Is there just one God who puts on different masks? Trinitarianism vs. Modalistic Monarchianism

In the history of the church, a starting point for straying from orthodox doctrine has often been the doctrine of the Trinity.  For instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have other than traditional, creedal views of the Trinity.  JWs believe that Jesus was created (not begotten) and inferior in nature to God the Father.    LDS churches teach that Jesus was of a different nature than that of the Father and that the Father also has a material body of flesh and bone. 

 

Closer to a truer definition of the Trinity is that of modalism or Sabellianism, though it is, in reality, no Trinity at all.  This view of the Trinity essentially affirms that Father, Son, and Spirit are of the same nature.  They are all God.  Yet all members of the Godhead do not exist simultaneously.  Modalism says that God is one but manifests himself in different ways throughout history, namely as Father, Son, and Spirit.  In other words, God has different personalities and, to make an illustration, schizophrenically wears different masks.

 

While modalism or Sabellianism may be closer to an orthodox view of the Trinity than other views, it is drastically different than the view held by the majority of the church throughout the ages.  The ease in logically understanding this position (even though it does not do justice to Scriptural data) has drawn many, such as Kant, Schleiermacher, and Hegel, to adopt such a speculative view.  But because one cannot fully understand a tough doctrine like the Trinity does not mean that it is untrue.  For how can one understand how God can create something (or anything!) out of nothing (Ge 1:1-2)?  How can man be fully responsible for all that he does even though God is completely and totally sovereign?  God can make these things so because he is God.  He need not reveal all knowledge to his finite creatures.  Can he not also, then, exist mysteriously in three persons with one substance and nature because he is God? 

 

Thus, there are several problems in holding the position of modalism.  This teaching helps to diminish the distinctions in the Godhead by denying (1) the eternality of the Son; (2) the “I-Thou” relationships displayed in Scripture; (3) the work of all three persons of the Trinity in certain acts and the simultaneous co-existence of members of the Trinity; and (4) by affirming the necessary creation of humanity for communion with the Godhead.

 

All the points that were set forth above are interconnected, and none can really be made well without the others.  Thus, the points may seem redundant in some respects, but this also speaks of the interrelatedness of these aspects and the essential nature they have in the Trinity. 

The Eternality of the Son

 Traditionally, modalism views the actions of the Godhead in three epochs (though not necessarily so): the time of the Father (from the beginning until the time of Jesus); the time of Jesus (his earthly ministry); and the time of the Spirit (from Pentecost to present).  This, however, does no justice to the clear eternality of the Son (not to mention that of the Spirit, which, however, will not be discussed here).  The Sonship of Jesus is something that is not simply economical or functional, but also ontological.  It is a necessary part of his nature.  His begottenness is not only temporal; it is eternal (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16).  To those who conspired against him, Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (Jn 8:58).  This was not only an affirmation of his deity (cf. Ex 3:14), but also a reference to time.  Before the time of the Jew, Jesus existed – and as God!  More explicitly, in his high priestly prayer, Jesus prayed, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (Jn 17:5; cf. v. 24).  Before the world existed, Jesus communed in glory with his Father.   

“I-Thou” Relationships in Scripture

In Scripture, different persons of the Trinity speak of other persons using first and second (or third) person language in reference to the respective members.  These relationships also speak of the co-existence of other persons of the Trinity, especially evident when plural tenses are used.  For instance, Jesus says,

 Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life (Jn 5:19-24). 

In this passage Jesus affirms the simultaneous existence of himself and the Father because the Father presently acts distinctly from the Son.  This is also made evident in the speech that Jesus uses when he prays to the Father in John 17.  His language is very intimate, and most definitely directed away from himself (cf. Mt 26:39; Jn 5:30).  The distinctions in the knowledge of the persons of the Trinity is also made obvious when we know that the Father and Son know one another (Mt 11:27), yet the Son can be ignorant of something that the Father knows (Mk 13:32).  Further, the Father and Son are made distinct when the Father makes verbal comments regarding the Son.  When Jesus was baptized by John, the Father said from above, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Mt 4:17).  And again, when Jesus was transfigured, the Father said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him” (Mt 17:5).[1]  These passages are simply inexplicable for modalists.  No sensible explanation exists. 

