Review of “10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution”
Recently, I discussed several common scientific misunderstandings that YECs have when arguing against Evolution. One of the misunderstandings was that many Evolutionists are so invested in Evolution that they ascribe almost a mystical cause to it all. I suggested that Theistic Evolutionists do exactly that, but the “mystical” influence they ascribe it all to is God. I then made the point if that YECs can believe God created the world, then why shouldn’t Theistic Evolutionists believe it? Well, here is an article that tries to answer that question. It is an article by Werner Gitt entitled 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution. Such articles are important to understand, because if a Christian reads it, they could be convinced that they must choose between their common sense and their faith. One should never be forced to make such a choice; it should be common sense to follow your faith, and one should have faith in their God-given ability to look at the scientific evidence and discern what God is saying through it.
Now, at this point, I have read the first section of the article and skimmed its headings. Therefore, I have not read the article in depth, so what you read below will be my responses to the article as I have them. You can click on the link above if you want to follow along. I will paste in key excerpts of the article as I go.
The article begins like this:
The atheistic formula for evolution is:
- Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.
In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:
- Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.
For the purpose of this article, I will accept Gitt’s formula of Theistic Evolution. However, I do not believe it fairly characterizes my own views, and I have read enough literature to see a setup when I see one. For example, the word “chance” is used by YECs as a way to show that Theistic Evolutionists enslave God to their theory. If something happens by “chance”, then it wasn’t under God’s control. “Necessity” has similar connotations; if a change occurred out of “necessity”, independent of God, then the process is not under God’s control. “Mutation” is defined by chance. “Selection” is defined by chance and necessity. Isolation feeds chance and necessity. “Death”, according to YECs, contradicts the Genesis account of “the Fall.”
The problem I see already is that these words, innocuous as they seem, are being used to define a flavor of Theistic Evolution that few Theistic Evolutionists actually believe. For example, let’s take “chance”. If I roll a pair of dice, I believe that there are an infinite number of factors that work together to determine why I rolled a 7. I react like I rolled a 7 by chance, but only because I do not know all of the factors involved. But the reality is that chance is an illusion. “Necessity” is another way of saying that given God’s rules, something happened because it could not happen otherwise. Rather than God being powerless to necessity, He actually defines it. Consider then that chance is an illusion, and is actually another form of “necessity”, and we see that what chance is subservient to God as well. By extension, “mutation”, “selection”, and “isolation” are subject to God as well. So for a Theistic Evolutionist, adding God to the equation does not subject Him to forces beyond His control. Adding God acknowledges that all forces are subservient to Him. Adding God makes all the difference in the world.
So does Theistic Evolutionism make God subservient to nature, or nature subservient to God? Well, like I said before, I think Gitt is setting up the reader to see a theory that makes God subservient to nature. And Gitt does not disappoint:
In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.
Now, at this point, I must make a confession. This is the second time I have gotten this far in the article… my 2 year old reset my computer and I had reproduce what I had written from scratch. So, what you read above is in fact my honest reaction to the article, but I must confess that during my rewrite, I already knew of the two lines I quoted above. However, from here on out, my reactions that you read will be by first reaction…
And now, back to the article.
Before I go on, I must say that I do not blame YECs from seeing Theistic Evolutionism in the manner that they do. If you know any Theistic Evolutionists that believe God is subservient to the Creation, then I agree believe they misunderstand God, and should probably heed Gitt’s warnings. Well, let’s see what those warnings are…
Danger NO. 1… Misrepresentation of the Nature of God
Gitt quotes scriptures that define God as perfect, holy, omnipotent, “love”, “light”, and “life”. The creation is “very good” and “perfect”. I have no quarrel here. But then Gitt concludes the following, that…
Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)
Now, this is a surprise. First of all, “death and ghastliness” are not part of Gitt’s formula for Theistic Evolution. That aside, Gitt’s basic criticism here is that Theistic Evolution request death to have occurred before sin entered the world. Well, if that is a problem, he should have quoted scripture to address it.
