Theistic evolution aims to reconcile the biblical account of creation with secular perspectives on human origins. Unfortunately, theological evolution denies the biblical concept of God being immutable, and the sufficiency of Theistic evolution seeks to reconcile the biblical creation story with secular views on human origins. Theological evolution denies the biblical concept of God being immutable and denies the sufficiency of scripture. Naturalists use the idea of macro-evolution to obviate God, so including God is to them both unnecessary and contradictory to their beliefs. Naturalism says that the Bible’s limited age for the earth is incorrect and that it took millions of years for everything to form from nothing. No naturalist would agree that the Bible is true, but saying that the days of creation are allegories for millions of years would be seen as a cop-out for Christians from believing what the Bible teaches.
Naturalists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds and humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Neither of which lines up with the Genesis account of humans having a special creation set apart from animals, or the disruption of life that was the great deluge of Noah’s time. Genesis 1 states that each animal was created after its kind, and it categorizes them based on their domain (land, sea, and air). The Bible does not imply that all creatures evolved from a common ancestor. Furthermore, species can only crossbreed in the same genus. For example, creatures like coyotes, wolves, dingos, and dogs can all breed together because they are all canines in the same genus. Likewise, lions, tigers, jaguars, and other felines are all part of the same kind. The idea that humans and animals once shared a typical genome seems contradictory to what we observe today. Shouldn’t a dog be able to breed with a cat if we are all related? No amount of time will allow a cow to give birth to a chicken, because those lines aren’t biologically compatible. Yet, macroevolution teaches that this must be possible, since all creatures came from a common ancestor that had a genome compatible with that of everything living today.
On a scriptural basis:
It seems hypocritical to believe in the virgin birth, or that Jesus could raise the dead (and was himself raised from the dead), but not that God made Adam from dust on day six of creation, as the Bible says. Jesus says that there are two final resurrections yet to come, one for the righteous and one for the wicked, in John 5:28-29, and this is repeated in Paul’s letters and the book of Revelation (1 Cor 15:12-58, 1 Thess 4:13-18, Heb 11:32-35, Rev 20:4-6, & Rev 20:11-15). Resurrection in the Bible is defined as a restoration of life on earth. This is presented as either the revival of your old dead body in the grave or the reassembly of it from the dust (for those whose bodies are destroyed or devoured). Since everyone gets resurrected for Judgment Day, that means God has to reassemble all of the human bodies, including the people whose bones weren’t even preserved, from the dust of the earth. It’s not that difficult for a God that formed the first man, Adam, from the dust (Gen 2:7), and this is a supernatural act. Likewise, the forming of a baby in the womb of a virgin would be a similar supernatural act. Judgment Day is only a day long, so if you can believe God can revive all humans from the beginning in one day to judge them, it shouldn’t be a stretch to think that he did it the first time in the beginning.
These supernatural actions are not bound to the laws of physics. Hebrews 11:3 says that nothing existed as it is until God spoke it into existence, so none of the statutes existed until the lawgiver gave them. That means God permits supernatural acts for the formation of the universe and for any purpose He chooses, such as the virgin birth and resurrection. Natural laws do not bind Him, but He limits Himself by His words. The limits He places on Himself are on purpose so that He can justly refer to Himself as righteous because He meets His standards. This means God won’t do something that goes against His moral standards and character, such as breaking His covenant. So if He makes a promise, He will keep it. He is faithful even when we are unfaithful (2 Tim 2:13). So there is no point in trying to explain the formation of mankind or anything else through natural means alone because it would violate the laws of physics for the matter just randomly to pop into existence. Yet, the Big Bang model itself implies that this happened to initiate the entire process. The universe itself cannot create a new reality because natural laws limit it; however, the maker of all reality is above the limitations of nature and can perform supernatural actions.
To say that the resurrection of the dead is impossible is expected from an unbeliever, but not someone claiming to be a believer, since the whole faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus was raised from the dead (Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-20; Luke 24:1-49; John 20:1-21:25). Jesus raised others like Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-56), a widow’s son (Luke 7:11-17), and Lazarus (John 11:1-44). Also, Elijah raised a child from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-24) as did Elisha (2 Kings 4:18-27). A dead man was raised after coming in contact with Elisha’s dead body in his tomb. (2 Kings 13:20-21) Even after Jesus, Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-42), Paul did the same with Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12).
