THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE OF THEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS

The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists

By Jason Carlson and Ron Carlson

            One of the most common charges the Christian evolutionists bring against the young earth creationists is that in disregarding the theory of evolution, young earth creationists are disregarding science itself.  Christian evolutionists often argue that in holding onto a literal reading of the Genesis record of the history of creation, Christians are in danger of making the same mistake that they made with Galileo back in the 17^th century.  They claim that a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis does not correspond to the widely held "scientific" views of today; just like the 17^th century Church's reading of biblical passages which describe the movement of the sun did not correspond to the scientific observations of Galileo.  Thus, Christian evolutionists fear that once again, the church is in danger of looking like fools to the more enlightened "scientific" community.  As a result of their fear of looking irrelevant to the "scientific" community, theistic evolutionists abandon the creation record of God's word in favor of the more widely held theory of evolution.

            Unfortunately, theistic evolutionists have gotten their history of Galileo all wrong.  The problem with the Church during the time of Galileo was not that they were using the Bible to help them interpret the scientific evidence of the day, but rather, the Church had allowed the dominant philosophies and science of the day to influence their reading of scripture.  Prior to Galileo, the dominant scientific viewpoint regarding the universe was that the earth was the center of everything; and thus, the sun, planets, and stars all revolved around the earth.  This theory was first developed by pagan philosophers like Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Ptolemy (AD 2^nd century); and later was adopted as the most plausible scientific explanation throughout academia and the Church.  Thus, the Church had allowed their reading and interpretation of scripture to be influenced by the false theories of pagan philosophers, which had been adopted by the scientists of the day.

            The real point of the Galileo story is not that science made the Church look foolish, but rather, the Church looked foolish because they had given up a correct reading of scripture for the sake of accommodating the dominant pagan theories of the day.  The Galileo story is actually an indictment against Christian evolutionists.  Christian evolutionists have abandoned the literal history of God's creation account in Genesis for the sake of accommodating the popular, man-made theories of today.  In doing this, they are the ones who risk making the Church look foolish; for abandoning the biblical record of creation will never get one closer to true science.  God's word is not incompatible with true science; and true science will never discredit God's word, because God's word is an accurate and trustworthy record of God's work in the world. 

            The fundamental mistake that is being made by Christian evolutionists all over the world is this: they are equating science with the theory of evolution.  They have bought into a false definition that says "science equals evolution."  Thus, if someone legitimately questions the validity of the theory of evolution, theistic evolutionists assume that they are attacking science.  This is 180 degrees from the truth.  Young earth creationists are thoroughly committed to science and its method of observation and experimentation, along with its self-correcting abilities of verification and falsification based on the observable and repeatable evidence.  Young earth creationists have no problem with science.

            However, by equating science with the theory of evolution, Christian evolutionists have set up a false dichotomy between science and a literal reading of the biblical record of creation.  Thus, anytime a young earth creationist raises a scientific argument that is based on a literal reading of the biblical record of creation, theistic evolutionists discount it right away as being unscientific.  Christian evolutionists have redefined "science" so that any framework of interpretation that is not consistent with the theory of evolution is "unscientific".  Therefore, they are able to make the claim that since young earth creationists are not evolutionists, they are not true scientists.

            I have observed this redefinition of the word "science" by Christian evolutionists on numerous occasions.  In one recent debate that I participated in, a theistic evolutionist made statements such as: "Young earth creationists come from Christian homes where scientific insights are systematically denied"; and "you have the worldview of science and the worldview of young earth creationists"; additionally "if you accept the Bible only you deny the insights from the natural world of science."  These statements, and others like them, are completely false.  They are false because in each of these statements the Christian evolutionist has made the mistake of equating science with the theory of evolution. 

            Christian evolutionists need to rethink this false dichotomy that they have bought into.  Young earth creationists are not anti-science; far from it.  In fact, history shows that all of the founders of the modern scientific disciplines and the discoverers of the most important scientific insights were committed biblical creationists, people like:  Kepler, Bacon, Boyle, Galileo, Hooke, Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, and Linnaeus, to name but a few.[1]  Each of these scientists recognized the fact that the world had been created by an intelligent Creator; and because of this, we are able to observe and experiment to gain logical and rational answers about our world and how it works.  Thus, the real issue is not between science and a literal reading of the biblical creation account; rather, the correct issue is between a theory of interpretation called "evolution" and the biblical account of creation. 

