Category Archives: Evolution

Could God Have Used Evolution?

Posted on by

Ken Ham in a facebook post October 27, 2023 writes:

Could God have used evolution? Well, first of all, it’s not a matter of what God could have done but what he said he did. Secondly, if a Christian truly understands evolution and its processes of death, disease, and violence over millions of years, and understands the attributes of a holy God, then, no—God couldn’t have used evolution to create life. To do so would be against his own character.

Many Christians today claim that millions of years of earth history fit with the Bible and that God could have used evolutionary processes to create. This idea is not a recent invention. For over 200 years, many theologians have attempted such harmonizations in response to the work of people like Charles Darwin and Scottish geologist Charles Lyell before him, who helped popularize the idea of millions of years of earth history and slow geological processes.

When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritative, and the character of our loving God is questioned.

Already in Darwin’s day, one of the leading evolutionists saw the compromise involved in claiming that God used evolution, and his insightful comments are worth reading again. Once you accept evolution and its implications about history, then man becomes free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he wants to accept.

The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular scientific thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.

In his essay “Lights of the Church and Science,” Huxley stated,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history…what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?”

Huxley made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.

Huxley was definitely out to destroy the truth of the biblical record. When people rejected the Bible, he was happy. But when they tried to harmonize evolutionary ideas with the Bible and reinterpret it, he vigorously attacked this position. He stated:

“I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately among ‘types’ and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the stories in question or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as a matter of fact, that ‘the Flood came and destroyed them all,’ did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage: and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of ‘Wolf’ when there is no wolf?“

Huxley also quoted 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

Huxley continued, “If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Promethean mythos, what value has Paul’s dialectic?

Thus, concerning those who accepted the New Testament doctrines that the Apostle Paul and Christ teach but rejected Genesis as literal history, Huxley claimed “the melancholy fact remains, that the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable.”

He was adamant that science (by which he meant evolutionary, long-age ideas about the past) had proven that one cannot intelligently accept the Genesis account of creation and the flood as historical truth. He further pointed out that various doctrines in the New Testament are dependent on the truth of these events, such as Paul’s teaching on the doctrine of sin, Christ’s teaching on the doctrine of marriage, and the warning of future judgment. Huxley mocked those who try to harmonize evolution and millions of years with the Bible, because it requires them to give up a historical Genesis while still trying to hold to the doctrines of the New Testament.

The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other, diseases like cancer in their bones, violence, plants with thorns, and so on. All of this supposedly took place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, and so on) entered the world.

Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth—it is not the loving God of the Bible. Even many conservative, evangelical Christian leaders accept and actively promote a belief in millions and billions of years for the age of rocks. How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease, suffering, and death for millions of years as part of his “very good” creation?

The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus, when Christians compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, they are, in that sense, seemingly worshipping a different god—the cruel god of an old earth.

People must remember that God created a perfect world; so when they look at this present world, they are not looking at the nature of God but at the results of our sin.

The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace, and love, sent his one and only Son to become a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sin bearer so that we could be saved from sin and eternal separation from God. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

There’s no doubt—the god of an old earth destroys the gospel.

Now it is true that rejection of six literal days doesn’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the big picture.

In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked, once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.

As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).

The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions. Is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority?

So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is no. A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also impugns the character of God. He told us in the book of Genesis that he created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by his word: “Then God said . . .” His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and his Word is incredibly clear.

Can You Love Theistic Evolutionists?

Posted on by

An article by Ken Ham:

I have been traveling around the world and speaking on creation-apologetics for over 40 years. I’ve also been on many media interviews and radio talk shows during that time. I’ve met thousands of people. You could imagine that during all this time I have been asked a lot of questions relating to what I teach concerning Genesis chapters 1-11, the authority of Scripture, and the gospel. Surely by now you would think I’ve heard every question possible. But no, I think almost every week I’ll hear a question I haven’t been asked before.

During one of my trips to Australia, a reporter with a Christian media outlet had some different questions for me. I think you’ll be very interested in these questions and how I did my best to answer them. Often, after answering certain questions, I said to myself, “I need to remember how I answered that for next time!”

I always pray for wisdom and ask the Lord to help me answer new questions, and I do believe he also helps me recall things I’ve heard or read.

