by John Holbrook Jr.
A Biblical View, Blog #066 posted November 12, 2018, edited March 10, 2021.
Theistic evolutionists claim that God used evolution to create the flora and fauna that have existed or now exist on Earth. Many of the scientists among them are undoubtedly competent in their respective scientific fields, but all of them display a weak understanding of epistemology and logic when they start tinkering with the creation story in the Bible, which the half-way house that they have chosen to inhabit requires them to do.
Epistemology
Epistemology deals with the question. How can we judge the truth of statements about anything? One cannot judge what is true in a vacuum. All judgments require a standard. It is an epistemological necessity that one adopts a standard by which one judges everything else. The fundamental question is: “What standard?”
Without going into a long, philosophical discourse, I maintain that there are only two basic standards from which to choose: divine revelation and human inquiry.[1] Obviously, if the issue in question is not addressed in the Bible, one must use human inquiry. If the issue is addressed in the Bible, however, the question arises, Does one rely on the Bible (the only text which claims to be the Word of God) and judge the wisdom of men by it, or does one rely on the wisdom of men and judge the Bible by it? One must choose whether or not to believe the Word of God – just as Eve did in the garden.
Interestingly, one must choose one’s standard by faith. In 1931, the mathematician Kurt Godel proved that every logically consistent system contains at least one un-provable assumption. In order to operate within that logical system, one must accept the assumption by faith.[2] Thus, the reliability of neither divine revelation nor human reason can be proved. Each of these standards incorporates un-provable assumptions. Either one puts one’s faith in the Bible as the Word of God, or one puts one’s faith in the wisdom and works of men. Faith is unavoidable. This should not surprise us, for the scriptures tell us that “…without faith, it is impossible to please [God].”[3] Of course the faith that pleases God is our faith in his Word – both written and incarnate.
Science
One form of human inquiry, of course, is science and both its professionals and the public place an increasing degree of confidence in it. Unfortunately, many professionals and most lay people do not understand the nature of science. Consider the following points.
First, faith and science are not opposites. Faith is actually an ingredient of science. For example, the conduct of science depends upon the un-provable assumption that the cosmos is structured and behaves in an orderly and predictable manner. That is a rational assumption if one believes that a God of order and goodwill created and governs the cosmos. It is an irrational assumption, however, if one believes that the cosmos evolved by chance, which has become an article of faith for most scientists today, for there is then no reason to believe that its laws will not change in the next minute. Not surprisingly, the era of theistic science (the 18th and early 19th centuries) was characterized by confidence, clarity, and coherence, whereas the age of atheistic science (the late 19th, 20th, and early 21st centuries) has been increasingly characterized by anxiety, confusion, and unreason[4] – to say nothing about fraud.[5]
Second, scientific facts and scientific theories are not the same. A scientific fact may be called a scientific truth, because it is incontrovertible – e.g. water in air under one atmosphere of pressure always boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. On the other hand, a scientific theory may never be called a scientific truth, because it will always be open to question and subject to refinement or disproval in the future – e.g. the 17th century contention that phlogiston – a substance without color, odor, taste, or weight – is given off during combustion. Think of the number of scientific theories that were believed in their day, but now lie in the dustbin of history. Thus, one must avoid equating any scientific theory with scientific truth.
Third, there is an important difference between history and science. History describes what happened in the past; it is a methodology for maintaining mankind’s collective memory. Science describes what happens in the present under certain carefully defined circumstances; it is essentially a methodology for observing, recording, and organizing data and for creating, testing, and promulgating theories that explain the data. An historical event cannot be repeated; a scientific event can be. Therefore, the veracity of an historical account cannot be tested in the way in which a scientific account can be and must be if it is to be accepted by the scientific community.
That leads me to the difference between the Bible and science. Much of the Bible is history. It purports to be an accurate account of the real experiences of real people as God acted in their lives. Because it is history, it cannot be tested by science. If scientists dismiss the biblical accounts, they run the risk of being wrong. For instance, the Bible describes rocks falling from the sky during the battle between the Israelites and the Amorites at Beth Horon several decades after the Exodus. Moreover, both ancient and medieval sources describe the same phenomenon as having occurred in their times. Because people in later years didn’t see rocks falling from the sky outside their windows, however, many of them refused to believe these reports. In the 19th century, because such phenomena could not be reconciled with their theories, scientists ridiculed these reports and anyone who believed them. Later, after astronomers discovered that the earth is bombarded by meteorites on a daily basis, they decided that rocks falling from the sky was not impossible and modified their position, but of course they never apologized to the people whom they had ridiculed.
The Bible
Despite Christendom’s historic claim that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible, some Christians today waffle on this issue, claiming that the Bible is “authoritative” or that the Bible contains the Word of God, but does not constitute the Word of God. They have not, however, thought through the implications of their claim. If only some of the Bible is divinely inspired, what criteria are available for discerning between the passages that come from God and the passages that do not come from God? Such criteria do not exist! One cannot escape the necessity of deciding this issue by faith – by faith informed by reason, but nonetheless by faith.
