Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Not a Fish Lizard
Genesis 1:20
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
Like so many children over the last century, I was given a book about dinosaurs when I was a small boy. This book contained references to a number of extinct creatures other than dinosaurs, and one...

Is Evolution Just Another Tool in God’s Toolbox?

A warning from Creation Moments: Watch out for the belief - held by many people within the church - that molecules-to-man evolution is compatible with the Bible's teachings. As we've pointed out in many Creation Moments programs and articles, evolution and creation are not compatible in any way. Still, we keep receiving e-mails like this one - from a college professor in the field of science:

"I believe in creation. God is the Master of the Universe and there is no way to return to Him except through his beloved son, Jesus Christ. But, I believe, absolutely, that evolution is simply another tool in God's toolbox - like electricity, chemistry, physics and all other areas of science. When he deems it necessary, he tweaks or controls evolution. Please apply your resources to saving souls, not rewriting God's holy creation!"

Though Creation Moments has been criticized for taking a strong stand against theistic evolution, we continue to affirm that it is nothing less than a complete departure from Christian orthodoxy. Not only does it bow the knee to science, it shows that we can interpret the Bible in any way we wish, undermining both the authority of the Bible and the historicity of the events recorded in God's Word.

Here's a portion of how we responded to the professor: "Biblical creation is totally incompatible with evolution. When you accuse us of rewriting God's holy creation, it's really you who are rewriting God's holy book by saying it really didn't happen in the way it was recorded in the book of Genesis - a book, by the way, which scholars agree is written as an historical narrative."

We contend that theistic evolution is even worse than "natural evolution" - believed in by atheists - because it is an unbiblical philosophy held by people who should know better. As a member of our Facebook group put it so well: "Theistic evolutionists - having a knowledge of Christ as Creator and yet denying His Word - are willfully sinning. What they do, they do not do in ignorance, but in outright rebellion against God."


The tendency of some Christians to rewrite Genesis to fit in with Darwinian philosophy is nothing less than selling out to men's wisdom. Anyone who has kept track of men's "science" over the years knows how drastically it changes. One minute, the earth is millions of years old, the next it's billions. One minute, evolution is a slow process, the next it can happen in sudden spurts.

Relying on what men say is just as unsteady as building your house on shifting sands. Departing from God's word puts you squarely in the wrong.

True science always agrees with the Biblical account. Build on the Rock!

I agree with you that trying to harmonize a theistic perspective (Genesis) with a non-theistic perspective will not work. However, I don't think that is what most theistic evolutionists are trying to do. If we look at the current literal 24-hr day world view account of Genesis and the Flood, we still don't know details of "how" God did it. He tells us that He did it and what happened, but what it actually looked like and how it actually happened, no one knows. Theistic evolutionists are saying that it might have looked like evolution. They are not trying to compromise the Bible or strip the Bible of its authority or its historicity. They acknowledge that the Bible is the Word of God and that those events in Genesis did indeed occur. They are proposing that the processes of what we call "evolution" may be how things played out.

Christians who claim that the Lord created the earth through evolution have been duped by the "elite" scholars of our day. Like the Pharisees, they are more interested in what makes them look good than in what is actually true.

The Lord had some scathing things to say to the Pharisees who corrupted the word of God. No doubt he feels the same about these "theistic evolutionists" who are more interested in the praise of men than in hearkening to the Lord.

If you rewrite what Genesis chapters 1-11 says, then you might as well rewrite what John 3:16 declares. Compromise has no place in the pages of the Bible. Evolution as a "tool" takes away from God's omnipotence. Why would God have to use evolution? Doesn't He know what He wants? Does He have to rework and rework all of His creation in order to get the best result? I am so blessed not to have a God like that!!

