Friday, September 9, 2011

Why I'm Skeptical toward Evolution

You might think this blogpost will be like any other combating the idea of evolution, but it isn't. I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to discuss holes in evolution from that perspective. I do think there are philosophical holes in Darwinian evolution if it assumes naturalism within it, but I'm not going to talk about that today either. Instead, I want to approach it from a perspective that I don't see Christians talking about and should: that the adoption of evolution may be due to our being given over in judgment by God as a society.

Let me explain. Evolution is the story a lot of people put to the facts. It isn't fact itself. People who say this are philosophically naive in their distinctions of data and interpretation. For instance, the idea that we have a yoke producing gene is data, but what that means is going to be one's interpretation that is based upon one's presuppositions in one's methodology, which are themselves based on ultimate beliefs about the universe. In other words, interpretation of data (specifically speaking here of interpreting what may have happened in the past) is a function of beliefs. The data doesn't speak. We supply its voice with whatever story we have come to believe is most plausible given our presuppositions and ultimate beliefs.

Having said that, then, we need to understand that the story of evolution is a belief, not a fact. We use facts to bolster it, but these are interpreted facts--interpreted by our beliefs. So here's my question: Why do we believe it? This is where my extreme skepticism comes in due to my biblical understanding of the judgment of God on this side of death.

In Romans 1:18-32, Paul tells us that the wrath of God is not revealed to us on this side of death in fire and brimstone, but in giving us over to deception, specifically to a pagan understanding of the world and to sexual immorality (as well as other depraved practices that accompany it). I think it's important to look at the entire passage, so here it is below.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 
Professing to be wise, they became fools, 
and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 
Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 
being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; [they are] gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 
and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.  

Now, the text here tells us why their hearts/minds were darkened and how they became fools: they wanted freedom from the real God to pursue their own pleasures, so they constructed gods that were more accommodating. As a result, God gives them over to a depraved mind that convinces them all the more in the deceptions they constructed.
Now what is interesting here is that paganism is the result of wanting a life unbound by God. And as a result of that pursuit, God gives people over to it all the more. That is His judgment upon a person or society.

We are told in 2 Thessalonians 2:12 that those who did not both receive and love the truth are sent a deluding influence, a convincing deception, by God so that they would be convinced of the belief that allows for their wickedness. This, no doubt, is connected to Paul's discussion in Romans 1. In other words, the deluding influence, the convincing deception that God sends to them is paganism because they took pleasure in wickedness rather than believe the truth.

Now, you might be asking at this point, What does this have to do with evolution? Well, a lot actually. Paganism is the story that most culture's put to the facts. It is an alternate interpretation of the data that allows one to be free from the constraints of the real God and diminish His authority in his or her life. Although one can believe the story of evolution without doing this, evolution is our culture's story that it uses to do the same thing.

But more than this, evolution is a revived paganism in naturalistic form. Paganism is the belief that all things are connected and have evolved from the divine. It goes hand and hand with a type of pantheism or panentheism, where all gods, nature, and humans have evolved from a single divine entity. Evolution, then, is very old. In fact, the naturalistic form that we believe today in our culture was first proposed, not by Darwin, but by Lucretius, who developed it by applying the pagan idea of evolution to the natural world, in the first century B.C. Evolution is really our form of paganism. Just as we adopt Gnosticism in naturalistic, rather than in mythic, ways (e.g., Jungian psychology), we also adopt evolution in naturalistic, rather than in mythic, ways. In other words, we remove the mythic elements (gods evolving and what not) and keep the principle as the story we then use to apply to the data within a naturalistic worldview.

So the pattern for God's judgment upon a culture is an adoption of paganism that allows for a narrative of the world that is less restricting, thus giving us more freedom to pursue what by nature we would have known to be wrong. Hence, Paul discusses the acceptance of non-procreative sexual acts in marriage and homosexuality as two forms of our depravity as a way of discussing all forms of sexual immorality and depravity.

Hence, if we see a large acceptance of paganism in our culture ("paganism" within our naturalistic framework of course--although some have still retained mythical components and opted for pantheism or panentheism), along with a large acceptance of sexually non-productive acts like homosexuality, we ought to be immediately informed that the wrath of God is being revealed, and that our reading of the data (i.e., our interpretation of the world) is being skewed, not by the devil (although likely as a direct means), but by God Himself.