I’ve been in apologetics ministry for more than 40 years. My first creation-apologetics talk was in 1975. Along the way, I’ve had so many media interviews, I can’t remember most of them—TV broadcasts, radio programs, and newspaper and magazine interviews across the globe!

In a sense, I have learned to deal with being thrown to the wolves in this Answers in Genesis ministry. I’ve had to learn how to answer the most-asked questions about Genesis, creation, evolution, Noah’s flood, moral issues, the gospel, biblical authority, and so forth and do it quickly. And we hear many of those questions over and over again. That’s why we complied the 5 Answers Books to answer these most asked questions.

Actually, being out of the office and teaching in churches and colleges and interacting with Christian and secular media certainly hones our ability to answer new and sometimes difficult questions.

Over the years, every time I hear a question that I don’t know the answer to, I follow up with research, sometimes meeting with our resident scientists/theologians at AiG. We discuss the topic to ensure I can answer the question even better next time.

But let’s get to the interview I had with a reporter for a Christian media group in Australia.

The media outlet heard I was speaking at a conference in Sydney and contacted the church to ask if a reporter could talk to me. The reporter called me a couple of days later, and I spent nearly an hour on the phone with her. I wasn’t able to record the conversation, but I took careful notes and compiled them to the best of my ability.

I wasn’t surprised that it didn’t take long for her to ask a question about whether I believe someone has to believe in six literal days and a young earth to be a Christian. I emphatically stated that salvation is not conditional on the age of the earth or the six literal days, but on faith in Christ. I explained why it’s really a biblical authority issue, and I gave her many examples of how incompatible millions of years is with Genesis.

But then she asked a question that I must admit I had never been asked before, “Can you love theistic evolutionists?”

I told her I had recently spoken at a secular university (the University of Central Oklahoma) with many of the LGBTQ group from the university present. I told the crowd that as a Christian, I didn’t hate them, because I’m a Christian. And as Jesus tells us, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. However, I told the audience that I disagreed with the LGBTQ worldview—but that should never be interpreted as hate. I then said to the reporter, “I can love LGBTQ people, and I can love theistic evolutionists.”

Sensing why the reporter might be asking the question, I added that because I speak boldly about what I believe, sometimes people will falsely interpret my beliefs as hate. I often find that those who don’t take AiG’s stand on Genesis will demand we agree that people can have different views. I told the reporter that Christians can have different views, but I’ll tell them why I believe those views are wrong—and how they undermine biblical authority! Sometimes people get angry when I respond like this, and they may even, ironically, show hate toward me! They want me to say their position is a valid one. But I can’t do if I do not believe it!

I explained to the reporter why such matters are biblical authority issues. In detail, I pointed out that adding man’s ideas to Scripture in Genesis is undermining the authority of the Word of God—that it undermines all Christian doctrine, even the gospel.

The reporter asked me many other questions, and she got to the topic of climate change. Now, I would say that this was the only time during the interview when I believe things became somewhat contentious with this Christian reporter. (Climate change can be an emotional topic.)

First, I told her there’s been climate change ever since the flood. I said I didn’t deny climate change, but the details as to why it’s happening and how serious it is (or isn’t) were matters that needed to be discussed. I referred to one of the articles in our Answers magazine where a scientist shows that there have been warming and cooling periods in the past and that our current (quite small) warming trend could be a normal fluctuation.

I further explained that we don’t have enough data to know for sure what has really been occurring. I added that scientists know the sun’s activity has a significant effect on climate change and that the main greenhouse gas is not actually carbon dioxide but water vapor.

Then it became a bit tense. I said that if you ask most people who are climate change alarmists (including most young people) to explain the data and give the facts behind what they’re claiming, most have no clue. They just regurgitate what they’ve heard.

She then said something to the effect that she didn’t need to do that. The reporter said that she could rely on the experts who have done the research. I replied that this is not the correct approach and that as Christians, we all need to search things out and be prepared to give reasons (1 Peter 3:15) for what we believe.

I told her my father wanted his kids to know why we believed what we did—and wanted us to be able to defend our beliefs. She then essentially accused me of refusing to accept what the majority of scientists are saying: that man-made climate change is a big problem.

