Theistic Evolution - Curse of the Church

Theistic Evolution - Curse of the Church
by Bert Thompson, Ph. D.

The subject of origins is a thorny and controversial topic and the center of many a discussion, many a debate, many a written polemic. On the one hand there is the position of atheistic, organic evolution which affirms that man is the result of purely naturalistic, mechanistic, uniformitarian forces operating eternally in nature. Atheists rejoice in the theory and defend it eagerly, while the more conservative, fundamental Christians view it as an all-out attack on the one living God. On the other hand there is the position of special creation, which states that the one true and living God created the universe and all that in it is, exactly as the Bible states. (Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11, et al.) Bible believers ardently defend special creation as not only the only true viewpoint on origins, but are quick to point out that it fits the facts of science (e.g.: Law of Causality, Law of Biogenesis, Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.) while the theory of evolution does not.

Oddly enough, amidst all the discussion concerning evolution and creation, there has arisen a group of people who believe that both evolution and creation are true! These people hold to "theistic evolution" (also called "religious evolution," "mitigated evolution," "progressive creationism," or "threshold evolution"), all the while claiming that it sustains them in their religious belief, yet allows them to "mix and mingle" with the rank and file evolutionists. Their name is Legion; their tribe is increasing.

Theistic Evolution Defined

The word "theistic" comes from the Greek word theos, which means God. Therefore, when one claims to be a "theistic" evolutionist, he is caliming to believe in both God and evolution at the same time. As one writer has well stated: " ‘Theistic evolution’ states that God did create and develop the universe and its components, but that He did it by evolutionary processes."1 Another writer has said: "There are many in the religious world, and a few in the New Testament church, who think that Genesis can and must be harmonized with evolution. They are theistic evolutionists who maintain that evolution was God’s method of creation."2 The point is clear. The theistic evolutionist believes evolution was simply "the way God did it" as he brought the universe and its contents into existence.

Is Theistic Evolution Popular?

Is theistic evolution popular? Indeed it is! Many people today take it as a "way out" of having to make a decision in favor of either evolution or creation. It has become the "middle of the road" position which so many have already taken on a myriad of other issues (e.g.: verbal, plenary inspiration, the virgin birth, miracles, etc.). As Dr. R. L. Wysong points out:
"Theistic evolution has been advocated in the past by men like Augustine and Aquinas. Today it is vogue. It is downright hard to find anyone who does not believe in evolution in one form or another, and it is also difficult to find anyone who does not believe in a creator in one form or another. This hybrid belief has given reprieve to those not wishing to make a total commitment to either side."3

People have accepted theistic evolution for a multitude of reasons. On of the reasons often given by theistic evolutionists for their acceptance of this position is that they believe it is not only not contradictory to the Bible, but is, in fact, compatible with the Divine Record. Dr. Neal Buffaloe, for example, has plainly stated: "the concept of evolution is neither degrading to man, detrimental to human dignity, nor in conflict with the Bible."4 Many people believe in evolution because they are convinced the "evidences" for evolution are simply too strong and too numerous. Nobel laureate George W. Beadle put it this way: "One must accept all of evolution or none. And the evidence for organic evolution is overwhelmingly convincing ... belief in evolution, including the spontaneous origin of life from non-living antecedents, need in no way conflict religion."5 John Clayton, author of The Source, comments: "If we look carefully at the issues about which we are talking, however, we can find that evolution and the Bible show amazing agreement on almost all issues and that one is not mutually exclusive of the other."6 Still others believe in theistic evolution because they feel it simply doesn’t matter all that much. Dr. Buffaloe has stated: "What do we care that man the animal is a product of evolution as long as man the spirit is begotten of God?"7

What’s Wrong With Theistic Evolution?

Is theistic evolution biblical and therefore acceptable? NO! It is one of the most dangerous compromises ever to befall the Bible-believer. To compromise on the matter of origins is certain to lead, at some point or another, to compromise in other areas of the Holy Writ. If the first chapter of the Bible is untrustworthy (and therefore subject to compromise), why should we think any of the other chapters are any different? Theistic evolution is a God-denying, Jesus-denying, Holy Spirit-denying falsehood. Christians who value their souls will shun it and urge others to do likewise. Here are just a few of the things wrong with theistic evolution.

1. Theistic evolution is wrong because there is no theistic statement which shows it to be true. God never said he used evolution to create. In fact, he said just the opposite.
"... God could have accomplished the origin of life in any way He chose, by evolution or by creation, but an admission that there is a God and that He made such an accomplishment in any way, means that we are totally dependent upon His revelation to determine which way. His revelation declares creation, not evolution."7
The texts of the Bible (Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11; Exodus 31:17, et al.) plainly teach fiat creation and do not even hint at any kind of evolutionary process. God said he used creation; that settles it!