If this is true, then everything will be without doubt a proof of our form of paganism to us. Every detail our scientists and psychologists (the prophets of our time) read will be in all favor of that paganism and not at all, or at least far less likely, in favor of the God of the Bible's handiwork in creation--a handiwork that exalts and establishes His (again, the actual God of the Bible's) rule over our lives.

Now, maybe evolution is true, and it's just a coincidence that Western culture has been flung into darkness toward spiritual truths and is being given over to an all out acceptance of sexually immoral acts, like homosexuality; but there is also the evidence of the church's judgment that I think is important to talk about as well.

The churches in Western culture have largely turned away from solid biblical teaching to pursue ideas of God that are more palatable to the deceived masses. Because of this, genuine teachers of God's Word are constantly in jeopardy of being ousted from the pulpit, where people who present a more accommodating (less judgmental) God who just wants to help you out in your journey, are held up as the humble and godly men who are to be installed in the pulpit. I see this when I look at the job boards for pastor and other ministry opportunities in the church. I see this when I see numerous pastors either fired, not hired, or chastised for teaching the whole counsel of God rather than the parts that don't make us feel bad about the Christless pleasures we're pursuing in life. And I see this when I talk to the biblically and theologically illiterate people that have been raised in these churches, whose minds are cloudy, rather than clear, skies toward what is true). They have largely turned aside to myths (2 Tim 4:3-4). They practice the same types of depravity that the rest of the culture practices (and if they don't, they approve of it, as Romans 1 states), and that is always a sign in the Bible of God's judgment. In other words, they too are being darkened in their understanding and given over to practice and approve of sexually depraved lifestyles.
This doesn't mean I think the church is absent from Western culture. There are always those who have not bowed the knee to Baal, and Christ is clear that no matter how bad it gets, the gates of hell will not overtake the Church (even though it may overtake churches--little "c"--Revelation, Chapters 2 and 3). So I won't be throwing my hat in with false prophets who say that the church age is over any time soon, as that belief is completely unbiblical. But are a massive amount of the churches today having their candles snuffed out by Christ? I think that's clear.

Now, the reason why I bring up the importance of the condition of the Western church for purposes of understanding our larger judgment as a society is because the church is the light in the culture. But we are now a post-Christian culture, i.e., one that is not guided by its light. If the churches have been given over to judgment, and they are the light of the culture, then the culture has been given over to judgment as well, and our current beliefs and practices are a demonstration of the wrath of God upon us. We are being blinded because of our rejection of truth for the sake of living our lives apart from God's illumination of the world through revelation that exalts His role in the world and in our lives.

So why I am skeptical toward evolution? Not because I don't think it has explanatory power for the data. It does. It makes for a great story, and that story may be true. But given the present climate, where it seems clear to me that God is handing (and has been handing) the culture over to a darkened understanding and depraved mindset, all the while believing that we're smarter than the average bear, simply causes me to believe that evolution is the pagan story revived for purposes of destroying, rather than enhancing, our understanding of life. And the tendency for theistic evolutionists to go off into liberalism, which itself tends toward paganism, doesn't help my unbelief any. As such, I remain skeptical toward it.

But though He had performed so many signs before them, [yet] they were not believing in Him; that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this cause they could not  believe , for Isaiah said again, "He has blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; lest they see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and be converted, and I heal them."  (John 12:37-40)


  1. Please forgive the delayed comment. I found your blog for the first time earlier today (via your comment on Kevin DeYoung's "10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam."

    You are certainly entitled to be skeptical toward evolution, but I think you are skeptical for the wrong reasons.

    First of all, the last sentence of your first paragraph: "that the adoption of evolution may be due to our being given over in judgment by God as a society" seems to be suggesting that that correlation equals causation, which is not the case. Where is the evidence that acceptance of the scientific theory of biological evolution was the CAUSE of all the problems that you try to ascribe to it later in your blog entry?