 The Co-existence of Members of the Trinity in Various Acts 

Beyond passages that describe verbal communication between members of the Trinity, there are specific acts in which all three members of the Trinity are involved.  For instance, Father, Son, and Spirit were all involved in the act of creation.  This is not terribly explicit when one only reads the Genesis account, but when Genesis is interpreted by the New Testament, it is evident that all three members were involved in the act of creation.  Karl Barth’s model of the Trinity is quite helpful here.  The Father speaks the world into being (Ge 1:3); the Son, the eternal Word, carried out these decrees (Jn 1:3); and the Spirit moved and hovered over the waters, sustaining God’s immediate presence in creation (Ge 1:2).  With respect to God’s plan of salvation, the Father is the planner of our individual redemption and the sender of the Son (Jn 3:16; Gal 4:4; Eph 1:9-10); the Son is the securer of our salvation and is obedient to the Father (Jn 6:38; Heb 10:5-7); and the Spirit is the applier of the benefits of Christ and his salvation to us after he is sent from the Father and the Son (Jn 3:5-8; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; 1 Pt 1:2; 1 Co 12).  And in truly Barthian tradition, with regard to revelation, the Father is the speaker; the Son is the speech (Jn 1:1-4); and the Spirit is the speaking and the inspiration.[2]  In each of these three acts, all three persons of the Trinity are present. 

 

Beyond these examples, however, modalists also cannot reconcile how, if God is one who only wears one mask at a time, so to speak, it can be said that the Word can both be God and be with God (Jn 1:1-4).  Neither, in such a line of thought, can Jesus ascend to the Father (Jn 20:17) or sit down with the Father (Re 3:21) if modalism is true, nor can he truly be a mediator between God and man if the Trinity does not exist (1 Ti 2:5).  For the word mediator loses its meaning if Jesus is “mediator” between himself and man.  He must, instead, be the mediator between another person of the Trinity, namely, the Father, and man.  Many other examples could be given, but the point has been made that various members of the Trinity do really co-exist with one another and work together economically (Eph 3:2) as has been demonstrated. 

 The Independence (or Aseity) of God as a Basis for Communication and Love 

Finally, it must be noted that God has no inherent need for creation.  He did not need to create the world and humans because he was lonely.  For communication inherently exists within the Trinity.  Without the Trinity, however, communion does not exist until God creates.  This, however, would imply an imperfection in God, namely that he was void of something and in need.  He was not inherently happy.  Scripture makes it evident, though, that this is not true. 

 

God has no need.  To the Athenians, Paul says, “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Ac 17:24-25; cf. Job 41:11; Ps 50:10-12).  Instead, God is pictured to have lived in perfect communal happiness in eternity past.  For the Father and the Son gloried in one another before the foundation or existence of the world (Jn 17:5, 24).  Because Father, Son, and Spirit were eternally happy within one another,[3] it cannot be said that creation was necessary to fulfill some gap in the Godhead.  It is on this basis, then, that we, as creatures, can have a fulfilled and happy relationship with God and a communicable relationship with those around us.  The meaning of love is founded in pre-creation Trinitarian relations. “It is rooted in what has always been in the personal relationship existing in the Trinity before the universe was created.”[4]  Without the Trinity, there is a gap in God in that he is lacking in his need to communicate, and there is no eternal basis for the meaning and reality of love for creatures.  For it has been set out this way quite evidently in the Scriptures. 

It is quite easy to see, then, why modalism, or formerly and more popularly, Sabellianism, lost historic following for hundreds of years in the Middle Ages: it was easily refuted.  It seems that the wonder of God’s incomprehensibility as expressed in Scripture was replaced by a system that more readily made easier sense of the three-in-one aspect of God in Scripture.  This attempt, however, has failed because it has ignored the great majority of biblical texts that speak to modalistic and Trinitarian issues. 

---

[1] See John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2002), 690.

[2] This working is taken from Stephen J. Wellum, professor of Systematic Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY. 

[3] See John Piper, Desiring God (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 31-50.

[4] Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There in The Three Essential Books in One Volume: Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990), 105, 106.

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Conclusions

My hope is that it is evident that evolutionary theory is completely at odds with Biblical Christianity in that it undermines many significant doctrines of the Church.  Further, though, it may be of worth to make the point that many other references to the historicity of Genesis 1-11 exist in the Bible (e.g. 1 Chronicles 1:4; Isaiah 54:9; Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Matthew 24:37-38; Luke 3:36, 38; 17:26-27; Hebrews 11:4, 7; 12:24; 1 John 3:12; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Jude 11, 14).           

 

It has been shown on many fronts that evolutionary theory is inconsistent with Biblical Christianity. While evolution is extremely difficult to reconcile with Christianity, many scientific holes also exist within the theory such that many – even in the scientific community – have abandoned the theory of evolution. 

 

Undoubtedly, evolution is a philosophically satisfying position.  I think that is why it has led many to make statements similar to that of Richard Dawkins when he said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”[1]  If only that intellectual fulfillment could extend from the realm of philosophy into the world of science could true fulfillment be found for an atheist.  As we currently stand, there is simply not enough scientific backing to support evolutionary theory as a true scientific theory, like that of gravity. 

