The last two points of the doctrine of creation are as follows:

3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

     It is here, I think, that Biblical theology comes most in conflict with macro-evolutionary ideas.  There is such a concept as “Theistic Evolution” which essentially claims that there is no necessary contradiction between Biblical theology and Darwinian-type evolution.  And, I suppose that if Darwinism is communicated in a way that doesn’t assume atheism or deism (that is, that it doesn’t contradict either of the first two points of the doctrine of Creation), then, up to that point, theistic evolutionists are correct.  One may hold to the principles of macroevolution and still believe that God not only started the process of creation but has remained involved in it throughout history.  However, points 3 and 4 are just much more difficult to reconcile with a Darwinian worldview.

     First, to be faithful to Scripture, one must believe that a radical distinction exists between humans and other forms of biological life.  There is the imago dei (the image of God) concept to contend with in the Bible.  I find it difficult to conceive of a view of humanity that preserves both the belief that humans alone are made in the image of God and that they the biological descendants of other species of primates.  Things get trickier when we move fully into point 4.  According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were made directly by God in his image.  It was an event – this creation, this bestowing of life, this depositing of the imago dei.  If you are an adherent to theistic evolutionary views, I would really like to hear your theologizing on this issue.  If humans are the product of a slow and gradual process of transmutation, when does the image of God come into play?  At what point is a human being a bearer of imago dei and thereby radically distinct from all creation?  I suppose a theistic version of punctuated equilibrium could lend a hand – which could also help us to get two real ancestors of the human race (i.e. Adam and Eve).  But I think that is really stretching credulity.

      A final word here on the importance of point 4.  You may be wondering why is it necessary to affirm that Adam and Eve really were the first humans – our real ancestors.  I know that there are some that read the first several chapters of Genesis metaphorically.  Others try to read it as a science text book.  I don’t think either approach is exegetically honest.  For example, it seems to me that reading chapter one as being about a sequence of 6 literal 24-hour periods is forcing a modern, Western, monochronic view of time upon the ancient, Middle-Eastern, and polychronic audience to which Moses was writing.  Not to mention God’s limitless ability to make what is a “day” to him seem like billions of years to everyone else (2 Pet. 3:8).  But on the other hand, metephorizing the entire contents of the early chapters of Genesis not only reduces the contents to fairytales in the worst way but also ignores the tenor with which the chapters were written.  The person who reads Genesis 1-11 can’t help but confess that the contents were meant to be believed – they were written as history.  There are ages and genealogies, measurements and boring details.  One might take the position that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true, but that it was written to be believed as actual fact seems self-evident.  Moreover, it seems clear that the New Testament authors, and Jesus himself, believed these early chapters to be genuine historical records (e.g. Mt. 23:35, 24:37, Mk. 10:6, Lk. 3:38, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 2:13-14, Heb. 11:7, 1 Pet. 3:20, 1 Jn. 3:12, Jude 14).

     Of course, the biggest problem with denying our literal descent from Adam and Eve is that doing so wreaks havoc to the essential doctrine of original sin.  The doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve were made sinless, bearing the untainted image of God.  They then sinned by rebelling against God’s command, thus corrupting the nature within them.  Original sin* refers to the fact that since we are all descended from Adam, we have all inherited a sinful nature.  We are, like David, sinful from birth and conceived in iniquity (Ps. 51:5).  We are not sinners because we sin.  Rather, we sin because we are sinners by nature.  Sin and death, and with it our just condemnation, have spread to all humanity (Rom. 5:12-21).  The doctrine of original sin highlights our inherent and emphatic need of a savior.  We cannot please God, seek Him, or become justified in God’s sight apart from the free and sovereign work of His grace in our lives – without the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:9-20, Eph. 2:1-10).

     So, how can theistic evolutionists reconcile macroevolution with the doctrine of original sin?  If there wasn’t a literal Fall, if there is no literal descent from Adam, where does our sinful nature come from?  I think this is a huge problem for the concept of theistic evolution, and I cannot conceive of a way around it.  One thing is certain, that from birth human beings have an innate proclivity to sin is far more observable than the transmutation of species.   And, at the end of the day, I reject macroevolutionary principles because I don’t find the weight of evidence in favor of Darwinism so compelling as to warrant the kind of theological gymnastics that would be required for reconciling those principles with what I already know to be true – God’s infallible word.

