Jamin Yoder
Professor Stan Grove
BIOL410-Biology Senior Seminar
Jumping out of the GC Box: Genesis, the Gospel, and Theistic Evolution
Thesis: In contrast to prevailing thought at
Outline
I. Introduction
II. The GC Box: Theistic Evolution Defined
III. Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution
A. The Quandary of Theistic Evolution: Naturalism vs. Christianity
1. Naturalism and its Morality
2. Christianity and its Morality
3. Meshing the Two
B. Inconsistent Application of Naturalistic Science
1. Naturalistic Science Applied to Creation
2. Naturalistic Science Applied to Other Miracles
a. Jesus’ Virgin Birth
b. The Resurrection
IV. Science Defined
A. The Classical Definition
B. Historical Science
C. The Redefinition of Science
V. Scientific Problems with the Theory of Evolution
A. Nonexistence of New Beneficial Information
VI. An Alternative Worldview: Recent Creation
C. The Creation
E. The Gospel
VII. Conclusion
Humans have asked questions about their origin and their
purpose on earth for eons. The Bible
tells humans that God created them and explains their purpose. However, since the Renaissance, humanism
answers questions about origins by naturalistic means and science has been
redefined in the process. Most institutions
of higher education and many individuals have adopted the naturalistic theory
of evolution to explain human origin without considering its effects on
faith. In contrast to
prevailing thought at
Theistic Evolution: A Definition
Before delving into the problems with theistic evolution, let us define it. Theistic evolution rejects the Christian tradition of interpreting the creation days as having been normal 24-hour days. It insists that only naturalistic mechanisms be considered when considering creation and the origin of life. Theistic evolutionists believe that humans and all other life forms evolved from a bacterial precursor in the distant past. For theistic evolutionists, naturalistic science carries precedence over the Word of God. However, in order to justify Christian faith, theistic evolution allows for the supernatural in order to explain New Testament miracles. In Biology Through the Eyes of Faith, theistic evolutionist Richard Wright explains that theistic evolutionists rearrange the first chapters of Genesis into topical sections instead of interpreting them in a straightforward manner (2003, p. 92). He argues that the chronological framework of chapter 1 is used to create a theological framework for the Sabbath. Theistic evolutionists disagree over whether Adam and Eve were historical or mythological figures. Some theistic evolutionists prefer to be called evolutionary creationists. Most of the following arguments against theistic evolution could also be applied to any combination of Christianity and macroevolution (i.e. bacteria to human evolution), irregardless of its label.
Naturalism or
Christianity as a Foundation for a System of Ethics
Theistic evolution meshes two worldviews, naturalism and Christianity, and each worldview lays a foundation for a system of ethics and morality. Let us first examine more closely the foundation laid by naturalism. Naturalism deifies chance. Random chance is responsible for life as we know it. In The Beak of the Finch, evolutionist Jonathan Weiner writes, “Natural selection leads to evolution.” He further explains that for natural selection to occur, the organisms most suited to their environment will survive (1995, p. 128). The best adapted organisms are more likely to pass on their genetic information while the less well adapted lose out in the great battle of life. Such a view of origins establishes by extrapolation a moral and ethical foundation. If humans are only products of chance evolution, they will naturally follow the instincts that have been ingrained in them for millions of years. They will pass on their genetic information to as many offspring as possible. Because they have gained great intelligence and understand the process of evolution, they may take evolution into their own hands. Carnivorous and omnivorous animals have long preyed on other animals for food. Humans are omnivores, and therefore, the preying of humans on other humans for food is only natural.
Now let us examine the Christian
worldview more closely. The Christian
God stands in contrast to the relative morality of naturalism. He declares, “I, the LORD, do not change”
(Mal. 3:6 NASB). God established moral laws, first in the Law,
and later through the words of Jesus Christ and the writings of the
apostles. He clearly condemns murder and
sexual immorality. He asks for the
obedience of each individual to His moral laws and promises unpleasant consequences
for disobedience of these laws. Jesus
calls his disciples to be servants. He
tells them that the persons who would be great must become like vulnerable
children. The apostle Paul points out
that God does not call many intelligent, powerful, or high-class people to His
kingdom. He elaborates further, “God
chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak
things of the world to shame the strong” (I Cor.
