How do Atheist scientists react when hearing of Christians trying to make the Bible fit the evolutionary model?
In a 2011 blog post atheist Jerry Coyne writes this about the claims that Theistic evolutionists at Biologos make of Gods creative process using evolutionary models:
“What, exactly, are these “good theological reasons” to see that God, instead of having created stuff de novo, “allowed all facets of creation to freely develop into their uniqueness”? Only that science (e.g., Darwin) had shown that life hadn’t been static, but had evolved. In the end, “good theological reasons” really mean “good scientific reasons,” of course. Theology changes when either science or secular reason forces it to, not because revelation-based rumination suddenly made theologians do a facepalm and say, “Wait, I know now that God meant life to evolve! How stupid of me not to have seen that!” And maybe a few theologians before Darwin did think that life hadn’t been static (isn’t it like these people to claim that a few ideas floating around “centuries before Darwin came along” were the dominant strain of theological thought?). But if many-theologians and laypeople realized this well before Darwin, why did Darwin cause such a stir? It’s Bishop, not I, who is being “intellectually disingenuous” here.”
As believers we can study science for the sake of science… however, our faith needs to be centered in Gods word. Science changes… several hundred years ago we believed that bloodletting would cure men of diseases… today we realize that was a fallacy. If we think todays “science” has all the answers correct we are indeed arrogant… the “indisputable” evidence we have today will be washed away by new evidence in a few years or maybe decades. We even have recent examples of this as it was only several years ago any argument about mask and vaccine efficacy or origins of covid were labelled conspiracy theory’s… today we are seeing the tide turning and a different truth emerging. Peer reviewed studies are now confirming that during the pandemic opposing thought was purposely crushed to follow a narrative that was politically motivated.
The fact is that science is often caught shutting down any vein that opposes commonly believed theories. Even so, a growing number of scientists are questioning Darwinism and evolutionary theories that are considered “holy grails”. In a 2019 article in the federalist the claim was made that almost 1/3 of current biologists are privately questioning whether Darwinian evolution is true (link here - making no claims here that I agree with the article fully).
Wait what?
But the “experts” are telling us the “science is settled” aren’t they? The evidence for darwinistic evolution is “undeniable” isn’t it?
Or is it?
Perhaps the reason for the prevailing consensus on evolutionary theory has more to do with the fact that any scientist who opposes Darwinian evolution receives immediate attacks and career limitations… possibly even job loss for voicing their opinions.
Think that doesn’t happen?
The founder of Americas leading Creationary Evolution think tank, an “evangelical Christian” by his own claims who was most recently the longest serving head of the NIH. Many of you have heard of Dr Francis Collins. As head of the NIH and boss to Dr Fauci he sent a panicked email to Dr Fauci during the Covid pandemic mandates suggesting a “swift and devastating takedown” of the hundreds of ”fringe” scientists, epidemiologists and public health scientists who were questioning whether the pandemic response and MRNA vaccination routes were wise or effective ways in dealing with the pandemic.
Here is a link for that list of scientists.
Here is a link for one of the published stories on the emails.
It appears that as a result this, pressure many accredited professionals were banned from social media or participating in the discussion. Added to that Dr Collins appears to have used his connections to big name Evangelical leaders through Biologos to create engage Pastors as a channel of “filtered” “truth” to echo the government wishes… “get vaccinated”, “wear masks”, “shut down churches”. Mega Church and evangelical ministry leaders bought into this hook line and sinker. Link here.
Surely though Biologos, an influential “Christian” faith based and scientific organization is more fair in how it approaches debate and discussion around ID or “intelligent design” versus Evolutionary Creationism? After all, Christianity centres itself on the pursuit of truth so it should welcome debate and discussion around such important topics…
Let’s see how they have done with providing opportunity to actually dig into truth claims. Here is an excerpt from the book “God and Evolution”:
“In late 2009 the BioLogos Foundation convened a closed gathering of evangelical Christian leaders ostensibly to promote dialogue on faith and science issues. But the range of scientific voices permitted at the meeting was sharply limited. Held in New York City, the gathering intentionally excluded any scientists or philosophers of science who were critical of Neo-Darwinism or supportive of intelligent design in biology. That was in keeping with the purpose of the grant from the Templeton Foundation, which was not directed at promoting an open exchange of views, but at convincing evangelical leaders to embrace evolutionary biology. In the words of the description on Templeton’s website, the “invitation-only workshops” were arranged by the BioLogos Foundation and were designed to “bring scientists and evangelical leaders together to seek a theology more accepting of science, specifically evolutionary biology.”
Further we read this:
“The theistic evolutionists’ rationale for excluding scientific views critical of Darwinism from faith-evolution discussions seems to be that Darwinian Theory constitutes the consensus view of science, and questioning that consensus view supposedly demonstrates that one is “anti-science.”
But this way of thinking betrays a strikingly unsophisticated understanding of science. The more one knows about the history of the scientific enterprise, the more skeptical he or she is likely to be about equating the current consensus view of science with science itself. Science is a wonderful human enterprise, but scientists can be as blinded by their prejudices as anyone else.
