Skip to main content

For Question Evolution Day — Problems with Theistic Evolution

Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, Charles Darwin, Evolution, Bible, Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In observance of the third annual international Question Evolution Day, I am going to focus on biblical authority and worldviews. With the help of a couple of articles, of course.

First of all, I do not know of any major creationist organization that says that you must believe in a literal six-day creation and reject evolution in order to be a Christian. This is not a salvation issue, but it is still important. It is my belief that most people simply never gave it a second thought, Genesis is a story but science tells us how life began and evolved, so God used evolution. Of course, they have evolution assumed to be true, are given many fancy stories that may sound plausible on the surface, and if people question evolution, they are subject to ridicule and being called "anti-science". In addition to appealing to emotion with ridicule, they also appeal to emotion by saying that "scientists agree that evolution is true", and, "most rational people believe in evolution". Those are fallacious, with appeal to emotion, appeal to authority and appeal to majority. But majority and consensus do not determine truth.

There is a distinction between historical and observational science (put forward by evolutionists before creationists began discussing it). Evolution is historical science; it cannot be observed or replicated. So is creation. Both use scientific methods to support their positions. The science that can be observed and repeated (such as the stuff Bill Nye was famous for) is observational science. Supporters of evolution will equivocate (another logical fallacy), and say that evolution is science. This is a confusing, manipulate bait-and-switch technique.

When biblical creationists are denying evolution, we are not denying "science". We are saying that our interpretations of the evidence supports the Genesis Flood and actually refute evolution. Creation scientists have theories and models just like their secular counterparts. There is disagreement and discussion on some — that's what scientists are supposed to do. But biblical creationists do not compromise on the Scriptures. God told us he created the universe in six literal days and that there was a global Flood. Those are not up for debate, but the science aspects are.

Theistic evolutionists (God used evolution) have some serious problems. Some are blatant compromisers with disdain for biblical authority. Others have not thought the matter through. Perhaps some just do not care. I see that theistic evolution has some very serious issues and leads to a domino effect of compromise. If the creation account was a story, these people have to explain why Jesus lied to use when he said that God made them male and female from the beginning of creation (Mark 10.6), and that something was amiss with Paul when he referred to Jesus as "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15.45). Also, if the Flood was a local event or figurative, Peter must have been confused or something when he not only referred to it as a global judgment, but likened it to the coming judgment by fire (2 Peter 3.6-7). If the Bible doesn't mean what it says in Genesis, why should we trust it when we are told that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified on a cross for our sins, died, was buried, and bodily resurrected on the third day?

Here are two articles that I strongly recommend. First, "Why We Believe In Creation (and Not Unguided Evolution". This shows how theistic evolutionists have an inconsistent worldview, and that evolution is not compatible with the Bible. Second, "Perils of Theistic Evolution" goes into greater detail and shows how such compromise seriously undermines biblical authority and the gospel message. Do we hang our interpretations of man-made philosophies of science that are ever-changing, or do we trust what God has said in his Word?

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen


Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us