Another thing I notice is the emotional nature of Gitt’s words: “horror” and “ghastliness”. I can only assume that death of any kind implies the presence of sin to Gitt. Well, scripture disagrees. When God gave Moses the sacrificial law, it required killing an animal. In fact, God even said how to kill it (a cut across the neck). I seriously doubt God was providing instruction on how to increase the level of sin in the world. In fact, God provided instruction for what to do with the blood, and where to burn the carcass, and that smoke was a sweet smell to Him. In fact, the sacrifices were direct pointers at Jesus, the barer of our sin. Therefore, I can only conclude that death by itself is not sinful. It is the heart of the one killing that makes the deed a sin. Well, animals have no heart by which we can judge their actions. And any people alive before Adam had no soul with which to sin, and no law by which to judge them.
In conclusion to this point, Gitt could have made a case for the misrepresentation of God’s nature by explaining that Theistic Evolution makes God subservient to nature, but he did not. Death by itself does not contradict God’s nature or his perfect creation, and Gitt makes a very poor case for it.
Danger NO. 2… God becomes a God of the Gaps
…in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot “explain” with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a “god of the gaps” for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that “God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution”
This is a valid Danger to steer clear of. However, this danger is negated by 1 Chronicles 14:15-16, which reads:
15 As soon as you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees, move out to battle, because that will mean God has gone out in front of you to strike the Philistine army.” 16 So David did as God commanded him, and they struck down the Philistine army, all the way from Gibeon to Gezer.
Now, who struck down the Philistine army? Well, God did. And, David’s army did. It seems paradoxical, but it’s the truth. Now, suppose we didn’t have this scripture. What would we think? Well, we would still know what David’s army did, but we might assign God a passive role, making Him a God of the gaps in this battle. However, because we have this scripture, we know that even while the Philistines’ defeat had a direct earthly cause, it also had a directly divine cause. To a Theistic Evolutionist, the development of species is no different. There is a direct earthly cause, and a direct divine cause. To us, they seem independent. But to God, He sees His plans coming to fruition. Do you object to the seemingly random appearance of species that died out before the first man who sinned? Then object to mankind’s free will, and stop praying God’s will be done over yours. Object to God creating people who sin and never repent. Object to the tower of Babel, the Flood, and Sodom&Gomorrah. If you can accept those, believing man’s free can never thwart God’s, then accepting the creation of dinosaurs through evolution should be no different than accepting the account of 1 Chronicles 14:15-16.
Danger NO. 3… Denial of Central Biblical TeachingsThe main teaching Gitt refers to is the literal nature of Genesis 1. I agree with him that denial of Genesis’ literality is a danger of Theistic Evolution… but accepting its literal nature is a central tenet of Geocreationism.
Danger NO. 4… Loss of the Way for Finding God
Gitt writes:
…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.
Gitt is again arguing that death is sin. However, as I discussed above, death per se is not sin, lest God be guilty of prescribing sin to Moses. Therefore, having death before the fall in the garden is not a contradiction. Arguing for spiritual death before the fall would be wrong, but Theistic Evolution does not teach that. Geocreationism anyway does not believe there could be spiritual death until man obtained a soul, and that did not happen until God breathed one into Adam.
Danger NO. 5… The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined
Gitt doesn’t present a real argument. He just says Evolution undermines the idea of Jesus coming in the form of a man, and then quotes someone who holds that view. He could be getting at the idea that God’s nature is eternal, and hence so is Jesus. But, if evolution determine the form of man, then it determined the form of Jesus. If that is his argument, then I defer again to 1 Chronicles 14:15-16. Evolution cannot get in the way of God’s will.
Danger NO. 6… The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized
Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from “the dust of the ground” by God.
That is true. However, scripture only says Adam was the first man God breathed “life” into, or more accurately, a soul. Also, the word “directly” is not in scripture. The word “ultimately” is just as valid. See Job 33:6.
Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance.
This is true. Geocreationism does not do this however.