     So that’s where I end my review of the four principles of the Biblical doctrine of creation.  This is where the apologetic battle must be fought for Christ’s sake.  Active creative theism, the imminence and transcendence of God, the imago dei, and the doctrine of original sin are pillars and essentials of the faith one for all delivered to the saints.  And it is the responsibility of every follower of Jesus to earnestly contend for and proclaim these transforming and life-giving truths (1 Pet. 3:15, Jude  3). 

     In a few weeks, we’ll examine the concept of the image of God and attempt to answer the question, “What does it mean that we are made in God’s image?”  But now for something completely different . . . .

[*For more on the doctrine of original sin, read “What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin” a brief article by John Piper.]

     The second point of the doctrine of creation is as follows:

2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

     And when it really comes down to it, I think this is the main reason why many people are so adamantly opposed to the idea of intelligent design or the possibility that there could be a supreme being ruling over the universe.  Really, there must be some explanation for the astoundingly virulent attitudes of many of atheism’s greatest proponents.  Just take atheistic figurehead Richard Dawkin’s comments for example:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”   (Quoted on Dawkins sycophant Steve Wells’ blog from The God Delusion)

     So what’s the cause of all this outright hostility towards the idea of God and towards Christians in particular?  Natural selection? 

     No, I really think it has to do with the implications of point 2 of the doctrine of creation.  I’d be willing to bet that most of these guys (and gals) wouldn’t have very much at all to say about belief in an intelligent creator if that’s all there was to it.  After all, it’s not unusual for them to posit that very thing in the form of some kind of extraterrestrial “seeding” theory (here’s Dawkins on this).  If the creator simply “seeded” biological life on earth and then zipped away to some far off galaxy in their flying saucer, then well and good.  The problem is that the Bible teaches (and science really does affirm*) that God not only created at the beginning, but stuck around afterwards.

     This is the idea that sinful people (myself included before I met Christ) have always shuddered at.  The idea that there is an omnipotent God ruling over the entire universe and prying into your personal affairs is just pretty scary when you think about it.  Moreover, when it turns out that this God actually cares about things like right and wrong, holiness and obedience, love and justice – well, YIKES!  There is a sense in which Dawkins is right in calling God unpleasant.  For those who live their lives in enmity towards God, nothing could be more unpleasant than to realize that it all matters.

     It seems to me that atheism is the ultimate crutch for those who don’t want to face the fact that God sees and cares.   Atheists like Dawkins are on a boat to Tarshish, and what they don’t seem to understand is that sleeping in the cabin won’t make the storm go away. 

     We need to be ready and willing to try to persuade such people to believe in God and the salvation that he offers through his son, Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:11).  But we also must persistently pray for our atheistic friends and family that God will mercifully pursue them, granting them faith and repentance that leads to a life-giving knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25).

[*There is a good scientific discussion of this in The Case for a Creator.]

     In my previous post,  I presented four major principles taught by the Bible with respect to the doctrine of Creation.  I want now to reflect a bit further on these ideas. 

1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

     I won’t spend much time on this idea because I feel like I’ve already addressed it to some extent.  The bottom line is that if you push them far enough, Darwinists find it impossible to get around the need for an intelligent designer.  As I said previously, they just can’t get the evolutionary engine running without someone turning the key.  Or, if you prefer, they can’t roll the Yahtzee. 

     Now, what ends up happening, is that the atheist will almost always respond to this dilemma by asking who created God.  The rationale is that if the complexity of a protein molecule requires an intelligent creator, surely the greatly more complex creator needs an even more intelligent source.  It seems that the attempt is to make the teleological argument for the existence of God seem unreasonable. 

     I have heard Christian apologists respond to this, but I haven’t found their responses all that compelling.  To me,  all this question does it require us to assume that the ultimate source of creation must be itself eternal and self-existent.   Maybe I’m missing something, but I do not get why that doesn’t make sense to the atheist.  It is completely reasonable to assume that there is an intelligence that is responsible for the origin of the universe and that this intelligence is eternal and has aseity.  And it just so happens, that the Bible describes God as having those attributes (e.g. Ps. 90:2).

     Have you encountered other arguments that you find difficult to respond to?  Post in the comment section and we’ll talk.

Blessings!

     Before we leave the topic of creation, I want to spend some time talking about where the real battleground is for those who want to be faithful to the Scriptures.  That is, I want to talk about the Biblical doctrine of creation.  As we encounter Darwinists in our attempt to communicate spiritual truth, I think it is critical that we know where exactly we should be focusing our apologetics.  There are certain battles that we simply don’t need to be fighting. 