I replied by saying that the majority of scientists say there’s no God and that life arose by naturalistic evolution. Should we then say we have to reject God because the majority of scientists say so? I emphasized that we are obligated as Christians to check things out.

I also explained that after the Flood, God told Noah, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).

She responded with, “Are you saying we should do nothing then?” Well, of course I wasn’t saying that. I responded that God gave man dominion over the environment, not the environment over man, and that Christians should have a biblically based worldview in regard to environmental issues. We should responsibly use the creation for man’s good and God’s glory.

I gave an example that in the USA, trees are harvested for various reasons, but more trees are planted than are harvested. I also said that we need to understand how sin and the curse of Genesis 3:14-19 have affected the world.

I recalled the verse, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Actually, that’s a major problem in the world and in the church! One of the reasons so many young people are being led astray by evolutionary ideas, climate change alarmists, abortionists, the LGBTQ movement, and so forth is that they have been told what to believe and not taught how to think about such issues or look at all the evidence available. And sadly, much of the church has not taught their congregations how to think about these issues from a biblical worldview perspective, and how to defend the Christian faith against the secular attacks of our day by equipping with apologetics.

All “Very Good”?

Posted on by

Ken Ham:

Does God call cancer “very good?”

Does God call arthritis “very good?”

Does God call abscesses “very good?”

Does God call tumors “very good?”

Did thorns exist before the fall?

Did animals eat other animals before the fall?

For those Christians who believe in millions of years, then the answers to the above questions are “Yes” to all!

Before I explain this, we first of all need to understand how we should define the word “good.” Let’s consider this passage:

“And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone’” (Mark 10:17–18).

Only God is “good.” This means the attributes of God define what the word “good” means.

From reading through the Scriptures, we learn God is infinite, self-existing, never changes, has no needs, all knowing, all powerful, all loving, everywhere, infinitely wise, unchangingly kind, full of good will, perfect in all he does, compassionate and merciful, perfect in all his ways, infinitely beautiful.

So when God defines anything as “very good,” then it must be exceedingly good. It must mean perfect and beautiful.

In Genesis 1:31 we read, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”

Now “everything that he had made” includes everything created over the six days in Genesis 1. And as we read in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

God’s Word makes it clear that everything God created, from the earth, to the plants, stars, animals, and man were all “very good.” They were perfect at the beginning.

Here’s an insurmountable problem for those Christians who believe the fossil record was laid down over millions of years before man.

First, the belief in millions of years came out of naturalism, the religion of atheism. Atheists postulated that fossil layers were laid down over millions of years by natural processes (no supernatural involved), capturing evidence of life as it supposedly evolved.

Secondly, in the fossil record there are many instances documented of disease like cancer, tumors, arthritis, and abscesses in the remains of various creatures. So, if a Christian believes in millions of years, then such diseases existed over millions of years before man existed. Now the Bible tells us as I quoted above that after God made everything including man, he said everything he made was “very good.” Thus, those Christians who believe in millions of years have to admit that this would mean God calls diseases like cancer, tumors, arthritis, and abscesses as “very good.”

There is no way God calls diseases “very good.” Death and disease exist in this fallen world because of sin. Death is described as an “enemy” in 1 Corinthians 15:26. Death is an intrusion! That’s why one day it will be thrown into the lake of fire. Romans 8:22 tells us the whole creation is groaning because of sin. To accuse God of saying diseases like cancer are “very good” and to accuse God of using death as part of the process of creating life, is to attack the very character of God.

Those Christians who believe in millions of years also therefore can’t get around that this means when we look at this world of death, suffering and disease, then God must be responsible for this. But the Bible makes it clear our sin is responsible of this groaning creation. That’s why Jesus came to die on a cross because death was the penalty for sin.

Thirdly, those who believe in millions of years have to then answer the question, “what did sin do to the world?” If all that death, suffering and disease existed before man sinned, then what did sin do? Apparently nothing that we observe in this groaning world is because of sin!!!!

Fourthly, there are two more items.

1. The Scripture teaches plainly that thorns came after the curse because of man’s sin:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;”(Genesis 3:17–18)

But there are many examples of fossil thorns supposedly formed millions of years ago!

No, you can’t have thorns millions of years before man.

2. The Scripture teaches plainly that animals were vegetarian before the fall.

“And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.”(Genesis 1:30).

