Question: In your February '97 article wasn’t there too much emphasis upon Catholicism’s support of evolution? What about Protestants and even evangelicals? Isn't theistic evolution popular in those circles as well? | thebereancall.org

TBC Staff

Question: Your February article about evolution was informative. However, wasn’t there too much emphasis upon Catholicism’s support of evolution? What about Protestants and even evangelicals? Shouldn’t you have pointed out that theistic evolution is quite popular in those circles as well?

Response: Thank you for your reminder. I didn’t have room in the article to cover acceptance among evangelical leaders and media, such as the fact that Christianity Today supported the Pope in his endorsement of evolution. An editorial declared (1/ 6/97, p. 18),

John Paul II was...reminding scientists that if they were to be faithful Christians there were limits beyond which their science could not take them...no theory of evolution was acceptable...that did not recognize the direct divine origin of the human soul.

The same support for theistic evolution was evidenced by a number of participants at a creation/evolution conference of mostly professing evangelicals at Biola University in Southern California in mid-November, 1996. While all attending agreed that God was involved in the process, there was wide disagreement on the extent of that involvement, all the way from a strict biblical creationist view to the belief (theistic evolution) that God used evolution to create various species over millions of years. (World, Nov. 30 / Dec. 7, 1996, p. 18).

Like Christianity Today, Promise Keepers’ official magazine, New Man, also endorses theistic evolution. Furthermore, New Man (July-Aug. 1996, p. 54) argues that whether or not God used evolution to bring man into existence is of little importance:

Remember, however, that the debate over how God created the world—through millions of years of evolutionary work or through a few words spoken over a few days—is not the central tenet of Christianity.

Christianity is, in fact, inextricably linked with all of the Bible. If any part contradicts any other part, then the whole of Scripture is undermined. If the Bible is wrong in its account of man’s origin, why should we trust its teaching about man’s redemption?

Like Christian psychology, theistic evolution is one more example of Christians desiring to be academically respected and thereby embracing a worldly wisdom which compromises and contradicts God’s Word. What New Man doesn’t understand, The American Atheist does:

But if death [of evolving prehumans] preceded man and was not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin is fiction. If sin is fiction, then we have no need for a Savior....[E]volution destroys utterly and finally the very reason [for] Jesus’ earthly life....If Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. (As cited in The Christian News, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 15).

Adam is mentioned about 30 times in nine books of the Bible. Thus, to discredit the biblical account of Adam’s creation punctures so many holes, not only in Genesis but in all of the Bible, that it can no longer be the container of a consistent theology. For example, Luke:3:23-38 traces Christ’s genealogy to Adam, and Christ is even called “the last Adam” (1 Cor:15:45). Both associations would be demeaning to Christ if Adam were a prehuman creature that had evolved from lower animals.

Darwin himself said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (New York University Press, 6th ed., 1988), p. 154). This is precisely what we find at the biochemical, cellular level, a level of life about which Darwin knew nothing and which Michael Behe so well documents in the book we’re offering, Darwin’s Black Box.

Had Darwin known of the incredible complexity of life on the molecular and cellular level, he probably would not have proposed his theory. Since the discovery of this “black box,” evolutionists, right up to the present, have maintained a total silence on this subject, a silence that speaks volumes.

Add This