    Second, the fact that a theistic evolutionist or two went off into liberalism (also known as a more informed understanding of what the Bible actually teaches) says absolutely nothing for or against the validity of the theory of evolution.
    There are any number of Christians who embrace biological evolution and have not tended toward paganism, including Denis Alexander, Henri Blocher, Francis Collins, Robin Collins, Peter Enns, Darrel Falk, Karl Giberson, Denis Lamoureux, Daniel C. Harlow, Daniel M. Harrell, Timothy Keller, C. S. Lewis, Tremper Longman III, Alister McGrath, James F. McGrath, John Polkinghorne, Bruce Waltke, John H. Walton, Keith Ward, David L. Wilcox, and N. T Wright, for example.

    The theory of evolution should be evaluated on its own scientific merits or lack thereof, not on assumed links to societal behavior.

  2. Thanks Paul. I think if you read this again with this clarification in mind, you might come away with a different take on what I said:

    This post is not about assessing the validity of evolution. It is about why evolution has entered our particular culture, Western society as a whole. I believe it has entered into our culture to speed us to our demise. This has nothing to do with whether it is true. It has to do with why it has come to us and how we have, are, and will use this belief in our society. So please understand that I believe Christians can believe evolution is true, but I think they need to start becoming skeptical as to why it has come to us in the way that it has, why it is applied the way that it is, and where it is taking us. If you ask the average Joe who gives up his faith, a belief in evolution is the number one culprit. Should it do this? I don't think so, nor do I think it unreasonable to assume that it's just being used as support of an already present unbelief within the individual; but my concern here is that perhaps it has done this because there is a judgment upon our claim to be Christians as a society with very little evidence that we are Christians in terms of our obedience/humility toward God. That's why I say that evolution very well may be true, but it seems that it has come to us for very different reasons than just enlightening our paths. So I don't disagree with your last comment because my point didn't address the truthfulness of evolution, but the truthfulness of its applications, and the possible spiritual reason for its existence, within our particular culture.

  3. "[A] belief in evolution is the number one culprit" because too many Christian leaders like Albert Mohler, John MacArthur, and the late D. James Kennedy, and too many Bible college professors convince their congregations, readers and students the false dichotomy of Creation or Evolution, pick one.

    Christians need to consider the possibility that the theory of biological evolution is nothing more than one of the means that God used to create the universe and us. It would, of course, be helpful if Christians could shed the label "Theistic Evolution" in favor of "Evolutionary Creation," which puts the noun and the adjective in the right order. Theistic evolution makes about as much sense as theistic gravity or theistic meteorology.

    At the same time, our Christian theologians need to get busier at integrating biological evolution into our Christian faith. Peter Enns just took a giant step in that direction. If other theologians don't agree with everything Peter Enns suggests, then they need to find ways to improve the integration. The people I mentioned in my first comment are at least trying.

    There may very well be "a judgment upon our claim to be Christians as a society with very little evidence that we are Christians in terms of our obedience/humility toward God," but it seems to me to be quite a stretch of the imagination to blame it on the science of biological evolution.

    I would suggest that the "very little evidence that we are Christians in terms of our obedience/humility toward God" is the problem, and the blame should be on us Christians, not on the theory of biological evolution.

  4. Thanks Paul. Again, I'm not saying evolution is the cause. I think you're misreading me. I'm saying that I'm skeptical toward it because the reason for its entrance into our society in the way that it has may be a symptom as per my argument from Romans 1 above. In other words, it may be a part of a blinding that is going on, not the cause of the blinding itself (which I think would be our idolatry). That's why I coupled it with the other symptom mentioned in Romans 1, which is a giving over to sexual immorality, which I think is hard to argue against. So if God is giving over Western society to sexual immorality because of its apostasy/idolatry/willful distortions of the truth, would he not be giving us over to exalt the creation as creator as well? If this is of God, then we will be fully convinced in the deception. We'll prove it as a fact, and be fully convinced of it. In other words, there will be no way for us to evaluate it on its own terms, because reality is being distorted.

    But this is just a possibility, not an absolute. I'm just being honest in the post as to why I am skeptical about the theory and why I think more Christians, like the ones you mentioned, need to consider it as a possibility rather than run around as though we are just objective beings proving facts about how we came to be. Could I be convinced of the theory? Sure. But if I am knowledgeable of the above, that should not only cause me to walk more humbly in my belief in it, and probably scare me a little bit too.