But we do rewrite what John 3:16 says. It says "For God so loved the world . . .", but we rewrite it to mean "For God so loved "humans" . . .", right? Even though it says "world", we assume He is not talking about the physical earth, or the trees, or the frogs, right? So, we say that in John 3:16, the word "world" really means "humans". My point is this. There are some who say that in Genesis 1, the word "day" really could literally mean "a period of time". I think we have to be careful not to make double standards in order to fit our own preferred world view. Scripture is to inform our world view, not the other way around. My second point is this. I think we could learn a lot from each other if we recognize that none of us has a perfect theology or perfect doctrine. And we need to allow the Holy Spirit to do His work in our minds and hearts to change them however He desires. Therefore, we need to respect and listen and continue to talk to people who sincerely claim to be born again Christians, but have a different perspective on items not relating to our salvation and how one gets saved.

I do agree, dear friend, that we need to fellowship with other Christians that are believers in the WORD of God as we are, but there is one difference here. We need to agree on the true Doctrines of the Bible as put forth by the Holy Spirit,,,,and we need to be able to defend why we believe as we do to others. If we accept another viewpoint, such as homosexuals are born, not decide of their own freewill to live in that lifestyle,,,then we are deceiving ourselves with another gospel.We dare not agree with those that have such far-fetched notions, as they are defiling the true WORD of God.

I have had many try to tell me many things that they believe, and they back it up with the Scripture that they say points it out,,,but it actually doesn't support their viewpoint at all.

Be careful, dear friend, how much you are willing to believe, even from other Christian believers that might be going down the wrong path, using the Scripture for their own purpose. This happens so often, even in a true Bible believing church.

Who's rewriting God's holy word here? It isn't biblical creationists. The Lord made each thing after its own kind, period. There is absolutely no room for evolutionism in the Genesis account.

You can either listen to what the Lord said or run after the error of men. There is no in-between.

This man needs to go back to the Bible and get away from preaching evolutionist propaganda.

As for telling you to confine your resources to saving souls, that's exactly what Creation Moments does: it offers the message of salvation by showing people God's truth. Creation Moments stands up for the word of God. This professor is just tearing it down.

The Bible is God's word. Genesis cannot be rewritten as this professor wants without compromising all of God's word, including gospel truths.

As an agnostic I may disagree with Theistic Evolution and creationism both on lack of evidence, but I think theistic evolution is at least intellectually more honest.

They are trying to reconcile reality and a holy book. I respect that they are trying to form a worldview that includes all evidence. It's pretty intellectually dishonest to start with an answer and ignore any evidence that doesn't fit.

Theistic evolutionists like this college professor are full of denials. I believe they know the truth but choose to follow only some of them like he is in some buffet table during a meal.

There's a saying here in the Philippines that goes:
"It's hard to wake up someone who is not asleep."

Wait till God Himself wakes this guy up!

I agree with about 90% of these comments-the Word of God says what it means, and means what it says. God has no need for 'help' from evolution, or any other of man's pagan-derived theories! which creation account in Genesis are we talking about? Isn't there more than one? They don't seem consistent to me. As someone looking for the truth I am troubled by that?

Dear Jason,
First of all I'd like to commend you for being a truth-seeker. This is an admirable position!
First of all, I'll assume you're referring to the notion that Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are telling two different accounts because the orders of things created are different.(?) [Genesis 1:11 has plants made on Day 3 while Gen. 2:8 has plants made after man on Day 6, etc.] However, Chapter 2 is only telling what happened within the Garden of Eden, on Day 6, the whole rest of the world was filled up with plants and animals described in chapter 1! There's no conflict!
So the sequence of events is this:
Day 3- God made the plants.
Day 5- God made the birds.
Day 6- God made the animals and then He made man,
then He made the garden of Eden and put man in it and the rest of the chapter is only dealing with what happened in the Garden!
then God made trees good for food in the garden only!
then He created one more of each animal out of the ground for Adam to name them and select a wife, Eve.
(Adam saw God create, Eve did not)
I hope this is helpful to you in your search! Keep going, you can do it!

(My thanks to Kent Hovind who compiled this information, <a href="" title=""></a>)

Jason, what makes you think the two creation accounts - given in Genesis 1 and 2 - are inconsistent? Both accounts describe the same creation event. Chapter 1 describes the six days of creation (plus the seventh day when God ceased from creation). Genesis 2 goes into more detail about the sixth day. The two accounts do not disagree on the order in which things were created. So where do you see inconsistencies?