But there are many examples of animals having eaten other animals or in the midst of eating another creature in the fossil record supposedly millions of years before man and before man sinned.

No, you can’t have animals eating each other before the fall.

Christians who compromise God’s Word and undermine its authority with the belief in millions of years need to give it up and take God at his Word.

Origins

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Jason Lisle conducts a number of lectures on the theme of origins at Indian Hills Community Church, Lincoln, NE (2019):

Understanding Genesis

Secrets of the Cosmos that Confirm the Bible

The Solar System Declares the Glory of God

The Ultimate Proof of Creation

Science Confirms Biblical Creation

The Secret Code of Creation

Questions and Answers

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin

Posted on by
Reply

While there is much I would disagree with in this discussion, the conversation between the three gentlemen here (David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer) is certainly fascinating. Peter Robinson poses the questions.

My takeaway – Evolution is a theory in crisis. Actually, it is stone cold dead in the water.

“How cleanly and quickly can the (scientific) field get over Darwin, and move on? This is one of the most important questions facing science in the twenty-first century.” – David Galernter, Claremont Review of Books

Evangelical Evolution?

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Dr. Richard D. Phillips, senior minister of Second Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Greenville, SC and the chairman of the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology (source: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2019/06/evangelical-evolution.php )

Given what World Magazine once called a “major, well-funded push” to promote the acceptance of evolution among evangelical Christians, the case must be persuasively made against the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. In answer to a pro-evolutionary stance, I am one of those Bible teachers who believe that the implications of evolution involve sweeping changes to the Christian faith and life.  

While I appreciate the moderate spirit of many who want to find a way to accept evolution alongside the Bible, I find that the more radical voices are here more helpful.  For instance, I share the view of Peter Enns in the conclusion to his book The Evolution of Adam, writing that “evolution… cannot simply be grafted onto evangelical Christian faith as an add-on,” but requires a fundamental rethinking of doctrines pertaining to creation, humanity, sin, death, and salvation.  But Christian ethics must also be revised.  Enns writes that under evolution “some characteristics that Christians have thought of as sinful,” including “sexual promiscuity to perpetuate one’s gene pool,” should now be thought of as beneficial.  Even so foundational an issue as the Christian view of death must be remolded by evolution.  An evolution-embracing Christian faith must now see death as an ally: “the means that promotes the continued evolution of life on this planet.” 

I am not a qualified scientist and have virtually nothing to contribute to the science involved in evolution.  As a Bible teacher and theologian, my concern is the necessary beliefs that flow from the Word of God.  For the ultimate issue involved with evolution is biblical authority: must the Bible submit to the superior authority of secularist dogma? Or may the believer still confess together with Paul: “Let God be true though everyone were a liar” (Rom. 3:4).  From this perspective, I plan a short series of articles arguing against the idea that evolution is biblically acceptable.  

Evolution vs. Genesis 1

The first topic to consider is our reading of Genesis 1.  It is frankly admitted by evolution supporters that anything like a literal reading of Genesis 1 rules out evolutionary theory.  As Tim Keller wrote for Biologos: “To account for evolution we must see at least Genesis 1 as non-literal.”  I would alter that somewhat, since the issue really is not the absolute literalness of everything we read in Genesis.  Rather the question is whether or not Genesis 1 is a historical narrative that intends to set forth a sequence of events.  Evolution requires that Genesis 1 is teaching theology but not teaching history.  But is this an acceptable categorization of Genesis 1?

First, though, does an historical Genesis 1 rule out evolution?  The answer is Yes.  Consider Genesis 1:21, which records that God created species by means of direct, special creation: “God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.”  These “kinds” are species, which did not evolve from lower forms but were specially created by God.  This special creation is highlighted in the case of the highest creature, man: “God created man in his own image; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27).  If these verses are presenting a record of history, it is a history radically at odds with the history posed by evolutionary theory.

