Theistic Evolution: The Wrong Compromise – Part III

The Truthfulness of the Bible is Undermined

When it comes to understanding why theistic evolution is the wrong compromise for Christians to make in order to accommodate modern scientific ideas such as evolution, the very truthfulness of the Bible is at stake. Wayne Grudem shares what we can expect to see when we deny the historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis:

“In addition, theistic evolution requires us to believe that both Jesus and the New Testament authors were wrong in their affirmations of the historical reliability of many details in Genesis 1 – 3. More specifically, theistic evolution requires us to believe that passages in Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, and Revelation were all in error in what they affirmed about Genesis 1 – 3. This is much deeper than a challenge to the historicity of one verse or another. This is a challenge to the truthfulness of three foundational chapters of the entire Bible, and to the truthfulness of ten of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.”1

Once we begin to lose the truthfulness of the Scriptures it is only a matter of time before the entire Christian faith begins to unravel. If we deny the historical nature of Genesis 1-3 the question naturally arises as to just when does Genesis turn from figurative language to historical narrative. Again, Grudem sums up this entire idea when he states: “Even if there were no other harmful consequences from this theory, this alone would be sufficient to conclude that theistic evolution is not a viewpoint that Christians should accept.”2 As we can see theories can have far reaching implications and in the case of theistic evolution the very doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible is at stake.

The Wisdom of God is Called into Question

Grudem forcefully makes this point when he states: “Theistic evolution undermines the glory given to God for his unfathomable wisdom in the creation of all living things, because in theistic evolution no divine intelligence or wisdom beyond the properties present in inanimate matter is required for matter to evolve into all forms of life.”3 He goes on to add: “In addition, in theistic evolution God does not wisely create various kinds of animals on his first attempt, but clumsily, by his providence, brings about millions of failed mutations in each creature before he finds a beneficial change.”4 And just how can we reconcile this idea of God needing “millions of failed mutations” with (Psalm 139:14): “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” The questions before us are these: Could blind chance have created the magnificence we see in man today? Could random collisions have created genius? And could mindless matter have generated the marvelous minds we possess today? According to theistic evolutionists inanimate matter was somehow given God’s wisdom to transform itself, without using any wisdom at all, into the beauty we see all around us in nature up to and including man. This indeed is a hard pill to swallow and believe.

Contradicts the creation account

Theistic evolution contradicts just about everything traditional Christianity holds dear about the creation account in the first three chapters of Genesis. We have already shown that theistic evolution places death before the fall of man. In addition, the idea of dust to Adam and rib to Eve is allegorized, death, which the Bible views as an enemy, is viewed by theistic evolutionists as a necessary ally in the creation process, Adam and Eve were never sinless human beings, and that Adam and Eve were not the first human beings (and perhaps they never even existed). And this last point is critical for if Adam and Eve are not historical people then what about other people in the Bible. According to John A. Bloom: “And if we think that Adam and Eve are mythical, who else is? Noah? Abraham? Moses? Samuel? David? Such skepticism towards the historical accounts in early Genesis (and elsewhere by extension of the same methods) is typical of liberal theology, which historically evangelicals opposed.”5 When creation concepts are called into question and not viewed as historical in nature then even Jesus got it wrong because he clearly viewed Genesis 1 – 3 as historical in nature.

Loss of the Way for Finding God

In order to find one’s way to God it is critical that we realize that we are sinful creatures who desperately need a savior. Since theistic evolutionists don’t even acknowledge that we have inherited Adam and Eve’s original sin nature the question becomes just how can we find our way back to God if we don’t realize we are desperate sinners? Werner Gitt sums up this dilemma as follows: “However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.”6

Conclusion

Theistic evolution is a bad compromise for Christians to make because once we make this concession the implications, as I have shown, are quite alarming. In reality, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution. God is simply added to the equation. As we have shown many historical Christian doctrines are compromised once we let go of the historical underpinnings of the first three chapters of Genesis.  Werner Gitt sums up the situation well when he says: “Thus, a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.”7 Perhaps John Bloom shares what the ultimate outcome is for those who carry theistic evolution to its logical conclusion when he states: “If God did not even guide the evolutionary process, how is God sovereign over his creation? Did God intentionally make us in his image? If humans gradually evolved, and our sinfulness is merely the inherent selfishness resulting from a Darwinian process, then human history is progress, not corruption, so shouldn’t humans ultimately be good enough not to need a savior?”8

---

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. 821.

2 Ibid. pp. 821-822.

3 Ibid. p. 832.

4 Ibid.

5 John A. Bloom, Theistic Evolution Isn’t Fit for Survival. Biola Magazine. 2011.

  http://magazine.biola.edu/article/11-fall/theistic-evolution-isnt-fit-for-survival/

6 Werner Gitt, 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution. Creation Ministries International. 2010.  https://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution

7 Ibid.

8 John A. Bloom, Theistic Evolution Isn’t Fit for Survival. Biola Magazine. 2011.