The Bible teaches that humans are set apart as special creations by God and that we were put in charge of the animals on Earth, as stated in Genesis (Gen 1:26-28). Naturalism teaches that all life originated from a series of random chemical processes that led to the evolution of simple animals into more complex ones. In other words, humans are not special, set-apart creations but instead are just advanced animals. So if someone believes that Jesus is Lord and that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity, they can’t accept the naturalism framework, because naturalism blurs the lines between humans and animals by saying we evolved from animals. Did Jesus die for donkeys, pigs, sheep, and birds, too? What sins did they commit? Jesus says he came to set us (humans, who descend from Adam) free from slavery to sin (John 8:31-36), and that definition of sin is failure to keep God’s commands. The failure to keep God’s commands began with Adam’s disobedience in the Garden (Rom 5:12-17).
Jesus taught from and believed in the Torah, which says that humans are made in God’s image (Gen 1:26-27). The animals were not made in God’s image and are not equal to humans. Only murder of a human is punishable by death, not an animal (Gen 9:5-6, Ex 20:13, Lev 24:21). That’s why the greatest commandments are to love God and your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:25-27, Matt 22:34-40). The word “neighbor” is limited to other humans. After Jesus said this, one of the lawyers’ questions was “who was defined as a neighbor” (Luke 10:29)? He was trying to identify fellow Jews as neighbors and exclude Samaritans and Gentiles as non-neighbors. Jesus responded to this by giving him the parable of the Good Samaritan, which shows that all people, even Samaritans, are neighbors (Luke 10:30-37). Only the good Samaritan in the parable was following God’s instructions by helping the Jewish robbery victim, instead of ignoring him, as the Jewish leaders did.
Lastly, Jesus believed and taught that he was the Son of God, here to rescue humanity. According to the Bible, humanity has a unique place in creation. Therefore, Jesus would not accept a naturalist worldview, as it contradicts his theology. Thus, anyone who follows Christ must follow His lead. Otherwise, they are saying that Jesus Himself is in error, and they are not submitting to Him as the Christ. Suppose a Christian doesn’t take Genesis literally but rather as an allegory; that is fine, as long as they acknowledge that naturalism doesn’t solve the origin of life question either. For those with that view, they must view naturalism as a pagan creation story and trust that God made all life with his limitless creative power and that we only exist because he wanted us to be here. Anything that conflicts with what Jesus taught and restricts God’s abilities is a rejection of Jesus’ teachings and God’s truth.
Pondering the science:
There is a difference between operational science and historical science. Operational science is based on testable, observable laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. Historical science requires assumptions to be made about variables that are presumed to be constant enough to maintain the same value now as they did in the early age of the universe. Without any specific proof that these things are continuous, our measurements can be way off. There are limitations to methods like radiometric dating because we can’t travel back in time to obtain all the control variables. Therefore, unobserved long-age assumptions about how the earth operated pre-historically and assuming things work the same as they do today, without disproving the opposite, is bad science. This issue isn’t creationism versus observable science; it’s creationism versus naturalistic assumptions about the past that conflict with observable science. Some people deny things that are real, such as the existence of dinosaurs, the Earth’s roundness, and the existence of outer space. These views do not represent what creationists and Bible believers believe. The world tends to view creationists as a homogeneous group. Unfortunately, many Christians respond to that by accepting that if they don’t think the world’s theories, they are denying reality. Both denying observations of the laws of reality and trying to retrofit naturalistic assumptions into the Bible’s theology are two extremes on either side of God’s word. Dinosaurs don’t have to be fake for the Bible to be accurate; they are just animals that have died out, and the earth’s shape is not even relevant to the purpose of scripture, nor is it specified in scripture. More on flat earth here.