2. Theistic evolution is wrong because it makes a liar out of Jesus Christ. Jesus stated in Mark 10:6 (cf.: Matthew 19:4): "But from the beginning of the creation male and female made he them." Jesus affirmed that Adam and Eve had been on the earth "from the beginning of the creation." Paul affirmed in Romans 1:20-21 that the things God had made were being "perceived" even "since the creation of the world." Who, Paul, was there to "perceive" these things "since the creation of the world"? Moses told us. Paul told us. Adam and Eve were their names. Jesus affirmed their status here on the earth "from th beginning of the creation." Now if the evolutionists are correct and man has been here on the earth some 4 million years or so, it doesn’t take very much intelligence to figure out that four million years out of an alleged earth history of 4.5 billion years is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "from the beginning." Rather, it is "from the end." The choice is this: either Jesus lied and the evolutionists are correct, or Jesus told the truth and evolution is wrong. To accept any part of evolution makes Jesus Christ a liar (not to mention Moses and Paul)!

3. Theistic evolution is wrong because it cannot explain Eve. This problem has haunted theistic evolutionists since the very inception of their false theory. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God put Adam to sleep and took from his side material from which he made woman. (Genesis 2:21-23.) Eve is even named by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:13 as being a real, historical character. Yet evolution says that the sexes evolved, and that simultaneously, in the same geographical region, with one being male and one being female. There is nothing similar in the two incidents. How will the theistic evolutionist explain this "problem of Eve"? Most theistic evolutionists, when faced with this problem, attempt to "do away" with Eve by making the first eleven chapters of Genesis mythological or allegorical - anything but true, literal history. Yet this at the same time has far-reaching consequences. For example, Abraham, father of the Hebrew race, is mentioned in chapter 11 of Genesis. Was Abraham mythical? And what about the flood of Noah in Genesis 6-8? Was it mythical? Peter didn’t think so; he referred to it in 2 Peter 3:1-13 as being a real, historical event. Was the tower of Babel figurative and allegorical? If so, from where have the various languages come? Furthermore, Paul mentions Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45, and compares him to the "last Adam" (Jesus!). If the first Adam was mythical, is the last? Are proponents of theistic evolution ready to accept this logical conclusion?

4. Theistic evolution is wrong because it logically denies the fall of man. The Bible makes it clear that man started on the earth in a covenant relationship with God. (Genesis 1, 2.) Genesis 3 then tells of the breaking, by man, of that covenant, and his need for a Redeemer to bring him back into a covenant relationship with the Creator. Evolution says that man did not start out at the top and then fall to the bottom, but instead started at the bottom as some primordial slime, and has through the eons of geological time "risen." Which is true? Did man start at the top, or did he start at the bottom?

5. Theistic evolution is wrong because the Bible teaches catastrophism; evolution teaches uniformitarianism. Over and over again the Bible speaks of catastrophic events (the flood of Genesis 6-8; the plagues of Egypt in Exodus 7ff.; etc.). The miraculous is an intrinsic part of the Bible. On the other hand, evolution requires uniformitarianism with its trite phrase "the present is the key to the past" as its watchword. Evolution states emphatically that all things are going on today just like they always have and always will. The Bible plainly denies this. The resurrection of Christ is enough to send evolution to its grave once and for all.

6. Theistic evolution is wrong because it cannot explain where man acquired his soul.
"To be consistent evolutionists, theistic evolutionists must maintain that the image of God, in man, was evolved. If they call on God and a miracle to get the image of God in man, why so hesitant to call on God and a miracle for the giving of the life of the body to a physical body formed of the dust of the earth? Their non-theistic evolutionistic colleagues will not find the creation of the image of God in man any more acceptable than the creation of the body of man. What do theistic evolutionists affirm of the origin of the image of God?"8
This problem, has, of course, bothered theistic evolutionists for literally centuries. Because of it, the fallacious doctrines of "progressive creationism" and "threshold evolution" were invented - yet without success. The Bible plainly states that God created man in the image of God, and gave him a soul. Did that soul evolve along with all the other parts? How will the theistic evolutionist get a soul into man?

Conclusion

What is it about this ugly, degrading, anti-biblical system that makes it appealing to so many? It is nothing but a serious compromise which turns the inspired writers into liars. What is wrong with the way God said he did it? Or isn’t his word on the matter good enough for us anymore?

Footnotes

1. Jennings, Mark. Theistic Evolution. (a tract) Star Bible Publications. Fort Worth, Texas. No date. p 3.
2. Bales, J. D. "Theistic Evolution and Genesis." IN: GOSPEL ADVOCATE. 1-24-74. p 52.
3. Wysong, R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. Inquiry Press. East Lansing, Mich. 1976. p 63.
4. Buffaloe, Neal. "God or Evolution?" IN: Mission. April, 1969. Pp 17, 20, 21.
5. Beadle, George W. Quoted in footnote #4 above.
6. Clayton, John. The Source. 17411 Battles Rd. South Bend IN. 1976. p130.
7. Camp, Robert. "Theistic Evolution." IN: A Critical Look at Evolution. Religion, Science and Communication Research & Development Corp. Atlanta, GA. 1972. pp 205-206.
8. Bales, J. D. op cit. p53.

Gospel Advocate
May 7, 1981