Evolution

 

 

Evolution is a topic needing thousands of pages of answers in order only to begin to treat the questions that have been raised.

 

Science has such great respect in our day that any position which opposes its generally-held tenets is automatically subject to ridicule.  It should be noted, however, that scientists do not form a rigid monolith of conviction on this question.  More and more very credible men of science are criticizing and even denying the theory of evolution.  We will not, however, in this doctrinal kernel, spend space comparing various scientific positions.  We do, however, offer a very up-to-date and important publication dealing with these questions.  Please ask us for “Creation Triumphs Over Evolution.”  For those who wish a scientific viewpoint not published by us or by any religiously-biased source, we recommend DARWIN’S BLACK BOX by Michael J. Behe.

 

Perhaps at the outset, it might be appropriate to conjecture as to why Creationism is so quickly dismissed by many thinking minds.  Often men of science likely assume that traditional religious concepts (the existence of eternal torment, for instance) are taught in the Bible. Their good and rational minds cannot accept such concepts, and they, therefore, (perhaps unconsciously) may reason that, “If I accept creation, I will be obligated to accept the other ‘unreasonable’ parts of the Bible also.”  Even on the subject of creation, the irrational idea that all creation happened in six literal days is both unscientific and unscriptural.  But scientists do not realize the burden of superstition and error that has been heaped upon and become an accepted traditional part of religious thought.  The truly rational and consistent testimony of the Bible would probably appeal to the scientific mind.

 

In this brief presentation we wish to make a few salient points for anyone who has faith in the Bible and wonders how that faith might be compromised by evolutionary thought.

 

There only are a very few philosophical barriers between the Bible and evolutionary thought.  But these few barriers are SO VERY BASIC, so very integral to the Bible position, that they are immovable.  If the Bible’s creation position is valid, evolution of man is not, and vice versa.  Please note:

 

(1)  The BIBLE states that man began as a pair of individuals.  These individuals had specific names.  That they did not symbolically represent a generalized race is evident in that THEIR DESCENDENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY NAMED, generation by generation, including their ages.

 

EVOLUTION claims that man began generically, evolving from some lower species, and, therefore, cannot have two progenitors with names and ages and genealogies.

 

(2)  Also imperative to the Biblical testimony is that our two original parents were PERFECT.  They were so capable that they were thought able to stand trial for life—not only theirs, but that of their progeny. 

 

EVOLUTION is based on the concept that we are constantly getting better.  It is, therefore, in conflict with putting our early ancestors on trial for their and their descendants’ eternal lives.

 

(3)  The BIBLE also claims that our original father, Adam, was ransomed by the man Jesus, one for one, a life for a life. (I Corinthians 15:21, 22) 

 

EVOLUTION has many individuals evolving from earlier species.  It is, then, not possible for Jesus to die a ransom for one guilty, original father of the race.

 

From the above, all other considerations notwithstanding, it is possible to see that one cannot accept the validity of Scripture and of evolution of man at the same time.  One must be erroneous. 

 

* * * * *

 

All know how many times in the past science has been embarrassed by truths which have demolished accepted scientific thought.  We have no doubt that the theory of evolution will, in the near future, have the same fate.  All will marvel and say, “With all of our learning and skills, how could we ever have believed such an irrational concept?  What a joke on us!  It truly is the hoax of 20th century thought!”

 

Back to Doctrinal Kernels Index.