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.
I am glad to see that you are still writing. It looks like you put a lot of great research into these essays.
I’ll throw in my 2 cents:
If evolution passes away it will only be due to the attractiveness of another anti-God philosophy, not because evolutionists suddenly “saw the facts”. RC Sproul’s epistemology is very inconsistent. On the one hand he would say that Dawkins unbelief is the result of his total depravity, but on the other hand Sproul would say that Dawkins accepts evolution because he is unreasonable. In reality the two are the same thing, but one precedes the other. When talking about apologetics Sproul tends to focus only on the latter. Hence atheists will never abandon atheism, despite its utter absurdity, simply because they hate God and will seek any justification to comfort them in their hateful state.
I’m not a proponent of Sproul’s apologetic methods. Instead, I’m a presuppositionalist, more in the line of Corneolius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, and John Frame. I did think, though, that Sproul’s comment was clever and biting, which is why I concluded with it. And, you never know what will happen. I agree that the majority of atheists won’t be denying evolution and naturalism and turning to God, but many have (even though there is no moral basis in atheism!) gone with Wilberforce and those after in abolshing the slave trade and slavery in general.