A Reader Reaction: Theistic Evolution
By: The John Ankerberg Show
|By: Jim Virkler; ©2008|
We encourage email responses to our blog content. Our 4/19 post generated a thoughtful, detailed response worth sharing with our readers. The writer responded to several specific points in the post.
Point: Theistic evolutionists would say God endowed matter with self-organizing capabilities. Reaction: Accepting the exact same intrinsic principle as naturalistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists are not supported by hard, observational science in this assessment. This is bad science.
Point: Dr. Francis Collins sanctions the idea of molecules-to-man evolution and claims there is no conflict with his evangelical faith. Reaction: I find theistic evolution extremely inconsistent in its biblical interpretation. For example, theistic evolutionists are quick to point out that they regard the Genesis account of creation as allegory and metaphor, seriously lacking in scientific credibility. Yet, they strongly defend the historical narrative found in the Gospels and the entirety of the New Testament. Why isn’t the New Testament allegory and metaphor as well? It is chock full of the miraculous. And what about Jesus, Luke, and Paul? They all refer back to Adam and Eve. Were they just symbols? Was the fall of mankind just a story written by the scientifically illiterate? If so, why did Jesus have to come and die on the cross? And what about the 200 references in the New Testament to people, places, and events in Genesis? And what about 100 or so references in the New Testament to Genesis 1-11? I think it’s fair to say that New Testament authors and Christ himself did not believe it to be allegory, metaphor, or merely meaningful myths.
Point: Theistic evolution locks arms with naturalistic evolution in many significant ways. Reaction: It locks arms with a theory whose very foundational roots are atheistic in nature. Evolution, as derived by its founder, Charles Darwin, and practiced by the vast majority of the current scientific community, is an inherently atheistic scientific theory. It also locks arms with a theory that is quite inconsistent with sound, scholarly, biblical interpretation.
Point: In deciding between theistic evolution and creationism, the Christian must constantly consider whether nature calls attention to itself, or to the Creator. Reaction: I think the Christian would be better served considering whether evolution is good science at all. No testable explanation for the origin of the cosmos, the origin of DNA, the origin of the cell, the sudden appearances that dominate the fossil record, and the unique intellectual, moral, and spiritual capacity of mankind. Or the fact that it can’t quantify or qualify the precise anatomical and physiological steps required to turn a frog heart into a lizard heart, or a dinosaur lung into a bird lung, or an ape brain into a human brain, no matter how much time is allotted. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of theistic evolutionists utilize the argument from authority to defend their position. I would challenge these individuals to take a much harder look at the claims of theistic evolution, both from a scientific and biblical perspective.