I’ve been reading through Gregory Koukl’s new book Tactics (check back on Tuesday for a review) and came to a brief section dealing with theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is all the rage within Christian circles today and I thought it may be worth discussing the logic he uses to refute it. I’d be interested in your thoughts on it. Here’s Koukl:
*****
Some people suggest that God used evolution to design the world. They are motivated, I think, by two impulses. The first is a desire to affirm the Bible. The second is a suspicion Darwinism may have merit. Thus, they declare both true.
These two notions, however, seem incompatible to me. It may sound reasonable for God to “use” evolution, but if you look closer I think you will see the problem.
Suppose I wanted a straight flush for a hand of poker. I could either pull the cards out of the deck individually and “design” the hand, or I could shuffle the cards randomly and see if the flush is dealt to me. It would not make any sense, though, to “design” the hand by shuffling the deck and dealing. There’s no way to ensure the results. (I guess if I were really clever I could make it look like I was shuffling the deck when in reality I was stacking it, but that would be a deceitful kind of design called “cheating.”).
In the same way, either God designs the details of the biological world, or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand. The mechanism is either conscious and intentional (design), or unconscious and unintentional (natural selection). Creation has a purpose, a goal. Evolution is accidental, like a straight flush dealt to a poker rookie.
The idea that something is designed by chance is contradictory. Like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, this just doesn’t fit.
*****
So, is Koukl on to something here? Does theistic evolution contradict itself? Does it make God into a cheater? Has God “made it look like he was shuffling the deck when in reality he was stacking it?” Or perhaps neither…
Comments (77) »
1. Chris Hillcoat
February 6, 2009
8:59 AM
To me, young-Earth creationism makes God seem more ‘deceptive’ than theistic evolution. When we dig up 3.5 billion years worth of ice cores in Greenland or observe 12 billion year old stars and galaxies on the other side of the universe, why are we supposed to then say “ah, but of course God created these things with age.” Do we believe our science and logic or not?
2. Brance
February 6, 2009
9:06 AM
Excellent!
The return argument, I think, would be that God designed the system and then let it run its course.
Of course you would then have to affirm that God designed the system in such a way that it would absolutely bring about the results he wanted, namely humans. So once again it is not left to random chance but instead completely orchestrated by God, and thus not random. Contradictory all the way.
Darwinian evolution explains existence without God. That’s the whole point of the system. No creator, therefore no accountability to any law higher than those of our own making.
3. Michael S.
February 6, 2009
9:09 AM
GreetingsTim,
Longtime reader - rarely post.
For the record, I’m a YEC. No, I do not think he is on to anything. I think the Christian community needs to stop attempting to counter Darwinism with cute, oversimplistic analogies. Instead, we need to (1) acknowledge that the earth is significantly different now than it was in the past, (2) acknowledge that there is fossil evidence for these changes, and (3) have a well-developed, intelligent response as to why we think these documented changes have occurred in a very short amount of time (thousands of years vs. millions of years).
I would like to think that we young-earthers would admit that God has used natural processes over the millennia to give us an earth that is significantly different now than pre-flood. That fact does not negate creation.
The difficulty with what I am suggesting is the committment factor. It is time-consuming to familiarize ourselves with the major points of evolutionary theory and have a well-developed biblical response. It is easy (and tempting) to learn a 30-second “gotcha” response like Greg’s. I just don’t think the “gotcha” response make us look intelligent and credible. I think, quite frankly, that it does the opposite.
In Christ.
4. Larry
February 6, 2009
9:21 AM
Personally, I’m an old-earth creationist, but if I’d have to guess what an evolutionist would say to this, I’d imagine that they’d say that evolution isn’t random in terms of it’s results. Evolution is, after all, a theory with set precepts and explanations for how it works. So, an evolutionist would say that, given the conditions our earth has experienced it’s not random at all that we currently see the diversity and types of creatures we see today. We can use the theory of evolution to trace back how this diversity occured etc. etc. Anyway, I could be wrong since I’m not that well versed in evolution, but I get this impression from what I read of it. Thus, a theistic evolution could say that evolution is simply another law that God uses, along with erosion, thermodynamics, and so on, to guide His creation. Just playing devil’s advocate.
5. Chris Borah
February 6, 2009
9:27 AM
There are more than 2 options. Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism, Creationism, Atheistic Evolution, and Theistic Evolution. Read the first 80 pages of James Montgomery Boice’s commentary on Genesis to get, in my mind, the best scientific and theological analysis of this complex question.
I recently watched Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled”. I’m not sure about its merits as a documentary, but it had a pretty compelling hour and half argument for boiling this whole debate down to a worldview conflict, not a scientific conflict.
6. Jason Nolte
February 6, 2009
9:33 AM
I do not care for the reasoning that says God is deceptive or ‘cheating’ if He creates something with the appearance of age that in reality is young. It seems to me that there is no other way to create something out of nothing. No matter what, something appears to have age that in fact does not. This is not deceptive or ‘cheating’ it is the only way it can occur. When God created Adam He did not create him as an embryo, but as a full grown man. But then again I am a young earth advocate. I think the problems you incur from theistic evolution, such as death before the fall, are huge. I would further ask, are we sacrificing a very clear text of Scripture, Gen. 1, at the alter of science?
I do think there is good logic in saying, “creation has a purpose, a goal” and therefore cannot be something random.
I know that I am about as sharp a marble, so I look forward to hearing from some of my old earth brothers on this.
7. Mason
February 6, 2009
9:34 AM
I reviewed “Tactics” a couple months ago on my blog, and I must say that this (and a couple similar rabbit trails) somewhat took away from it for me.
While not a Theistic evolutionist myself I don’t really have any problem with people who see it as compatible with their faith.
If anything I think that we need to drop the line of argument altogether. I say that especially if the goal is presentation of the core of the faith (can’t remember a YEC clause in the Nicene Creed) instead of just arguing and trying to prove people wrong for its own sake. A practice which reflects very poorly on us Christians who don’t think that acknowledging Jesus as Lord involves line by line agreement with creationism.
Also, I think on a purely scientific/logical level that gotchya arguments like the one used here are going to drive away anyone who has actually studied the subject matter, which, though in the end I wouldn’t side with TE, is not as cut and dried as he presents it or a essential of the faith.
8. Gary
February 6, 2009
9:40 AM
“…either God designs the details of the biological world, or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand…”
Koukl is setting up a strawman. The issue is not whether God or nature is at the wheel. The issue is whether God created this world ex nihilo in its present form or whether He created this world ex nihilo in a different form and then sovereignly shaped it into its present form by means of evolution.