This raises the question as to the genre of Genesis 1.  Literary scholars teach the widely accepted view that different kinds of literature cue different reading expectations.  So what is the genre of Genesis 1?  According to those who support evolution, Genesis 1 functions as a poetic rather than historical genre.  The argument is that Genesis 1 employs highly stylized language and a repetitive structure.  Keller’s white paper argues that Genesis 1 is like the Song of Miriam in Exodus 15 or the Song of Deborah in Judges 5.  It corresponds to more historical chapters by presenting a poetic rendition that must not be taken as the history itself.  Just as Exodus 14 tells the history of the Red Sea crossing, followed by the Song of Miriam in Exodus 15, so does Genesis 1 relate to the more historically acceptable version of Genesis 2 (a subject that will be treated in a later article).  Given this poetic form, Genesis 1 may be ruled out as teaching historical events.

The problem with this view is this: 1) there is a recognizable form to Old Testament poetry and; 2) Genesis 1 is not written in this form.  You can see this by reading Genesis 1 and then reading the Song of Deborah.  

Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Judges 5:1-3 Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day: “That the leaders took the lead in Israel, that the people offered themselves willingly, bless the Lord!  “Hear, O kings; give ear, O princes; to the Lord I will sing; I will make melody to the Lord, the God of Israel.

These passages are not written in the same genre.  I would point out in passing, however, that while Judges 5 certainly is a poem, the history it presents is nonetheless true.  This observation challenges the idea that to label a chapter as poetry serves immediately to remove its historical value.  Judges 5:26 celebrates Jael slaying Sisera: “she struck Sisera; she crushed his head; she shattered and pierced his temple.”  That is pretty much what Judges 4:21 says happened.

While defending the historical potential of poetry, that subject is not germane to Genesis 1.  The reason for this is that the Bible’s first chapter has a different genre, namely, historical prose narrative.  Old Testament poetry is shaped by parallelism and repetition.  Consider Psalm 27:1: “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?  The Lord is the stronghold of my life; of whom shall I be afraid.”  Hebrew poetic parallelism involves the second line interpreting or expanding the meaning of the first.  This is not what we see in the narrative of Genesis 1.

It takes great effort to deny that Genesis 1 fits the genre of historical narrative.  Here, we see a structure consisting of a series of waw consecutive verbs.  The waw is the Hebrew letter V, which means “and” when attached to the front of a verb.  When attached to a noun it is disjunctive  — it stops the narrative flow.  When it is consecutive, before a verb, the waw advances the narrative flow.  “This happened and then this happened and then this happened.”  This is what we find in Genesis 1: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good.  And God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen. 1:3-4). Given this construction, literary guides to the Bible commonly identify Genesis as “an anthology, or collection, of stories” in which “narrative is the primary form.” Therefore, just like so many other chapters in the Bible which contain divine wonders that the unbeliever will reject, Genesis sets itself forth as recording events from history. Christians are expected to read accounts like this and believe that what is recorded actually happened, however contrary to secularist expectations.

A challenge to this view comes from Jack Collins’ description of Genesis 1 as “exalted prose narrative.”  On the one hand, he admits “that we are dealing with prose narrative… [and] the making of truth claims about the world in which we live.” On the other hand, he says the chapter presents an “exalted” form of writing.  The reason for this is because of “the unique events described and the lack of other actors besides God” and also because of “the highly patterned way of telling it all.” By this latter point he means the structure of successive days and the morning/evening pattern.  Because of these features, Collins assets that “we must not impose a ‘literalistic’ hermeneutic on the text.” By this, he means believing that the events happened as the text says they did.  But why the exalted features overthrow the normal way of reading the text is not made evident.  Might the exalted nature of the narrative be a function of the event itself: God’s unique creation of all things?  Wouldn’t we expect an account of this to be “exalted” simply by virtue of the stupendous events?  And what other actors than God might there be in such an account?  

The reality is that the genre of Genesis 1 is the same as the genre of Genesis 2through 50: historical narrative.  Therefore the arguments used to remove the historicity of Genesis 1 must inevitably apply equally to the whole of Genesis, with all its teaching about God and man that is opposed to secularist dogma, including the Fall of Adam, Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel, and God’s covenant of salvation with Abraham.  All of these narratives are highly stylized accounts involving exalted and unusual themes, at least from our perspective.  

