Implications
As I hope to now show the arguments against theistic evolution are much more grounded in the Scriptures. In addition, the creation vs evolution controversy is too important to just gloss over because of the major doctrinal implications a faulty view of creation carries with it. I think that John D. Currid sums up the implications issue well when he says: “If we remove the profoundly historical nature of Genesis 1-3, we will remove the historical foundation on which all the remainder of the Bible rests.”1
Destroys the Basis of the Gospel Message
Since theistic evolution denies that Genesis 1-3 is a historical narrative of the events of creation many of the foundational doctrines of the New Testament are severely undermined. Two examples concern the atonement and the resurrection; both of which if undermined destroy the message of the cross. The problem for theistic evolutionists is that if we deny a historical Adam then we must deny that sin came into the world through Adam. But this clearly contradicts (Romans 5:12) which states: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Thus, theistic evolution denies the doctrine of original sin. But we also read in (Romans 5:19): “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Thus, the parallel with Christ being the second Adam, who came on the scene to be our atonement for sin, doesn’t work or make any sense. As a result, the doctrine of the atonement is severely undermined.
When it comes to the resurrection of Christ we read in (I Corinthians 15:21-22): “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” Wayne Grudem sums up the problem relating the resurrection to a non-literal Adam well when he states: “However, if we deny that death came into the world through Adam, and if we deny the unity of the human race as descending from Adam, then once again the parallel between Adam and Christ does not work. In this way, theistic evolution undermines the effectiveness of the resurrection to give new life to all who are saved by Christ.”2
Once we undermine both the atonement and the resurrection we also undermine the need for a Savior. So, you can see that once we strip away the historicity of Genesis 1-3 and the idea of a literal Adam and Eve a host of crucial biblical doctrines begin to crumble. So many of the doctrines of Scripture depend on Genesis 1-3 being literally and historically interpreted that the very truthfulness of the entire Bible comes into question when we begin to treat these pivotal chapters as poetic, allegorical and figuratively.
Misrepresents the Nature of God
When God created our world, the Bible describes his work as very good. However, if one holds to the theory of theistic evolution then we are left with a process of death leading up to the creation of man. Werner Gitt shares the following thought: “Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation.”3 Does it make sense that a God, who is all good and all powerful, would use the mechanism of death to bring about humanity – is this the nature of God? Ken Ham paints a picture of what the God of theistic evolution must have done to create mankind: “Evolution teaches that for millions of years before man things have lived and died. They have fought and struggled, killed and been killed. It was a world without mercy – ‘nature red in tooth and claw.’ This history of evolution is a history of death. Death has been ‘from the beginning.’”4 Ken Ham then sums up the twisted state of affairs when we bring evolution into the picture when he says: “Evolution says death plus struggle brought man into existence; the Bible says man’s actions led to sin, which led to death. These two are totally contradictory.”5 It also doesn’t seem to be in the nature of God, nor is it even possible, that he would guide or direct an unguided and undirected process which most theistic evolutionist contend. Stephen C. Meyer shows us how impossible this is when he states: “Logically no intelligent being – not even God – can direct an undirected process. As soon as he directs it, the ‘undirected’ process would no longer be undirected.”6
In tomorrow’s Part III devotion, we will explore some additional implications if theistic evolution is true as well as conclude our talk on theistic evolution.
1 J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, Editors, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017). p. 862.
2 Ibid. p. 836.
3 Werner Gitt, 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution. Creation Ministries International. 2010. https://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution
4 Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987). p. 147.
5 Ibid. p. 150.
6 J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem, Editors, Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017). p. 43.