9. Matthew
February 6, 2009
9:42 AM
As a Calvinist and a theistic evolutionist, I don’t really see a distinction between so-called “random chance” and God’s providence. R.C. Sproul said once that there isn’t a quark in the universe that isn’t where God wants it to be, and I believe strongly that His glory is displayed majestically in a world where everything was set up to evolve into humans. I believe that God’s divine design was very intentional in evolutionary processes that harm life and push it into more complexity, just as He foreordains and designs destructive hurricanes and gorgeous sunrises. God hasn’t told us for a few thousand years about HIs specific supernatural involvement with a “natural” process like a sunrise or a hurricane— but even if He’s just letting it “run on its own,” it is still very much His design in creation.
I do not know when He supernaturally intervened past the Big Bang (besides the obvious breathing His spirit into Adam & Eve)— perhaps once every million years or so He nudged one proton to the side, or perhaps He simply let it all go “on its own” without any supernatural intervention until humans had evolved. But what incredible intelligence and creativity does that show— for Him to have planned billions of years of molecules bumping up against each other to form proteins and DNA and eventually cells and organisms? It’s pretty marvelous if you ask me, and when combined with a proper understanding of His Word, not deceptive in the least.
10. Brian Phillips
February 6, 2009
9:47 AM
The only thing to learn from Koukl’s argument is how NOT to discuss science.
He clearly does not understand precisely what OEC (Theistic Evolutionists) believe, and then he sets up a false dichotomy .
By the way, I’m not a theistic evolutionist…
By the way (2), not many- if any- scientists still believe in classical Darwinism. The Earth, they say, just isn’t old enough for his version of natural selection. Punctuated Equilibrium is the generally accepted theory now, I believe.
11. art
February 6, 2009
9:54 AM
Two points:
1) He is not onto anything.
2) He shows a fundamental misunderstanding of theistic evolution. It is not Deism where God sets things in motion and then leaves, therefore leaving it up to chance. Rather, God is sovereign over the process of evolution just as he is sovereign over all things. He is not “cheating,” as cheating in this example would imply that he does not design via evolution. The massive hole in this author’s argument is the question: “What if God does design via evolution as he is sovereign over not only the process, but also the results?”
I much rather like the analogy, however short it falls, of an artist, a paintbrush, and a canvas. The artist uses the means of the paintbrush to color the canvas. That does not mean that the artist is not in control of either the paintbrush or what ends up on the canvas. It also does not mean that the paintbrush should get all the credit and the artist should be pushed to the background.
Scripture makes it clear that God uses secondary causality, which he is sovereign over, to accomplish his sovereign plan.
Or as the WCF III.1 puts it:
” God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”
12. Jim Vellenga
February 6, 2009
10:07 AM
I am not really convinced. As has been mentioned, this simply seems like building a straw man and knocking him down. I am convinced of a young earth for exegetical reasons. I have discussed this with many people who hold to an old earth either through theistic evolution, gap theory, or whatever else, and I remain unconvinced by their exegesis and what they seemingly trade off.
For example, take the comment from Matthew above. He wrote, “I believe that God’s divine design was very intentional in evolutionary processes that harm life and push it into more complexity, just as He foreordains and designs destructive hurricanes and gorgeous sunrises. God hasn’t told us for a few thousand years about HIs specific supernatural involvement with a “natural” process like a sunrise or a hurricane— but even if He’s just letting it “run on its own,” it is still very much His design in creation.”
Underlying that is a picture of God that does not fit, IMHO. He is a God who “harms life to push it into more complexity.” That does not seem to be the way God is before the fall. Nor do hurricanes or other “natural” disasters fit with what we find not only in Genesis 1, but also in Genesis 2 and all the pictures of the ‘new’ creation which portray a new creation without all these things. If anything hurricanes are a result of the fall, a result of the curse of God on the earth, and a result of the creation being subject to frustration. None of that pushes me to theistic evolution, it simply makes me take more seriously what was actually written.
Having said that, I don’t want people to think I would be like some and say those who hold to theistic evolution are not brothers in Christ, but I do think it is important to seek to get our understanding of the beginnings correct as Genesis 1-3 answer the big questions in life. Where do we come from? Who are we? Why are things so messed up? And even give the seeds of hope in answering, or at least pointing to the answer to, How can this be fixed?
13. Steve
February 6, 2009
10:14 AM
When the well-known atheist Antony Flew chose to reject atheism and believe in God, he did it on the argument Greg Koukl is using. In fact, it was Koukl and the group of apologists from BIOLA university that had the greatest impact on Flew.
Despite the debate Koukl’s argument, it was convincing for one very smart atheist.
14. jdk
February 6, 2009
10:15 AM
Number 11. - “art” is right. Without regard to the merits of Theistic Evolution as a conclusion, Koukl’s argument against it is a poor one.
That is, Theistic Evolution may be proven wrong, but it won’t be this way.
15. Tim Dees
February 6, 2009
10:15 AM
Isn’t it a bit blasphemous to reduce the thinking of God to half-baked metaphors?
God’s thinking and methods are not so tidily understood.
16. ChrisB
February 6, 2009
10:22 AM
I’ve yet to read Tactics, but this passage disappoints me. It reminds of a comments Lee Strobel made about theistic evolution a while back. Whether you believe in it or not (and I’m not sure I do), we need to think more carefully than this about the issue.
In poker, what Greg describes is cheating, but it’s not necessarily so in biology.
When you consider that Greg is a Calvinist and thinks God works out His own plans sovreignly in conjuction with human free-ish will, it’s surprising he would object to the process he describes.
17. adam
February 6, 2009
10:30 AM
Death in the creation prior to Adam and Eve’s sin in Genesis 3? Really?
18. Andy
February 6, 2009
10:33 AM
“…3.5 billion years worth of ice cores in Greenland or observe 12 billion year old stars and galaxies on the other side of the universe…”
Not to pick nits, but the oldest ice core is believed to be 750,000 years old, if I’m not mistaken. That’s getting dangerously close to young earth territory.
And the age of stars and galaxies are what would be expected according to relativity theory. It’s completely consistent for two stars, for example, to have come into existence at the same moment, yet one be vastly older due to their relative speeds.
19. Brian
February 6, 2009
10:42 AM
By definition (ask any biology professor) evolution is random. Philip Johnson (Darwin On Trial) does a good job of explaining why “theistic evolution” is a contradiction in terms. As a Bible believing Christian, I am always willing to take in scientific information that relates to the past, but I am unwilling to “Christianize” atheistic interpretations of this data. As someone who has had an interest in this field for quite a few years, I’ve concluded that “man” knows a lot less than he thinks he knows.
20. David
February 6, 2009
10:45 AM
Drat! Drawn in again by a good discussion when I really need to be working my job. :)
I reject evolution in every form including theistic. Men much smarter than I have argued the points about fossil fuels, dating of ice cores, and light measurement across galaxies. However, to me the issue is headship. Adam must have been a real person in order for Christ to be my real savior. I appeal to Romans 5: 12-21.
