by Dr. Robert Kofahl, Ph.D
Early in May 1985, I was the only creationist attending a two-day university symposium on “Information, Entropy and Evolution.” In the formal addresses and discussion periods, brilliant scientists and philosophers made heroic efforts to tie biology, physics and cosmogony together with evolution into a unified system of scientific theories. Overarching every consideration was the grand assumption that evolution of the universe and of life is a “fact.” Therefore, life, physics and evolution must be tied together in some way. But it was evident to more than one person there that the necessary evidence is still missing. The only thing that presently ties these areas together is philosophy. It is the philosophy of materialism, the belief that everything can be explained by the properties of atoms and the laws of physics—when scientists learn enough. Any other explanation—creation by a God, for example—would have been hooted off the floor. To this observer, the spirit of rejection of God our Creator often could almost be felt in the auditorium. As David observed in Psalm 10:4 concerning the wicked, “God is not in all his thoughts.”
On the second day of the symposium, one of the attendants introduced himself to me as a friend of a mutual acquaintance from over thirty years ago. He has been teaching in the biology department of a public college for 21 years. He explained enthusiastically how he teaches a course about evolution, accepting evolution as true but believing that evolution is the method God has used to create. In other words, he believes in theistic evolution. He indicated that holding this view makes him acceptable to the college administration and enables him to share the Christian faith with college professors and students who would not give him an ear if he believed in special creation. He said that in his classroom he offers theistic evolution to his students as the way to be scientific while retaining one’s faith. At the lunch table I explained what I believe to be the right position for a Christian to hold concerning science, creation and evolution. Our Creation Essays have developed this pretty thoroughly, but we have not dealt with the idea of theistic evolution.
So What Is Wrong With Theistic Evolution?
1. Theistic evolution contradicts the plain words of the Bible.
a. In Genesis 1 we are told ten times that God created each kind to reproduce “after its kind,” not to change into another kind. The types of organisms specifically mentioned are grass, herbs, fruit trees, marine animals, birds, beasts of the earth, cattle and crawling animals. Man is set in a class by himself, created in the image of God and placed in dominion over all other creatures.
b. In Genesis 2 Moses reports that the first man, Adam, was formed of the dust of the earth, that he was alone and that Eve was formed from tissue taken from his side (note: Eve was the first “clone”). Theistic evolution would have Adam and Eve appearing in history as superior members of a tribe of yuppie apes. These two views of the origin of man are mutually exclusive.
2. Theistic evolution, since it simply accepts and baptizes materialistic evolution, is subject to all of the scientific objections that cling to materialistic evolution.
3. Belief in theistic evolution places a person right in the middle of an intellectual no-man’s-land where he is a target shot at from both sides of the battlefield.
a. The Bible-believing Christians (that’s us) charge believers in theistic evolution with undermining the Scriptures.
1) By destroying the meaning of language, and
2) By accepting fallible human science as the arbiter of what the Scriptures mean or when they are to be considered to be in error.
b. In the modern theory, evolution is by definition a totally purposeless, unguided, materialistic process, without any goals. Theistic evolution, in contrast, is by definition a guided process with divinely determined goals. Thus, these are two mutually exclusive theories. Therefore, anyone who chooses to believe in theistic evolution should logically repudiate the Darwinian evolution that the secular establishment of science and education teaches! If, on the other hand, the believer in theistic evolution holds that God simply accepts for His creation whatever creatures a totally materialistic chance process of evolution produces, God the Creator is reduced to a mere bystander, a cosmic wimp, hardly worthy of the title Creator. After all, He really did not design or create anything.
c. Although theistic evolution believers propose theistic evolution as a more scientific way than special creation for understanding biology, theistic evolution is really a religious notion, not a scientific one. It is just as religious and no more scientific than is special creation. The God of theistic evolution is supposed to use evolution, divinely guided in some manner, or controlled by divinely established laws or by chance alone, to carry out His work of creation. But the fact is that there simply is no scientific evidence for a process of evolution guided by God. Therefore, theistic evolution is an attempt to mix science and religious faith in a manner that can be sustained by neither scientific evidence nor Biblical evidence. Consequently, theistic evolution offends both secular scientists and Bible-believing Christians.
4. Theistic evolution is not a solution for the problems related to teaching origins theories in public school science. It is simply another religious viewpoint that differs sharply from the materialistic and the Biblical viewpoints. As such, it would be a violation of the First Amendment rights of believers in special creation to attempt to balance materialistic evolution with some teaching of theistic evolution.
5. Theistic evolution requires God to use the deaths of untold billions of animals and of pre-humans to do His work of creation. This surely casts a cloud over His character as a God of mercy and love and wisdom, not to say of sovereign power.
6. Theistic evolution makes human nature merely modified animal nature and human behavior merely modified animal behavior. For all practical purposes, the Biblical concept of an absolute moral law for mankind becomes indefensible. The natural lawlessness of unregenerate humans becomes the norm, and improvement is deemed possible only by evolution or genetic engineering.
7. Among other vital Biblical doctrines that theistic evolution undermines is the doctrine of the unity of the human race in one man, Adam (Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 45-50). Theistic evolution effectively does away with this unity by denying the historicity of a literal Adam whom Christ affirmed to be a real historical person when He confirmed the Mosaic account of the creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4-6). The passages cited above in Romans chapter five and First Corinthians chapter 15 teach that the divine plan of redemption is tied to the unity of the race in one man, Adam, so that the church might be redeemed by the last Adam, Christ. But theistic evolution eliminates both this unity and the need of salvation for a race of improved apes who can have no more moral responsibility than did the tribe of more primitive apes from which they supposedly descended. Thus, in several ways theistic evolution strikes at the central doctrine of Biblical Christianity—that of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ, rendering it both unnecessary and impossible.
8. Theistic evolution makes the Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Bible reveals to be God incarnate, into a made-over ape, one who just happened to be more successful than other humans in overcoming the bestial influences of his animal ancestry.
9. Theistic evolution has God waiting billions of years for His words of creation quoted in Genesis 1 to be obeyed. Thus, His omnipotence and sovereignty over the universe are brought into question. In actual fact, the Scriptures indicate immediate fulfillment of His creation commands (Psalm 33:9; 148:5).
Conclusion
Biblical special creation, we believe, not theistic evolution, provides right answers and solves problems concerning faith and science.
[The previous article is reproduced from the July-August 2003 issue of Foundation magazine. It is one of a series of “Creation Essays” Dr. Robert Kofahl (1924-2009) published in Foundation magazine from 1999-2007.]