Without apology I believe that the Bible is God’s Word and therefore inerrant – i.e. its original autographs were free of error.[6] I believe that its authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit[7] to write exactly what they wrote – i.e. every chapter, every verse, every word, and every letter in the Bible were determined by God. I believe that God meant the Bible to be mankind’s standard of truth and that the wisdom and works of men must be judged by it. One reason I believe the foregoing is that Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”[8] Clearly, the Bible is more important to Him than His physical creation.
The foregoing has serious implications for those of us who believe that the Bible is the Word-of-God-Written and therefore trustworthy in all its particulars. We must bear witness to its truth. Although the Bible is an historical, not a scientific document, its accounts of what happened in the past impose certain constraints on scientists and scholars. If any scientific or scholarly theory cannot accommodate the chronology and events which the Bible records, then that theory must be either revised or discarded entirely. Needless to say, that is not a popular message, even among many evangelical Christians, who fear being ridiculed by their secular colleagues and friends – let alone by the secular members of the scientific and scholarly academies.
One example is cosmology. On the one hand, most scientists maintain that the world in which we live is the product of billions of years of cosmic, terrestrial, and macro-biologic evolution. On the other hand, the Bible records that the earth and its creatures were created roughly 6,000 years ago in six twenty-four hour days. If the Bible is true, these scientists are spectacularly wrong and scientists like D. Russell Humphrey are closing in on the truth. [9]
Logic
Here logic enters the picture. Genesis 1:1 through 3:24 contains a very carefully crafted, time-specific account of God’s creation of Universe, God’s formation of the earth, God’s creation of the terrestrial flora and fauna, God’s creation of Adam, God’s issuance to Adam of the prohibition against eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God’s creation of Eve from material taken from Adam’s side, Eve’s seduction by Satan, wherein she ate the forbidden fruit, Adam’s uxoriousness in succumbing to Eve’s urging that he also eat the forbidden fruit, God’s judgment, not only on all three persons involved, but on Universe as well, after which all things became subject to disorder and decay and plant and animal life became subject to disease and death (all effects that are captured in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), and finally God’s ejection of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, where they had enjoyed daily fellowship with God.
Note the sequence here: (a) God created all living species, (b) these species lived for awhile in a world without disorder, decay, disease and death, (c) Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and then (d) God judged them and their entire world, after which disorder, decay, disease and death entered Universe.
Now the Old Earthers[10] suggest that the six days in Genesis 1:3 through 1:31 actually amounted to eons, with macro-evolution accounting for the development of all living species -from the first organic molecule to mankind. They are burdened with some serious problems here. Among them are the following:
First, many scientists have admitted that evidence for macro-evolution is lacking. For example: Darwin himself wrote, “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”[11] Darwin was being logical here: no intermediate forms, no evolution. So are there such transitional forms? The celebrated paleontologist and Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould noted, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”[12] (actually he waffled a bit here, suggesting that there are a few, whereas in fact there are none, but he did admit that paleontologists are being less than transparent on the issue). National Geographic admitted, “Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost”[13] Richard Dawkins also admitted, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening”[14] – an admission that was regarded by many as “letting the cat out of the bag.” Here we begin to see the illogic in the evolutionist position: evolution has been observed, but there has been nothing to observe!
Second, many scientists claim that macro-evolution is simply impossible. I recommend the following books on the subject: Evolution: Possible of Impossible? – Molecular Biology and the Laws of Chance (1973) by James F. Coppedge, Director of Probability Research in Biology at Northridge, CA, Darwin’s Black Box (1996) by Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, and Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005) by Dr. J.C. Sanford, a Cornell University Professor and specialist in genetics.
In his book, Sanford claims that modern Darwinism is built on what he calls the Primary Axiom. “The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is a constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus, It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or, should I sat, dare) to question the Primary Axiom. It is for this reason that the overwhelming majority of youth who start out with a belief that there is more to life than mere chemistry will lose that faith while at college. I believe this is also the cause of the widespread self-destructive and self-denigrating behaviors we see throughout our culture.”[15] He then writes: “…every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: The Emperor has no clothes!” [16] By the end of the book, I believe that any reasonable and open-minded reader will agree with him.
Third, macro-evolution requires the death of trillions of living forms before mankind arrived on the scene. Yet the Bible consistently states that disease and death were consequences of Adam’s sin, not its prelude. Thus, the theory contradicts the Bible – a contradiction with which any professing theistic evolutionist must deal. For instance, one cannot believe at the same time that (a) death preceded the appearance of sin and (b) death followed the appearance of sin.