  5. And just to be clear, again, Paul, that if God were to give us over to exalt the creation as creator, this is how he would do it in our society. We don't believe in pagan myths anymore, so it would be through the vehicle through which we construct our primary myths/stories by which we make sense of all things. That's going to be through science, then, that it occurs (if it in fact does occur or has occurred).

  6. Just to be clear again, acceptance of the science of biological evolution (not to be confused with the metaphysical naturalism often associated with Darwinism) is not equal to "exalt[ing] the creation as creator."

    I accept the science of biological evolution plus the non-scientific religious belief that God guided the process to some unknown and undetectable extent to cause the universe to be as it is. The cosmological anthropic principle and the evidence of convergence in evolution support my non-scientific religious belief. Note, for instance, that while mutations may or may not be random, natural selection is not a random process.

  7. Paul, agreed that it is not to be confused with the naturalism that it is associated with in our culture; but the issue above is not how evolution can be construed within the truth of Christianity, nor that some have been able to apply it without diminishing the glory of God in creation. The issue I'm speaking about above is that evolution is the means, by and large, that our society has used to diminish God's glory in creation and exalt creation to the position of creator.

    And telling me why you accept evolution is only going to assume that there has been no deception involved in our belief systems that determine how we put our stories together (i.e., the grids through which we make sense of the world and interpret all data). I don't believe it is possible to understand reality apart from God's cooperation. If He does not cooperate, but rather becomes antagonistic toward us in giving us over to depraved minds, then we will use all that we have to thoroughly convince ourselves that a false story is true. In other words, if the story is true, we have no way of knowing it, unless God cooperates with us to come to that knowledge. You seem to be suggesting that you can discover truth apart from God's help, and due to data you find convincing, have an accurate view of reality (specifically here in terms of origins). I have no doubt that I could be convinced of the same. The problem is that such does not actually prove that we have come to a knowledge of reality, but only that we have a consistent story that makes sense of the data in terms of our beliefs--beliefs that may be distorted as a result of our judgment. So what I would rather do is remain skeptical toward a story that has served as a virtual wrecking ball in our culture, even while remaining agnostic toward a certain knowledge of origins, because Romans 1 demands that I don't just blindly assume in such a culture of suppressed truth that certain knowledge in such matters is attainable.

    I don't judge others who think they know (whether YEC, ID, TE). I just think, and it seems obvious by our discussion here, that what I've said above is not even considered a possibility when, in fact, it seems that in the present climate it's a probability.

  8. Where is the evidence that God isn't cooperating with us to come to knowledge of the natural world, and where is the evidence that God “becomes antagonistic toward us in giving us over to depraved minds” because of the theory of biological evolution?

    Instead of the pessimistic view that you appear to be describing, I prefer a more optimistic approach: to subscribe to the notion that “God has given us ‘two books’: the Bible and his creation in nature [special revelation and general revelation]. Since God is the ultimate Author of both, we need not fear that either revelation, properly interpreted, will lead us into falsehood. If there seems to be a conflict, it means that either our interpretation of nature (science) is wrong, or our interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or possibly both. There can be no warfare between ‘scientific truth’ and ‘Biblical truth’, because both come from the one truthful God. “ [Allan H. Harvey, “A Personal View of the Evolution Issue,” [].

    I still fail to see how the scientific theory of biological evolution is "a story that has served as a virtual wrecking ball in our culture." Blaming society’s ills on what scientists are learning about biological evolution makes about as much sense as blaming society’s ills on the theory of gravity. Are you proposing to blame at least some of society’s ill on the theory of gravity? If not, why pick on the theory of biological evolution?

    On the other hand, the manner in which many fundamentalist and other conservative Christians deal with an old earth and biological evolution (which they almost always incorrectly label as "Darwinism" when they are attacking it: see, for example Chapter 13 of Douglas Groothuis' award-winning new book "Christian Apologetics") is certainly a wrecking ball within Christianity.

    I guess I will continue to be content with "a consistent story that makes sense of the data in terms of our beliefs."

  9. Paul, here is why I think it is that you can't grasp my argument (because so far you're not touching it by simply asking me, "where is the evidence?"). I already gave the Scriptural and cultural evidence that when you have apostasy and idolatry, you have an elevation of creation to creator and a distortion of sexuality. You haven't combated this point in any way, unless you just want to deny Romans 1 is valid for any other culture besides ours because we’re smarter than the average bear.