The two accounts as I read them appear to be in different order. KJV

Perhaps you're talking about the apparent contradiction involving the issue of vegetation. Genesis 1:11 tells of God creating vegetation before He created man, but Genesis 2:5 tells of God creating vegetation - the kind that needs to be tended by a farmer - AFTER He created man. The Hebrew words for "vegetation" in the two passages are different.

//It’s pretty intellectually dishonest to start with an answer and ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit.//

I agree. That's exactly what evolutionism does. It decides to exclude the possibility of a God and then goes to any lengths to "prove" it, including making postulations about what happened "millions" of years ago when there were no eye-witnesses around.

Creationists, however, go by the testimony of reliable witnesses, testimony which is substantiated and corroborated by historical, geological, geographical, and archaeological evidence. Then they look at the evidence and note that it agrees with what has been previously observed and with what can still be seen today.

For example, Genesis states that each living creature reproduces after its own kind, with its seed in itself, and this is exactly what we see going on in the world around us. What we don't see are instances of macro-evolution, in which a single species produces offspring that are not of its own kind. Neither do we ever see new DNA information being produced — all we see is existing information being recombined.

It's not at all hard to corroborate the Genesis account. Just take a pair of dogs, and they will produce puppies, each after their own kind.

But just try to substantiate evolutionism. You can't.

April, remember you are talking to someone that believes in evolution. Don't forget they don't have a source for morals. What i am trying to say is that when you tell them to take a pair of dogs, you need to be specific. A born female and born male dog. They would take two male or females just to prove you wrong... see it takes millions of years. :-D Or worse yet take two males and surgically try to change one into a female. They do believe some really crazy stuff.

Evolution as a theory is dead, they are just having a hard time coming to grips with that reality. The more real science that is done, the more evidence against evolution is found. And that is where we see the story getting crazier and crazier.

Hang on. I don't want to cause waves, but you can substantiate evolutionism - at least some form of it. You suggest taking a pair of dogs as an example. What if you take different breeds of dogs as that pair? And keep breeding differently. You'll wind up with a new breed entirely. It's still a creature reproduced after its own kind, but in a few generations, the new pup can be nothing like the original pair, except that it's still a dog. In that sense, you can introduce a kind of evolution into dogs. I'm no expert on the matter, so I can't give you proper terms and such, but the point stands. If you really think creatures of all types don't evolve at all, please explain why humans live longer, are taller, and have modern technology. For that matter, explain why carrots used to be tiny, purple roots and became the succulent orange tubers we eat today. Or explain the recent birth of a white baby to two black-as-coal parents in Africa (not albino, in case that's your first thought). Heck, I'm fairly young and I've watched various fruits and vegetables change drastically in my own lifetime. Did you know corn is a form of grass? But it's obviously not grass. The smaller the populations, the more complete and inclusive a little change can be. Still, if interracial marriages continue to be the norm, every human on earth can have dark hair, skin, and eyes in just a few generation.

Ignoring the fact that things change is sticking your head in the sand. There are physiological differences in each "type" of creation, and cross-breeding will continue to bring about an evolution. This was proven as far back as the mid-1800s, by Gregor Mendel.

Still, believe what you will, but I highly suggest you use the brain God gave you to be sure of it. I'm just trying to help you see the other side of the discussion. So often, both sides are automatically dismissive and don't actually consider the other's perspective.

Dustin, what you are talking about is not evolution per se. It is what many call micro-evolution (changes within a species). You mentioned taking different breeds of dogs and eventually you would get a new breed of dog. Well, it's still a dog. It's not a lizard or some other type of creature or "species" as evolutionists would say. And to this point there is no evidence of such a change (I would argue that we will never see such evidence). Just try your experiment with a rabbit and a dog and see what happens. Nothing because they are a different "species" or "kind" which is why the Bible says "after there own kind". No one denies that changes occur within a "species" i.e.: humans living longer or growing taller or a wolf's fur changing colour etc. But the fact remains, we are still human and the wolf is still a wolf. We are not a new "species" and neither is the wolf when compared to our forefathers or the wolf compared to its ancestors. Essentially, a dog by any other name is still a dog.

