Why Christians Should Reject Evolution


A while back I made quick reference at this blog to an essay published by Scientific American written by Michael Shermer: Darwin on the Right. It’s an older essay (published September 18, 2006), but I think the points he made then still need to addressed by thinking people who refuse to just give up. The overall tone of the essay, brief as it is, is just that: Christians ought to just give up the fight because, according to Darwinists, there is such a preponderance of evidence for Darwinian evolution that it seems silly for anyone to argue against it. Shermer writes:

According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics. Politically, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, whereas only 11 percent accept evolution, compared with 29 percent of Democrats who are creationists and 44 percent who accept evolution. A 2005 Harris Poll found that 63 percent of liberals but only 37 percent of conservatives believe that humans and apes have a common ancestry. What these figures confirm for us is that there are religious and political reasons for rejecting evolution. Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? Yes. Here’s how.

Now, I realize these figures are severely outdated, and that Shermer’s essay is over a year old, but I doubt the figures have changed much. Shermer’s approach is kind of a ‘Awe, com’on you silly Christians (and Conservatives!) get with the program!’ He also seems to think that believing in evolution (or at least making it compatible with biblical Christianity) is a rather simple thing to do: “Just follow these six easy steps and, Presto! as if by magic the synthesis will be complete.” But is it really as easy as Shermer would suggest? I think not. I’d like to take his points one at a time which means that these posts may run a little longer and may, in fact, be broken up as I address each of his six points.

First, Shermer writes that ‘Evolution fits well with good theology.’ He writes:

Christians believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. What difference does it make when God created the universe–10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? The glory of the creation commands reverence regardless of how many zeroes in the date. And what difference does it make how God created life–spoken word or natural forces? The grandeur of life’s complexity elicits awe regardless of what creative processes were employed. Christians (indeed, all faiths) should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.

Well, in fact it does matter a great deal–theologically speaking, and for a few reasons at least. First, because, as I have stated elsewhere, the premise of Darwinian evolution is that it does not require any god to be involved. (I sometimes think Richard Dawkins carries more dislike for theistic evolutionists than he does for Creationists.) The whole idea then that Christians should accept a system of belief that does not require God, even the God of Scripture, is absurd. Second, because the Scripture says that God Created the world by his Spoken Word! The Scripture does not say that God used ‘natural forces’ (whatever that means). Genesis 1 is ample testimony that God spoke the world and the universe into existence. Colossians 1 is further evidence. But there is also Hebrews 11:3: “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.” (And, please, spare me the drivel about creationism being only a matter of faith because evolution is no less a matter of faith!) 

Third, ‘modern science’ is not rejected! This is the straw-man that Darwinists continue to lob out at Christians. Christians do not reject science; we reject materialistic Darwinian evolution and those ideas and beliefs that reject the Word of God as true.

Fourth, it (evolution) is not good or even bad theology or even compatible with good theology because Darwinian evolution is not any sort of theology. We do not interpret the Word of God through the world, but the world through the Word of God (Cottrell, The Faith Once for all, 27). Theology starts with the Word of God and works itself outwards. This is why I continue to point out that when it comes to this issue it is not a matter of ‘science versus religion’ (because the ‘religious’ do not reject ‘science’ per se) as much as it is Christ versus the world (or, at least Scripture versus Darwin). Only one can be right, and there cannot be a synthesis of the two I don’t care how many ‘christians who happen to be scientists’ say there can be or how many others say there should be. Fact is, theologically speaking, the Scripture makes this assertion: “In the Beginning God…” It speaks of nothing or no one before this statement. In other words, the Bible begins at this point for a reason (which I contend has to do with Redemption, see Revelation 4-5). Why does the Bible begin at this point? Why, if in fact we evolved via Darwinian mechanisms, would the Scripture open with such a direct challenge? The Bible could have begun anywhere it wanted (although logically speaking it had to begin at the beginning), so why did it begin with Genesis 1:1? Why would the Bible, if its own testimony is that it is the word of God, and if God knew that Darwin would ‘figure it all out,’ set itself up to be complete debunked and overthrown? Tell me, Mr Evolutionist, why would God challenge you from the very first verse? (It is, after all, God versus the World!) Why not begin with these words, “In the beginning God set up the forces of nature so that through natural selection and common ancestry and survival of the fittest and genetic mutations caused by the environment evolution would lead to the existence of man”? But the Bible doesn’t. It opens with a direct challenge to any other ‘origin of life’ theory. It pits God against every other philosophy and theory and hypothesis. The Bible starts out saying: Here’s where it all begins; here’s the challenge. Our origins are in God, from God, and for God. And if the Bible isn’t true from the first verse, I don’t think it can be true at any point. And isn’t that quite the goal of people like Mr. Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and others? Isn’t the goal of the Enemy to cast doubt on the Scripture?

