of the days of creation?
8. Why would there be a difficulty if the evenings of the days of creation represented millions of years?
9. Aside from the Genesis account, which other Old Testament text in the Bible indicates the days of creation were literally 24 hour periods?
10. What great men of God appear to be liars if theistic evolution is true?
11. How do we know Jesus Christ did not believe in any form of theistic evolution?
12. What other great theological dilemma do the theistic evolutionists face because of their theory?
13. What is the chief characteristic of man which separates him from the animal kingdom?
14. Is theistic evolution scientifically reasonable?
15. Because the Bible is not intended to be a scientific textbook, does that imply that it is scientifically inaccurate?
16. Who has more faith: the evolutionists or the creationists?
|