            There are a number of important facts that theistic evolutionists need to grasp in order to free themselves from their bondage to this false definition of "science equals evolution".  The first thing Christian evolutionists need to understand is that true science does not equal evolution.  This is often a hard realization for someone who has been trained their entire life to view science only through the interpretive paradigm of Darwinian evolution.  However, unless the Christian evolutionist can distinguish the interpretive framework of evolution from the true discipline of observation and experimentation, which is actual science, they will never have a proper understanding of the relationship between the created world and the inspired record of God's word.

            The second concept that Christian evolutionists need to come to terms with is that both evolutionists and creationists are looking at the same scientific evidence and data.  The question is not the evidence, but how you interpret the evidence.  So, the real issue is this: does the scientific evidence best fit an interpretive model of evolution or an interpretive model based on the biblical account of creation?  Unless theistic evolutionists can distinguish between the observable evidence and their interpretive framework for making sense of the evidence (the theory of evolution), they will never free themselves from their false definition of "science equals evolution".  Furthermore, if theistic evolutionists fail to make this distinction, they will always be forced into a position of abandoning the true record and testimony of God's word regarding creation and the early earth; for God's word simply does not allow for the theory of evolution.

            The third realization that Christian evolutionists need to embrace in order to free themselves from the false definition of "science equals evolution" is this: Young earth creationists have no problem with the scientific realities of natural selection, survival of the fittest, adaptation, mutation, or microevolution (horizontal change within species).  These are all established facts of science that are observed everyday around the world.  Young earth creationists only take issue with the idea of macroevolution (one species evolving into another species).  This concept, unlike the others, is not an established fact of science and has never been observed anywhere or at any time.  Once again, young earth creationists have no problem with true science.  True scientific observations, like the ones mentioned above, are in no way incompatible with the biblical record of God's creation.  In fact, they fit into the biblical record of creation, the effects of the fall, and the results of the global flood of Noah perfectly.

            Christian evolutionists need to recognize that the issue is not between science and a literal reading of the Genesis record of creation.  Rather, the issue is over how you interpret the scientific evidence.  Once they make this recognition, then we can properly discuss the scientific evidence as seen through the lenses of the two models of origins and determine which model best fits the scientific facts: the theory of evolution or young earth creationism?  As I shared earlier, we all have the same scientific facts.  The question is: how are you going to interpret the scientific facts and which interpretive model do they more logically fit?  Once Christian evolutionists recognize this issue, then we can honestly dialogue about cosmology, geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. 

            We all agree that God created the universe and our world, but the question is how?  If we are ever going to answer this question correctly, we need to get back to the practice of true science, let's not limit the discussion to only one framework of interpretation, and let's allow for the possibility that the Genesis record of creation could be literally true.  This is the only way that we will ever be able to engage in an honest pursuit of the truth; the truth revealed in the natural world and the truth revealed in scripture.   

            Christian evolutionists should be overjoyed to learn that they no longer have to be held in bondage to the false definition of "science equals evolution".  For a Christian especially, science is a wonderful pursuit.  The more we observe and learn about the natural world, the closer we come to understanding who our Creator is and how he works.  Furthermore, Christian scientists need not be ashamed of the biblical record of creation.  The biblical record of creation is not at odds with science; it may be at odds with an interpretive model of the scientific evidence, but it is not at odds with true science itself.  The Bible is God's inspired record of his work in the world; part of that record is his revelation regarding his creative activity.  The beautiful thing is that since God is both the Author of scripture and the Creator of the natural world, both of these arenas are an accurate reflection of the other; both the testimony of scripture and the witness of the observable scientific evidence declare this to be true.  Christians need not fear science.  Neither should we abandon the biblical record of creation.  God's word is consistent and true.  God's creation is consistent and true.  And Christians can enthusiastically embrace both of these wonderful revelations of God's truth. 