21. Hans
February 6, 2009
10:59 AM
I have always wondered what theistic evolutionists do with Adam? Was he a specific person in history? Did God at some point in the evolution of man breathe His spirit into a human, and that was Adam?
22. Phil Whittall
February 6, 2009
11:07 AM
A theistic evolutionist (TE) by definition doesn’t think the whole process is purely random, they believe that God is behind it and in it. They refute the charge that they are deists in disguise. Another name for this position is the ‘fully gifted creation’ (see someone like Howard Van Till) and they argue that God created everything with massive potential - in the way a baby has massive potential to develop and grow and become something new - albeit in this case to take on new forms and kinds. A TE agrees that atheistic evolution is false but that evolution does not need to exclude the idea of a creator.
So to use Koukl’s poker analogy a TE would respond that the earth is like a game of poker, and it is designed so that a straight flush is possible, and in time it will be played and it was the game’s creator who made it possible and intended for it to be played and the either/or position Koukl has created is a false one.
I think that’s how they understand the position, I’m still making my mind up.
23. Gary
February 6, 2009
11:08 AM
“By definition (ask any biology professor) evolution is random.”
Evolution is NOT random. Mutations are random. A subtle but important distinction.
24. Denis
February 6, 2009
11:17 AM
I find some of the terms being used can cause confusion.
For example, in the second to last paragraph Koukl is juxtaposing design and natural selection. In this natural selection is equated to evolution, but its not the same thing.
Natural selection is an observable process by which certain pre-existing traits are either favoured or end up getting bred-out of a species. Natural selection, in itself, does not suggest how these traits came to be (i.e., evolution or design). This is “real” science in that it can be observed & tested.
So, I can easily affirm natural selection while denying evolution, theistic or otherwise (I’m actually a YEC).
25. Scott C
February 6, 2009
11:31 AM
Chris Hillcoat writes:
“To me, young-Earth creationism makes God seem more ‘deceptive’ than theistic evolution. When we dig up 3.5 billion years worth of ice cores in Greenland or observe 12 billion year old stars and galaxies on the other side of the universe, why are we supposed to then say ‘ah, but of course God created these things with age.’ Do we believe our science and logic or not?”
You state as a given the age of ice cores and stars when in fact that is what must be proven. This is all based on assumptions from a naturalistic worldview. Evolution must have billions of years built into its assumptions for natural selection and other mechanisms of change in order for the theory to make sense. Furthermore, it must assume the uniformity of nature and of the laws governing nature. David Hume long ago shot this to pieces. Naturalistic science has no way to justify the uniformity of nature nor laws that govern nature. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that anything is billions of years old.
You place your faith in science (presummably that espoused by a naturalitistic worldview) and logic yet how do you justify these things? Your beliefs are no more solid than the authority and justification upon which they stand. In order to make sense of the world we live in we must begin with a more authoritative source than mere logic or rationality. Christianity begins with divine revelation. Only God knows perfectly and thoroughly - this what Christians mean by divine omniscience. And unless we think God’s thoughts after Him we will never think clearly at all.
One more thing. Given what I have just said, your statement, “ah, but of course God created these things with age” appears a little presumptious to me. When Jesus fed the 5000 with the loaves and fishes was this a miracle we would call creation ex nihilo? If so, did the fish have an age? Where did the barley or the wheat for the bread grow? Where did the grapes for the wine in Cana come from. Since this was the best wine and we know the best wine is that which has aged properly, how old was that wine? I don’t believe a naturalistic worldview can answer these questions. They fall outside their categories of reason and logic and sense. But then again, they cannot justify the existence of reason, logic, sense perception, etc…
We must be careful that we don’t make science into a god or we will soon find ourselves in an empty world with no meaning or purpose.
26. Gary
February 6, 2009
11:31 AM
Dennis,
Most scientists do not share your definition of evolution. Evolution is when the genetic (and thereby physical) composition of a species changes over time. Dog breeding is evolution. Lactose tolerance sweeping through European populations is evolution.
I believe what you are getting at is that MUTATION is one thing (what actually introduces genetic variation into a population) and SELECTION is another (what removes genetic variation from a population, pushing it in a particular direction). These processes combined are evolution as a whole (By your powers combined…”).
Incidently, you need both. Selection makes no sense if there is no mutation/variation to select on. Also important is that NONE of this is up for debate! All of it is observable and fairly basic — it’s why HIV is such a problem, why we have different dog breeds, and why we need a new flu shot every year.
The real issue is whether or not new species can be created. That is not so obvious. MORE importantly, for theistic evolutionists, the issue is rightly dividing the Word and squaring all this with a biblical view of Gen 1-3 and Adam’s headship. That is the real Achilles heel of TE. Personally, as a geneticist, I would love to wholly embrace TE because it would make my life much easier. However, the textual problems are so massive that I can’t hold to it with a clear conscious as yet.
27. Scott C
February 6, 2009
11:35 AM
Chris Hillcoat writes:
“To me, young-Earth creationism makes God seem more ‘deceptive’ than theistic evolution. When we dig up 3.5 billion years worth of ice cores in Greenland or observe 12 billion year old stars and galaxies on the other side of the universe, why are we supposed to then say ‘ah, but of course God created these things with age.’ Do we believe our science and logic or not?”
You state as a given the age of ice cores and stars when in fact that is what must be proven. This is all based on assumptions from a naturalistic worldview. Evolution must have billions of years built into its assumptions for natural selection and other mechanisms of change in order for the theory to make sense. Furthermore, it must assume the uniformity of nature and of the laws governing nature. David Hume long ago shot this to pieces. Naturalistic science has no way to justify the uniformity of nature nor laws that govern nature. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that anything is billions of years old.
You place your faith in science (presummably that espoused by a naturalitistic worldview) and logic yet how do you justify these things? Your beliefs are no more solid than the authority and justification upon which they stand. In order to make sense of the world we live in we must begin with a more authoritative source than mere logic or rationality. Christianity begins with divine revelation. Only God knows perfectly and thoroughly - this what Christians mean by divine omniscience. And unless we think God’s thoughts after Him we will never think clearly at all.
One more thing. Given what I have just said, your statement, “ah, but of course God created these things with age” appears a little presumptious to me. When Jesus fed the 5000 with the loaves and fishes was this a miracle we would call creation ex nihilo? If so, did the fish have an age? Where did the barley or the wheat for the bread grow? Where did the grapes for the wine in Cana come from. Since this was the best wine and we know the best wine is that which has aged properly, how old was that wine? I don’t believe a naturalistic worldview can answer these questions. They fall outside their categories of reason and logic and sense. But then again, they cannot justify the existence of reason, logic, sense perception, etc…
We must be careful that we don’t make science into a god or we will soon find ourselves in an empty world with no meaning or purpose.
28. Jeff Mobley
February 6, 2009
11:38 AM
I don’t have a problem with his argument per se. I think distinction needs to be made between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” I have no problem talking about changes within species over time after the original creation, but changes from species to species over time, so that the outcome is different than what God created I would object to. If God wanted a man, he created a man. He did not create a protoplasm and over time sovereignly guide that protoplasm into a man. I don’t see any justification for that in Scripture at all.
29. Scott C
February 6, 2009
11:40 AM
Chris Hillcoat writes:
“To me, young-Earth creationism makes God seem more ‘deceptive’ than theistic evolution. When we dig up 3.5 billion years worth of ice cores in Greenland or observe 12 billion year old stars and galaxies on the other side of the universe, why are we supposed to then say ‘ah, but of course God created these things with age.’ Do we believe our science and logic or not?”
You state as a given the age of ice cores and stars when in fact that is what must be proven. This is all based on assumptions from a naturalistic worldview. Evolution must have billions of years built into its assumptions for natural selection and other mechanisms of change in order for the theory to make sense. Furthermore, it must assume the uniformity of nature and of the laws governing nature. David Hume long ago shot this to pieces. Naturalistic science has no way to justify the uniformity of nature nor laws that govern nature. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that anything is billions of years old.
You place your faith in science (presummably that espoused by a naturalitistic worldview) and logic yet how do you justify these things? Your beliefs are no more solid than the authority and justification upon which they stand. In order to make sense of the world we live in we must begin with a more authoritative source than mere logic or rationality. Christianity begins with divine revelation. Only God knows perfectly and thoroughly - this what Christians mean by divine omniscience. And unless we think God’s thoughts after Him we will never think clearly at all.
One more thing. Given what I have just said, your statement, “ah, but of course God created these things with age” appears a little presumptious to me. When Jesus fed the 5000 with the loaves and fishes was this a miracle we would call creation ex nihilo? If so, did the fish have an age? Where did the barley or the wheat for the bread grow? Where did the grapes for the wine in Cana come from. Since this was the best wine and we know the best wine is that which has aged properly, how old was that wine? I don’t believe a naturalistic worldview can answer these questions. They fall outside their categories of reason and logic and sense. But then again, they cannot justify the existence of reason, logic, sense perception, etc…
We must be careful that we don’t make science into a god or we will soon find ourselves in an empty world with no meaning or purpose.
30. Denis
February 6, 2009
11:53 AM
Hi Gary,
Your restatement of what I was trying to say is correct; evolution (as I understand it) is the combination of beneficial mutation and natural selection - not natural selection alone.
I don’t think you need mutation to add variation though. If God originally created kinds, as opposed to species, it would make sense to suggest there would be a lot of potential genetic variation within each of those kinds.
Going back your example, if there was one originally created dog kind, natural selection would have “chosen” the traits that were most beneficial for the given environmental pressures the various animal populations faced resulting in speciation. Man getting involved, through selective breeding practises, created more diverse breeds of dog by further selecting the traits they desired.
All of this though, is the selection of traits that already existed from that original kind. In effect, its more of a devolution because as the selection occurs and is propagated genetic potential is lost, not gained. Ultimately, we see a loss of genetic information, not an increase.
I agree, with you last statement too. The issue is how the various Creation theories fit with the Scriptures. I could come up with all sorts of wonderful explanations of how things started, but if it doesn’t vibe with the eyewitness testimony & clear teaching we have it doesn’t do much good.
Thanks.
31. Jon Anderson
February 6, 2009
11:57 AM
I want to touch on the first comment made, that was well responded to by Andy (18) and Scott (25) and just add one tidbit. I had this conversation at length with a very learned man who defended Theistic Evolution, an I walked away a little perplexed by that accusation that the apparent age argument makes God out to be deceptive. That really bothered me, an I thought I was in a corner. It took the beautifully simple comment of my wife when I got home to clear my vision: “yeah, it would be deceptive, unless in Genesis one He told us that He created it that way!”.
Yes, you might be able to make the argument that it would be deceptive for God to create the world with apparent age, unless after doing it He clearly defined for you what He did. The accusation should actually go the other way: Wouldn’t it be deceptive for God to use evolution to create the earth over billions of years and then tell is plainly (I know some would argue that genesis 1-6 is unclear/metaphorical/poetic, but the simple obvious reading is undeniably clear) that He did it all in 6 days!
Just a thought….
Jon Anderson
32. Scott C
February 6, 2009
12:21 PM
Sorry for the repeated postings. Something went wrong when I was hitting “submit.”
33. Nathan
February 6, 2009
12:37 PM
I’ll let everyone else have fun with the evolution debate, and instead address the theology/logic of the argument. Koukl argues that either (1) God does it all, or (2) everything happens by purely natural, materialistic, atheistic mechanisms. This is obviously a false dichotomy, as though (as some have pointed out already) God couldn’t design the system to perfectly produce the intended results. There’s no shortage of reasons to reject theistic evolution, but this argument surely isn’t one of them.
Besides, think of this on a theological level. What’s the difference between Koukl’s argument here and the nonsense spouted by Libertarian Free Willers? You know the argument - that everything reduces to either absolute libertarian autonomy or fatalistic determinism. Obviously, Bible-believing Christians (Calvinists and generally Arminians) reject this tripe, since the Bible clearly teaches both God’s absolute sovereignty over all (including man’s decisions) and that man is responsible for the choices he freely makes. The absurdity that God is either puppetmaster or completely hands-off deserves to be laughed at even by children; Koukl’s argument here is not much better.
34. Andrew
February 6, 2009
12:52 PM
At what stage in “our evolutionary history” did our “ancestors” acquire a spirit/soul? Are spirits a result of genetics?
35. Chris Hillcoat
February 6, 2009
12:57 PM
#18 Andy, thanks for the correction on ice-core age. You’re quite correct, it’s been a few years since I dipped my toe into all this.
Scott, I place my faith in God, not in science; and I don’t have a naturalistic worldview. I grew up in a church environment where not to believe in young-earth creationism was tantamount to heresy (and I thus believed it until I went to university), and while I fully accept there are convincing Biblical arguments for a young universe - not least the historicity of Adam - it seems to me that the ship sailed quite a few decades ago on a scientific consensus of the age of the universe/Earth.
You’re quite right that my “beliefs are no more solid than the authority and justification upon which they stand”, and clearly God’s revelation stands head and shoulders above the sum of scientific knowledge. This is why - and I apologise if it seems like I’m fudging the issue - secondary issues like this don’t cause me to lose any sleep. I accept the conclusions made by a large number of scientists (many of whom, let’s not forget, are Christians too); but it doesn’t affect my beliefs about salvation.