Rather than being complementary, Christianity and naturalism might be better described as being antonymous. One establishes absolute standards of morality; the other leaves morality to chance. The one glorifies strength and intelligence; the other glorifies humility and servanthood. Obviously the two worldviews are at odds, and in their attempt to embrace both, theistic evolutionists are confronted with the dilemma of choosing between the ethics and morality of Christianity or the ethics and morality of naturalism. For instance, if God created humanity using means that are always logical to man, it would seem unreasonable that He suddenly require them to reject their sexual and predatory instincts. Despite such contradiction, theistic evolutionists attempt to mix and match the two worldviews into one.
The Inconsistent Application of Naturalistic Science
Theistic evolutionists are inconsistent in their application of naturalistic science. They insist that only naturalistic mechanisms be considered for the origin of life. Wright explains that theistic evolutionists “investigate origins and offer their explanations of the data in the form of explanations from within the natural world” (p. 69). However, the basic Gospel message is dependent on miracles. According to the Bible, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Medical scientists agree that it is impossible for a woman to give birth without fertilization of an egg, something that was by definition impossible in a virgin of Mary’s era. Perhaps the most important event to Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Again, medical scientists agree that dead people cannot resurrect after having been dead for three days. However, in light of such events, Wright writes,
Whether it is a matter of timing or of an absolutely unique event, a miracle is as much a manifestation of God’s power over nature as are the day-to-day occurrences with which we are familiar. There is no point asking how God did it; it is a mystery (p. 23).
Such
a double standard is troubling, particularly because there is no evidence of an
objective standard by which theistic evolutionists choose Christianity over
naturalism in such cases. This double
standard becomes even more troubling upon reading Wright’s attack on recent
creationists, “However, by loading origins down with supernaturalism, and
flying in the face of modern science, those holding this view have erected a
very large stumbling block to belief in the God of the Bible” (p. 88).
On the one hand, Wright condemns recent creationists for believing in a
miraculous creation, but on the other, he acknowledges that miracles are
necessary for the existence of Christianity.
The double standard of theistic evolution is obvious. Wright and theistic evolutionists fly in the
face of modern science, the very thing they attempt to avoid by accepting the
theory of evolution. They may argue that
they fly in the face of modern science to a lesser extent than do some other
Christians, but the difference is only a matter of degrees and theistic
evolution erects the same “stumbling block to belief in the God of the Bible”
as does recent creation.
Scientists who investigate origins have redefined science to meet their purposes. The word science comes from the Latin word scire, which means to know. The classical definition of science includes the scientific method, which has four parts: empirical data, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. Data are based on observations with one of the five senses that then lead to a hypothesis to explain the data. The scientist then designs experiments that will test the predicted outcomes of the hypothesis. Based on the experimental results, the scientist then rejects or accepts the hypothesis (Wright, 2003, p. 136). Origins or historical science does not fit the classical definition of science. All empirical data are from the present and past conditions are at best only a guess. Scientist and theistic evolutionist Robert Fischer explains,
Any conclusions from experimental attempts to study the postulated processes of chemical evolution must be considered to be very highly speculative. Furthermore, this type of investigation can reveal at best what might have occurred and not necessarily what did occur (1997, p. 56).
This is not only true for the investigation of chemical evolution. The same may be said for much of origins science. Despite being outside the classical definition of science, origins scientists insist on calling their work science. They recognize that the relegation of their field to the field of speculation would greatly damage their credibility. As a result, they have redefined science to include origins science. Wright explains,
In reality, this view [scientific method] is held in almost complete negligence of recent work in the philosophy of science. It is not that your textbook’s “scientific method” is all wrong; rather, it is too simple. It fails to include some elements in the practice of science that are vitally important (p. 35).
This illustrates the redefinition effort by origins scientists and those who appreciate their work. The missing but “vitally important” elements described by Wright allow for the inclusion of origins science under the science label. Although theistic evolutionists are not primarily responsible for the redefinition of science, they share responsibility along with other origins scientists.
Mutations Leading to New, Beneficial Genetic Information
One of the primary objections of non-evolutionists to the theory of evolution is that no evidence has been found for mutations leading to new genes that are beneficial. New genetic information is essential for macroevolution to occur, and the only mechanism proposed by evolutionists is mutation. In Refuting Evolution 2, chemist Jonathan Sarfati explains that mutations are usually harmful to the organism in which they occur. When mutations appear to have been beneficial, they are due to a loss of information (e.g. interference of a signal transduction pathway) (2002, p. 103). The addition of genetic information due to polyploidy, gene duplication, and insertions is neutral at best, and is usually detrimental to the organism. If macroevolution were truly occurring, one would anticipate multiple examples of new genes that are beneficia. Instead, there are none.