    So let me break down what I think your assumptions are: Your position is that the theory of evolution is (1) an absolute fact like the law of gravity, (2) that evolution has not served to foster philosophies and lifestyles that have worked to destroy the cultures in which it has been adopted (just like gravity has not worked to do so), (3) that God has given us two books to interpret unhindered by our finite limitations and rebellious nature (and therefore we can discover truth through them), (4) that Romans 1 is a pessimistic picture rather than an optimistic one (and I'm gathering from your comments) only applies to pagan cultures, not those cultures that have a naturalistic methodology of inquiry such as ours. Hence, there is no reason to suggest that evolution is a symptom that Romans 1 would describe, nor plays a part in the blinding of Western society. I take it also that you would say it did not play a part in the blinding of German and Russian in the early twentieth century either, or would you concede that it did for them, but not us?

    Here is my preliminary response to this. Feel free to amend any assumptions I got wrong here.

    Your last statement evidences to me that you’re not taking seriously the nature of presuppositions and ultimate beliefs in our views of reality. They dictate everything you believe about the data. Everything. They create the matrix upon which the story is built. You seem to think that the current story that is consistent with your beliefs is the right one, but again, how would you know if God is not cooperating with us? How do you know your matrix isn't being distorted? You have to assume that contrary to the evidence before you. Our culture is in decline. The church is in decline. We are being thrown into confusion and immorality. But our beliefs about creation are correct?


  10. Here's why I think that my point needs to be considered: (1) It could be mere coincidence that the other elements of what appear to be the wrath of God upon our culture, per Romans 1, but dismissing it without serious consideration is assuming the positive in the same way you say I am assuming the negative (which I'm actually not, since my conclusion is based upon what I consider divine revelation applied to our current cultural situation inside and outside the Western church, and therefore, evidence). So if you're big on evidence, why not consider this? Is it because you don't want to give an inch to anyone saying that evolution can be a bad thing? (2) Belief about origins is not the same thing than an observable law that does not affect our concepts of ourselves and our duties in life. If people view themselves as animals, they will act accordingly (and have). Again, is it possible to bring in a Christian interpretation of evolution? I've said the entire time, Yes. My point is that this is not the dominate view in our culture, and instead, has been the handmaid for many a destructive philosophy and lifestyle in the West. So I don't think you're understanding my point. You want to argue the validity of evolution in a vacuum. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the idea that even a truth (if evolution is true) can be used as a bat to beat a culture to death, and that is, in fact, what has happened with the theory of evolution in Western society. Maybe you think everything is sunshine and roses. You have the right to believe that, but I think far more people would agree with me that our culture has been in decline. (3) I'm actually going to ask you to engage what I've said, Paul, as I don't want to just go round and round with you, as we talk past each other. I'm not blaming society's ills on evolution. Please get that point. I'm blaming it on our apostasy/idolatry. Evolution, AS IT HAS ENTERED AND BEEN USED IN OUR CULTURE, is simply a symptom of that and a means to speed our demise.

    Now, I actually am hopeful that reformation will take place, so I’m not being all “Debbie Downer” on you; and maybe when it does, we can see whether evolution is true and receive it as truth into a Christian framework that will foster life rather than death; but that's not going to happen with simply correcting Christians on the nature of its validity, since the source of the problem isn’t our reception or lack thereof of the theory. If you want a positive use of a truth, then our exaltation and obedience to God through Christ needs to be corrected, so that, if His wrath is on our culture, it will turn away, our eyes can be enlightened, and we will be able to appropriate the truth positively. Until then, it seems evident to me that trying to correct a symptom will do nothing because God will not allow one to redirect His wrath into something positive for those who are under it.

    Again, this is something that MAY be true, not something that absolutely is. It could be mere coincidence that all of the elements are present. It could be that God doesn’t really respond to us in this way anymore (I think He does); but why automatically take it to be so without consideration and acknowledgment that, if it is true that God's wrath is being revealed through these things, we would not be able to know whether our origins theories, or how we perceive them, are true?