#31 Jon, I don’t agree that Genesis 1 tells us plainly the way God created the universe. For every scholar who insists that “yom” means a literal 24-hour day, another will insist that the genre is unlike any other in the OT and should be interpreted accordingly.
It’s 6pm and time to go home! Have a nice weekend.
36. Andrew
February 6, 2009
1:09 PM
“To me, young-Earth creationism makes God seem more ‘deceptive’ than theistic evolution. When we dig up 3.5 billion years worth of ice cores in Greenland or observe 12 billion year old stars and galaxies on the other side of the universe, why are we supposed to then say “ah, but of course God created these things with age. Do we believe our science and logic or not?”
Why do you believe ice cores in Greenland are 3.5 billion years old? Because science tells you? Why do you believe science first and the Bible second?
Why do you believe that stars and galaxies are 12 billion years old? Because science tells you? Why do you believe science first and the Bible second?
Why are you equating science with logic? They are not the same.
Science has fundamental unproven assumptions. If you believe those assumptions are true at the expense of what the Bible says is true, then your worldview is not a Christian worldview but a scientific worldview. In other words, your religion is not Christianity but science.
37. Tom Sturch
February 6, 2009
1:13 PM
Outstanding remarks, all but I must apologetically vere from the main discussion. A major theme in Genesis 1&2 is that God intentionally imposes a series of distinctions and ordered relationships, steadily proceding from chaos to harmony - His dwelling place with us. How He did it is a minor concern. Answering questions about Genesis should lead to a discussion on soteriology, not geology. To do otherwise risks sharing the Gospel. When Man manipulates the ordered relationships of God, sin and separation result. Man then creates false distinctions out of self interest giving rise to all manner of pain and suffering. The grace revealed in Genesis 3 is that we need God and his order, and that He satisfies that need in justice and mercy.
38. Mason
February 6, 2009
1:24 PM
“Why do you believe science first and the Bible second?”
“your religion is not Christianity but science”
Andrew, I think those types of comments are needlessly harsh, and rather baseless as well. Whether or not you disagree with TE it is disingenous to accuse those who see it as valid of choosing the religion of science over and against the Bible. What they are really doing is interpreting the Bible differently than you are interpreting the Bible.
This debate has important implications, but such a tone is not going to help or persuade anyone.
39. Richie
February 6, 2009
1:31 PM
I can’t help thinking that Deuteronomy 29:29 has some application in these sorts of discussions: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”
When I begin to ponder these things beyond what God has revealed in His Word, I tend to drift away from the most important part of the Genesis narrative, “In the beginning, God.”
Not that these aren’t important discussions, I just believe (godly) wisdom necessitates that we do so in light of Scripture (i.e., the whole counsel of God). As others here have rightly said (in effect), our response must be Biblical, not conjectural.
40. Scott E
February 6, 2009
1:54 PM
I have an honest question. I direct this mostly toward those who say they are Calvinists and Theistic Evolutionists. I will give my assumptions and then ask my question. If my assumptions are mostly correct, then I would welcome an answer. If my assumptions are off then I would welcome correction in that regard.
#1 Evolution says that, generally speaking, over a period of time, things that live and exist, lived and died. And over the course of this time, these things that lived and died adapted in order to be better suited to live (according to environment, climate, etc.).
#2 Calvinists generally believe that death entered the cosmos and humanity during (or after or as a result of) the fall. “The fall” occurred when Adam and Eve sinned against God in the garden. In that day they surly died.
Question: How does theistic evolution occur ( that is death occurs) before sin and death enter the cosmos?
41. Scott E
February 6, 2009
2:05 PM
I would also like to add that I think Tom #37 is on to something.
I would also like to say that I surely meant to write “surely” above and not surly, although surly might fit in conveying what happened even if it doesn’t make sense in my sentence :)
42. Curtis
February 6, 2009
2:27 PM
To quote John MacArthur,
“Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis (or any other portion of Scripture, for that matter). Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 2:16)—inspired truth from God. “[Scripture] never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Jesus summed the point up perfectly when He said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17, KJV). The Bible is supreme truth, and therefore it is the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice versa. “
Think of what it means that death would have entered into the world before Adam(Theistic evolution)? Personally I wouldn’t call Jesus a liar.
43. Tom Sturch
February 6, 2009
2:29 PM
Dear “surly” Scott: (very funny)
Regarding Assumption #2: If God made everything perfectly then death must have been in the world before the curse of death. For instance, lions would have behaved in accorance with their designed nature.
On Assumption #1: Somewhere in the recesses of my failing brain I recall that natural selection has been refuted on the basis of its selection of lesser adapted creatures, but I don’t remember where I read it or the species involved.
All this kind of goes to my earlier point. It is fun to spin this stuff around but it has a way of distracting from Moses’ (and God’s) original purpose - how to get those silly Israelites (us) to pursue the Promised Land (dwelling with God).
44. Jugulum
February 6, 2009
2:32 PM
Scott E,
“#2 Calvinists generally believe that death entered the cosmos and humanity during (or after or as a result of) the fall. “The fall” occurred when Adam and Eve sinned against God in the garden. In that day they surly died.”
What do you think Calvinists generally believe would happen to a pre-Fall organism who was cut into pieces? Would each piece be living independently, waiting to be reassembled with the others? (What if the pieces were broken down into molecules? Or individual atoms?)
For myself, I don’t even understand what “Physical mortality started with the Fall” means.
45. Scott E
February 6, 2009
2:39 PM
Tom,
Thanks for the clarification. And again I think your are really on to the story presented in Genesis one. Its really pointing toward the gospel I think.
My assumption about death isn’t really based on the Genesis passage so much as it is Paul. As in Romans 5:12 when he says that “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin” (ESV). Again, I know this isn’t the point of Romans 5, yet it seems that the inference can be drawn. And maybe it does impact Soteriology…
46. Scott C
February 6, 2009
2:59 PM
Chris Hillcoat,
I didn’t assume that you had a naturalistic worldview, but I believe you argued as if you did. I agree that we cannot make this issue of the details of origins a matter of orthodoxy especially if it came down to mere differences in the interpretation of difficult texts. However, the issues at stake go beyond matters of interpretations of Genesis 1-2. The fact of the matter is, prior to the advent of the Enlightenment and the rise of scientific naturalism that gave rise to the theory of Evolution and the rejection of supernaturalism, the consensus of the Church has largely been that Genesis 1-2 speaks of actual history and is a straighforward account of the extraordinary providence of God (i.e. supernatural) in creating the universe ex nihilo via divine fiat in 6 solar days. In my mind, Genesis 1-2 is not all that difficult to understand unless of course you impose something other than a narrative framework on it. It is hard to make narrative literature be something other than what it is. I am suspisious of the new interpretations precisely because I think they seek to do nothing more than cleverly fit Genesis within the latest winds of the ever-changing scientific consensus. I’ll take the consensus of the historic Church and sound exegesis before I take the consensus of Enlightenment science.