One way out of this contradiction, of course, is to dismiss the biblical creation story as a fable. That, of course, creates another problem. At the center of the biblical story are two men: the first Adam, by whose disobedience sin entered the world, and the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, by whose obedience redemption from sin entered the world. If you remove Adam from the story, a host of questions spring to mind. Given the obvious presence of sin in the world, where did it come from? If mankind is the product of evolution, at what point in our development did men and women become sinners? Was there a sinless period in mankind’s history equivalent to the Bible’s Edenic Era? If so, what happened to the Garden of Eden? Perhaps most important, Why is Christ called the second Adam? The biblical story progresses logically from (a) God finding his creation of mankind very good to (b) Adam and Eve living in fellowship with God to (c) Adam sinning to (d) Adam and Eve becoming subject to disease and death to (e) to God providing them with an initial covering to (f) God ejecting Adam and Eve from the garden and fellowship with himself to (g) God entering his creation in the person of Jesus to die on a cross to atone for the sins of sinful men, women, and children to (h) God’s future restoration of creation at the Parousia. Without Adam, this story falls apart. Moreover, where do you stop once you start rejecting pieces of this story? With Noah’s flood? With the division of the land in Peleg’s day? With the confusion of language and the destruction of the Tower of Babel? With the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? With Job’s trials? With the ten plagues of Egypt and the Exodus? With the sun standing still in the sky during the battle at Beth Horon? …With Jesus being born of a virgin? With God-the-Father identifying Jesus as his Son at Jesus’ baptism? With Jesus turning water into wine? With Jesus healing lepers and restoring sight to the blind? With Jesus walking on water? With Jesus rising from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion? With Jesus ascending into heaven? I could go on, but you get the picture.
© 2018 John Holbrook Jr.
_________________________________
[1] At first glance, this dichotomy appears to be an over simplification. Traditionally, philosophers have identified (a) six philosophical problems (the theological problem, the metaphysical problem, the epistemological problem, the ethical problem, the political problem, and the historical problem), (b) five ways of knowing about these problems (the testimony of others, intuition, abstract reasoning from universal principles, sensory experience, and practical activity having successful consequences), and (c) six types of logical theory (authoritarianism, mysticism, rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, and skepticism – the first five of which correspond to the five ways of knowing; the sixth of which was developed because there are many propositions that cannot be proved by any of the first five criteria). Upon reflection, however, one realizes that all these categories are subsumed by the description “human inquiry.” The revelation of God, although it sometimes uses human mediation, originates with God and cannot be “worked out” by man. It is not the product of human inquiry. It cannot be verified by human inquiry. It can only be accepted by faith –albeit a faith which is informed by human reason and, up to a point, subject to the tests of coherence, lack of contradiction, reasonableness, etc. – I say up to a point because some apparent contradictions, such as the perceived conflict between divine ordination (e.g. predestination) and human freedom and accountability (e.g. acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Lord and Savior), cannot be resolved by such tests.
[2] This conclusion emerges from Godel’s “incompleteness theorems” in an article entitled Ober formal unentscheidbare Satze der “Principia Mathematica” und verwandter Ststeme (On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems).
[3] Hebrews 11:16.
[4] A curious corollary of Godel’s Proof is that within any logically inconsistent system one can prove anything. That goes a long way toward explaining why so much of today’s science and scholarship, which assumes the absence of a creator, is both confusing and contradictory. For example: Classical Darwinism postulates that differing classes of living creatures are the descendants of long-extinct common ancestors, and that transitional forms linked each group to those ancestors. The problem: the transitional forms cannot be found. To plug the gaps, so to speak, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed a modification of classical Darwinism called “punctuated equilibrium” in which a new species can appear fully developed, thereby eliminating the need for intermediate forms. That is equivalent to saying: The theory of evolution predicts transitional forms, but transitional forms are lacking. Since we know that evolution produced the species that we see, evolution must operate without transitional forms. Under such illogic, the theory of evolution cannot be proved wrong. That is not science; it is unreason.
[5] See Bergman, Jerry, “Why the Epidemic of fraud exists in science today,” Creation Science Ministries, posted July 24, 2013, and Nuzzo, Regina, “How scientists fool themselves” Nature, Volume 526, October 8, 2015.
[6] See Rousas Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, Volumes 1 & 2, Ross House Books, Vallecito CA, 1994, pp. 1-57.
[7] Romans 3:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:16, & 2 Peter 1:20-21.
[8] Just so we don’t miss it, this statement is recorded three times in the Bible: Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33.
[9] You might be interested in my blogs of 2/20, 2/27, and 3/6, 2017 entitled respectively Natural History 1 – An introduction to biblical cosmology, Natural History 2 – An introduction to biblical cosmology continued, and Natural History 3 – Humphrey’s Cosmological Theory. Humphrey provides a good example of a scientist who takes God’s Word seriously and is trying to come up with a scientific explanation for what God says actually happened.
[10] Old Earthers are people who accept the current cosmological and geologic paradigm that Universe is roughly 20 billion years old and the earth is roughly 3.5 billion years old.
[11] C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed., London, 1872, p. 413 – reprinted by John Murray, 1902.
[12] S.J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, 86(5):14, 1977.
[13] “Was Darwin Wrong? No!,” National Geographic, Nov. 2004, Page 25.
[14] Transcript @ pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins, Dec, 3, 2004.
[15] Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, Waterloo, NY, 2008, pages v-vi.
[16] Ibid, p. vii.