     It has often been the case in church history that Christians have picked the wrong fights, often claiming that the Bible teaches things that it does not.  For example, when Galileo Galilei supported the Copernican view of a heliocentric universe, he was charged with heresy and forced to recant his claims.  The Roman Inquisition incorrectly believed that the Bible taught that the earth was in the center of the universe.  This exegetical blunder has long been one of the great historical and unnecessary embarrassments of the Church.

     It is absolutely essential that we understand what the Bible actually teaches regarding the doctrine of creation, so we don’t find ourselves fighting silly battles that are at best a waste of time.  In short, I find that the Scripture teaches four key truths regarding creation that we must understand, believe, and vigorously defend.  I have listed these principles below with several scriptural texts that  support them:

1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

      To the extent that Darwinism challenges any of these principles, Christians who desire to be faithful to the Bible have a serious theological motivation for engaging in debate.  Indeed, we must be willing and ready to give a defense of these essential Biblical truths (1 Pet. 3:15).   The good news is that some really great resources like the Case for a Creator, Expelled, and the Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution are available to help us in this battle.

     Now, beyond these four points, I don’t believe there is a strong Biblical exegetical or theological reason for arguing with non-believers.  No one is being kept out of God’s Kingdom because they believe in an old earth or that dinosaurs weren’t contemporary to humans.  There are plenty of “in-house” debates that Christians can have on these kind of side issues, but it is the essentials that we must proclaim and defend in our various mission contexts. 

     To be sure, Darwinism as it is commonly delineated is clearly heretical, a worldview that is undeniably anti-Biblical.  It certainly fails on theological grounds from a Biblical perspective.  But it is worth remembering that on a completely different level, the scientific, Darwinism falls short of glory.  Darwinism tends to be just bad science that cannot withstand real scrutiny and so does not invite any.

     Over the next few blogs, I plan to reflect a bit more on the four principles of the doctrine of creation mentioned above.  For now, I invite you to let me know in the comment section if you think there are parts of the doctrine that I have overlooked and that you feel should be included among the other four.

     In my review of Ben Stein’s Expelled, I kind of opened the can of worms that is the creation science debate.  I’m really not a scientist.  I enjoyed my undergrad astronomy and biotechnology courses (got an “A” in both, thank you), and had a good junior high science teacher (shout out to Coach Hamilton), but beyond that, I’m really trying to quit.  Biblical theology, on the other hand, is a different story.  So, what I thought I’d do here is begin by recommending a couple nice lay-level resources for those of you that really want to dig deeper into the whole intelligent design debate.  Then, in my next blog, I’ll move on to some Biblical thoughts about where we really need to be fighting this battle with Darwinism.

     The resources I like are first a DVD called The Case for a Creator.  This is a Lee Strobel documentary inspired by his book by the same name.  Here you have what is essentially a well-reasoned summary of the case in favor of intelligent design.  It is a well-made film that is both interesting and compelling, so you won’t have feel embarrassed showing it to your church, kids, friends, or whoever.  You will have a hard time finding it at your local rental store or even your public library, so you’ll need to just buy it, but I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

     Secondly, I’d recommend a book by apologist Hank Hanegraaff called The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution.  Hanegraaff is a master at presenting strong apologetic arguments in a memorable form.  In The Face, which I read years ago, some of the most basic arguments against Darwinism are presented.  Please don’t misunderstand what I mean by “basic.” I don’t mean simplistic.  I mean that these are arguments that are simple to communicate and grasp but nearly impossible to answer.  For example, one of Hanegraaff’s chapters is on chance.  Atheistic Darwinism simply has no choice but to rely on random chance to explain the origin of biological life.*  Hanegraaff provides a compelling argument based on statistical analysis to demonstrate that “chance doesn’t have a chance.”

     I like to think of the chance argument in Yahtzee terms—a game that we just don’t play enough anymore.  All of you who have played know how hard it is to role a Yahtzee (all 5 dice showing the same face).  I mean it happens, but not every game—and you get three rolls per turn.  Now, imagine you only got one roll.  Well, now rolling a Yahtzee is going to be more like a once-a-year phenomenon.   Now double the number of dice and all the sudden rolling a Yahtzee becomes a once-in-a-lifetime event.  Make it, say, 50 dice, and now rolling a Yahtzee will simply never happen.  Even if that’s all you did over and over again without so much as a potty break, you just are never going to be able to put 50 dice in a cup and have them all come out with the same value.  Now, I’ll leave it to higher minds to figure out just how many dice you’d really have to put into the cup to accurately parallel your chances of “rolling” a single protein molecule.  I just know it’s more than 50.