 

We have also seen that evolution destroys many central doctrines of the Christian faith.  The worldview of the writer of Genesis and that of the New Testament writers was one in which a literal creation was a fundamental tenet.  In fact, an evolutionary reading of Genesis 1-2 requires a recreation of the entire purpose and ministry of Jesus Christ.  With an evolutionary reading, the entire Gospel is transformed and no longer transforming. 

 

Further, the scope of this essay did not even consider the effects of Darwinism on society.  An entire essay could be written on such a topic, and, in fact, books have been written in part and full on the topic.[2]  And it is quite sad to observe the depth of social Darwinism in which America (not to mention other countries, especially Communist or other atheistic countries) already resides.

 

Nevertheless, I am fairly convinced that evolution is only a passing fad.  Evolution is philosophically tenable, but is so scientifically shallow.  Evolution is a scientist’s fairy tale.  I concur with theologian R.C. Sproul when he said that macroevolution

 

is unmitigated nonsense and will be totally rejected by the secular scientific community…. My objections to it are not so much theological as they are rational and logical.  I mean, the doctrine of macroevolution is one of the most unsubstantiated myths that I’ve ever seen perpetuated in an academic environment.[3]     

---

[1] Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996. 6.

[2] On this topic I recommend Nancy Pearcey’s work on the importance of worldview: Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004.

[3] Sproul, R. C. Now, That’s a Good Question! Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale, 1996. 98.

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 9

Before anything on the issue of male headship and other such gender roles are to be discussed, it must be noted that

 

[w]hen God created man, he created both “male and female” in his image (Gen. 1:27; 5:1-2).  Men and women are made equally in God’s image, and both men and women reflect God’s character in their lives.  This means that we should see aspects of God’s character reflected in each other’s lives.  If we lived in a society consisting of only Christian men or a society consisting of only Christian women, we would not gain as full a picture of the character of God as when we see both godly men and women in their complementary differences together reflecting the beauty of God’s character.[1]

 

Likewise, if men and women are made equally in God’s image, he considers them to both be of equal worth and dignity.  As Grudem continues, “The fact that both men and women are said by Scripture to be ‘in the image of God’ should exclude all feelings of pride or inferiority and any idea that one sex is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the other.”[2]  “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, emphasis added).  The difference, then, between males and females in Christendom is in the role that each sex plays in the home and in the Church.  And this, by the Apostle Paul in particular, is made manifest in Scripture. 

 

These teachings of male headship both in the home and in the Church, as noted, were considered to be important and utterly dependent upon the creation event by the Apostle Paul.  In various texts, Paul and other New Testament authors declare that the husband is to be the leader in marriage and in the Church.  “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (Ephesians 5:23).  “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands” (1 Peter 3:1).  “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:12-14; see also cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34; Ephesians 5:28, 33; Colossians 3:19; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:7). 

 

It is important to note, as Paul does, that male headship is rooted in the creation.  “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”  The Genesis account displays this idea very explicitly in several ways.  First, as mentioned, Genesis recalls that Adam was created before Eve (Genesis 2:7, 18-23).  This notion is also “consistent with the Old Testament pattern of ‘primogeniture,’ the idea that the firstborn in any generation in a human family has leadership in the family for that generation.”[3]  Second, Eve’s role is made explicit: she was created as a helper for Adam.  “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’” (Genesis 2:18).  Paul concurs: “Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Corinthians 11:9).  Third, God spoke to Adam first after the Fall, even though he was, in fact, not the first to sin.  “But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ And he said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself’” (Genesis 3:9-10).  This indicates that God saw Adam as responsible not only for his own sin, but that of his wife as well.  It was Adam’s responsibility to lead his wife in godliness (cf. Ephesians 5:25-27).  Fourth and as mentioned earlier, Adam similarly represented the human race in the Fall.  Again, even though Adam was not the first to sin, mankind imputes his sinfulness from Adam, not Eve.  “For as in Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22).  “[M]any died through one man’s trespass” (Romans 5:15).[4] 

 

So what does all this have to do with evolution?  Hopefully, the logical flow is already evident.  Evolutionary theory completely undermines male headship because no creation event exists.  Such a doctrine cannot exist within such a naturalistic worldview.  Unlike the Biblical narrative, in evolution male and female homo sapiens must appear at the same time.  As a species, homo sapiens are unable to do anything but appear simultaneously.  Without simultaneous appearance in the tree of life, there can be no reproduction, and, thus, no species continuation.  Consequently, for a theistic evolutionist, not only does the historicity of Genesis 1-11 come into question, but also the credibility of the New Testament authors.  If evolution is true, then Paul and Peter have based their theology of complementarianism on a lie.  Their theology is, in such a view, not based on an historical event, but tradition or something else.  But this further undermines the general witness of Scripture (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18).   

Equally important for the view of male headship is, again, the historicity of the Fall.  If man is not in a fallen state but in his natural animalistic state, he has no reason to “love [his wife], as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” or to “sanctify her…by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:25-26).  Without the Genesis 3 narrative, this admonishment is much more nonsensical. 