    In fact, I'd like to ask you if you would acknowledge that. If it is true that God's wrath is upon us, would we be capable of assessing the validity of an origins theory according to Romans 1?

  11. To sum up simply where I think you're misreading me: Evolution, as it has entered into and been used in our culture, is a means (not cause) of our current cultural decline that has likely been introduced by God, if we take Romans 1 and other passages seriously, to speed up the demise of our society that was already taking place.

  12. That should say, "unless you just want to say that Romans 1 is valid for any other culture besides ours"

  13. Let me begin by responding to your breakdown of my assumptions:

    (1) I probably should have picked a better example than gravity, but I certainly did not mean to imply that the theory of evolution is an absolute fact. My point was that you shouldn’t blame people’s use of a scientific theory on the theory itself. Put the blame where it belongs: on the sinners who use it to advance their own agendas. Just because a theory is misused is not a good reason to be skeptical toward the theory itself.

    (2) I took no position one way or the other on whether evolution has or has not “served to foster philosophies and lifestyles that have worked to destroy the cultures in which it has been adopted.” Once again, don’t blame the theory for how some sinners use it.

    (3) I don’t recall saying “unhindered by our finite limitations and rebellious nature.” The fact that we have not yet harmonized the “two books” makes it clear that we are indeed still hindered by our finite limitations and rebellious nature.

    (4) I fail to see what Romans 1 has to do with the scientific theory of biological evolution. There is nothing wicked about the scientific theory of biological evolution. For the third time, don’t blame the theory for how some sinners use it.

    Just to be clear yet again, acceptance of the science of biological evolution is not equal to exalting the creation as creator. It is equal to accepting the best explanation we currently have of how God may have gone about creating the universe and us.

    The science of biological evolution is not a revived paganism. It is the best explanation we currently have of how God may have gone about creating the universe and us.

    Claiming that biological evolution is a revived paganism that exalts the creation as creator is not a good reason to be skeptical of the science of biological evolution. Feel free to be skeptical of the science. There are a lot of details and mechanisms yet to be discovered and worked out, but don’t be skeptical of biological evolution for being something that it is not.

    Romans 1 is talking about sinners, not science. Richard Dawkins and the rest of the New Atheists may “worship and serve created things rather than the creator,” but working biologists, geneticists and paleontologists are merely learning more about how God may have gone about creating the universe and us. And a few theologians and OT and NT scholars have recognized that “a synthesis between a biblically conversant Christian faith and evolution is a pressing concern” [Peter Enns, “The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: BrazosPress, 2012), p. x.

  14. Paul, I'm not sure how to communicate what I'm saying any clearer than I already have.

    1. I'm not blaming the theory for how people use it. I'm saying the "how people use it" may be due to the judgment of God on our culture. If that is true, then simply correcting their use of it is a fail, as their problem is a rejection of God, not their misuse of the theory. Their misuse comes from their rejection of God. Do you see what I mean?

    2. Since this seems clear that this is the primary reason evolution has entered our culture, I am skeptical of its truthfulness, as its validity cannot be determined by us if we are, in fact, the ones under the judgment. God will simply not allow us to see the truth in our rebellion, and hence, we are incapable of knowing the truth of the matter. It doesn't matter what science or philosophy is applied at that point, since our conclusions will come out warped.

    Here's where I think your missing me. Let me explain it this way.

    Imagine there is a tribe that has never eaten a steak. Suddenly, scientists within that tribe discover that steak is nutritious to eat. They then apply this by shoving steaks down the throats of their children, choking and killing every last one of them.

    Now, the truth that steak is nutritious is disputable, but, by and large, most scientists conclude that it is truthful. So we cannot blame the truth for the misuse of it. I agree.

    However, the question from a metaphysical standpoint needs to be asked, Why did God allow such a concept to come into the tribe in the first place, knowing that it would lead to the destruction of the tribe? For the most part, we can't know why these bad things happen; but imagine that we had revelation that taught us that God caused people to choke on food whenever they rejected Him. We then inquire as to whether that has occurred in this culture and the answer is a resounding, Yes. But there is another indicator: sexual immorality. God gives people over to sexual immorality when they reject Him. Hence, you have all three indicators for a society that has been placed under the wrath of God.