Vertical [phyletic] microbes-to-man evolution is a tool in God's toolbox in exactly the same way elves, leprechauns and sugar plum fairies are. Want it put more scientifically? Then vertical fish-to-philosopher evolution is a tool is God's toolbox in exactly the same way as geocentrism, phlogiston and Flat Earthism is. How is something we imagineered, a theory which no longer fits the evidence [if it ever did], a tool in the Hands of the Author of Truth?

Rev Tony Breeden
<a href="" title=""></a> - Is YOUR Signature Missing?

Jim,Feel free to rip this post apart .The Dark Ages is not really cienodersd to be all that dark in academia today. It originated as a lazy term that basically described an age that scholars knew little about. And if we know little about it, well then it can't be all that good, can it? The myth that it was some horrible anti-intellectual, anti-scientific time period caused by backwards-thinking Christians is not only ridiculous, but it's also no longer very credible. I can put you in touch with Dr. Kevin Herlihy, a Middle Ages historian at UCF and University of Dublin (also a communist and no great lover of Christianity) if you'd like more information on that.As a matter of fact, contrary to Western-centric myth propogators who have turned the Enlightenment into some age of sheer awesomeness, instead of the newly racist and elitist time period that it was, the Dark ages was a time when the foundation of modern medicine, as well as the Scientific Method (see Grossteste), was founded. And let's keep in mind, it was monastaries and the Catholic church that was funding, patroning and leading this time period. Schola Medica was a medical university that an English monastary started during the Dark ages. 12th century Italian monstaries (maybe 11th century, the memory fails me) began a time period of historically significant medical advances. The intellectual stagnation of the 5th and 6th century was the result of the fall of Rome and the loss of Greek texts, which had been the foundation for medical advances up until that point. It slowed progress up a little bit, and then the world quickly rebounded. The Dark ages simply didn't exist in a way that 20th century Western-centric historians believe that it did.All of this came BECAUSE of the church. The monastaries is where any texts was found, and it was where any new texts were writtes. Monastaries started universities (Cambridge and Oxford) and led the advancement of science and medicine. I don't love the Catholic church anymore than I love the idea of science being anything other than faith, but I also can't pretend that the Dark ages was an anti-scientific time. It wasn't. Galileo wasn't threatened with torture, and it wasn't neccessarily because of his heliocentric beliefs, since, after all, Copernicus dedicated his book to the pope. Modern historians aren't quite sure how or why that myth began, but it's a myth nonetheless. He was put under some form of house arrest, so that was correct, but it probably had more to do with his critique of the Pope (who, until that point, cienodersd Galileo somewhat of a friend, insofar as Popes can have friends) and Galileo's insistence on turning it into a theological, Biblical debate (Galileo was convinced Scripture backed his argument, which it probably does.) Again, as a Protestant, I'm no great fan of the Catholic church. But history is history.Your last sentence is probably overly-simplistic, but technically true in some sense. I can't quibble with it .Please know that I make this post with all respect, and as a fun debate. I harbor no ill-will or anything. I'm sure I don't have to build this bridge, but the internet can be a nasty place, and motives can be misconstrued very easily.

I could go on and on about evolution vs. creation but it really comes down to one statement in Scripture: Romans 1:20-23. The bottom line here is very clear - the professor and others that think that GOD needed or used evolution will be "without excuse"! Also, just to be crystal clear, Psalm 90:4 speaks of the timelessness of GOD - not that HE needed thousands or millions or even billions of years to create the universe and all that it contains. HE could have created it all in LESS than the twinkle of an eye! HE is completely outside of time. The 6 days of creation were for our benefit, not HIS necessity. To think otherwise is sheer lunacy!

I'm reminded of Copernicus, who deseivd a radical new theory of cosmology that shook the world. It predicted spacial movements beautifully and accounted for all then-observable phenomena, kicking off science in a rush for knowledge.His theory, unfortunately, was completely wrong. To be fair, what it replaced was wrong on the scientific front as well, but he was still wrong, despite his theories fitting the evidence.There may be a moral in there somewhere

A god who would have evolution in his "toolbox" is a god who used death to bring the world to its present form. The God of the Bible sent His Son to be victorious over death for us. A god who would have evolution in his "toolbox" but gave us the Bible that tells us that death came into the world because of the first man's sin and is the enemy of man is a liar. No, one is fooling one's self if he (she) thinks that they can plug evolution into Genesis 1 and 2 and still have the Gospel proclaimed in both the Old and New Testaments.