The central conflict between creationism and evolution lies in the blurring of definitions regarding what evolution means. Sometimes, microevolution and macroevolution are lumped together as evolution. There is no theological conflict between microbes with mutating genes and viruses committing horizontal transduction. The issue arises when there is a claim that a whale evolved into a wolf, as that contradicts the principles of biology. Does the wolf genome contain anything that resembles fins? Do pigs have wings in their genome? The traits in our genes are fixed and limited to a particular set of features in each kind of creature.
Furthermore, random mutations don’t produce new information because there are only four nitrogen bases and only four legitimate combinations of pairs, A to T (or U for RNA), T(U) to A, G to C, C to G. Any mutations would produce errors like C to A, C to C, A to G, T(U) to C, or G to T(U), etc, you get the point. None of those are proper pairs, and therefore, all mutations are mistakes, not enhancements. Losing a limb from a birth defect caused by a random mutation does not improve a creature’s chances of survival. That doesn’t mean creatures don’t survive and adapt after losing information through mutations, but adding new information doesn’t occur through this process. Epigenetics, on the other hand, works within the limitations of the genome. It simply relies on the information already given in the genome and allows for variations within a genus. This explains why there are so many dog breeds, yet dogs will never naturally give birth to fish.
The mechanism for macro-evolution was thought to be hidden in Junk DNA, but now we know it was never junk at all. Cells can respond to outside influences to change their genetic makeup (epigenetics); it is not only mutations that showcase different features. With epigenetics, some genes are switched off, and other parts that may have never been used before are turned on. In the case of Darwin’s finches, the different kinds of beaks all existed in the Finch’s genome. In some finches, those attributes are switched on, and in others, they are off, and the default attribute prevails. If the conditions change again, then the epigenetics can turn off one section of DNA and turn back on the other section. Every cell in our bodies, no matter what kind, has the same DNA. However, different types of cells (such as eye vs. liver cells) are distinct because different coding tags are switched off. Through epigenetics, we can observe that natural selection occurs through a mechanism that utilizes genes already present in the genome, and the expression of specific genes is switched on or off via epigenetic tags. However, the genes themselves are still present in all cells and all species of a particular genus of the creature. Therefore, as previously stated, epigenetics demonstrates how variations within a genome can occur in response to environmental stimuli, without requiring random mutations or the introduction of new information. It happens in our bodies and causes the differentiation of cells. The genome is the hardware, and epigenetics is the software. If a group of people bought the latest iPhone and purchased models with the exact specifications, eventually each of those phones will be unique because the individual owners will each download specific apps and store personal files unique to each user; the hardware’s internal mechanics don’t change the phones into non-iPhones. Likewise, the variation in gene expression among organisms with the same genome, or the variation of cells within the same body, doesn’t change the genus of a creature from one to another (e.g., a cow to a chicken).
Another problem with macroevolution is its initiation. There has to be life forming from non-life. This is a scientific impossibility because of the law of biogenesis. Abiogenesis (the spontaneous generation of life from non-life) hasn’t been proven. The famous Miller-Urey Experiment is an abiogenesis experiment in which chemists placed random elements and carbon into a closed, vacuum-sealed container with water and electrified it to simulate the conditions of abiogenesis. However, the results did not lead to the formation of life. The chemicals chosen are based on assumptions about an early prebiotic Earth. In addition, the concept of the experiment itself is flawed since humans (intelligent beings) designed it by choosing the chemicals, procedures, and control mechanisms. Therefore, any life that resulted would have been a testament to “intelligent design”. Since evolution depends on this abiogenesis as a first step, one must believe in an impossibility. In Luke 1:37, Jesus said, “With God nothing is impossible”. It wouldn’t be a problem for an all-powerful being that can speak things into existence (Hebrews 11:3). How does it happen on its own randomly without violating the laws of physics and chemistry that bind us naturally?
Some argue that the fossil record and layers of sediment indicate rapid burial over a long period, providing evidence of evolution. However, sedimentary layers can be laid down by a cataclysmic event, such as a global flood (as described in Genesis 6-9), which can result in the formations we observe today. A scientific view of a worldwide flood would suggest that such an event would have significantly altered the Earth’s surface, adding multiple layers of sediments and potentially causing it to appear older based on geological evidence. Catastrophism is a more consistent cause of the geological changes we observe than the slow, gradual changes of Uniformitarianism alone. When Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 1980s, it became a modern example of how catastrophism can rapidly change a landscape. An event like an eruption can deposit 600 ft (182m) of material in a day. Imagine what multiple volcanic eruptions and a worldwide deluge can do in a year and 10 days (the duration of the flood in Genesis).
