Why it should matter to the Christian

I could write about this subject for hours. The immensity of information contained within the Bible that relies on principles that are in exact opposition to principles of [macro]evolution is overwhelming. The whole premise of our faith is in opposition to evolutionary theory.

But perhaps one area in which I have been reminded is so simple, is in the implications of evolutionary acceptance. I was reading a blog recently by a respected member of the Intelligent Design (ID) community, posting about another complex molecular machine that should pose a serious problem for evolution to explain, but it is merely brushed off (as usual) as “it just happened.” Someone claimed in a comment that there is good evidence of complex systems evolving over the very long periods of time, and someone (who clearly believed in a designer) replied along the lines of “maybe it did evolve over a long period of time but that does not mean that a designer did not guide those changes.”

Let us for a moment forget about all the implications of accepting the evolutionary tale as currently described to us with regards to Biblical revelation and theology. Let us pretend those are not at odds. Let us also pretend that we are to accept science’s version of evolutionary events. What does this tell us about the shoe-horning in of a designer to guide the process? That it is exactly it though, a mere shoe-horning of a greater being who is clearly not that great because nature can do it itself anyway really.

What message does this portray about God? Why is there any acceptance of a God based on this? So God can essentially do what nature can do. What then of an afterlife? What then of those promises that we would take literally? What do we then take to mean when we say that God is all powerful, all knowing, in control of everything?

This is not power, this is not “upholding all things”, this is not a supreme Being beyond the realms and limitations and laws of our universe. This is why theistic evolution, and an appeal to theistic evolution is quite rightly looked down upon by naturalistic evolutionists. True theistic evolution (e.g. the likes of Francis Collins have apparently subscribed to) offers nothing more than naturalistic evolution, except with a god in the background. A god that does not really do much, and certainly not much more than what nature given its course does itself.

(I would go as far as to say, if science proved without a shadow of a doubt that what we see around us could have arisen through naturalistic means without the need for a God, then I would no longer accept the Christian faith. I sincerely believe the evidence dramatically demonstrates that the world around us could not have come to be the way it is through purely materialistic mechanisms, though.)

Why do we try to accommodate and pander to the wisdom of sinful, fallen man? Do we have no belief when the Bible tells us that God has made the wisdom of man foolishness? Where is the wise of the age? Why are we expected as the Church to cater to a mindset that has been around since false religion began? No, nothing is new under the sun (Ecclesiasties 1:9). Evolution is not new, for we are told that they [unbelievers] worshipped the creation and not the Creator (Romans 1:25). They mock saying that all continues to be and carry on since it has from the beginning (2 Peter 3:4 - to me a clear reference to evolutionary thinking). So why does the modern day church feel the need to play along with that way of thinking? Where is the faith that understands the worlds were formed at God’s command (Hebrews 11:3)? Sadly, all I see in the modern church today is great ease in acceptance of what science says on this matter.

This is despite the issue with death, no literal Adam, no “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31), no living on the Earth by pre-Flood humans for up to 969 years (Genesis 5:27), no global Flood (Genesis 6-9), no creation in God’s image (Genesis 1-2), no death entering the world through the sin of one man (Genesis 1-2; Romans 5:12)...I could go on. 

It is no longer in my mind a question of “well God could have done it that way if He wanted” but quite simply, God did it as He said it. He spoke and it came to be. This does not negate evidence, this does not make the faith “blind” – it just means acceptance of God at what His Word says, and that His Word always trumps man’s words. There is more than ample evidence for a Creator God, for the inerrancy of His Word therefore where non-believers would tell us something does not “fit” with the God of the Bible, why should this concern us anymore? 

This is foolishness to those who do not believe (but they cannot understand as they have not received the gift of God enabling them to understand; they are blind). Why trust a religious “book” over modern science? When you also consider that modern science is based on an a priori assumption that any interpretation of evidence, any model or theory, has to arise from and be rooted in naturalistic/materialistic means and mechanisms, you soon see how it is fallacy to accept such a system as being noble and true.

Science will tell you there is no Hell, there is no Heaven, there is no afterlife – this is all we get. Yet people in the Church want to accept science on the origins (which they cannot observe, have not observed, cannot test and can only speculate) but not the endings? Perhaps the fallacy is in the human logic – the thought is that if I make Christianity more in tune with science and relevant, that more people will accept it and come to Christ and as such, people cater to such scientific theories. The fallacy though is that this is in direct contradiction to how salvation is described in Scripture. The only thing that has the power to save is a work from God, not our persuasive words. God’s Word is far more powerful than anything we could conjure up. Those who love their sin and love darkness would not even accept the Light if the dead rose up from the grave and preached it to them. If I had 100 words to say to an unbeliever to try and convince them to come to Christ it would be more powerful to read the first 100 words of the Bible to them than give them a summation of all that is wrong with evolution. Why? Because that would be reading to them God’s actual Word.

That is what should matter to the Christian – God’s Word.