---

[1] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: InterVarsity P, 1994. 456, emphasis his.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid. 461. 

[4] Ibid. 454-471. 

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 8

First – and most significantly – Paul says that our inherent sinful nature came through the historical event of Adam sinning one time for all.  “Therefore, as one trespass [that of Adam (see v. 14)] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.  For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18-19).  More explicitly, Paul reaffirms, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).  The doctrine of original sin states that man was created in a perfect state – both perfectly and morally.  Because of his moral fall, the physical (both the body of man and the physical earth and its inhabitants) was also negatively affected.  Jesus Christ, then, in the doctrine of redemption committed to return part of mankind to his original state in Eden.  These doctrines – utterly essential to the Christian faith – completely hang on the historicity of the Fall.  But before the discussion of these doctrines and evolution can ensue, we must, as a preliminary step, briefly focus upon the original evolutionary and Biblical natures of man.   

           

As evolution necessarily has it, man has evolved from other primates.  Man exists (formerly, not now because humans, through medicine and built environment, have largely removed themselves from the process of natural selection) because he has, through progressive, random mutations, conquered the other beasts.  In fact, he is the supreme beast.  Although he reigns supreme, he still remains, by nature, a beast.  That is, the absolute core of his being is characterized by the desire to preserve the self.  In fact, that is all his nature has ever known.  And if natural selection necessarily continues, that is all his nature will ever be.

           

As a result, then, man was “created” by natural selection.  In this process, mankind is in a world of survival with needs of killing, escaping death, and stealing – all for the necessity of survival without any moral implications.  There can be no moral implications or obligations in a world from which all life has evolved from the first impersonal amoeba.  In this world, the highest and only moral or value is survival – which extends even to the genetic level, as Richard Dawkins argues.[1]  This, after all, is part of evolution.  It’s all about the survival of the fittest.   

           

 But this picture of man is in stark contrast with the Biblical picture on several facets.  First and foremost, survival of the fittest is not in any way Biblical because “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27).   Of all created entities, only man is said to be created in the image of God.  What does it mean to be created in the image of God?  Based on the Hebrew word for “image” (tslem), Wayne Grudem defines the image of God in this way: “The fact that man is in the image of God means that man is like God and represents God.”[2]  Specifically and contrasted to ways in which men are similar to animals, because man is “[c]reated in his image, [he is] rational;”[3] he “can have real meaning, and…can have real knowledge through what He has communicated to”[4] him;  “[h]e is the image of…God, and so personality is intrinsic to his makeup.  God is personal, and man is also personal.”[5]  Contrary to the creating powers of a sovereign God, evolution cannot “create” or evolve, if that term is preferred, a being of such quality.  From impersonal matter, evolution cannot create personal beings.  “Therefore,” as Francis Schaeffer writes:

 

[B]iblical Christianity has an adequate and reasonable explanation for the source and meaning of human personality.  Its source is sufficient – the personal God on the high order of Trinity.  Without such a source men are left with personality coming from the impersonal (plus time, plus chance).

No one has presented an idea, let alone demonstrated it to be feasible, to explain how the impersonal beginning, plus time, plus chance, can give personality.  We are distracted by a flourish of endless words, and lo, personality has appeared out of the hat!… As a result, either the thinker must say man is dead, because personality is a mirage; or else he must hang his reason on a hook outside the door and cross the threshold into the leap of faith which is the new level of despair.[6]

 No one has an answer for personality or morality appearing from the impersonal, time, and chance.  But neither do evolutionists live in a world free from personality or morality.  Morality, many claim, may be something that helps us as humans to currently survive.  But ultimately, morality does not matter.  It is not real.  Find an evolutionist, I urge, whom you can punch or from whom you can steal something quite valuable – or maybe something far worse – who will believe that there is no need for justice or that you have not truly harmed him as a person (our argument is not concerned about physical harm, only moral and personal harm).  If he has truly evolved from the impersonal, his morality is not real, and neither is his need for justice.

           

But since man is, by the argument of the Bible, created by a personal Being, his morals are real, as is his need for justice.  He can live consistently within his system.  Moreover, these specific morals are consistent with the Biblical witness (Genesis 9:6; cf. Genesis 4:8-16; Exodus 20:13).   

           

Yet in further and significant contrast with the evolutionary worldview, the Bible says that after God had created man, for the first time, He declared that his creation “was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Collectively, what was good in parts was considered very good in the culmination and completion of creation through the bringing forth of man, who is made in the image of God.  Further, it is implicit in the creation story that man was created in a state of sinlessness.  God did not, nor could not, actively create a sinful man.  “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice.  A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he” (Deuteronomy 32:4).  Man’s sinlessness is also implicit in the Genesis 3 narrative.  No one questions (although some may say that the narrative is symbolic or allegorical) that this text does not explain that man was sinless before the Fall.  This is extremely important in that the original natures of man seen in the Bible and evolutionary theory are completely contradictory:  The Bible says that man was created morally perfect and inherited his sinful nature through the act of Adam, while evolutionary theory teaches that man’s original nature is that of an animal: at heart, he is nothing more than a beast. 