Jason Carlson jason@christianministriesintl.org Bio and archived articles

Ron Carlson RonCarlson.com ron@christianministriesintl.org Bio and archived articles

Re: Re: Re: The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists Posted On: 01/25/07 01:49:04 AM Age 50, WI I agree that "Old Earth Creationist" seems to me to be an oxymoron. Which reminds me to ask someone who might know: What's up with John Ankerberg? He buys into the Hugh Ross bit about the days of Genesis not being literal 24 hour days! In fact he claims in a letter he wrote to Dave Hunt, dated 12-6-2006, posted on his website (www.johnankerberg.org) that he has "documented" the "false scientific evidence" of "Young Earth scholars." Then he lists 12 such claims, including arguments I thought were without question, such as "That the Earth's magnetic field decays too rapidly to allow for an old Earth," and "That lunar dust accumulates too quickly fo allow for an old Earth," and "That a comets lifespan is only a few thousand years...," and "That the trails of human footprints beside or crosing over dinosaur prints prove that donosaurs were contemporaneous with humans, not millions of years old," and "That rapid sedimentation and peat deposition following the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption demonstrate that geological processes are rapid, not gradual;therefore, the earth could be young," etc., etc. He says, "All of these scientific arguments presented as evidence for the Young Earth position have been proven to be scientifically false." I'm confused about this statement and am hoping that someone with scientific creditials will answer these objections. I am convinced that he is wrong Biblically about the days being perhaps long periods of time. I think Ken Ham and Kent Hovind (who both have appeared on his show) make tremendous sense in holding to the literal sense of day meaning 24 hour day. Re: Re: Re: The Fundamental Mistake of Theistic Evolutionists Posted On: 01/22/07 10:01:51 AM Age 46, AL With all due respect to your powers of observation, it appears that they have been swayed by "millions of years" thinking. In fact, the present processes of erosion and geological change quite easily accomodates a young earth position of roughly 6,000 years. Current processes of erosion would have choked the sea had millions of years passed. Current processes would have created a sea so salty as to be a virtual wasteland had millions of years passed. Furthermore, modern day examples such as the eruption of Mount St. Helens reveals that much change can happen in a relatively short period of time. You simply don't need millions of years to achieve the geographical features observed today. Finally, by simple reading of God's word, we see an event described in history that more than accomplishes a tremendous amount of change in the earth's features from the original creation - that would be the flood during Noah's life. The huge amount of tectonic plate movement, mountains forming, valleys forming, land masses shifting, volcanism, earthquakes and erosion due to water would have serious impacts for hundred, if not thousands of years on this earth. It was an event never before seen nor to be ever seen again. Thus, it has no comparison when measured for geographical change. The point is, God's word gives us a clear picture of traumatic global change which science confirms. It is only when we try to go to science first, that we end up having to distort the Bible to try to "make it fit" with what the changing ideas of science tell us. I, for one, choose to stand upon what God revealed to us rather than depending upon what fallible scientists try to explain. Response Posted On: 01/20/07 04:11:57 PM Age 18, MN From our discussion, I have determined that this is what we agree on: God's Word is infallible; God is infinite (all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.); I agree that the word 'day' can be something other than 24 hour periods; I agree that interpretations that man makes are re-interpretations if they're different from God's; I also recognize that Adam didn't know everything (before and after the fall). Now there are others, and I hope that I got this correct for what we do agree upon. Here's what we do disagree upon: Whether or not the Genesis 1 days were literally 24 hours each or not (even though the word 'day' can have multiple meanings, you can read in the context and as I'll say again, according to the Hebrew language rules, it does mean 24 hour days); we disagree on whether there was physical death prior to the fall or not (There may be some I've missed, but anyway, that's my summary). Now, I don't know what you view on the issue of whether Noah's (really God's) Flood was local or not, whether or not there were "Pre-Adamic" creatures, etc. so I won't even make a case on that. Here are my final statments: I again state explicitly that you can be a Christian and believe in millions/billions of years. I also would say that I could be wrong about this. However, from what I do understand as of now, the earth is 'young', the days were 24 hr. periods, and physical death (in addition to spiritual) came after the Fall. Have a great day, God Bless, and hope you're all staying healthy in this flu and cold season!! Re: Questios and Comments Posted On: 01/20/07 12:26:18 PM Age 63, OH The day in