In either case, to return to the other point I was beginning to make - examine all the other occurences of miracles (i.e. again extraordinary instances of divine providence) and you will note that those that resulted from divine fiat are remarkably parallel to the Genesis account of creation. Jesus simply spoke and the storm was calmed and the waves immediately obeyed His voice not the so-called “laws of nature” whatever that is. Christ upholds the universe by the word of power even under ordinary occurences (i.e that which is normative) of His providence. This should deeply inform the way we think about ‘nature’ (if you will) and the principles (‘laws’ if you will) that govern ‘nature’ (i.e. creation).
It should also cause us to rethink what was involved in creation. Did God abide by some trnascendent set of laws that governed the way he had to do things? Is not God the creator of the so called laws that govern nature and creation? Does he not determine what and when things will be what they will be? Do we really have the knowledge to ascertain how He created unless he told us? I don’t think so, no more than we could explain the resurrection apart from divine supernatualism and the self-revelation of God’s character, actions and purposes.
Again, if it were the matter of differeing interpretations of difficult texts, I wouldn’t bother. But I don’t believe it is. I believe it comes down to the conflict of worldviews. I cannot help but think that a foreign worldview has invaded the interpretation of Genesis and subsequently it raises all sorts of issues about epistemology, revelation, authority and the justification of truth claims. When it comes to the Christian worldview and the foundation for a Biblical cosmology these cannot be secondary issues - they cut to the heart of what we believe and ultimately why we believe it.
47. NiftyDrewFifty
February 6, 2009
3:51 PM
For a real life example of what a anti-evolution literal interpretation of Genesis and 37 million dollars will get you click through this slideshow (the picture icons at the upper right) of the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/sets/72157603091357751/
..and check out the comments below the pictures. Even if you don’t agree the comments are pretty funny.
48. Ben Mordecai
February 6, 2009
3:54 PM
I don’t like the argument.
I would just say,
“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny, but not one of them falls appart from my Father”
Every death of every animal is planned by God. This is particular selection by God, not natural selection. God may follow guidelines for how he does this, but he doesn’t have to. God is the creater and sustainer of all things.
49. Craig
February 6, 2009
3:55 PM
It depends on your theology. If you believe that nature is autonomous, then yes, evolution is a result of random and purposeless forces.
But no Calvinist believes that nature is autonomous! We believe every molecule, every atom, every force is under the sovereign hand of God. That being the case, describing *any* natural process as random and unguided is a denial of God’s kingship over his own creation.
His argument only makes sense if you begin by denying God’s sovereignty.
50. Justin Garcia
February 6, 2009
3:58 PM
I believe that God created the world in 7(literal) days. I take it by faith. Science will inevitably change its mind.
51. Mark
February 6, 2009
4:21 PM
Slightly off topic, and just musing…
It fascinates me that here at Tim’s blog, where often we read articulate and astute comments from many sisters, not a single one of the first 50 contributions on this creation issue is from a woman.
52. Denis
February 6, 2009
4:24 PM
Ben,
The question to examine is: Was death a part of God’s original design? Does death fit within God’s perfect creation; is death, even animal death, “good” or even “very good.”
Or, alternatively, is death an exclusive aspect of the fallen world? Is it only a result of the curse?
An additional, related question to look at is: When God restores his creation with the new Heaven & Earth, will death still be a part of his creation?
53. Jugulum
February 6, 2009
5:32 PM
Denis,
Here’s another question. If human and/or animal life was not mortal before the Fall, what was the point of the Tree of Life? To grant that which we already possessed?
One possibility:
Mankind was created mortal. (Though still without sickness & the like.) If Adam & Eve had not fallen, they would have eventually eaten from the Tree of Life, and gained the physical immortality that we will possess after the final resurrection.
(Romans 5:12 is still a problem, of course. It does seem to be talking about physical death in the passage.)
54. Monkey
February 6, 2009
5:42 PM
The issues at stake go beyond matters of interpretations of Ecclesiastes 1:5. The fact of the matter is, prior to the rise of the scientific naturalism that gave rise to the theory of heliocentrism and the rejection of supernaturalism, the consensus of the Church has largely been that Ecclesiastes 1:5 speaks of actual geocentrism and is a straighforward account of the extraordinary providence of God (i.e. supernatural) in creating the universe with the earth at the center. In my mind, Ecclesiastes 1:5 is not all that difficult to understand. I am suspisious of the new interpretations precisely because I think they seek to do nothing more than cleverly fit Ecclesiastes within the latest winds of the ever-changing scientific consensus. I’ll take the consensus of the historic Church and sound exegesis before I take the consensus of science.
55. Laurie
February 6, 2009
5:47 PM
(51) Mark,
Astute observation! I actually started a comment this morning, but decided against entering into the fray, not having anything to say that wasn’t already said, and disliking intensly the tone discussions of this topic tend to take on. Perhaps it’s the woman in me.
What I was going to say, is that the author of the quote seemed to have a somewhat misguided notion of what theistic evolutionists actually believe - at least in my experience. What he’s describing is what I would consider a more “deistic” notion. Many years ago I held to a variety of theistic evolution usually referred to as guided evolution - randomness was not a part of that belief system, quite the contrary.
56. Jugulum
February 6, 2009
5:53 PM
Monkey,
Another question is: Are you a real geocentrist, or was that satire?
OK, so it’s obviously satire, because you’re “quoting” Scott. But if it weren’t for that, I honestly wouldn’t be sure. Because I’ve actually met someone who is genuinely a geocentrist, for precisely that kind of reason.
57. Denis
February 6, 2009
6:05 PM
Monkey,
The problem is not as bad as you think, scientists the world over are quietly subverting such heliocentric nonsense. For example, to this day many of these unsung heroes boldly refer to sunrise and sunset unapologetically in many forms of media on a daily basis.
58. Marie
February 6, 2009
6:17 PM
For all the times I have debated AGAINST theistic evolution, the problem of “death” never occurred to me. Who was Adam? My theistic evolution friends say to me that he was the first man, the first one acknowledged by God to be a man, made in His image.
When Adam fell, death entered in.
But as pointed out in the comments above, if Adam is the product of millions of years of God-directed evolution, there was plenty of death before Adam. So, in the theistic evolution view, death did not begin with Adam’s fall.
I like to point to the 4th commandment (Six days you shall labor and do all your work, and rest the seventh day…for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all this is in them, and rested the seventh day…therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.) It would seem strange to use six days of creation as a reason for a commandment, if actually God made the earth in millions of years, wouldn’t it?
