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.
Leave a Reply