Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Nov
22
New Scientific Evidence for the Flood
Genesis 7:20
"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
If there was a great worldwide Flood, as described in Genesis, such a catastrophe certainly should have left obvious evidence of itself all over the world. Scientists who believe in creation say that...
RSS

Theistic Evolution: Darwinism, Deceit and Discernment

There's a slick new website on the web that Creation Moments feels is far more dangerous than a deadly spider's web. The BioLogos Foundation's website is well done and appealing to the eye. But behind its good looks lurks an insidious philosophy that masquerades as biblical truth. In a word, the website promotes theistic evolution, one of the most dangerous forms of Darwinism.Darwinism's stepchild - theistic evolution - is nothing more than Darwinism wearing fancy church-goin' clothes. Theistic evolution allows its adherents to straddle the fence by attending church on Sunday while believing that the Bible is not true. Though it may sound godly, theistic evolution does not differ in any significant way from classical Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.Why is theistic evolution so great a threat? Because it entraps Christians in its web of deceit. Darwinism makes no pretense of a belief in God. It is a philosophy held largely by atheists, agnostics and others who are clearly outside the bounds of the Church. Theistic evolution, on the other hand, is the "enemy at the gates", and some denominations are opening the church doors wide.Theistic evolution is built on the premise that the Bible must not be interpreted literally. How convenient! By discarding biblical literalism, a person can believe whatever he wishes. He need never embarrass himself by accepting biblical stories that are hard to swallow - like the first human pair, Adam and Eve. Did they really exist? Not necessarily, according to a non-literal interpretation of the Scriptures. They were mere allegorical figures.Is theistic evolution credible? It is to people like Francis Collins, the physician-geneticist noted for his leadership of the Human Genome Project. Collins is also founder and president of the above-mentioned BioLogos Foundation, a theistic-evolution organization that teaches: "The Bible is not a scientific text and should not be read that way.... Reading the Bible as a literal, scientific text leads  to inconsistencies between the revealed word of God and the scientifically derived history of the world." In other words, whenever the Bible and science disagree, it is the Bible that needs to be reinterpreted.But to those who believe that God wasn't playing word games or telling imaginative stories in the inspired pages of Scripture, theistic evolution is no more credible than Darwinism itself. Discerning Christians need to avoid not only the falsehood of Darwinism but the half-truth of theistic evolution.

Comments

Maybe I'm taking the last paragraph a bit too serious or a bit out of it's context but when implying that God wasn't playing word games in particular...a game it might not be but He does speak in parables and to some it could be looked at as a game. Regardless His word is still creditable and He reveals its truth and meaning to those He sees fit. I do interpret what I read as literal and when science and the bible disagree, I think we need to remember Psalm 19:6 and the history it’s had. At one time the church was standing behind the Bible by stating that the Sun was the center of the universe and Leonardo (Leonardo might not be right, sorry, my mind went blank) said that the Sun revolved around the earth and if I remember this correctly, they were both wrong or at least half wrong. I think we (me included) can be a bit bitter toward our atheist counter parts for trying to tear everything we stand for apart, when in a way we should be a bit more thankful for ultimately they’ve proven more biblical facts than they have ever disproved (obviously). The Lord works in mysterious ways! Maybe we need a bit more sympathy for those that believe in a “bigger” miracle that we came nothing as to a pre-existing God that is the Creator of ALL. Amen!

Amen, on the article. Jesus ultimately revealed Father God (Creator). Thus to see Jesus is to see Father how He really is. Jesus interpreted Genesis for us, revealing His belief in no evolution, but rather the creation of man only 6000 years ago, or so. This settles it for me. I believe I am in good company with Jesus' interpretation. There is great peace in that! God's blessings! :)

With theistic evolution how do we account for the design themes in DNA, cells, brains, eyes, and other senses that require considerable design.
Then in a deeper sense how do we derive any purpose without a designer. There seems to be increasing moral and other related evidence to require a creator. When one considers the total universe as a system, there is certainly order, fine tuning, and stability requiring control by our creator. Lets face it, we live in a special place with a purpose.

Of course, the biggest problem with theistic evolution goes beyond but includes the fact that it does not take the Scriptural text seriously. It posits that there was death before the first man sinned, thus decoupling death from sin. Yet Scripture throughout is very clear that death is a consequence of man's sin. Thus St. Paul speaks of the first Adam bringing sin and therefore death upon mankind which is why the Second Adam (Christ), came to die for our sins so that we could be forgiven and receive eternal life. When theistic evolution decouples death from sin, it denies the very heart of the Gospel and the saving work of Christ.

, Pope John Paul’s declaration that eoutolivn is no longer a mere hypothesis is a fundamental church teaching which advances the eoutolivnary debate .Intelligent Design is not science, invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science. Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Church's Pontifical Council for Culture said, the Church had never formally condemned Darwin, in the last 50 years a number of Popes had accepted eoutolivn as a valid scientific approach to human development. Evolution could be traced back through Scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas to St Augustine in the fourth century. Although I seriously doubt the history of this latter claim, it is interesting to note the Catholic Church has done more to embrace science than previous generations, and certainly more than narrow-minded fundamentalist sects.

You're absolutely not being too tough about this subject! Theistic evolution is like so-called "Christian" rock music. The two terms are polar opposties and cannot possibly be in harmony with each other in any way. As your article states, theistic evolution is merely another way for the devil to draw people in and dupe them into thinking the same thing he caught Eve with; "Yeah, hath God said?" It's extremely dangerous!!

It is important for people to know the real science of creation and the questionable facts that are used as argument. I have a neighbor [teacher] who says can't both creation and evolution be the truth? My answer to him kept returning to the fact that evolution itself is without proof and has not been honestly presented. With real proof he had no argument. Much like the gospel of Christ, I still come to a deeper understanding as the facts get presented to me. We also need to continue to revisit the facts of creation as well as the evolution argument. Only the truth can open eyes and set a man free. So continue to bring up those facts that they have not answered as well as the next fantasy they dream up.

Call it what you will, there is no such thing as "theistic evolution" any more than there is Christlike Satanism! The Deceiver is ever inventing stuff that those who will not repent of sin can latch onto for a feel good moment. Anything to deny the reality of sin and judgment. The soul that sins shall surely die. That's what it's all about.

I had an argument with someone in my church, a physicist who maintains that the stages of creation were merely undefined "periods" of time that could stretch over millions of years and allow for evolution. Although I pointed out to him that Genesis states that the creative timeframe is one day and that Peter clarifies this is as a thousand of our years (2 Peter 3:8), the physicist refused to look at this logically. He would not acknowledge that the Lord has been very specific about how long the days of creation are.

Interestingly, John saw the history of the earth in vision, and according to his account (which is corroborated by other scripture), the physical age of the earth after the Fall (before the Second Coming) is about 6,000 years. This is followed by the Millennium, which is about 1,000 years. But the physicist didn't want to acknowledge the streamlined way this agrees with the timeframe for creation: one week, which is approximately 7,000 of our years. This is because the physicist deals with a science that denies a young earth.

When I pointed out evolution is blown out of the water by the Lord's statement that he created everything after its own kind, the physicist said there was room for healthy debate, and he didn't mind a little philosophical discussion.

What's there to discuss? You either believe the Lord, or you don't.

The bible is mankind's "life guide". There is so much more to the bible than can be explained. It's the most important book even written. Sadly, those who denounce it most of the time have never picked one up. Science is man's search for understanding of God and his works. Science has learned why God instructed man to do certain things now, that in ancient times, were done without question through faith. Darwinism isn't the truth. The bible is.