In the last century, for example, the nation’s leading evolutionary biologists at such institutions as Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and Stanford enthusiastically promoted eugenics, the “science” of breeding better humans based on the principles of Darwinian biology. Eugenics was the “consensus” view of the scientific community for decades. That did not make it good science. Eugenics provides a stark reminder about the susceptibility of even mainstream scientists to junk science.”
Collins has also stated that even the term intelligent design “is not only bad science but is potentially threatening in other deeper ways to America’s future.” in a dust jacket endorsement of Kenneth Miller’s book “Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul” (New York: Viking, 2008). We see his philosophical leanings are evident consistently… if we take time to look.
If we take the time to dig into todays “indisputable” science claims by some leading “faith based” scientists such as Dr Collins we will discover that often the “evidence” is far from “indisputable”.
Just because many evangelical leaders revere the organization and the founder does not mean that their teaching is sound or even true… as far as I can see it seems all to often manipulated and groomed - predisposed to a narrative. All to often the arguments are emotionally or philosophically based arguments instead of soundly based on science. By refusing to debate or defend their beliefs versus qualified intelligent design scientists they show their own ignorance.
The science doesn’t sound settled. If it were one would expect they would be open to debate and discussion. Of course as we have discovered several years ago… sometimes the settled science is just smoke and mirrors awaiting light to disperse its lies. If you cannot question it… you should be concerned because that is what science is meant to be… curious… questioning… searching. Todays science has increasingly become just another philosophy based religion. Conversely, scripture has continued to be proven right through prophecy and archeological evidence, it has stood the test of time with incredible precision.
We can be assured that what we do not comprehend will one day be be proven in evidence. Whether old earth or young earth or a combination of both… I believe we can embrace the Genesis account and most certainly intelligent design without affecting the gospel message throughout the Bible. It is primarily when we begin to remove or redefine original sin, the literal Adam and Eve, the perfection of Gods original creation or the image bearer status of man that we end up getting in theological and philosophical muck.
Let’s lay aside the narcissistic prideful thinking that sets itself up against a sound Biblically based theology. We are not more intelligent or wiser than the men of faith in the Bible. We are really no different than humans from 2, 4 or 6,000 years ago. We are just as prone to be wrong, just as prone to pride, just as prone to believe we can figure out God and just as prone to think we can build a better Tower of Babel.
Yes… to my fellow followers of Christ - let’s be curious. Yes, let’s search for truth in science… but in that search let’s also continue to study the Bible… this amazing hyperlinked book written long before computers. This book continues to be proven right through Archaeological as well as scientific evidence. If something doesn’t “appear” to line up now… just wait a few years! No need to snip and cut and make the “puzzle” pieces fit a culturally influenced philosophically driven world view.
The reasoning that says “we will lose our children if we don’t embrace it” is not a valid justification for rewriting and explaining away what we don’t understand in scripture. Keep searching for truth… truth does not need to block opposition, shut down questions or call people names or demean their value. Truth stands firmly even when the forces against it seem insurmountable.
God is not calling us to turn our brains off… rather he wants us to worship Him in spirit and in truth. This means we need not fear science… but at the same time we can be assured that scriptural history does not require a PHD or acrobatic reinterpretation that would win an Olympic medal.
I’ll just cap this post off with this challenge:
Evolutionary Creationism in its most popular form takes the first 12 chapters of the book of Genesis and relegates these to non-historical allegories.
That in mind, Adam is mentioned 27 times in the Bible, 16 of those are found in the book of Genesis. This means that the Bible has an additional 11 times that Adam is mentioned. One of those is a city, another is translated “sons of adam” which could be argued doesn’t count.
We will go through most of these here in the ESV Bible:
1 Chronicles 1 - lists a genealogy from Adam to Noah as follows::
“Adam, Seth, Enosh; Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared; Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”
Job 31 mentions Adam as follows:
“If like Adam I covered my transgressions, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom;”
Luke 3 specifically lists Adam in the genealogy of Jesus:
“the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”
In Romans 5 Paul says of Adam:
“Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”
Then again Paul speaks of Adam in these passages:
1 Corinthians 15:22
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive“
1 Corinthians 15:45
“Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;e the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
Jude 1:14
“It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,”
Here are two more considerations of support for a literal man (singular) who was created by God to start the human race:
Paul says this in his sermon in Acts 17:
“And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’”
And finally we hear from Jesus himself as he shares Gods plan for marriage in Matthew 19:
“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,”
To be absolutely sure this passage quoting Jesus meant what is implied - the word “beginning” here is the Greek word “arché” which means “absolutely, of the beginning of all things”. There is no mistake, Jesus is referring to the Genesis account here.
Reading the above I would ask this:
Who lied?
Did Paul lie when he said Adam was the first man?
Did Jesus lie when he said that man and woman were created at the beginning of all things?
Maybe the authors of Job, Luke, Roman’s, 1 Chronicles, Jude and Corinthians all lied?
Hold on, maybe they were deceived, maybe Moses allegory deceived all of these people including Jesus?
I didn’t even get into the flood stories… the same is there… but this post is getting to long!
The Bible is the single most cross linked book in history… you can trust it as reliable!
More information on this topic:
Comments