There is a reason, of course, for isolating Genesis 1 from the rest of the book.  Admittedly, it is more “exalted” a narrative than others – it is the creation account!  But Genesis 1 is also the chapter that most stands in the way of the theory of evolution, for which scholars are determined to find room by warning against “highly literalistic” readings – i.e. ones that take the narrative seriously as history.  And when Genesis 1has been neutralized, the same approach can be applied to other pesky narratives like Genesis 3 and the Fall of Adam.  After all, there can be no Adam when evolution has been accommodated accepted by our reading of Genesis 1.  So now the danger of a “highly literalistic” reading has advanced to chapter 3.  But, wait, the flood narrative cannot be taken seriously in light of today’s science and that narrative is highly structured, too.  It will not take too long before the entire book of Genesis is reduced to historical rubbish.

One of the grand motives, I believe, for accommodating evolution in Genesis 1 is so that evangelicals can stop arguing about science and start teaching about Jesus.  But do we fail to note that Jesus’ story begins in Genesis 1?  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…” (Jn. 1:1).  In fact, when the interpretive approach used to neutralize Genesis 1 as history is necessarily extended by evolution, then the reason for Jesus’ coming is lost?  After all, without a biblical Adam as the first man and covenant head of the human race, then what is the problem for which the Son of God came?  Here we see just how right Peter Enns is: evolution is not an add-on to the Bible, it is a replacement.

Is Evolution a Viable Option Scientifically?

Posted on by
Reply

https://verticallivingministries.com/2018/09/10/is-evolution-a-viable-option-scientifically/

Some Key Problems With Evolution

1. Darwinian evolution is based on a hopelessly illogical premise, the concept of spontaneous generation, or life arising from non-living matter.

2. If Darwinian evolution were true we should literally find millions of transitional forms in the fossil record, but the missing links are still missing.

3. Darwinists claim that natural selection is evidence of macroevolution. However, natural selection, which is basic science, simply demonstrates change within species or microevolution.

4. Critiquing Darwinism does not make a person anti-science. We all share the same scientific evidence. The question is, what theory or interpretive framework best explains the evidence? (Ron Carlson, Christian Ministries International)
Synopsis of 6 Big Problems with Evolution:

(1) Scientists today generally agree that the universe had a beginning. This implies the existence of a Beginner or Creator (Hebrews 3:4, “For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.”).

(2) The universe is so perfectly fine-tuned for life on earth, it must have come from the hands of an intelligent Designer ([God] Romans 1:20 & Psalm 19:1, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse….The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork”).

(3) If evolution were true, the fossil records would reveal progressively complex evolutionary forms with transitions. However, no transitional links (with species forming into different species) have been discovered in the fossil records.

(4) Evolution assumes a long series of positive and upward mutations. In almost all known cases, however, mutations are not beneficial but are harmful to living beings. This is a huge problem for evolution.

(5) The Second Law of thermodynamics, which has never been contradicted in observable nature, says that in an isolated system (like our universe), the natural course of things is degenerate. The universe is running down, not evolving upward. In a closed, isolated system, the amount of useable energy decreases. That is, matter and energy deteriorate gradually over time. Also, things tend to move from order to disorder, not the reverse.

(6) Evolutionists often make false claims. Some have claimed that scientific evidence confirms that evolution is true. They generally appeal to the fact that mutations do occur within species (microevolution). But an incredible leap of logic is required to say that mutations within species prove that mutations can yield entirely new species (macroevolution). Two dogs cannot produce a cat! (Ron Rhodes, 5-Minute Apologetics for Today)

How Did the Universe Come to Be? The opening line of Genesis puts it succinctly: “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth” (1:1). The Bible teaches that through an act of God the temporal creation of the universe came from nothing (ex nihilo). Continue reading →

Life Can Only Come From Life

Posted on by
Reply

“Real science, which is a Believer’s true friend, just delivered ANOTHER MAJOR BLOW to the religious belief of Darwinian evolutionism! Until 2016, the inability for life to begin on its own had always been a thorn-in-the-side to Darwinism. Then Harvard biologist and Nobel Laureate Jack Szostak announced he’d proven RNA could replicate itself; thus life could have arisen from chemicals. Though hailed by Darwinists as their conquering hero, he’s now had to retract his claims, saying he was blinded by his BELIEFS. Meanwhile, the Law of Biogenesis holds that life can only come from life, leaving ‘In the beginning God created’ as the only viable explanation for our existence.” – Russ Miller

”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal