Evolution: A Fatal Equalizer
Rev. Robert Fleischmann, CLR National Director
I have had the opportunity to visit the Creation Museum in Kentucky (www.creationmuseum.org) several times. If you have not seen it – go! It is an incredibly professional testimony to the creation account and to the problems involving evolutionary theories.
At the museum I was pleasantly surprised to see a display on the humanity of unborn life. I had not given much thought to how evolutionary thought affects the cause of protecting human life. The display brought the matter home for me.
Evolution and Theology
An increasing number of Christian religions are taking a second and third look at the theory of evolution. Some have accepted it and refer to the Biblical account of creation as not a factual event but merely a symbol for a greater truth. I disagree for theological reasons.
The creation account focuses on the relationship between God and man. If one buys the premise that the creation account is not necessarily historically accurate but symbolic of some divine truth, it raises profound questions about Biblical integrity as a whole (which stories do we now call symbolic?) and the foundation of God’s plan for salvation.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9) presented Adam and Eve the opportunity to demonstrate their love for God. During each moment they looked at or walked by the tree, their lives testified to their worship of the Creator.
When Satan tempted Eve to eat of the tree, everything changed. Man’s relationship with God was shattered. Man could not even stand before the perfect God – let alone hope for any kind of eternal paradise with Him (Exodus 33:20). There needed to be a solution, and man could not provide it (Luke 18:27).
God’s solution to sin centered on the gift of His own Son, Jesus Christ. With His own life Jesus paid the price for sin. Because of Christ God declares forgiveness to all people.
The Apostle Paul views the fall into sin as an actual historical event with far-reaching consequences: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). This event obviously conflicts with the theory of evolution.
Some evolutionists say that the “fall into sin” was a fall upwards. It marks a time when the human species recognized accountability for actions. It was a significant moment in mankind’s moral development.
So-called theistic evolutionists (belief in a God-controlled evolution) are split on the matter. Some claim Adam and Eve were real people, and their sin marked the fall into sin. Others contend that there were many Adams and Eves, and their sins collectively marked the need for a Savior (sometimes referred to as polygenism).
Stepping away from a historical account of creation in exchange for an evolutionary theory presents genuine problems in considering God’s plan of salvation. The problems, however, manifest themselves in other areas as well.
A Dead Fly
While President Barack Obama was interviewed on CNBC in June of 2009 he swatted and killed a troublesome fly. Members of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) criticized Obama for doing that.
For all the jokes about the organization, PETA enjoys sympathetic treatment by the media and the public. It boasts more than two million members and annually receives donations totaling more than $31 million. It receives over $1 million in free advertising space. It coordinates more than 1,200 demonstrations and can get top-name celebrities to pose naked for major advertising campaigns against animal skin clothing.
PETA believes that humans and animals should be granted “equal consideration” – a logical conclusion if we were what they are. That dead fly could have been one of us millions of years ago.
Evolution claims all life on earth came from a single source. This notion of commonality (i.e., millions of years ago we were that animal or we were that plant) greatly conflicts with Scripture. The Bible teaches that plants and animals are under the dominion of man, and they exist for the consumption of man (Genesis 9:1-3). Evolutionary thinking casts that reality into doubt.
A basic tenet of evolution is “survival of the fittest.” The infirm, weak, disabled and dying are said to drag down the human species and are therefore expendable.
Today prenatal testing is often used as a search-and-destroy tool for less-than-perfect unborn children. The mother, as the host body, is entitled to make this decision even though the child (considered a “parasite” by some) is recognized as a human life. It is the survival of the fittest.
Today high-profile people have suggested that the elderly have a duty to die rather than burden society’s limited resources. This issue is lurking behind every debate on the rising costs of health care and ideas of socialized medicine.
With this evolutionary premise, is it any surprise Princeton’s Professor Peter Singer proposed that because newborn children are not born self-aware they have less value than a pig, dog or chimpanzee? He also proposed a 30-day waiting period after the birth of a child before he or she is considered a person. Singer’s thinking reasoned that if the child is found defective the life can be terminated.
Volumes have been written about the science of evolution. I personally find the science highly presumptive and speculative. Such technical debates can be left for others. What troubles me is the willingness of Christians to swap out what we call “faith” for science.
The writer to the Hebrews spoke candidly about the nature of faith and creation:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.(Hebrews 11:1-3)
The belief that the world was created is first an article of faith, not an article of science. We are excited when scientists make a compelling case for intelligent design, but it doesn’t really change anything for us. We believed it, because God said it.
James Watson, the Noble Prize winner, atheist and past head of the Human Genome Project once said: “Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.”
While we might not like being called a “fundamentalist minority,” Watson is essentially correct. God’s greatest miracle in our lives is the gift of faith through the work of the Holy Spirit. We do not need to be in the majority to be right. We simply need to be aligned with God to be right.
A split in that allegiance to God has unfortunately resulted in the death of many. The unborn, the disabled, the aging and burdens of society become obstacles to our evolutionary path of improvement. The weak must be removed so that the healthy and contributing members of society may prosper.
The roots of evolution run deep, and the rhetoric of evolution is infectious. Christians who should know better too easily surrender faith for science without considering the ramifications. People like Peter Singer are not just some nut cases who think pigs and dogs are more valuable than newborn children. They are respected scientists, ethicists and instructors in our society. They indoctrinate generations of students on their logical conclusions rooted in evolution.
I know many pro-life people who believe evolution is more probable than creation as the beginning of life on earth. I contend, however, that following evolutionary logic presents unsolvable conflicts with the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith found in Scripture. In evolution man’s improvement eventually obsoletes his need for a Savior. Man’s continued improvement compels the termination of the less fit. Evolution is incompatible with being pro-life.
May 4, 2018