Why did it take so many thousands of years to figure out what Darwin figured out if it was, in fact, so obvious? Why, one might almost be persuaded that Charles Darwin was the smartest man to ever walk the planet! Yet, Jesus Christ fully accepted that in the beginning God created (he was there, after all!) My contention is that if the Bible is not true at this most basic level, at this beginning point, then how on earth can I trust anything else the Bible has to say? If God is not the Creator, how can he be the Redeemer? If God did not make the first ‘heavens and earth’ how on earth can I believe his promise to make a ‘new heavens and new earth’? Darwinism does not ‘fit well with good theology’ because Darwinism rejects theology and insists that we are quite apart from Divine intervention or Divine guidance or Divine Existence.

Fifth, Shermer asks ‘what difference does it make…?’ Now, he is specifically dealing in this question with the number of zeroes we add to the date of creation. Well, two points on this. First, I don’t know how many zeroes to add. I don’t know how long the earth has been around although I can make some logical assumptions. Sin caused this earth to be under a curse (accounted for in Genesis 3). Genesis 1 says the earth and the universe was made in 6 days. (I don’t buy the ‘days are a thousand years’ argument for dating the earth either. I don’t think those who make this argument take into account what sin has done to this planet and the universe that ‘groans’ and ‘longs for the sons of God to be revealed.’) But what difference does it make? “It does make a difference what you believe, because what you believe determines how you behave” (Thomas Beasley as quoted by Cottrell, Faith Once for All, 36) If I believe that the Bible is not telling me the truth about God, about Creation, about Redemption, then I will live like that. I will likely care nothing for God. I may not commit murder or rape, but I will likely live without regard to what God has said about Creation, Redemption, God, Jesus Christ, Sin, and the like. In other words, I will live without regard for God, I will reject him, I will ignore him, I will blaspheme, ridicule, and mock him. I can personally think of nothing more offensive than to disregard God, and ignore or ridicule the work He accomplished through Jesus Christ at the cross. If God did not create, then just exactly how am I accountable to God? But if God did create, then I am wholly accountable to Him. (I have demonstrated amply the consequences of Darwinism on our social constructs elsewhere in this blog.)

Sixth, and finally, Shermer says that we “should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.” In other words, we should accept science as Scripture and reject the Bible as Scripture! We should, in other words, reject God and worship Darwin! We should pay out tithes to The Museum of Natural History, study the prophets Dawkins, Gould, Darwin, and Crick and cast out Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses, and David. What Shermer doesn’t understand (besides his colossal ignorance of ‘divine’ which has no meaning outside of the Scripture he rejects) is that Christians do not reject science, but neither will we worship it. It is helpful, useful, and at times it does in fact reveal wonderful truths about the world we live in and the grandeur and wonder of the God who made this world. The Christian and the Church, however, are guided and governed by the Word of God, the Bible, the Scripture, the Oracles of God, the Holy Writ, the Scrolls, the Torah, the Gospel, and the Faith Once delivered (these are synonyms for those of you who have embraced science in Shermer’s manner.) Science may well have revealed God to a wonderful degree, but science cannot compare to the Creation itself, and neither come close to the Scripture because neither reveals to us our problem: Sin; and the solution: Jesus Christ.

The very creation stands as testimony to the handiwork of God and His Glory (See Psalm 19, Genesis 1, 2, Romans 1, Job 38-41.) But if not for these ‘ancient texts’ how would we know of the God Shermer says we learn of, and who is magnified, through science? If not for the Scriptures Shermer says we should reject, it is likely there wouldn’t even be a Darwinian challenge! No, Christians should reject such statements as Shermer’s out of hand. We do not learn our theology through a microscope or in a test tube or, for that matter, by staring at a tree. We learn theology from ‘ancient texts’ (read: The Bible) that are the Word of God–regardless of what the unbelieving community says about us for doing so. Christians accept the Scripture and it is only because there is a sore lacking of theology being taught from pulpits in churches that people make such suggestions and Christians fall for it. That is, many will accept Shermer’s words as wise, bridge building words because they don’t really understand what is at stake in the matter (I will address more of this as we go along), because they don’t really understand theology. It is because Christians do not understand theology that people like Michael Shermer can say things like ‘evolution is good theology.’

My suggestion is simple: Christians should reject what Shermer says, but not ignore it. Christians need to read the Scripture and be deeply involved in it’s propagation. Christians must not compromise the standard of theology for the sake of a synthetic capitulation to people who don’t understand the depth of the meaning of Scripture. Maybe Shermer was joking and simply mocking Christians. But if he was serious, and I think he was, we should reject his thoughts for the reasons I suggest above and for the reasons that will follow in future installments.  There is a lot at stake in this ongoing debate between Scripture and Darwin but I am confident in Christ that the Scripture will carry the day and will at last, forever, Triumph.