     At the end of the day, this is really the old “watchmaker argument” (or teleological argument), rehashed.  I once heard a Darwinist say so as if simply identifying it as “the old watchmaker argument” actually defeats the argument.  It doesn’t, by the way.  It is amazing how questions that are never adequately answered just don’t go away.  The simple fact is that the Darwinist is in trouble on this issue because they cannot get the evolutionary engine running without someone turning the key. 

     So, check out these resources and let me know what you think.  Also, if you have read or watched something that you found helpful on this issue, let us all know in the comments section of this blog.

Blessings.

[* Yes, I am aware that some Darwinists posit a theory of origins that suggests that biological life was “seeded” on our planet by some highly evolved organism—think: Mission to Mars, the Gary Sinise movie.  This is essentially a space alien theory, which, silliness aside, only kicks the can down the road a bit further.  I mean, how did the aliens come into existence?]

     I just finished watching Ben Stein’s documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and wanted to post a quick word about it as it will now be appearing on TIBM’s recommended resources page.  In short, I found the film to be compelling, entertaining, and just well-made.  You probably are already aware of the gist of Expelled, so I won’t belabor that here.  It’s enough to simply mention that the film is a exposé of the current conspiracy within mainline academia to suppress the concept of intelligent design (ID).  Stein does a great job of showing how academic freedom is under attack in this country by the Darwinian lobby.  He really makes that the central issue of the film.  Actually, I don’t see this as a movie about ID as much as it is a movie about censorship.  Stein’s real argument is that ID-based discussion, inquiry, debate, argument, and instruction is being systematically and unreasonably banned from academic institutions in the United States.  The opponents of ID featured in Expelled seem to agree that such a ban is in effect, but they deny that this is unreasonable.

     Well, is it unreasonable to “expel” ID from our nation’s academic institutions?  This is undeniably the case.  After all, ID is essentially a theory of the origins of the universe (and especially of biological life).  Darwinian evolution on the other hand is not a theory of the origin of life.  Darwinism rather attempts to argue that all species evolved over time from a common biological ancestor.  How that earliest ancestor came into being in the first place, however, is not answered by the theory.  Even if we were to accept the idea that all life in our world evolved from a single living cell over billions of years, we still must ask where that cell came from.  So, at the very least, I’d say it is unreasonable to ban a scientific theory without providing something in its place.  Of course, even as I write these words I notice how scary and, well, un-American the phrase “ban a scientific theory” sounds. 

     Before I leave this topic, I thought I should give you a heads up of the kind of feedback you might get from Darwinists that hate Stein’s film just because it exists.  If you chose to make use of this film in any kind of outreach or apologetics training setting or if you try to get your skeptic friends to watch it, you are eventually going to get negative feedback from ID opponents.  I just want to warn you to be careful about how you pick your battles.  Mostly, it seems that people want to criticize Stein and make allegations about how the film was made.  They call Stein ignorant, a meanie, and charge him with using unethical methods for obtaining interviews, etc.  This just simply isn’t where the war should be fought.  For all I know, Ben Stein could be a complete horse’s rear who interviewed people at knifepoint.  But really, what does that have to do with anything?  Is Richard Dawkins claiming to not believe what he is quoted as saying in film?  Is anyone else?

     The bulk of the arguments that you get from Darwinists, of course, aren’t really arguments at all.  Here’s a nice sample quote:

“Stein is arguing for a position that no one who knows what they are talking about agrees with.  Intelligent design is not a legitimate scientific position . . . if it wasn’t for the Bible, we wouldn’t have this intelligent design ****.”  — Neotropic9 (YouTube Vlogger)

I hope you can see how this isn’t an argument.  It’s like saying to a person who doesn’t agree with you, “Well, you’re just stupid and I’m not going to be your friend anymore.” Now, I’m not a scientist, but on what basis is ID not a legitimate scientific position?  Well, Neotropic9 would just have us take his word for it.  And of course, if the force of your completely unsupported claim doesn’t convince someone to believe your position, you certainly should cuss a little bit. A potty mouth is always a sure sign of an intelligent argument.

     Well, if you haven’t watched the film, go rent it or buy it.  If you have, I’d love to know what you think.  Leave your comments below!

[By the way, although I don’t necessarily recommend it, if you want to watch Neotropic9’s vlog response to the Stein film, follow this link: Neotropic9 on Stein. It’s a nice teaching tool on how not to debate.]