           

 But as God acts graciously toward the fallen Adam and Even, He promises that they, by faith and upon redemption are returned to a state of purity, to their original natures.  That mankind is redeemed from a fallen sinful state to a glorified and pure state is consistent with the rest of the Biblical witness (e.g. Genesis 3:15; Leviticus 1:1-7:38; John 3:16-21; Romans 8:12-30).  Biblical man is redeemed to perfection, to Eden.  But from this discussion arise two difficult questions for evolutionists who would like to believe the Bible:  1) From what is man being redeemed?  and 2)  To what is man being redeemed? 

From what, in evolutionary theory, could man be redeemed?  It could be argued that man was redeemed to a state of perfection and morality.  But if this is true, it is not truly redemption because he has no original nature to which he may return.  Instead, he is “redeemed,” or rather transformed, into another creature – one that has moral, personal characteristics.  For if “true man” is animalistic and amoral, to make man a moral and personal creature is to make him something entirely different.  Consequently, the Biblical doctrines of the Fall and Redemption make any kind of theistic evolution at complete odds with creation. 

---

[1] Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. 3rd ed. Oxford, London: Oxford UP, 2006.

[2] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: InterVarsity P, 1994. 442.

[3] Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who is There in The Three Essential Books in One Volume: Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1990. 100.

[4] Ibid. 76.

[5] Ibid. 94.

[6] Ibid. 94-95.

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 7

First, for Christians, the most fundamental and distinctive event of the religion is the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Without Christ’s atoning sacrifice, Christianity would just be like any other religion – Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and the like – in that it would be one that is based solely on teachings, and not primarily on the validation and effects of those teachings by the historicity of the events that are proclaimed.  Because Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection are true historical events,[1] we can then trust what Jesus says.  What, then, does Jesus say about Scripture, specifically, the Old Testament?  In response to a question on marriage in the afterlife, Jesus chastises, saying, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29, emphasis added).  This is extremely important.  Jesus presents us with a syllogism.  In Matthew 22:29, he essentially says, “You do not know truth because you do not know the Scriptures.”  That is our syllogism.  So, conversely, by modus tollens, we have, “If you know the Scriptures, then you know the truth.”  It is evident, then, that Jesus believed that the Old Testament was true. 

That Jesus believed the Old Testament was true also extends to the historicity of Genesis 1-11.  Speaking on divorce, Jesus, quoting Genesis, said, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’” (Mark 10:6-8; para. Matthew 19:4-6).  Contrasted with the evolutionary view, it is important that Jesus declares that “from the beginning of creation, God made them [humans] male and female.”  Quite obviously, the creation of which Jesus speaks is that in Genesis 1 and 2.  But according to evolution (even theistic evolution), human beings were not created in the beginning.  Rather, evolutionists believe that from the beginning of life, random mutations made single-celled organisms that, if anything, were, due to inherent asexuality, female – not both male and female.  This view is in complete disagreement with the Biblical narrative and does Jesus’ words complete injustice.  Jesus’ words are blatant proof that He believed in the historicity of the creation account. 

             While Jesus clearly believed in the literal creation account of Genesis 1 and 2, many of the other New Testament writers voiced this same view much more clearly.  This, of course, does not mean that Jesus believed in the literality of creation any less than did the New Testament writers.  But the significance of the literal belief in Genesis 1 and 2 for the New Testament authors also had doctrinal significance, meaning that many of the doctrines that they propagated were actually based on the creation account and its order.  The Apostle Paul, more than any other, bases his God-inspired doctrines on the creation account. 

---

[1] For proof of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, see Crouser, Wesley A. “The Validity of the Resurrection.” 27 Apr. 2006. http://www.xanga.com/wcrouser/511947403/the-validity-of-the-resurrection.html; Craig, William L., Gerd Lüdemann, Stephen T. Davis, Michael Goulder, Robert H. Gundry, and Roy Hoover. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment. Ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity P, 2000; Piper, John. “Eight Reasons Why I Believe That Jesus Rose From the Dead.” Desiring God. 28 Feb. 2007. Bethlehem Baptist Church. 26 Apr. 2007 <http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2009_Eight_Reasons_ Why_I_Believe_That_Jesus_Rose_from_the_Dead/>.