Genesis could be taken just from language to mean earth day of course; I stated that from the beginning that the word day has many meanings. So it could be long or short from the rules of language. Jonah I think is clearly a case where the word day means a earth day. I think it is stated that Jesus rose on the third day;and I think it means earth day but He was not in the Grave for 72 hours but for only a little more than 36 hours if you look into it. I am NOT saying that the Bible is wrong. What makes God perfect, is it not that He has no imperfections. A imperfection can be something wrong or something missing. God is missing nothing. One of the things that make Him perfect is that He is the "Ancient of Days". Adam was not the ancient of days but a new creation so was MISSING this. God was the One who had all truth and wisdom; He was missing no truth or no wisdom. Adam did not have all truth or all wisdom but was very short on both. So Adam was not perfect. God is the only being in the universe that is perfect, has ever been perfect, or ever will be perfect. There is none like Him, no not one. God wrote the scriptures and His interpretation is the original. Any interpretation different from His is a reinterpretation. Any of mans interps. no matter how far they Go back is a re-interp if it differs from God's. I am constantly looking for God's interp and care nothing for any of man's that differ from His. The 7th day has a number in front of it and we are still in the 7th day. God is still in His rest. The 8th day is the day of new beginnings and when Jesus comes back it will be the start of the 8th day. This book that states this rule of Hebrew is written long after Bible and could be wrong.-- lounewton1347@yahoo.com Re: Re: Re: Perfection?? Posted On: 01/20/07 11:32:58 AM Age 63, OH Good answer brother we can always agree on that answer the CROSS. I want to preach nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Newton Re: Re: Perfection?? Posted On: 01/19/07 05:52:56 PM Age 56, OR Yes... CROSS... NO Re: Re: The Word Posted On: 01/19/07 05:44:32 PM Age 56, OR Dear OH 63. "Let there be.." in context, as stated clearly means CREATED/MADE/CAUSED TO EXIST. I used the word "let", on its own to make a simple point about old English, amongst others that I see you failed to mention. The mere fact that words have to be understood in their context of time also does not allow us the disingenous liberty of construing fault where none lies. Please re-read your previous comments about Creation as a word being distinct from LETTING something be or happen. I have no distinction Sir, but you did. I hope you are not aware of the NIV's true intentions, besides the obvious one to make money. There are over 6,000 changes or omissions in that version that a great many Christians find anathema. It is based on the Gnostic Alexandrian text and Vaticanus that wishes (amongst other things) to deny the Deity of Jesus. As you are well aware, I hold that NO promise of God changes. Perhaps the words TODAY may have different connotations, that is why we ought to be students of the Word. Since man is ever changing, ever fluid in his understanding and always seeks to suppress the Truth, I do not find it hard to believe that some would not like to take the literal Genesis (as written) for the Truth. They would like to add to it, for that way it suits their purposes. The opponents of the 1611 KJV and other similar reprints mostly object to the CREATIONIST elements within that are hard to explain away. In order to go with an 'old earth' or evolutionism belief, you really do have to get something like the NIV to back you up. Even the NKJV says "The first day..." (not 'a' first day).PGW Questios and Comments Posted On: 01/19/07 05:43:17 PM Age 18, MN Well, it is true that some of the early church fathers thought that the days of Genesis were not literal 24 periods. However, if I recall my history correctly, they proposed that the universe's existence was instanteous (such as St. Origen), not dragged out for millions of years. As for the verse, "He called the light 'day'..." I need to point out that the following was "and the darkness He called 'night'". Now, that sounds pretty much like the typical 24 hours we know today, approx. 12 hrs. of daylight and approx. 12 of darkness. And I don't deny that the scriptures do fit with reality (i.e. God's creation account matches the creation). The debate here is about what the creation was (in terms of time). As far as innoncence and death, I'm pointing out that man was originally created to live forever and COULD HAVE LIVED FOREVER IF ADAM AND EVE HADN'T SINNED. I don't see exactly where you showed that man was in fact, not created perfect by God originally. As far as all the animals being vegetarian originally, that is stated explicitly in Genesis that is the case. Once sin came into the world (via mankind), there was the genetic possibility of animals switching from being veggie-eaters to meat-eaters, because of God cursing the ground and so forth. As far as 'kinds' are concerned, I should point out a few things. One: We don't know what the conditions were before the Great Flood. Two: However, we do know from science about genetics (to a certain degree) and that (from even secular sources) genetic variation for animals can be rapid. Three: If God made 'kinds' (dog kind, cat