I'm 64 years old and recall the first time that I heard about the "theory" of evolution. When I was in the sixth grade my school teacher told the class about a "theory" called evolution, which she was supposed to start teaching. She stressed the word, "theory," and explained that it basically meant "an idea." In the older dictionaries I have found the meaning to be what she said it was. However, in the newer dictionaries I find that the meaning has been changed to favor evolution.

FROM: Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American language. The word "theory" meant. 1-) Originally, a mental viewing; contemplation. 2-) an idea or mental plan of the way to do something; (In other words, that is how someone thinks something happened.)

FROM: Encarta World English Dictionary:
1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice economic theories.

(It sounds to me like Satan is at work in every avenue on planet earth to discredit God's Word. And he is using "his preachers and servants" to do his unholy will.)

I don't have to know all of the answers to every stupid idea. An "idea" is not always right just because the person has a degree. In fact, ideas are a lot like armpits. Everyone has a couple, and most of them stink.

The truth is that God cannot lie, His Word is right and good, and it will stand throughout all of eternity. God tells us how we, the world, and all of creation was created. The choice is up to man. Believe God or trust in man's wisdom. For me? The wisdom of man isn't very good. But, I have found that no one can match the wisdom of God. God gave man a free will, and we all can choose to "not" believe His Word. If people do that, they choose to do so at their own peril.

John Chapter One Verse Two: "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made."

Evolutionists place their faith in some idea. Christians place their faith in the finished work of Christ on Calvary, and by doing so are saved by the grace of God through faith.

To Jason I would like to say it is intellectually dishonest to try and reconcile reality with the Bible by compromising the Bible to make it fit some worldly philosophy. Let's face it, science books are rewritten every day to make corrections where errors are found. The Bible on the other hand has never needed to be updated. It is right by definition. Viva the Bible!

I know we can not judge another man's salvation, but I have very serious doubts about this professor's conversion. John 1 says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". This is a clear reference to Jesus as the Word of God. Another verse says that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. If someone receives Jesus, then it follows that they also receive the truth of the Word. Jesus said that He would send the comforter who would guide them into all truth. Finally, the Hebrew text for Genesis chapter 1 is written as a narrative to be taken literally not poetically. All of this leaves NO room for evolution.

Your teacher may have simply demonstrated her ignorance on this matter. A Scientific Theory is not a hunch or a guess. The NSF's website explains it well if you care to look into it. It is not the same meaning as one would use in every day parlance; that you and your teacher may not know the difference is certainly a good anecdote illustrating the poor state of science literacy in America. But most apologists have been made aware of the distinction and still use the "only a theory" argument. I think its a dishonest cheap shot when they do, and it leads me to wonder on what evidence Creationism stands if these patently false claims are up front and center. Certainly God can do better than that.

Jason, God can do better than practice evolutionism and he has.

Let's talk spontaneous generation for a moment. It's the idea that nonliving matter can produce life, such as flies being generated by garbage. That theory became obsolete after Pasteur's work. Renaming it abiogenesis doesn't make it any more valid. That's dishonesty for you! It's biogenesis that's the established scientific law, not abiogenesis.

While we're talking about dishonesty, how about the claim that evolution is essentially the equivalent of variation? Variation does not accumulate to become evolution as evolutionists claim, but is restricted within kinds. The two are not even related. Variation is difference occurring within a species. Evolution (also called macroevolution) is the supposition that species are capable of changing into another kind, as in land animals becoming whales.

Simply calling a theory a fact doesn't make it so. What's patently false about saying a theory is a theory? If anything, creationists are being generous to call the theory of evolution a theory. In truth it's a hypothesis that has failed to meet rigorous scientific scrutiny.

You say that science literacy is going to improve the outlook for evolution. But true scientific literacy would be the death nail in evolution's already moldy coffin. So ... bring on the science! Let's just make it accurate for a change.