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 6

Many Christians such as C.S. Lewis[1] have argued that evolution is, in fact, compatible with the creation story in the Bible.  It is said that the first two (or, as in most cases, the first eleven) chapters of Genesis are not to be read literally or as history, but rather allegorical.  After all, they argue, there is a talking serpent in the third chapter.  This, as rationalists, we know, cannot occur.  But this view of reconciling evolution with the Bible ultimately stems from a poor view of Scripture, namely, that the Bible should be checked for truthfulness by science, rather than the belief that science should be checked for truthfulness by the Bible.  This, of course, can often be taken too far, as in the case with Galileo and the Church of his day.  Nevertheless, there are multiple reasons why the Genesis 1-2 creation account cannot be reconciled with evolution. 

---

[1] See his The Problem of Pain.

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 5

In On the Origin of Species, Darwin set out grounds for refutation of his theory.  In essence, he said if someone could prove that a certain organism or feature could not come to be by a gradual, step-by-step process, his theory would fail entirely.  Taking Darwin’s challenge, Michael Behe developed the idea that he calls “irreducible complexity.”  He defines it this way:

 

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.  An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.  An irreducibly complex biological system, if there were such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.[1]

 

In his text critiquing Darwinism, Behe sets out to present several irreducibly complex biological systems, including the cilium, the process of clotting blood, the sending of messages in the body via proteins, and antibodies.  Ten years after Behe released his text that rocked the biological world, not a single person has responded with a real proposal for an evolutionary mechanism of his so-called irreducibly complex systems.  James Shapiro of the University of Chicago wrote, “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”[2]  In reponse, Behe wrote in the afterward of his 2006 edition of Darwin’s Black Box, “Ten years later, nothing has changed.”[3]

The challenges for current evolutionists are many.  While surely research in the area of macroevolution should continue, it seems that teaching school children the evolutionary tree of life as sheer fact is walking on very shaky ground.  With no experimental proof of macroevolution, a fossil record that presents more problems than it provides proofs, and no real responses to Behe’s idea of irreducible complexity to date, it seems that teaching T.H. White’s The Once and Future King as history might be a better bet. 

---

[1] Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2nd ed. New York: Free P, 2006. 39.

[2] Shapiro, J. “In the Details…What?” National Review. 16 Sept. 1996. 62-65.  See also Harold, F. The Way of the Cell. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.

[3] Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2nd ed. New York: Free P, 2006. 271.

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 4

Another evidence listed in support of macroevolution is the revealed fossil record.  In fact, much of evolutionary theory is derived from what are said to be transitional periods between various species.  Campbell and Reece write:

 

The succession of fossil forms is compatible with what is known from other types of evidence about the major branches of descent in the tree of life…. Indeed, the oldest known fossils are prokaryotes [just as predicted by evolutionary biochemists].  Another example is the chronological appearance of the different classes of vertebrate animals in the fossil record.  Fossil fishes predate all other vertebrates, with amphibians next, followed by reptiles, then mammals and birds.  This sequence is consistent with the history of vertebrate descent as revealed by many other types of evidence. 

The Darwinian view of life also predicts that evolutionary transitions should leave signs in the fossil record.  Paleontologists have discovered fossils of many transitional forms that link even older fossils to modern species.[1]

 

As Campbell and Reece suggest (more explicitly elsewhere), the evolutionary tree of life is primarily a result of logic and the fossil record.  Upon it, considerable theory rests. 

           

Yet, screaming in the face of evolutionists is the Cambrian explosion.  During this period – approximately 550 million years ago according to modern dating methods – “most of the major groups (phyla) of animals make their first fossil appearances during the relatively short span of the Cambrian period’s first 20 million years.”[2]  Michael Behe explains further:

 

Careful searches show only a smattering of fossils of multicellular creatures in rocks older than about 600 million years.  Yet in rocks just a little bit younger [roughly 565 million years old according to Campbell and Reece[3]] is seen a profusion of fossilized animals, with a host of widely differing body plans.  Recently the estimated time over which the explosion took place has been revised from 50 million years to 10 million years—a blink of the eye in geological terms.  The shorter time estimate has forced headline writers to grope for new superlatives, a favorite being the “biological Big Bang.”[4]

 

This explosion presents quite a significant challenge to Darwinian gradualism.  According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, time is a key factor.  And, as Behe noted, 10 million years is not much time in geology.  Even worse for evolutionists, admittedly “many of them [major invertebrate groups] already [exist] in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.”[5]  How do evolutionists respond?

