Can You Accept the Bible and Evolution?, Part 2

May, 2006

by: Jack Hughes

• Creation and Evolution

In our last Calvary Review we mentioned what is being called the “Clergy Letter Project” (CLP hereafter). Michael Zimmerman is the architect of this project and so far over 10,000 liberal clergy have signed a statement affirming evolution as a scientific fact that is “fully harmonious with religious faith.” In our last Calvary Review we quoted the entire statement and listed a series of propositions that any clergy member would have to agree with in order to sign the statement. In this Calvary Review we are going to begin to address these propositions and see if they are actually harmonious with biblical Christianity.

First Proposition To Consider

You can “take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice” and yet, “not read the Bible literally.” In other words a literal reading and understanding of the text of the Bible leads to believing lies and is to be rejected, at least in any text that might contradict what the majority of scientists claim to be true at present about evolution.

This proposition is flawed. The Bible, like all other literature, is to be understood literally. By that I mean when the literal sense makes sense not to seek any other sense. It is agreed by all that the Bible contains many kinds of figurative speech, but that does not mean we have the right to spiritualize any portions of the Bible because of what modern scientists say is true. The context of the Bible itself must give us justification for taking any text figuratively, not the vacillating views of scientists.

First, consider why a literal understanding of the Bible is absolutely necessary. If the literal meaning of the Bible is rejected, then the Bible means whatever the reader wants it to mean, which means the Bible means nothing. If I were to write you a letter and use figurative speech in the letter, you would easily recognize I was using figurative language from the context of the letter. For instance, if I told you that I went to a magic show and was “blown away by the tricks I saw,” you would understand that I was not literally blown away by an explosion or strong wind but was greatly impacted and impressed by the magic show. The literal meaning of the words “blown away” provides the general concept so that the figurative meaning can be understood. The context of my letter is what lets you know that figurative language is being used.

Jesus, for instance, said, “I am the door.” Instantly we realize that Jesus is not literally a door. Yet, we must first start by asking ourselves what a literal door is and how Jesus is similar to a literal door. A door is something that separates one place from another. Jesus is like a door in that you must go through Him in order to get to heaven. Thus Jesus used metaphor to teach us spiritual truths but those metaphors are based on the literal meaning of words. We know the statement “I am a door” is metaphorical because of the context of the passage.

But imagine if I told you in my letter that I went to the dentist and had a tooth pulled. Is that figurative? No. Why? Because it makes perfectly good sense that I went to the dentist and had a tooth pulled. Now what would my meaning be if someone else who didn’t even know me told you that what I said was not to be taken literally but was to be spiritualized? It would still mean what I meant it to mean, not what someone else wanted it to mean. But let’s say you believe the person and you search the context of my letter to find out what it could mean, if spiritualized, but there is no indication that I meant anything other than that I went to the dentist and had a tooth pulled. So now what do you do? You would have to depart from the literal meaning of what I said and begin to imagine what I may have meant based on information outside the text. The interpretation would then be regulated not by what I said and meant, but by your imagination. This would lead to an interpretive free-for-all and this is exactly what the CLP is affirming.

Trying to spiritualize any text that makes perfectly good literal sense–because of information outside the text–always leads to an interpretive free-for-all. The CLP errs in that it attempts to justify spiritualizing the text based on information outside the text when the literal meaning makes perfect sense. The desire to agree with scientists, who have consistently changed their views, is driving the belief that texts which disagree with scientists should be spiritualized. And once you convince someone that the text is to be spiritualized, then as scientists change their views, you can change your spiritualization of the text. Hence the meaning of the creation account can be “harmonized” with evolution by constantly changing its meaning to adjust with what scientists of the present day are saying is true. This is very convenient but dishonoring to God and His Word. Clearly evolution and creation cannot both be true. They are antithetical systems of belief and although valiant attempts have been made to explain how both evolution and creation agree, it just can’t be done without offering violence to the text of Scripture.

Second Proposition To Consider

You would have to affirm that the “stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation.”

Let’s just assume for argument’s sake that evolution is true and that the creation account is not to be understood literally, but is to be spiritualized, and understood as God’s attempt to make the origin of heaven, earth, and all they contain understandable to early man. Implied in this view is the evolutionary thinking that men were ignorant cavemen at first and slowly evolved into the great intellectual beings we are today. Yet the facts prove otherwise. Though technology is skyrocketing today and though we have created machines to store and retrieve data quickly, the human race is becoming increasingly more ignorant. It is only recently, in the last 30 years, that man has created machines to store and access data, but the ability to find answers to questions is not to be confused with intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge, not the ability to find someone else’s answer to your question on the world wide web.