Thus any view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.
I agree.
Danger NO. 7… Loss of Biblical Chronology
The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
Agreed. However, Theistic Evolutionists agree there is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, though they would ascribe it to the Big Bang.
The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
Agreed. However, a creation day is marked events, as experienced by the creator, not by the passing of time. See “yom” - the Hebrew Word for “day” for a more thorough discussion.
The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it can not be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
This is an assumption, with no biblical basis offered. The genealogies however do take us back to Adam and Eve, which is really what matters.
Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.” This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
I don’t understand how Theistic Evolution contradicts Galatians 4:4.
The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.
Again, I don’t see the contradiction.
Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favor of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds).
Every Theistic Evolutionist I know believes we are in the end times. In my opinion, this fear is theoretical only. As for there being “no convincing physical grounds” for projecting what happened billions of years ago, and what would happen in billions of years if God were to allow it, such a statement requires an ignorance of physics and other sciences, which are all based on God’s intelligent design. Gitt isn’t arguing against ID, is he?
He concludes this point:
This can lead to two errors:
- Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
- Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.
Error #1 is a definite danger for Theistic Evolutionists in general, but not for Geocreationists. Error #2 is not a danger I have perceived. As I stated above, every Theistic Evolutionist I know is watching for Jesus’ swift return.
Danger NO. 8… Loss of Creation Concepts
Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:
- God created matter without using any available material.
- God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of “cosmic evolution,” such as the “big bang” cosmology.
The first concept is not in danger. The second is the accepted interpretation of Genesis 1, but it is not the only one. Read my posts on the creation week for more information on how Genesis 1 gives a literal account of the Earth’s last 3.9 billion years. In any case, losing this second concept is not dangerous if Biblical inerrancy and the literal nature of Genesis 1 are both preserved (which is exactly what Geocreationism does).
Danger NO. 9… Misrepresentation of Reality
If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!
By showing that Genesis 1 is a literal account of what science has been telling us, Geocreationism shows this is not a real danger for Theistic Evolutionists. On the other hand, if Gitt’s argument is a serious one, then YECs should take notice, because Geocreationism (if true) shows their beliefs in a young earth is a misrepresentation of reality.
Danger NO. 10… Missing the Purpose
However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. “Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus can not be regarded as teleonomical.”5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. Evolutionary adaptations follow God’s purpose. I defer again to 1 Chronicles 14:15-16.
Conclusion
The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines; however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.
In general Theistic Evolution discards literal nature of Genesis 1. However, Geocreationism does not. Therefore, the Geocreationist attempt to integrate creation and evolution preserves the scriptures, and by extension God’s message of sin and salvation.
WHAT DOES THEISTIC EVOLUTION INVOLVE?
This is further reference material from Gitt’s book on the subject. I will only address these final points:
In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:
- God used evolution as a means of creating.
- The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
- Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.
I agree with point 1. I disagree with points 2 and 3. When I first began comparing scripture and science, I wanted to see if there was in fact a way to reconcile the two… if maybe both scripture and science were trying to say the same thing. So, I started with the scripture. According to Days 1 to 4, Day 1 would have needed to begin in a state of constant rain and darkness, and the entire earth would have to be covered in water. Initial research turned up nothing. Scientists agreed largely that oceans began 3.9 billion years ago, but that wasn’t biblical. I knew that if the earth were old, then then the conventional wisdom regarding 3.9 billion years ago was not true. Then, I found a recent study of zircon crystals that suggested there were oceans 500 million years before the conventional scientific wisdom has assumed… and it turns out that the conventional wisdom was just that, an assumption! Given the zircon crystal study, the earth’s conditions 3.9 billion years ago were theorized to be as follows: torrential rain, darkness, and the earth was covered in water! It was exactly what the bible predicted! Of course, these discoveries are fairly recent and so are not discussed a lot yet. But, can you understand how exciting that was, to find this in a secular science news letter? Well, it is with that excitement that I started this blog, and I hope you will come to share this excitement with me.