59. Scott C
February 6, 2009
6:24 PM
#54
You are a very clever monkey. Just in case you think I’m a stodgy old fundamentalist, I did laugh! In either case, you need to buy a good book on literary genres.
60. Jugulum
February 6, 2009
6:43 PM
Scott,
The literary genre issue is a valid reason not to take Ecclesiastes 1:5 “literally”. (Though it’s not just genre. Even if that verse were in Genesis, we could still say that “the sun rises and sets” is using the language of appearance.)
But Monkey’s satire still points out a problem with your comment about “the consensus of the historic Church and sound exegesis”. It’s OK for scientific discovery to cause us to re-examine our exegesis. (It’s not always easy to find the line between “causing us to re-examine our exegesis” and “overriding our exegesis”.)
61. Deron
February 6, 2009
9:08 PM
Greg Koukl’s reason is just one of many why the theory of theistic evolution falls flat on its face.
There has been and will always be Bible compromisers. Those who want to twist the Bible to make it fit with what they think is reality. Or what someone tells them is reality.
But examine the evidence for 6 day creation. The evidence is out there and compelling, although it’s not prominent as it has no funding.
62. Rachel
February 7, 2009
12:05 AM
I have been thinking recently about how our God is a God of order, and how the order found in nature is in itself evidence for God. Nature reflects many aspects of His character in the immutability of its laws and the general predictability under which it operates.
Natural selection and evolution as natural processes are predictable in this way. This is not to contradict that mutations arise spontaneously. It is simply to state that, in the presence of any particular trait, environmental and genetic factors will either favor it or not favor it in describable patterns. I see parallels to God’s unchanging character in the predictability of this. I cannot presume to believe that God is unable to use any method He chooses in His wisdom to bring about His purposes, and I extend that to the natural world as well.
In science, we are not trying to prove or disprove the Bible. Likewise, in our study of theology, we are not trying to prove or disprove science. God has created this material world to glorify Himself by its structure and beauty, and the natural processes that we describe are in themselves manifestations of His character and grace. Be careful not to make the mistake of assuming that the normal workings of the natural world are not already miraculous. That, in my opinion, is the most harmful false dichotomy presented in the discussion of God and science.
63. Ben M
February 7, 2009
12:48 AM
It’s been talked about on both sides throughout the comments, but I would stress that evolutionary theory is *not* random. neo-darwinian evolutionary theory is a “ratcheting mechanism” that allows species to mutate in positive or neutral ways, but not in negative ways. In other words, if I species mutates in a way that benefits it or at least does not harm it, the mutation will be kept. If it mutates in a way that harms it, that branch will not survive.
I’m not a theistic evolutionist by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s paramount to take this debate in perspective. We should not be trying to tear down other Christians; instead, we should be preaching the truth of the core doctrines of the Christian faith with humility and grace. I would suggest that when one’s focus in life becomes the ins and outs of how the world began, he/she should repent of that idolatry and return to God. It’s hard to do, but even I accomplished it by God’s grace.
64. Kyle
February 7, 2009
9:42 AM
I seem to have come late to the debate, but I did have one comment on the quote. Gregory Koukl says, “I guess if I were really clever I could make it look like I was shuffling the deck when in reality I was stacking it, but that would be a deceitful kind of design called ‘cheating.’”
What I wanted to point out is that we already believe that God must be “stacking the deck” in some sense with all that happens in the universe in the first place. Weather is nearly impossible to predict with all the little collisions of particles happening at random, yet we still claim that God is in control of it and “sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” In quantum mechanics almost everything that happens appears to just be “God rolling dice,” which Einstein complained about. If God is in control, then however he works, he appears to “stack the deck.” How is him stacking the deck in natural selection any different?
65. Mike
February 7, 2009
10:32 AM
Scott, you said: “The fact of the matter is, prior to the advent of the Enlightenment and the rise of scientific naturalism that gave rise to the theory of Evolution and the rejection of supernaturalism, the consensus of the Church has largely been that Genesis 1-2 speaks of actual history and is a straighforward account of the extraordinary providence of God (i.e. supernatural) in creating the universe ex nihilo via divine fiat in 6 solar days.”
This is just false. You might want to read your church fathers again. The most notable example is the last couple of chapters of St. Augustine’s Confessions where he argues for an allegorical interpretation of the creation accounts. A strictly literal hermeneutic is a relatively recent standard as most of the church fathers were fond of allegory. Even the Gospel writers didn’t follow such a strict interpretation of the Old Testament. Just look at the way they strip messianic prophecies out of narratives that seem to have nothing to do with the Messiah.
66. Tom Sturch
February 7, 2009
12:00 PM
Two last comments: 1) Playing poker with God is a losing proposition. I’d rather bet on his hand. 2) The created order is a dynamic environment - a dance of freedom within limits - which gives rise to change over time. God imposes for some a positive transformation (sanctification). Others remain subject to the seeming randomness of purposeless change.
67. dave
February 7, 2009
2:58 PM
i totally agree with Christ Hillcoat.
to be honest, i think the card shuffling example is filled with flaws and cannot possibly describe God’s thoughts regarding creation.
68. Scott C
February 7, 2009
7:10 PM
Jugulum,
You made my point. Ecclesiates 1:5 is the language of appearances, which BTW is also much the structure of Gen. 1-2. My point was, the Bible does not use the language of scientific precision. That is a new phenomenon with the advent of modern science. This is why I also disagree with some YECers who try to force such a modern scientific literary genre anachronistically on various texts.
If I understand your second comment, I agree as well. Science should NEVER inform the way we exegete a text of scripture. That science may demonstrate how some have misinterpreted texts of scripture is admitted. That some have misinterpreted the creation accounts as indicating geocentricism is granted. But careful exegesis of Gen. 1-2 does not explicitly yeild such a view. The account is definitely geocentric in its perspective (i.e. here is a prime case of the language of appearances) and that has erroneously led some in the past to apply this fact to scientific models of the universe/ solar system. Again, the account is not written like a scientific textbook. But that does not militate against the fact that it is an historical narrative. The whole toledot structure (i.e. “the generation of…”) throughout Gen. 1-11 confirms this fact (cf. Gen. 2:4).
Mike,
Pick up the “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. I - Genesis 1-11” and you will see that the majority of Church Fathers represented there understood Gen. 1-2 ‘literally’ if you will. Even Augustine’s (the father of allegorical interpretation) comments reflect this. It is better to say that many Church Fathers saw a kind of dual meaning to texts of scripture like this. For example some saw the Spirit’s hovering over the waters as a foreshadowing of baptism. In this sense, I agree that many were fond of allegory (or better yet various figurative ways of understanding texts). However, there was a much more profound theological understanding of the text that is often missed by those today that are strictly focused on mere grammar and syntax of particular pericopes. For example, many Church Fathers saw much that could be gleaned about the Trinity from the creation accounts.