In the book of Genesis we learn that pre-flood man was very advanced. Men lived extended lives, had knowledge of farming, animal husbandry, metallurgy (a very complex science), mathematics, advanced building techniques, etc. Mankind was so smart that God said that nothing they set their mind to do would be impossible for them (Gen. 11:6). There was one common language. Men lived for hundreds of years and remembered most of what they ever learned. This allowed them to accomplish incredible feats. Ask anyone who has studied the ancient Egyptian culture, the pyramids, Stonehenge, the cities of the Incas and Mayans or any number of the advanced ancient civilizations, and they will tell you that these civilizations were not only advanced but could do back then what we cannot do today! The Bible teaches that man was more intelligent immediately after creation, especially before the flood, and in the last six thousand years of the earth’s existence, men have become less and less intelligent as a consequence of the fall and curse. Evolution claims the exact opposite and says that man has evolved from other animals and over millions of years mankind has slowly grown in intelligence. The two systems of belief are antithetical, not harmonious.

Also consider the consequences of saying that no one understood the truth before Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. God either didn’t know the truth or must have conveniently lied to us until the prophet Darwin came along. God and the authors of Scripture purposefully deceived us and led people astray for thousands of years! Consider the biblical ramifications.

It would mean that Moses is a liar because Moses said in Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 4:32 that God created the heavens and earth and all they contain in six literal days and rested on the seventh. The Sabbath rest following six days of work is patterned after the six days of creation. Yet if evolution is true, all of this is a lie, and the whole basis for the work week and Sabbath rest is a lie. David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, Peter, Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews would all be liars because they all taught that God created the heavens and earth (Psa. 33:6-9; 148:5; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:12,18; Jer. 10:12; 32:17; Neh. 9:6; Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24; I Cor. 11:9; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; II Pet. 3:5; Rev. 4:11; 5:3; 10:6; 14:7).

Moses, Ezra, Luke, Jesus, Paul, and Jude must all have been liars, if evolution is true, because they taught that Adam and Eve were real, literal people, that Eve was literally deceived by a literal serpent, and that Adam willfully rebelled just as Genesis states (I Chron. 1:1; Job 31:33; Mt. 19:4; Mk. 10:6; Lk. 3:38; Rom. 5:14; I Cor. 15:22, 45; II Cor. 11:3;I Tim. 2:13-14; Jude 14).

Moses, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, the author of Hebrews, and Peter must all be liars because they taught that Noah was a literal person, who built a literal ark, that had literal animals in it, and that a literal flood covered and destroyed the literal world (I Chron. 1:4; Isa. 54:9; Ezek. 14:14, 20; Mt. 24:37-38; Lk. 17:26-27; Heb. 11:7; I Pet. 3:20; II Pet. 2:5; 3:6). These people claimed to be telling the truth! They quote each other as telling the truth. The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God and teaches that God cannot lie! What is really at stake is the veracity, authority, trustworthiness, and accuracy of the entire Bible – if evolution be true.

Many other biblical ramifications could be stated but for brevity we will consider two more. If evolution be true and the creation account false, we have no reason to believe that the promises of a new heaven and earth are true either (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1). If God didn’t create the first heaven and earth, it would be foolish to assume that He is going create the second. So we have no hope of heaven.

Finally, our second proposition states that the stories of “Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark,” though untrue, “convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation.” This too is a lie because the early chapters of Genesis teach us about God’s design for marriage, sin, death, blood sacrifice, modesty, and many other foundational doctrines. If evolution be true, we are nothing more than advanced animals and are no more important than any other living thing on the face of the planet. If you remove creation, you remove morality, sin, the consequences of sin, and you produce a society with beastly morality as is in the multi-billion dollar pornography industry.

As an example, consider a resent symposium at the Texas Academy of Science where Dr. Eric Pianka, an expert on lizards, gave a speech to over 400 scientists and proposed that 90 percent of the earth’s human population be painfully exterminated by spreading the deadly Ebola virus over the face of the planet! The Ebola virus causes hemorrhagic fever and death in most of its victims. After his lecture, Pianka received a standing ovation from the scientists and afterwards was presented with a plaque by the Academy’s president naming him “2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist of the Year.” During his speech, Pianka boasted to a neighbor that, “We’re no better than bacteria!”

Evolution and creation cannot coexist peacefully. Faith in evolution makes God a liar, people into animals, it destroys the integrity of the Bible, and creates an amoral society where people are no more important or valuable than lizards or bacteria. And though the world and its liberal clergy may be shocked at Pianka’s evolutionary conclusions, they are arriving at those same conclusions by degrees. Pianka has done us a favor by rushing to the finish line of where faith in evolution dead ends. “Let God be found true, though every man be a liar” (Rom. 3:4).