Evolution is Not Morally Neutral

One of the reasons why the Holy Angels and the Holy Saints honor Holy, Holy, Holy God in heaven is because of His work of creation.  The theory of evolution is not spiritually neutral!  It is a slap in the face of the Omnipotent Creator.  It questions the veracity of one of God’s greatest miracles.  It detracts from God’s transcendent glory!  So I repeat one more time, evolution is not morally neutral!

Revelation 4:9-11   And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,  “Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created.”

Advertisements

10 responses to this post.

  1. Hmmm… I don’t know if I would go this far. As one who believes in God, and is a follower of Jesus and believes that the Triune God created the heavens and the earth, I would still say that there is room for a theory of evolution. I don’t know if I buy all of it, but I know plenty of scientists who think the theory of evolution has validity AND who are strong Christians. In fact, most scientists who are Christians wouldn’t give a young earth the time of day. So, the theory of evolution is not slapping God in the face…it’s just a theory. You could say that there are some people who believe the theory of evolution that also have the belief that God did not create. These people may be slapping God in the face but a theory is just a theory. Many of the claims of evolutionary scientists are verifiable and shouldn’t be blindly rejected.

    • Posted by Hayden Norris on June 30, 2009 at 9:35 am

      Translate the word ‘day’ for me from the Hebrew please. How should Genesis 1 & 2 be taken?

      • Good question Hayden,

        I would point you to Meredith Kline, Gordon Hugenberger (pastor at Park Street Church in Boston), N. H. Ridderbos, Henri Blocher, and Lee Irons for more on the Framework Hypothesis.

        I wrote a paper for a theology class at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary called, “The Use of ‘Day’ in Genesis Chapter One: A Contrast Between the Framework Hypothesis and the 24-Hour View”. I don’t tell you that to try and sound like an expert, I’m telling you that to say I’ve done a lot of thinking about this issue because I was raised believing in the 24-hour hypothesis and a young earth. Now, I’m not totally convinced by the science of young earth creationists but more importantly, by their exegesis. After all, God created both world and Word so we should expect a harmony between the two.

        Again, as I stated above, I’m not totally convinced by everything evolutionary scientists say. I’ve come to realize that scientific discoveries can help me think freshly about my own exegesis but given time there is harmony between science and the Bible. The biggest deal breaker for young earth creationists and anti-Darwinians was the lack of transitional fossils. Well, people have been finding those for quite some time now. Does that shake my faith? Does that lead me to conclude that God is a fairy tale and He must not have created the world? No, if it’s true, it doesn’t undermine one single verse in the Bible.

        Now, you asked me to translate “day”. Day, in the original Hebrew means, “day”. It’s the precise literalness of the word that helps make it such a strong metaphor. If I called you a fox what would I be saying about you? Would I be deluded into thinking that you were literally a fox with a bushy tail? No, it is because we know what a fox really is that we can understand what we mean metaphorically. By calling you a fox, I’m calling you mischievous or wily or sneaky or something. Did Jesus think Herod Antipas was really a fox when He said, “Go tell that fox…”

        So, the word day helps us frame the creation event in understandable terms. After all, Moses wasn’t there. He’s simply recording what God told him about the event…from GOD’S perspective. To God did it look like literal 24 hour days? Did they have to happen in that exact order? Could God have created something out of nothing in some sort of a Big Bang? All of those things are possible but what I think is increasingly becoming less and less possible is the idea that God literally created those particular things on those six days sometime around 10,000 years ago. It can be said with almost complete certainty that the creation didn’t happen that recently.

        Knowing that the six days of creation are a framework showing God’s creative work doesn’t make it any less true. Genesis 1 and 2 are deeply theological and they show how the earth was empty and void or “uninhabitable and uninhabited” as it could be translated. So the first three days God makes the earth inhabitable and the next three days he makes it inhabited. He is filling the earth. Based on the structure of the passage it is easy to see the importance God placed on humanity. They are to be the rulers over all. That’s what Moses is showing us. This isn’t a science text book (none of the Bible should be seen in that way), this is a story of God and His care for His creation. I don’t know from a human perspective how He did it, I just know that He did it and He saw everything and saw that it was good.

  2. Posted by Chris Pixley on June 30, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Nathan-

    What specifically in the text of Genesis 1 & 2 would lead you to conclude that the author is speaking metaphorically? In other words, how is it that your hermeneutic dictates that you employ such an interpretive framework when you come to those critical passages?