    Solution? (a) Argue over whether steak is nutritious; (b) argue over whether steak can be made nutritious if consumed correctly and only by those who can consume it; (c) repent of our rejection of God and then work on the validity of a and c? I'm arguing that we have a problem that can only be fixed with our dealing with c. Your solution, thus far, is arguing on working toward a and b as separate issues from c. The problem is, as per what I am arguing, that a and b are caused by c. It could be that a is wrong. It could be that it's true. But it has not entered the tribe for the purposes of enlightenment, but for the purposes of destroying the community due to the problem that only c can address.


  15. So, again, I'm not blaming evolution, nor would I blame the idea that steak is nutritious, for destroying a culture. I'm saying that it has worked as the means to do so, and this is consistent with Romans 1 and other passages that describe God's judgment upon a rebellious culture. Hence, in the possibility that I am arguing, God has introduced it to our culture to destroy the culture. It may be a deception, or it may be our applications and misunderstandings of it that is the deception, but there is no way for our tribe to know it if in fact our tribe is under that deception. Do you see what I'm arguing and how what you're saying doesn't have anything to do with what I'm arguing?

    Of course, just asserting that evolution has nothing to do with sin or exalts the creation to creator is, once again, arguing about evolution in a vacuum. The question is,What is evolution to the masses in our culture? What is evolution to our universities and institutions? What is its function here, not What can its function be if understood correctly? Romans 1 has to do with knowledge and how knowledge of the truth concerning creation and Creator is suppressed by us in rebellion and is further made impossible by God's judgment that gives us over to false views of both. So if the theoretical science to which we are referring is about knowledge of creation (in this case, biological evolution) and Romans 1 is about the impossibility of that knowledge in a context of apostasy/idolatry/rebellion, then I think it clearly applies.

    Dr. Enns thinks its a pressing concern because he doesn't consider what I've said above. This is a natural question to be answered through natural means to him, and then integrated with supernatural ideas from the Bible. Again, such is only possible if God's purposes toward our apostate culture, despite what He says in Scripture, are cooperative. That's why I'm skeptical, and why the fact that no one takes these texts seriously in their application to the present debate also confirms my skepticism.

  16. And just to make clear: evolution is, in fact, revived paganism as it would be applied to a culture whose primary belief system is philosophic naturalism. It goes the same way for Jungian psychology, or Yoga at the Civic Center. We can argue whether the ancients were onto something but misconstrued what was natural with something that is not true supernaturally, but these are, in fact, the same sorts of ideas. You can argue that we came to them by different means (I'm not arguing that we borrowed them and then adapted them, at least not all of them, from pagan roots); but they are the same ideas transformed into a naturalistic setting.

  17. We're talking past each other because we have two completely different definitions of the word evolution.

    I am taking the methodological naturalism approach of limiting the definition of evolution to the scientific theory of biological evolution.

    You are taking the metaphysical naturalism approach of broadening the definition of evolution to include what many people (but not biological scientists) refer to as Darwinism.

    I agree that what you are saying above is true for Darwinism, but it is not true the science of biological evolution.

    Thank you for an interesting exchange.
    God bless you,

  18. Thanks Paul. I realize the two can be separated, and are by many Christians. The problem is that the one has entered our culture and has been used to carry the other in our society. So, yes and no. I am talking about both the possible truth of evolution as a biological theory as it is used to advance a philosophically naturalistic framework. I believe that this is the primary purpose the biological theory of evolution (true or not)has come into our culture. If such is true, it is impossible for us to evaluate its truthfulness, as it exists to deceive us further into naturalism, not to enhance our knowledge of the truth. If God is cooperating with us, and I am wrong here, then you have every right to believe that methodological naturalism will yield the appropriate results within its limitations. So I agree that if one were to apply evolution to a Christian framework successfully, divorcing philosophic naturalism from it, that what I said above may not be true for them. I would also say that a Christian who is in communion with the Lord, even within a culture that is being handed over by God to deception, may hold a false belief about origins in order for that the deception of the masses and the apostate church may go uncorrected, even though he himself is not being handed over. So I don't necessarily think everyone who holds the position is being handed over. I just wanted to clarify that.

    Thanks as well, Paul. I've enjoyed our discussion.
    God bless.