           

Richard Dawkins, the famed atheistic evangelist and evolutionary biologist, simply dismisses the explosion as gaps in the fossil record:

 

Evolutionists of all stripes believe…that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.  One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize…. [T]he major gaps are real,…they are true imperfections in the fossil record.[6]

 

Campbell and Reece reply with a few hypotheses as to why the explosion occurred.  In summary, they present three hypotheses.  First, the emergence of predator-prey relationships caused animals to evolve protective devises, such as “shells and diverse modes of locomotion.”  Second, oxygen likely “reached a high enough concentration during the Cambrian to support the more active metabolism required for the feeding and other activities of mobile animals.”  Third, there may have been genetic mutations that affected embryonic development.[7]  And finally, the famed and now late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould responded to the Cambrian explosion in that he, along with Niles Eldredge, completely abandoned the traditional, gradualistic theory of Darwinism.  Gould and Eldredge hypothesized what is now known as punctuated equilibrium, essentially stating that, sexual creatures do not evolve frequently, but when they do, they phenotypically evolve extremely rapidly. 

            But each of these responses is inherently weak in one sense or another.  Dawkins’s dismissal of the Cambrian explosion as a “major gap” in the fossil record simply does not hold.  He notes that many of the species were soft-bodied, implying that such boneless animals could not leave fossils.  This is simply not true, though, as the fossil record is filled with soft-bodied animals even prior to the Cambrian explosion.[8]  The hypotheses of Campbell and Reece in many ways seem rather naive.  While the hypothesis that the increased presence of oxygen (what seems to be the strongest hypothesis) caused an evolutionary spark makes sense, it still does not explain the incredible diversity of the Cambrian.  The other two hypotheses do not seem as strong.  The predator-prey relationships of which they speak still do not provide reasoning for the diversity that is found (let alone a mechanism by which such new defense mechanism could arise!), and the third hypothesis seems very elementary in that it simply calls for genetic mutations found within the embryos.  This is almost like saying, “Evolution is necessary for evolution to occur.”  Finally, Stephen Jay Gould’s punctuated equilibrium theory has not been terribly well received among the evolutionary community, although his ideas do retain a significant following.[9]  It seems that none can render a satisfactory explanation for what seems to be one of evolution’s biggest challenges. 

---

[1] Campbell, Neil A., and Jane B. Reece. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco: Pearson Education, 2002. 441.

[2] Ibid. 515.

[3] Ibid. 642.

[4] Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2nd ed. New York: Free P, 2006. 27.

[5] Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996. 229.

[6] Ibid. 229-230.

[7] Campbell, Neil A., and Jane B. Reece. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco: Pearson Education, 2002. 643.

[8] See, for instance, Gehling, J.G. and J.K. Rigby. “Long Expected Sponges from the Neoproterozoic Ediacara Fauna of South Australia.” Journal of Paleontology.  Vol. 70. No. 2, 185-195. 

[9] For a criticism of Gould, see Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996. 223-252.

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 3

First, no experimental proof exists for macroevolution.  That’s correct.  There has never been any experiment performed that demonstrates macroevolution.  The examples cited above, which are often and unfortunately argued as if they were examples of macroevolution are, in reality, examples of microevolution.  Both changes in the resistance of a bacteria population and the size of finch beaks are changes in allele frequencies.  Or, in phenotypic terms, they are changes within creatures and mechanisms that already exist.  No new antennae or vascular system is formed.  Simply a change in the physical nature of a certain part takes place. 

           

Frequent examples of microevolution cited as macroevolution include “birds introduced into North America by European settlers have diversified into several distinct groups…. [V]iruses such as the one that causes AIDS mutate their coats in order to evade the human immune system.”[1]  Nevertheless, we have seen the creation of nothing new – only qualification by size and the varying frequencies of differing alleles within a given population.  Yet, within these legitimate examples, there is also a darker side of Darwinism. 

Often cited as evolutionary proof are industrial peppered moths that change wing color depending on what the current inhabited environment is.  According to several sources, these moths appear in both light and dark grey variants.  During the Industrial Revolution in England, factories released large quantities of smoke and soot, which, in turn, darkened the colors of the tree trunks in the surrounding areas.  Consequently, it was seen that darker moths were harder to spot by predators, and, as a result, survived in greater quantities, whereas the lighter moths did not.  It has recently been shown, though, that these moths, in fact, do not even live or rest on trees trunks – the part of the tree that is darkened by the soot and smoke.  Instead, they rest in the upper canopy of trees.  It turns out that the scientists who documented this observation later admitted that they had glued dead moths of various colors to tree trunks – a primary evidence they cited.  This example (while it would still be classified as microevolution) proved to be an elaborate hoax.  Yet, because Darwinists are so desperate for “examples” of their theory, the peppered moth example remains in today’s textbooks![2] 

What’s worse is that we, as a population, often view scientists as honorable, agenda-free seekers of truth.  For many, this is simply not the case.  As Nancy Pearcey reports, “Bassett Maguire, a biology professor at the University of Texas, admits that the [industrial peppered] moths were staged, the embryos [drawn by the German scientist Ernst Haeckel to demonstrate the alleged similarity of fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, and human embryos at a certain, similar stage] exaggerated.  But, he told a reporter, the examples don’t really matter so much as the concepts they teach.  The icons represent flawed but nevertheless historic moments in science, he said, and the concepts they illustrate remain valid.”[3]  Unfortunately, it seems that the antics of this professor are much more common than one would like to admit.  True indoctrination may, in fact, be coming from the scientific community rather than the religious sector. 