kind, horse kind, etc.) with the genetic ability to have different variations within kinds, then when Adam was naming all the animals that were there back then, not now. Poodles for example (as a domestic variety) haven't always existed in earth's history, but dogs have since Day 6. Now if these animal kinds got off the Ark (Noah's) and began to spread all over the earth, well, you can eventually get splinter groups moving up north and down south. Because this can be rapid genetic changes (especially if there's a need to keep the population in existence, such as after all the oher animals got wiped out in the Flood), it is totally reasonable to assume that the genetic variability could result in (using dog's as an example) coyote's, wolves, beagles, etc. Side Note: My point with Dr. James Boice was that he admitted that the plain reading of the Bible said that the days were what we experience (give or take a few seconds) today. Now, I'll say again for all who read this, you can be a Christian and believe in millions of years or even in evolution (though I would say that they're being inconsistant). However, let me explain (for myself and for even other 6-day creationists) why there there is a problem with the issue of six days. First, the debate over this is about whether or not we can trust God's Word completely. If the Hebrew language rules say, "If the word 'day' (yom) has a number, evening and/or morning, or night attached with it, it means your typical 24 hour day". Now, if this is the case, then it can't be anything but that in Genesis 1 (incidentally, I would point out that if the days in Genesis weren't literal days, then Jonah's still in the great fish and Jesus hasn't risen yet, if you take the logic to it's conclusion). Now, we have generations of people who are not believing in the Bible's reliability, even Christians. If we say that the Bible (God's Word) can be reinterpreted (as I would suggest stuffing millions of years, death and suffering before sin, etc.), then we can reinterpret in other areas right (such as morality)? I'm not saying that this affected the salvation of those who believed or still believe in millions/billions of years, I am saying that people are now not even trusting the Bible in Western Civilization (on the whole). This is the concern. 6-day creationists do have answers for things such as age-dating, genetics, physics, astronomy, etc. without reinterpreting God's Word. God Bless and have a great day!!! Re: Perfection?? Posted On: 01/18/07 05:20:56 PM Age 63, OH A very good question. And we know that if God said it then it is true. But notice very carefully what God said; " Thou was perfect in THY WAYS ---- until iniquity was found--- ". God is simply saying that until Satan said that he could be like God; that Satan's behavior ( or Satan's ways) was perfect. Just like Adam's ways were perfect until Adam listened to his wife instead of doing what God said. Anytime we think we can decide right from wrong then we put ourselves in the same position as Satan, who said he could be like the most high. We can not tell right from wrong or our right hand from our left; the only thing we can do is to go to Jesus and ask Him to lead us the way he wants us to go. Do me a favor draw a big circle on a piece of paper. Now let's say that the circle contains perfection, and everything in the circle is perfect. Can you find imperfection in the circle. Newton Re: Response Posted On: 01/18/07 04:59:18 PM Age 63, OH 1st of all the old universe is not a NEW idea. Some of the early church fathers thought that the days in Genesis were not earth days but had nothing to do with time. Like I said in some other post God is saying that there was darkness and He had victory over the darkness. He planned for it from the beginning and "let there be" light and a new day dawned as God said HE called the light day. In the 1600's Isaac Newton who made it his life work to study the bible; thought that the universe was even older than they are saying now. I did not study science and then the Bible; but studied the scriptures and asked God about these things and He showed me that the days in Genesis were long days. After the Holy Spirit showed me I was unsure because everyone seemed to disagree. But the Holy Spirit was very patient with me and confirmed His voice with the scriptures; and showed me in the scriptures that they were long days. A more recent thing God has done is to show me that His creation agrees with His account of His creation. You can,t have it both ways; you said man could not die because God made man perfect; so now that you see that man was not created perfect can't you see there is a possibility that man could die. The Bible states very clearly that God did not create the universe with plan A and then after the fall Go to plan B. He did not create animals that all were vegetarians and then after the fall made them kill and eat. Some animals were made to be sacrificed and others were made to eat them. This was to demonstrate right from the start that SOMETHING INNOCENT HAS TO DIE FOR LIFE TO BE POSSIBLE. This was to show what our creator would do for us right from the start as Paul says in his letters. Also we have the same kinds of animals now as we did then. What would God view as important to make a "kind"; their appearance or their inside makeup and their behavior. Newton