“All men are like grass, and their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of the Lord Stands forever.” (1 Peter 1:24, niv)

In the next installment I will address Shermer’s assertion that ‘Creationism is bad Theology.’ Thanks for stopping by.


12 thoughts on “Why Christians Should Reject Evolution

  1. premise of Darwinian evolution is that it does not require any god to be involved

    No scientific theory requires any god. Indeed, as soon as you do require any, it becomes a supernatural explanation and is explicitly not science. If you reject Darwin’s natural selection on that basis, you must by the same argument reject all of science. All of it.

    If you don’t, you’re bearing false witness, either when you reject Darwin’s natural selection on that basis, or when you fail to reject, say, Einstein’s theory of special relativity, or Newton’s theory of gravity on the same basis.

  2. Further, it’s disingenuous to reject something for not requiring “any god” (small g). If it required a non-Christian god (say, a theory that explains lightning via Thor’s mighty hammer), you’d reject it out of hand.

  3. Efrique,

    I think I have given ample reasons why I reject Darwinism and it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Your remarks are nothing new, and nothing interesting. You just repeat what you have heard, not what you have learned by observation or careful research. I reject Darwinism because it is absurd and unprovable and not repeatable and not observable. It is junk ‘science.’


  4. Darwinists often ignore the fact that modern science is a Christian invention. Science as we know it did not originate in India among the Hindus who believed existance is an illusion or in the Muslim world where people did not believe in free will.

    Most of the pioneers of modern science, like Sir Isaac Newton, were Bible-believing Christians. They believed that a rational God had created a rational world that obeys a set of laws.

    Christians should thus love good science but reject pseudosciences like evolution. After all, there is more proof for the creationist view than for the Darwinist hypothesis.

    Keep on bringing up the truth.

    Joel K.

  5. there is more proof for the creationist view than for the Darwinist hypothesis

    If by proof you mean: “Because I said so! I don’t care, you can’t make me look at the nasty fossils or DNA la la la la la la I’M NOT LISTENING!”

    That was what you meant, right? Otherwise, you don’t actually have a leg to stand on.

  6. That might be a bit more convincing if you actually had some kind of proof or evidence for Creationism, or even some valid reasons for accepting it as an alternative.

    As it is, the “Look at the pretty tree!” non-argument you’ve outlined is just illogical and juvenile.

  7. Mek is right. Creationists are very selective in their portrayal of the evidence. There are several fantastic books covering exactly this subject. Here are three of them:
    Scientists Confront Intelligent Design & Creationism – Petto and Godfrey

    The Creationists – Ronald L. Numbers

    Looking for Darwin’s God – Kenneth Miller

    (Intelligent Design is not, I repeat, not the same as a belief in Genesis 1-2. There are profound differences between belief in Creation ex nihilo and Intelligent Design. I have outlined some of these differences elsewhere at this blog.)

    I would urge those of you with access to peer-review literature to read it! You’ll find creationism and ID have such a wealth of evidence on their side, they’ve managed zero publications in any of the peer-reviewed international scientific journals. The evidence for evolution (paleontological, genetic…) is staggeringly profuse.

    (Deleted link.–jerry)

    The full lecture by Miller may be found on Google Video. (Which is why I deleted your link. If it is that compelling, let people find it on their own. By the way, some folks accuse Miller of being a closet ID’er.–jerry)

    Finally, I’ll leave you with this thought: If humans had had access to modern analytical techniques, mathematics, paleontology, chemistry, geology, biology, medicine and genetics from the start of their tenure on earth, the idea that a supernatural being is responsible for the diversity of species would never have arisen. “God made it” is the primitive’s explanation for what surrounds him and in today’s developed intellectual climate it is simply disingenusous and anti-educational. Not to mention the profound difficulties of having to explain where complexity of God’s kind arose prior to him having created a diversity of species. A God who is able to do that would have to be at least as complicated as the complexity he gives rise to. By contrast, evolution divests itself of that problem by explaining where complexity comes from and is not lumbered with theological headaches. That is to say, it accounts for the facts and requires fewer assumptions – the mark of a better theory. (No, evolution accounts for none of those things at all. Evolution is for idiots who simply do not want to think. And we can see where our ongoing educational advances are leading us. Nuclear proliferation. Abortion. Euthanasia. Eugenics. The Holocaust. War. Cloning. No cures for AIDS, HIV, Cancer, etc. Polution of the planet. Polution of water. Shall I go on? Many advancements are great. Many of them have destroyed more lives than you can count, and will continue to do so. Yes, I would say that for all your pro-educational ideas, this planet is not a better place to live. You are a fool if you think differently.–jerry)

  8. Mek,

    You should take a look at the title of this post. It is: Why Christians Should Reject Evolution. It is not: Why I Believe in Creation (I’ve outlined that elsewhere.)

    Keep trying!


    PS–I have to say, that judging from your two replies, I don’t really think you read a single syllable of what I wrote. I think you read the title and jumped to a conclusion.

  9. It’s obvious that you, Finch, are a bigot. Here’s why I think so:

    1. I don’t think you’ve read any of the 3 books I suggested, but you passed judgement on them anyhow. Maybe I’m wrong, in which case, do tell me which of them you’ve read and are familiar with.

    2. You censored (edited out) the link to Miller’s lecture. You claim it is because people should seek it out themselves. But the real reason is because you don’t want strong evidence against your own views on your own website. You’re entitled to that, but it’s not fair for people who don’t agree with you. Which is why I don’t think you’re interested in debate. You’re not interested in finding out more and discussing it; just in promoting your own pre-conceived ideas.

    Please don’t say I’m not pro-educational when you’re the one removing the link to more information. Information, incidentally, which is published in one of the most reputable international peer-reviewed journals on the planet. (Which I doubt you’ve ever read either.)

    3. If you’d read Miller’s book you’d find out that he is definitely no and IDer. You’d also know that he testified against ID in the Dover school trial. As an expert witness. A trial, incidentally, in which the judgement was extremely damning against ID.

    4. There is no causal link at all between the evolutionary theory and pollution or war or eugenics. You have to seriously misinterpret history to even assert such a thing. Incidentally, your rebuttal of my last paragraph is all assertion and no substance. There isn’t a single argument there.

    In conclusion you’ve said:

    The books dont disagree with me!
    (I don’t think you’re read them)

    Some say Miller is a closet ID-er!
    (when he was an expert witness against ID!)

    You’ve implied I’m not pro-education.
    (When it was you who removed a link to more information.)

    You’re protecting your beliefs against strong argument by censorship and dismissal, rather than by argument. That’s not the mark of someone who is secure in their beliefs. But let me guess: you’ll just repeat that you are. (Must affirm the faith, eh?)

  10. Rat,

    It’s my blog. I can edit anything I like. I changed nothing of the substance of your reply. There are very few links posted in replies.

    Learn the definition of the word bigot because you don’t know it.

    As to Miller, check these links:



    Miller & Collins

    I didn’t suggest there was a causal link between evolution and the rest. I suggested there was a relationship between ‘ongoing educational advances’ and the rest of that stuff. Read the reply carefully Rat.

    I didn’t say you were not pro-education. Read the reply Rat. I specifically said you were pro-education, but that for all the advancements made in education, we are not getting any better.

    You should be thankful that I had the courtesy to even put in a note in your reply that I removed the link. If I hadn’t put the note in, no one would have been any the wiser. I’m shocked you would assault my integrity in this matter.

    I’m not a proponent of ID. I am a believer in Genesis 1-2 Creation. The ID arguments suit me to refute the silly ideas of Darwinian evolution. It’s a useful tool; nothing more.

    In fact, I haven’t read those books, but where did I suggest that I did? Besides, my friend Jon (who will likely disavow our friendship) told me that books are essentially worthless in this conversation. He said I should read peer-reviewed articles. I have read four of them in the past month (on evolution topics; many more on topics that are actually intelligible and factual). How many you? The last I read was a paper on Altruism and Evolution. Fascinating, yet pointless it was.

    I’m not protecting my beliefs. My beliefs are all over this blog. I edited a link that I didn’t want on my blog. As the owner and editor of this blog, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. (I’ve seen the Miller rant and it proves nothing except his point of view which is just that: His point of view. It certainly doesn’t alter my belief in the fact of Genesis 1-2 Creation.) That is the mark of someone who owns a blog and has the right to refuse any reply he so chooses. My friend Jon won’t even post my replies at his blog. You should be lucky that I even acknowledge your existence.

    In conclusion here is what I have said:

    I said nothing about the books agreeing or disagreeing with me. I haven’t read them; probably won’t. Their arguments are tired, worn out materialism. They see what they want to see because they are blinded to the truth.

    I posted two links suggesting that Miller is a closet IDer. Check them out for yourself if you are as open to education as you say you are.

    I never once suggested you are pro or anti anything, least of all education. Read my reply again and note carefully what I did say.

    And, for the record, yes, I must affirm the faith because it is what I believe. I believe that In the Beginning God Created the heavens and the Earth and that Jesus Christ the Son of God died for my sins and the sins of the whole world and that He is Resurrected and that He is coming back to judge the quick and the dead. What about that have I denied?

    Thanks for stopping by and giving me a laugh. I’m always amused at you Darwinists who think you are smarter than the very God who created you in the first place.


    ps-where in my reply to you did I ‘pass judgement’ on three books? I simply made the statement that there is a difference between ID and Creation and that ID is not conflated Creation. They are distinct ideas. Read the reply Rat. You can read right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s