Question: In your February '97 article wasn’t there too much emphasis upon Catholicism’s support ...

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 [23] And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, [24] Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, [25] Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, [26] Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, [27] Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, [28] Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, [29] Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, [30] Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, [31] Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, [32] Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, [33] Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, [34] Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, [35] Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, [36] Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, [37] Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, [38] Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
See All... traces Christ’s genealogy to Adam, and Christ is even called “the last Adam” (1 Cor:15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
See All...). 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.