Another vulnerability of the
evolutionary theory is the fossil record.
If life has existed on earth for millions of years as the theory of
evolution indicates, there should be multitudes of transitional fossils[1]. When he wrote The Origin of Species,
A Less Contradictory Worldview
In view of the problems with theistic evolution, theistic evolutionists should consider an alternative worldview. Although faith and logic may be antonyms, one’s faith should have as few contradictions as possible. The foundation for one’s worldview should match one’s moral and ethical standards. In comparison with theistic evolution, recent creation offers fewer contradictions between its worldview and system of ethics, and it serves as an excellent basis for a Christian system of ethics and morality. As a part of that system, Christians must be open and honest in their scientific investigations. In Scientific Creationism in Perspective, theologian Archie Penner exposes creationists who have not followed the biblical mandate to honesty in their scientific investigations (2002). Creationists are humans and make the same mistakes as other humans. However, because they profess belief in scriptural ethics, they should be the most honest of scientists and should openly confess their mistakes.
Foundational to recent creation is a proper view of God. No limits bound God’s power, wisdom, or love. He supersedes time. He is holy and cannot tolerate sin. Humans cannot comprehend Him. God created and rules over the universe. He is the Heavenly Father, the Savior of the world, and the Holy Spirit that guides Christians. God reveals Himself to humans through the Bible, the creation, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ (Kauffman, 1956, pp. 28-77). With such a God, moral and ethical absolutes make perfect sense. In addition, this God makes a miraculous creation seem not only plausible, but probable.
According to the Bible, God created the universe, plants, animals, and humans in the beginning. Recent creationists read the chronological account in Genesis 1 in a straightforward manner. They choose this interpretation because it lays a solid foundation for morality and for understanding other Scripture. They believe that the universe and all life forms were created in six 24-hour days. After the 6 days of creation, God looked over all His creation and saw that it was very good. God rested from His work on the seventh day. The incredible complexity, order, and beauty of nature support such a miraculous beginning.
God planted a special garden of
beautiful trees with delicious fruit.
After Adam and Eve were created, God placed them in this garden in
The sentencing to spiritual death of all humanity because of Adam’s sin is not the end of the story. In the same passage where the apostle Paul explains this, he also explains that not only do all humans die in Adam, but in Christ, all humans can be made alive. Accepting the evolutionary theory and death before Adam not only dilutes God’s holiness and justice. It destroys the heart of the Gospel. If death did not come through Adam but is instead an ancient, natural process, it logically follows that humans have no hope of restoration to God through Jesus Christ. If restoration to God is impossible, there is also no hope of heaven and eternal life with God after death (Ham, 2002, pp. 29, 30).
Theistic evolution pieces together two opposing worldviews: naturalism and Christianity. In the process, it applies historical science duplicitously. Theistic evolutionists support the redefinition of science so that origins science meets the definition of science. They have introduced new quandaries to their science: evolutionists have found no new beneficial genes introduced by mutation, and only a few disputable transitional forms have been found when, according to the theory of evolution, many should be evident. Most importantly, they have unwittingly destroyed the heart of the Gospel message. For this reason, theistic evolutionists, including many Goshen College scientists, should jump out of the theistic evolutionary box and consider other less contradictory worldviews and theories of origin such as that proposed by recent creationism.
References
(1999). NASB/NIV Parallel Bible. Zondervan:
Fischer, R. (1997). God Did
It, But How?, 2nd ed.
ASA:
Ham, K. (2002).
Why Won't They Listen? A
Radical New Approach to Evangelism.
Master Books:
Kauffman, Daniel.
(1956). Doctrines of the Bible. Herald Press:
Penner, A. (2002).
Scientific Creationism in Perspective: Biblical Creation Defended. Servant:
Sarfati, J., Matthews, M. (2002).
Refuting Evolution 2. Master Books:
Weiner, J. (1995). The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in
Our Time. Vintage Books:
Wright, Richard.
(2003). Biology Through the
Eyes of Faith. HarperCollins:
[1] This problem with the theory of evolution was addressed by Stephen Jay Gould and other evolutionists. They postulated the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution, which does not predict the numerous fossils predicted by the orthodox theory of evolution.
[2] It may be noted that some people have objected to the apostle Paul’s assertion that death first came to earth when Adam sinned on the grounds that animals and humans ate plants. Therefore, plants died before Adam sinned. However, this objection ignores the biblical definition of death. Death is repeatedly defined as being the spilling of blood in the Bible. Consequently, these objections are invalidated.
