How Evolution and Belief in God are not Compatible – Part 1

Contents

False Assumption Three: Evolution is compatible with belief in God.

Mortimer J. Adler is one of the great modern thinkers. He is author of such interesting books as Ten Philosophical Mistakes, Truth in Religion and How to Think About God’; Chair­man for the Editors for the Encyclopedia Britannica and architect and Editor-in-Chief for the 54- volume The Great Books of the Western World library. This set contains the writings of the most influential and greatest intellects and thinkers in Western history—from Aristotle to Shakespeare.

In Volume 1 of The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World, Adler points out the crucial importance of the issue of God’s existence to the greatest thinkers of the Western World. With the exception of only certain mathematicians and physicists, “All the authors of the great books are represented…. In sheer quantity of references, as well as in variety, this is the largest chapter. The reason is obvious. More consequences for thought and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic ques­tion.”^[1]

And here is where we see perhaps the greatest consequence of evolutionary theory—its denial of God and the unfortunate results which have flowed outward into society from this denial. We saw in false assumption number one that evolution was not a true scientific theory but a materialistic postulate that seeks to explain life naturalistically. In light of this, to think that evolution has no theological or social consequences is naive. As leading evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley once noted, “Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.”^[2]

Dr. Colin Brown received his doctorate degree for research done in 19th century theology. Concerning the impact of evolution on Christianity, he confesses, “By far the most potent single factor to undermine popular belief in the existence of God in modern times is the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin.”^[3]

Religion authority Dr. Huston Smith observes, “One reason education undoes belief [in God] is its teaching of evolution; Darwin’s own drift from orthodoxy to agnosticism was symp­tomatic. Martin Lings is probably right in saying that “more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution…than to anything else.”^[4]

British scientist John Randall points out, “There can be little doubt that the rise of Darwin­ism played an important part in undermining Victorian religious beliefs.”^[5]

J. W. Burrow concedes that perhaps more than any other work, Darwin’s book shook man’s belief in “the immediate providential superintendence of human affairs.”^[6]

Newman Watts, a London journalist, observed, “In compiling my book, Britain Without God, I had to read a great deal of anti-religious literature. Two things impressed me. One was the tremendous amount of this literature available, and the other was the fact that every attack on the Christian faith made today has, as its basis, the doctrine of evolution.”^[7]

As a testimony to the religious impact of evolutionary thinking, consider the well thought out conclusions of the famous Humanist Manifesto II which were based squarely on naturalistic evolution:

Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition…. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans, not God, nature, not deity…. We can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species…. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves…. Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful…. Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces…. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body…. We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction…. the right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil.’”^[8]

In light of the above, it should not surprise us to find a logical relationship between natural­istic evolution and philosophical/practical atheism; indeed, this is made evident throughout atheist literature.^[9] In The American Atheist Richard Bozarth argues as follows: “…Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble, you will find the sorry remains of the son of god…. If Jesus was not the redeemer…, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing….”^[10] The same individual observed earlier, “We need only insure that our schools teach only secular knowledge…. If we could achieve this, God would indeed be shortly due for a funeral service.”^[11]

Many Christian people, including scientists who are Christians, believe that evolution and belief in God, even the God of the Bible, are entirely compatible. We disagree. Clearly, evolu­tion has influenced the Bible through the many theories proposed in an attempt to harmonize the theory of evolution with biblical teaching.

One such theory is called “theistic evolution.” This is the idea that God supposedly used the gradual process of evolution to create all life, including man. Another idea is the “Day Age” theory wherein the days of Genesis 1 become vast geological ages, usually in which to insert evolution. A third teaching is the “Gap” theory which assumes a major chronological gap be­tween verses 2 and 3 of Genesis 1 wherein the billions of years of evolutionary progress are inserted. Thus, all these ideas accept the fact of evolution by allowing billions of years for it to occur. A fourth theory is called “progressive creation,” and it accepts long periods of evolution interspersed by creative bursts of divine activity to sustain the process.

We have studied each of these theories in detail and believe they all have fatal biblical flaws.^[14] Attempts at accommodation fail because evolutionary belief and biblical teaching are only compatible at the expense of biblical authority. As The Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, “It hardly needs saying that Darwinism is incompatible with any literal construction put on either the Old Testament or the New Testament.”^[15]

NOTES

1. ↑ Mortimer J. Adler, editor in chief, William Gorman, general editor, The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), Vol. 1, p. 543.
2. ↑ In Sol Tax, ed., Evolution After Darwin, Vol. 3 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 45.
3. ↑ Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1971), p. 147.
4. ↑ Huston Smith, The Christian Century, July 7-14, 1982, p. 755 citing Studies in Comparative Religion, Winter 1970.
5. ↑ John Randall, Parapsychology and the Nature of Life (New York: Harper Colophon, 1977), p. 11.
6. ↑ J. W. Burrow, introduction in Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1974), p. 24.
7. ↑ Newman Watts, Why Be An Ape?: Observations on Evolution (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Ltd., n.d.), p. 97.
8. ↑ “Humanist Manifesto II,” The Humanist, September/October 1973, pp. 4-9.
9. ↑ e.g., George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Los Angeles: Nash, 1974), pp. 112-113.
10. ↑ Richard Bozarth, The American Atheist, September 1978 cited by Richard Bliss, “Evolution Versus Science,” Christian Herald, July/August, 1985.
11. ↑ Ibid.
12. ↑ Ibid., pp. 22-23.
13. ↑ On theistic evolution, see Burt Thompson, Theistic Evolution (Shreveport, LA: Lambert, 1977); on the Gap Theory, see Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled: The Gap Theory, Presbyterian Reformed; in general see Nigel N. de S. Cameron, Evolution and the Authority of the Bible (Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1983) on the day age theory, see note 87; on progressive creationism, see Marvin L. Lubenow, “Progressive Creationism: Is It a Biblical Option?,” Proceedings of the Third Creation-Science Conference (Caldwell, Idaho: Bible Science Association, (1976) and Marvin L. Lubenow, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1992), Ch. 20.
14. ↑ Morton O. Beckner in Paul Edwards, editor in chief, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillian, 1972), Vol. 2, p. 304.

Read Part 6