  3. Nathan, I appreciate your work on Genesis 1-2, but I would have to echo the previous comment on how the exegesis of Genesis 1-2 led to a framework view of the creation account? Are we in a perpetual day 7, that apparently has yet to finish?

    Hayden,
    I would suggest that we read Genesis 1-2 as a historical narritive account. The use of “day” when used with a number (i.e. Day One, Day Two, etc.) elsewhere in the OT, it suggests a 24 hour time period. This would be something to look into.

    Also, I’m not sure if you are familiar with Hebrew or not, but there are 55 occurences in about 34 verse of the wayyiqtol that would argue for a historical narritive. Though sometimes found in Poetry, this is the predominant marker for narritives. Therefore, I would suggest Gen 1-2 to be read as 24-hour 6-Day creation.

    With Grace and Humility,
    Shawn

  4. The biggest deal breaker for young earth creationists and anti-Darwinians was the lack of transitional fossils. Well, people have been finding those for quite some time now.

    Ummmm…. No they haven’t.

    A couple of things here: So called fossil evidence has to be interpreted just like any evidence. A particular world view directs how those fossils will be interpreted. If you WANT to find transitional fossils, well, any so called fossil will meet the criteria for being transitional.

    Moreover, of those so-called transitional fossils evolutionary paleontologists have found, those finding are still not even close to being enough to authenticate the claims of slow, gradual evolutionary change by decent with modification over millions of years. 3 or 4 so called transitional fossils doesn’t even come close to demonstrating the claims made by Darwinian evolutionists as to how life came to evolve on earth.

    What I happen to see demonstrated is not the truthfulness for evolutionary philosophy, but Christians who are willing to compromise the scriptures by changing its meaning because they are under the impression “scientific” evidence has been put forth contradicting the historical reading of Genesis one and two of God creating in the span of one 6 day week as we know days and weeks. The reality is that such is not the case.

    Fred

  5. @ Nathan,

    I think you need to make clear what you mean by “evolution has some validity,” as you can see leaving that out there like that will just cause needless flame wars.

    B/c there is a WHOLE lotta difference between believing in microevolution and theistic evolution.

    One thing I think Christian who are scientists (not the Mary Eddy Baker religion!) don’t understand is that the “beauty” and “power” of evolution comes from it being undirected and random. The idea that someone how matter, in of itself, can form specified and complex structures without intervention, is what makes evolution powerful. To say that either

    1) God uses evolution to make creatures – Is not in sync with evolution and takes away from its power b/c it is guided.

    2) God foreknew, presumably from the big bang or programmed it from the big bang, that life would evolve without His direct intervention after that, would take away the randomness from evolution – another fatal blow that is unacceptable to evolutionary theory.

    You also must consider there are plenty of religious (all spectrum) and non-religious people who object to evolution on purely scientific grounds – including myself.

    I think its fine to follow the reformed view of the creation story, however a test of orthodoxy is if you believe God specially created man ie that Adam was not evolved and made unique by God.

    I’ll even go as far to say if you for now even believe that animals were evolved, but God specially made man that is “okay” (though Biblically a HUGE no no). My point? That you cannot be a very Biblical based Christian and not believe in the special creation of man, regardless of how long you believe the days are and I know our reformed friends you quote would hardly agree.

  6. edit: I mean to say “heartily agree” not “hardly agree” Oops!

  7. “Evolution”, as commonly used, doesn’t mean “organic adaptation to environmental changes.” It denotes an underlying philosophical commitment to atheistic materialism — which is why it can’t be considered morally neutral. None of the leading Darwinists in our time see theistic evolution as anything but a joke, at best an illogical cross-breed, neither fish nor fowl (and that’s ironic). If you reject materialism, which any logical person must if they want to continue to claim that their own thoughts are meaningful and not just random blips generated by 8 pounds of electrified meat, then there’s no reason left to believe in evolution. Darwinism is meant to be the alternative to a belief in a metaphysical world.

    On “day”: Just because the Hebrew word yom is used in metaphorical ways in other places the Old Testament does not prove that it was indeed used in a metaphorical way in Genesis 1 and 2. It only means that it’s semantically possible. Everything in Genesis 1-2 argues for a literal usage. Each of the days are comprised of an evening and a morning. Each of the days are marked by an ordinal number, which enver happens in the metaphorical usages. The Decalogue in Exodus 20, Fourth Commandment, equates the Sabbath yom with the seventh yom of creation — same author, same context, same sentence.

  8. Thanks Jack for the helpful note.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: