In many ways I would love to be able to support theistic evolution for it would allow me to say that God is creator and yet still maintain my intellectual credibility in the eyes of the world. It would sidestep a debate that often gets bogged down in insults, anger and misunderstandings and it would avoid arguments that can often detract from talking about other issues of greater importance. If there is one view that I hold that will regularly result in insults (from both non-Christians and, tragically, Christians) then its being a six day creation literalist.
But my own 'intellectual credibility' forbids me from taking that path. It boils down to a simple question of ultimate authority: is it man's reason, as found in 'science'; or is it God, as found in his Word? Given that, as I will explain, theistic evolution is not supported by the Bible, how then can I accept the ideas of men above God? That is why my argument against theistic evolution is theological not scientific - the Bible is our ultimate authority on this matter.
At its essence I see the creation/evolution debate as no more than a choice between God's description of events or man's description. It would be foolish to accept man's opinion of creation above the Creator's opinion on creation!
This is hardly an unusual position to be in. Academic thought and biblical thinking have often battled with each other in various fields. After all, the resurrection is a subject where we happily reject the notion that it is a scientific impossibility and accept the truth of the Bible on the subject. The point is, being scorned for truth is not surprising, the world scorns us for the truth that homosexuality is a sin, abortion is murder and Sunday is the Lord's day. Why should we be concerned when a similar thing happens with creation?
As we venture into this debate let us bear in minds the words of Jesus: "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5 v 11 - 12)
If evolution is wrong then it is of no surprise that following evolution to its logical consequences gets us some very strange and highly illogical ideas. To cover them all would take far too much time so I’m going to focus in on the three that pull the rug from evolutionist thinking.
If evolution is true evolution can’t be true
I know, crazy title, let me explain…
According to evolution humans are merely survival machines. As Dawkins puts it: “sophisticated robots built by our genes to perpetuate them” This means that evolutionary speaking it is not whether something is true or not that matters it is whether it helps us survive. All thinking is geared towards survival.
Therefore, since evolution is a product of the human mind it is not true but only useful for survival. Having ruled out any possibility of objective truth evolution rules out the possibility that it can be objectively true.
If we are just ‘gene machines’ on what grounds can we trust our logic? If we’re products of random genetic mutation, creatures of chance, the offspring of fate, then on what grounds can we trust that our rationality is actually rational?
Evolution is self defeating, if it is true, it cannot be true for there is no such thing as objective truth only ideas useful for survival. And that is the equivalent of saying that my brother is an only child. There’s a gaping logical hole right in the centre of evolution.