Jason, when a "theory" (like evolution) is directly opposed by a "law" (like the Second Law of Thermodynamics), it should be abandoned. In fact, it never should have been promoted from a "hypothesis" to a "theory" in the first place! The real reason it hasn't been abandoned is because it is the only way that atheists and secularists can explain the world around them without believing in the existence of God.

And speaking of "theory," scientists need to look at ALL the evidence ... and there's tons of evidence that refutes neo-Darwinism. If scientists won't even take into consideration any of that evidence, how can evolution be falsifiable? Isn't "falsifiability" one of the marks of the scientific method?

If anyone is ignorant, Jason, it's the evolutionists who are being willfully ignorant by ignoring any evidence that's critical of neo-Darwinism.

There certainly is much misunderstanding going on, as there always is with this debate and so we tend to use sharp words and talk about right and wrong about things that we don't really understand. I appreciate that someone else reminded us that this is a blog about Theistic Evolution, not Evolution. Evolution is a nondirectional, nonpurposeful mechanism of the history of the world and universe. Theistic Evolution (there are various views within this group, so I can't speak for everyone) generally states that the God of the Bible created the world and the universe and that the events in Genesis were real, historical, actual events in time (they are not dismissed), but that from our human perspective, God's acts in the Creation "look" natural, or like evolution happened. Similar to the parting of the Red Sea. The parting was a historical, actual event in time on earth, and it occurred exactly as the Bible states it. However, if Moses and anyone else had not heard the actual voice of God, to let them know that God was about to do something, it would "look" like a natural, all be it, very unusual, event in nature. Where the winds blew all night at just the right direction and with just the right velocity to blow a dry path across the Red Sea. The Egyptians were not afraid to follow the Israelites into the Red Sea. It probably seemed to them as the wind "caused" this "natural" event to happen. They didn't stop and immediately conclude that the Israelite God had done this and fall to the ground and worship God. So what was the difference between how Moses viewed the parting of the Red Sea and how the Egyptians viewed the parting? It's possible that the only difference is that Moses knew God was the ultimate cause of the wind, whereas the Egyptians had their ultimate cause be just one step short of God and concluded it was a natural, but unusual wind. Evolutionists have their ultimate cause be nature. Theistic Evolutionists have their ultimate cause be God, and acknowledge that God's miracles don't defy His laws of nature, they just "appear" to be very improbable events of nature, but they give God the credit as the ultimate cause. Therefore, Theistic Evolution, as stated here, does not contradict the Bible and is not contrary to the God of the Bible. It acknowledges everything in the Bible as Truth, actual and historical, it is merely pointing out that God's acts in nature may "look" like the mechanism of nature, be it, highly unusual in some cases and highly usual in others. So to study evolution, from a Theistic Evolutionist perspective, is to study God's acts in nature.


I don't want to come off as a troll so if this conversation is better suited for email let me know; meanwhile,

It seems like a generalization to say evolution is the domain of secularists and atheists. After all this post is about Theistic Evolution. Many religious people and scientists Also, this is only an anecdote but I for one am not beholden to evolution in order to live my life.

Well I got an interesting piece of news today that debunks evolution, yet they still cling blindly to their faith. British scientists claim to have solved the scientific, philosophical mystery of "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?". In their report they say: "'It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first,' said Dr. Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University's Department of Engineering Materials, according to the Mail."

Creationists knew this all along. Check out the article at this link <a href="" title=""></a>

The evolutionists themselves are caving in. They do not have one true fact to support the theory. Poor Darwin - he was like pied piper, he piped and everyone fell in line without thinking. He did not have the information we have today that scientifically supports the Bible. He guessed at a possible explanation for
his observations. The Bible is full of truths so why would anyone doubt? No will ever have the answer until arriving in heaven, so guess away if it makes you feel better, but the best offer ever comes only from God, and He freely reaches out to everyone, teaching and offering love, peace, and comfort with life after death with Him if we would only listen, learn, believe, repent, confess belief, and be baptized for the washing away of past sins arising new into Christ's body--His Church.