But beyond this point, it is especially puzzling that no proof for macroevolution exists.  Part of this is not puzzling, because evolutionary theory demands thousands of millions of years for life to evolve.  So, many evolutionary biologists may argue that we will never (unless experiments are performed over multiple generations) observe macroevolution.  Nevertheless, the lifespan of a human is seemingly infinite when compared with that of some life forms such as bacteria or certain insects.  When experiments on such creatures are performed in a non-random manner with foreknowledge of advantages, it seems that something new and advantageous would have appeared by this point in time.  Yet the fact remains: no proof for macroevolution exists for any species. 

---

[1] Ibid.

[2] Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity From Its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004. 161-162.

[3] Ibid. 165.  See also Johnson, Phillip E.  Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1997. 37.

Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 2

Today many biologists are quick to display their proofs of evolutionary theory.  For instance, you’ve more than likely heard about these potentially threatening bacteria and viruses that have evolved to become drug resistant.  In essence, what has happened in this scenario is a certain patient with a bacterial infection is treated with an antibiotic.  It turns out that this antibiotic is 99% effective.  It also turns out that this specific bacterium that is being treated is genetically coded against this certain treatment.  Most of the bacteria, however, contain, for the sake of argument, recessive alleles for this treatment, meaning, again, for the sake of argument, that they are unable to resist the antibiotic.  When treated, they quickly die.  There is, however, a small portion of the bacterial population (1%) that has one or two dominant alleles, and is able to resist the antibiotic.  When the antibiotic treatment is stopped, this 1% begins to reproduce, and, because of the asexual nature of bacteria, the entire population is now antibiotic resistant.  The population has evolved by the fluctuation of the allele frequency within the population to resist this antibiotic. 

           

Another example: Charles Darwin famously studied the beak size of finches in the Galápagos Islands.  Since then, others have validated Darwin’s findings.[1]  In this studied, Darwin noted that among the same species of finch, varying beak sizes existed: the beaks of some finches were large (used for cracking hard seeds), and others had very small beaks (used for eating insects and softer seeds).  Consequently, when drought would hit, and the only food available for the finches were the hard seeds found on the ground, it was primarily these finches that survived.  The genetically inherited small beak sizes were naturally selected out of the gene pool.  So when the finches reproduced, then, it was found, as expected, that the prominence of the larger beak had risen.  Evolution had occurred within this population. 

           

Current textbooks are filled with other such examples.  There is no need to provide more examples at this point.  But where textbooks fail is in the noting that such examples are examples of microevolution, not macroevolution.  To define, microevolution is “a generation-to-generation chance in a population’s frequencies of alleles,”[2] while macroevolution is “the origin of new taxonomic groups (new species, new genera, new families, even new kingdoms.”[3]  In simpler terms, “microevolution describes changes that can be made in one or a few small [generational] jumps, whereas macroevolution describes changes that appear to require large jumps.”[4]  My personal definition is that microevolution deals with the change of already existing creatures, limbs, and other body parts, while macroevolution is the “creation” of a new appendage or something similar.  Microevolution changes the color of someone’s eyes; macroevolution gives an eyeless creature eyes.  It is here that the controversy exists.  For nearly everyone acknowledges the existence of microevolution.  As Michael Behe candidly writes, “On a small scale, Darwin’s theory has triumphed; it is now about as controversial as an athlete’s assertion that he or she could jump over a four-foot ditch.  But it is at the level of macroevolution—of large jumps—that the theory evokes skepticism.”[5] 

           

It is macroevolution that draws the divide between evolutionists and non-evolutionists.  Macroevolution is the side of evolution that challenges many religions’ creation myths.  Because it suggests that all life forms have evolved from one common ancestor, it is in direct contradiction with the worldviews of many belief systems.  But the evidence supporting this philosophy that so many boast as nothing less than absolute fact is extremely slim.  Thus, the following will briefly outline several problems that currently exist within the scientific and philosophical realm for evolutionary biologists. 

---

[1] See Campbell, Neil A., and Jane B. Reece. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco: Pearson Education, 2002. 426-427; Weiner, J. The Beak of the Finch.  New York: Vintage Books, 1994. 

[2] Campbell, Neil A., and Jane B. Reece. Biology. 6th ed. San Francisco: Pearson Education, 2002. 450.

[3] Ibid. 464.

[4] Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 2nd ed. New York: Free P, 2006. 14, emphasis his. 

[5] Ibid. 15.