The bottom line for me is, exegesis should ultimately determine the meaning of a text even if throughout history the consensus was otherwise. My other point is, we should not dismiss the consensus of church history unless we have good reason to do so. The Reformers had good reason to dismiss the consensus of the church in its day and I believe the same is becoming the case today with regard to the new consensus on the interpretation of the account of creation.
69. Peter Wilson
February 7, 2009
7:14 PM
Koukl’s argument is not a very good one. Theistic evolutionism doesn’t contradict itself at all. If God is absolutely provident, then He is provident over even apparently random events. If a dice is rolled, the process appears random. However, those who believe in a truly providential God should not be shocked to witness a process which appears aimless and random. God’s providence and Hid design are not at stake here.
Thus, I think theistic evolution is not an issue. However, the implications that evolution carries into doctrine certainly makes Christian evolutionism a challenge.
70. Jim Vellenga
February 7, 2009
7:44 PM
Denis wrote:
“Here’s another question. If human and/or animal life was not mortal before the Fall, what was the point of the Tree of Life? To grant that which we already possessed?”
One thing often overlooked is that there was no prohibition to eating the tree of life. They could eat of all the fruit of the trees except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, the man and woman could and likely did eat of that tree.
I guess the real question is did the tree have some substance that would keep a person alive, or did is symbolize something more. Was is something like the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper?
Someone else, I don’t remember who, said lions would have eaten meat in the garden of Eden. However, that is not necessarily true. The whole of creation was subject to frustration because of sin, and that effected all creatures. Thus, lions and other carnivores could have eaten plants in the garden just as the scriptures seem to indicate they will in the new heaven and earth as we find in Isaiah 11, “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.” Isaiah 11:6-7 (ESV)
71. Jeff
February 7, 2009
9:35 PM
The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. If a man in 13th century Europe read that, embraced it, and looked up at the heavens hanging over the flat north European landscape, he would understand it to mean, “God made a flat earth, a lot of plants and animals, and the heavens above.” Two or three hundred years later, the same man might have adjusted his understanding to include a round earth that moves around the sun. His understanding would also be expanded to include a lot more plants and animals. Now, we see that plants, animals, and their physical environment are not merely static elements, but the interrelated parts of dynamic systems. Making each animal to reproduce “after its own kind” isn’t necessarily at odds with the creation of genetic and evolutionary systems that contain vast adaptive capacities— systems that were meant to generate, when needed, new species to reproduce after their own kind. It’s not what the Bible says to us, but what we bring to the Bible that is in question.
God’s role in creation is never in question as our understanding of what he has created continues to grow. The fatal error of Darwinism is the belief that the universe is a complete accident when in fact it was made on purpose by God— their belief that men and women are accidents with no purpose, living lives without meaning, when in fact God has determined the exact time and place that each of us should live.
Considering what he’s told us about himself, we should not be surprised that the cosmos that God made is bewildering and full of surprises.
One final thought: a lot of people consider it to be the height of arrogance on the part of Christians who believe that in this vast universe, we would hold such a special place in the heart and mind of God that he would do so much to redeem us.
But those who look at the size and splendors of the universe to learn something about the significance of man make a serious mistake. God, having decided to make a man and a woman and, needing a place to put them, created a universe like the one we find ourselves in. What we learn of this created universe tells us something, not about ourselves, but about the God who made this place, a God who made things with claws and big teeth.
72. Deb
February 7, 2009
9:41 PM
Rachel (62), I think Denis at #30 gave near perfect clarification on how the natural selection and mutation fit within the Biblical framework.
” If God originally created kinds, as opposed to species, it would make sense to suggest there would be a lot of potential genetic variation within each of those kinds.”
….”All of this though, is the selection of traits that already existed from that original kind. In effect, its more of a devolution because as the selection occurs and is propagated genetic potential is lost, not gained. Ultimately, we see a loss of genetic information, not an increase.”
As I understand it, this also goes along with the distinction between micro and macro evolution - -
micro-evolution, being observable with empirical evidence, macro-evolution. based upon wishful thinking and creative extrapolation.
73. Deb
February 7, 2009
9:44 PM
By the way, I also agree with the others that this quote from Greg sets up a strawman and is not an effective argument against TE. Thanks!
74. Jeff
February 7, 2009
9:48 PM
…on the other hand, I don’t completely dismiss the possibility of YEC because the creation of systems operating in some sort of “steady state” isn’t deception although it may be deceptive. Think about it, if God were to make a tree, wouldn’t it have rings that implied years that never were? If he, instead, made seeds, wouldn’t the seeds have parts that implied attachment to a parent that never existed?
If he wanted to make a universe, all at once— not just any universe, but the one we find ourselves in, a universe composed of complex, dynamic systems of many interdependent parts— this universe would have to have lots of moving parts from the beginning.
The real hitch for me has been the issue of death. If we’re in an extremely old universe where the species evolved over very long periods of time, then death had to exist before the fall of man.
In a very old universe, the death that came from sin wasn’t all death, but human death. In a very old universe, the fall of man didn’t bring death to the animal kingdom; it just put man into the realm of living and dying plants and animals. This is very different from the role of the fall in the YEC view. A real puzzle.
[By the way, the evolution, micro or macro, of plants and animals doesn’t rule out the possibility of the special creation of man.]
75. Boethius
February 8, 2009
5:56 PM
Creation and the sustainability of all things created are two different things. The way God created things are not necessarily the way He sustains them. He may even have changed how He sustains things many times over. So, how does the scientist know whether he is hypothesizing about how things were created, how they were sustained or how they are sustained now?
76. Si
February 9, 2009
6:09 AM
The problem with Koukl’s argument is that he suggests that if God was to have ‘shuffled’ a pack of cards he would have given up knowledge or design of what was in those cards. It’s not an issue of Him making the cards appear shuffled when in reality He has planned them, it’s that his mind is higher than ours. Whilst I am undecided on the reality of macroevolution, I am sure that there is an observable phenomenon of statistical randomness. If I throw a dice, is it’s result random? Yes. But does God have control over it’s outcome. Emphatically yes! Is the dice therefore loaded? No, it behaves randomly. So I reject an argument which says that God couldn’t have used evolution because evolution depends on randomness, because this argument robs God of His sovereignty over all the everyday things which are observably statistically random
77. Dick
February 9, 2009
11:46 AM
Regarding creation, what’s wrong with believing Genesis 1 & 2? If we start out trying to make excuses for what scripture teaches in these passages at what point in God’s Word do we start believing? Where is our faith in what God has done? Perhaps it would not hurt for us to review Job 38 to the end of the book and see how God answers man with all of our finite wisdom. You either believe it or you don’t these are not idle words.