The 2017 fall meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) featured a critique of theistic evolution from several angles. The event featured scientists, philosophers and theologians presenting arguments against the notion that God created humans and other living beings through the process of evolution rather than by direct creation of distinct species — a view known as theistic evolution.<\/p>\n
At issue in particular were some theistic evolutionists\u2019 claims that all organisms are descended from a single common ancestor in the distant past and that seemingly random mutations in the genetic code produced all the varieties of life observed today.<\/p>\n
Among the claims of the ETS presentations: \u201cTheistic evolution is incompatible with the teachings of the Old Testament\u201d and \u201ctheistic evolution is incompatible with the teachings of the New Testament.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wayne Grudem, research professor of theology and biblical studies at Phoenix Seminary, argued in his presentation that \u201ctheistic evolution denies 12 creation events and undermines crucial doctrines.\u201d<\/p>\n
Grudem claims theistic evolution entails several problematic assertions. Among them:
\n \u2022 \u201cAdam and Eve were not the first human beings (and perhaps they never even existed)\u201d;<\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cGod did not act directly or specially to create Adam out of dust from the ground\u201d;<\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cGod never created an originally \u2018very good\u2019 natural work in the sense of a world that was a safe environment, free of thorns and thistles and similar harmful things\u201d; and<\/p>\n
\u2022 \u201cAfter Adam and Eve sinned, God did not place any curse on the world that changed the working of the natural world and made it more hostile to mankind.\u201d
\nCountering such claims, Grudem writes, \u201cA nonhistorical reading of Genesis 1-3,\u201d as required by theistic evolution, \u201cdoes not arise from factors in the text itself but rather depends upon a prior commitment to an evolutionary framework of interpretation, a framework which the science and philosophy chapters in this volume show to be unjustifiable.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other presentations supplemented the biblical critique of theistic evolution with theological, scientific and philosophical arguments.<\/p>\n
Theological critique<\/p>\n
Gregg Allison, professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, delivered a presentation claiming \u201ctheistic evolution is incompatible with historical doctrinal standards.\u201d His chapter of the same title in \u201cTheistic Evolution\u201d cites writings of early church fathers, medieval theologians, Protestant Reformers and contemporary Christian thinkers to show followers of Jesus have always rejected the types of claims advanced by theistic evolutionists.<\/p>\n
For example, the fourth-century Nicene Creed\u2019s \u201cspecification that God is the \u2018maker\u2019 of \u2018all things visible,\u2019\u201d Allison writes, \u201cwas uniformly understood in the early church to affirm God\u2019s direct creation of all the varieties of plants and animals on earth. Yet this creedal affirmation contradicts the claim of theistic evolution that God was the \u2018maker\u2019 only of the initial inanimate matter in the universe and that that matter, apart from divine guidance or intervention, eventually developed by pure natural processes into \u2018all things visible.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Likewise, the medieval Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas \u201caffirmed that God alone creates and he rejected the idea that creation itself possesses the ability to create or develop other living realities,\u201d Allison writes.<\/p>\n
Despite Protestants\u2019 many disagreements with Catholics in the 16th century, they reaffirmed the \u201ctraditional view\u201d of creation, Allison writes, citing numerous examples from Protestant confessions of faith.<\/p>\n
Among Allison\u2019s conclusions, \u201cTheistic evolution\u2019s affirmation that God created matter is, in itself, neither wrong nor controversial, but it does not go far enough. Such a view falls short of affirming, as the church has historically believed, that God created not only inanimate matter but also all visible things … and all invisible things.\u201d<\/p>\n
Scientific critique<\/p>\n
Stephen Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute\u2019s Center for Science and Culture, made a presentation on \u201cthe growing scientific problems with contemporary evolutionary theory.\u201d The Discovery Institute is a Seattle-based think tank that plays a leading role in the Intelligent Design movement, which argues the universe is the product of intelligence rather than blind chance.<\/p>\n
The chapters Meyer authored in \u201cTheistic Evolution\u201d similarly highlight scientific problems with the theories advanced by some theistic evolutionists. In particular, he takes issue with the claim that an undirected process which appears random under scientific analysis yielded complex life and the appearance of design.<\/p>\n
\u201cAccording to textbook neo-Darwinian theory,\u201d according to Meyer, random mutations in DNA sometimes produce genetic changes that \u201cconfer a survival advantage on the organisms that possess them.\u201d Those changes are passed on to the next generation, evolutionists claim, and over time, accumulated genetic changes gave rise to new species of animals.<\/p>\n
But Meyer, citing contemporary biological research, counters that the number of possible DNA arrangements \u201care simply too vast, and the available time\u201d for natural selection to cycle through the possible mutations is \u201ctoo short for there to have been a realistic chance of producing even one new gene or protein by undirected mutation and selection in the time allowed for most evolutionary transitions.\u201d<\/p>\n
In other words, \u201cit is overwhelmingly more likely than not that\u201d random genetic mutation \u201cwould have failed to produce even one new functional (information-rich) DNA sequence and protein in the entire history of life on earth,\u201d writes Meyer, an editor of \u201cTheistic Evolution.\u201d<\/p>\n
Philosophical critique<\/p>\n
J.P. Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy at Biola University\u2019s Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., addressed \u201cphilosophical problems with evolution\u201d at ETS. Theistic evolution has a tendency to rob \u201cChristians of confidence that the Bible is a source of knowledge.\u201d<\/p>\n
Moreland expresses alarm that many in western society claim \u201cthe hard sciences\u201d — such as biology, physics and chemistry — \u201care the only or the vastly superior way to know things.\u201d According to that viewpoint, statements \u201cthat cannot be tested with the five senses … such as those at the core of ethics, political theory, and religion are not items of knowledge, but rather, matters of private feeling.\u201d<\/p>\n
In contrast, the Christian worldview holds science as one of several valid sources of knowledge, including the Bible.<\/p>\n
Theistic evolutionists unwittingly \u201cbecome the church\u2019s gravedigger\u201d by treating speculative claims of scientists as a more reliable source of knowledge than Scripture.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt can hardly be doubted that the greatest impact of evolutionary theory is its significant contribution to the secularization of culture, a shift that places a supernatural God … outside the plausibility structure of Western society. In light of that, why would any Christian want to flirt with theistic evolution?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The 2017 fall meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) featured a critique of theistic evolution from several angles. The event featured scientists, philosophers and theologians presenting arguments against the notion that God created humans and other living beings through the process of evolution rather than by direct creation of distinct species — a view […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1285,1293,5557],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7652"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7652"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7652\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.churchedge.com\/illustrations\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}