Fossilization occurs when a natural disaster rapidly buries and preserves certain organisms, but that doesn’t mean all individuals of that species were buried; some escaped or were not present in the area and continued to live and reproduce. The Cambrian explosion was not an explosion of life, but rather a blast of death, and must have involved some cataclysm big enough to affect ocean creatures, which left a trail of their fossils on mountain tops. Extinction and fossilization are separate. A group of animals can go extinct due to disease or a lack of food, without leaving a single fossil behind, because fossils require preservation. Otherwise, carcasses decompose or get eaten. On the other hand, fossilization can happen without causing extinction. We find human fossils all the time, yet we are still here. Whether the Earth is young and appears old due to the Genesis Flood, or is old but has an unknown and untold story behind its formation by the time of Adam, is where some Christians may hold different views. However, consensus among believers who hold orthodox Christian views is that humans were uniquely created, and the universe is not a product of random chance.
Moreover, the idea that life can emerge from a primordial soup contradicts the fact that neither RNA nor DNA can survive or form in water because water dissolves sugar. The ribose and deoxyribose parts of RNA and DNA are sugars. Not only that, but hydrolysis breaks polypeptides and amino acids. Natural laws prevent abiogenesis from happening. Much of naturalism is based on the concept of true randomness, which contradicts the laws of physics, as every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If things cannot go from chaos to order, then how does randomness driving these ideologies even get executed? If things were random, things would randomly pop in and out of existence or change states for no reason. The sun would turn green and the moon purple, grass would turn into cows, and fish would turn into dogs. Random creation and mutation, along with the anti-biblical philosophies that accompany them, contradict the actual observable laws of physics.
Energy in the universe is being lost over time, according to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. There is a hypothesis that eventually all energy will be gone and the universe will experience a universal “heat death”. This means all the energy in the universe will be used up and go cold and dark. If the universe had always existed in the infinite past, then the amount of usable energy would have been used up long ago. This is in direct contrast to the new creation proposed in Scripture (Isaiah 66:22, Isaiah 60:19, Revelation 21:1-23-25), so this concept can only exist in a non-biblical worldview. In addition, the 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests things gradually go towards a more disordered state rather than the opposite, so how can a chaotic cosmic origin story lead to an ordered universe? Who or what turned off the random? Naturalism requires that life came about randomly through a natural process governed by natural laws and that there is no God or outside force necessary. Yet something or someone turned off the random—more on the subject of randomness here.
For believers, it should be evident that these ideas are in opposition to what Jesus believed, as he adhered to the Torah, and the Torah does not teach these things. Just adding millions of years to the Genesis timeline does not make the Bible compatible with naturalism. Believers must choose between believing in God’s supernatural abilities or rejecting his capabilities outright, because the same “absurd faith” that is required to think God made a man from dirt in a day, is the same faith that believes we will all be resurrected and judged when the messiah returns. Again, scripture doesn’t teach that it takes millions of years for God to reassemble the bodies of the dead for Judgment (Rev 20:4-6;11-15), so why does he need to take that long to create humans for the first time from dust (Gen 2:7)?
Resources:
Creationism and Science:
A video series by synthetic chemist, Dr. James Tour on Abiogenesis
Dr. Tour has a video on the science of the resurrection as well
Natural Processes and the Origin of Life
On the biblical view of human origins
Bible’s Author’s View on Genesis
Genesis references in the New Testament
Mt St. Helens eruption support for Catastrophism
A Look at Creationism and Macro vs Micro-evolution
The End of the World: Scripture vs Naturalism
Question for Theistic evolutionist by Answers in Genesis
The problems with Theistic Evolution
About Epigenetics:
What is Epigenetics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMT6oRYgkTk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp1bZEUgqVI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aAhcNjmvhc