Dying 2 Live...!

Dying 2 Live...!

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

God, Evolution, & You... (researched)

Why is evolution pushed as true and authentic? Do you really, I mean do you really believe you evolved from an ape? Next thing you know, that ape evolved into another ape, and so on and so forth. Why are scientists and philosophers so convinced that there is no God and evolution is legit? From a well researched perspective, I just may have an answer. 

Now we even have numerous Christians who see evolution as authentic and true. Are they right? The second most conversed upon genre within the doctrine of God, behind the Trinity is the doctrine surrounding “God and Creation.” It begs the questions of “Where did we come from?” and “How did we get here?” Academia has been one of the avenging culprits, alluding to evolution over creationism, science over Scripture. However, evolutionary theory is just one of an array of theories proclaiming origin decisiveness. Dualism as a theory of origins takes various forms, but the fundamental idea of dualism is that there exist two distinct, coeternal, self-existent principles.1 These are God and matter. One of the basic maxims of this sort of theory is ex nihilo nihil fit (“from nothing comes nothing”).2 Rather, God must be coeternal with matter so there is something to work with as he frames the world.3 Notable philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle held to this theory, as well as Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus. According to the Zoroastrian variation of this view, matter is not necessarily negative and imperfect, for it is the creation of the good being.4 This general form of dualism also explains evil in a way that doesn’t attribute it to God or the good spirit.5 So, from a dualistic perspective, God needs matter in order to fully be God, for he lacks divine providence over matter. Then there is the gaining exposure of the “gap theory.”

The gap theory was founded in 1814 by minister Thomas Chalmers. Chalmers decided that because science has spoken, and what it said must be accepted as true, it then was necessary to modify the Bible to make it agree with science.6 Chalmers suggested that a large gap of time passed between the first two verses of Genesis 1.7 This supposed accounted for “the heavens and earth being created,” and suddenly “the earth being formless and void with darkness covering the face of the deep.” This gap of time could account for both an old earth for the evolutionists and a more recent six-day creation for the creationist.8 Yet, evolution is inconsistent with any other portion of biblical text. Additionally, this theory implies a pre-Adamic race or creation that became lost to darkness; nowhere in Scripture is that emphasized. So this theory stands alone, apart from this Genesis 1 interpretation. Then there are emanation theories which are extremely pantheistic. Hence, the One or “God” is part of all that is.9 Though, as mentioned earlier, the grandest culprit used within the world of academia is evolution.
Evolution is in direct opposition to biblical creation. But there are those claiming these are of like minds. There are the theistic evolutionists. Theistic evolution teaches that God initiated the original creation process and then used the life-and-death struggle of natural selection’s proverbial survival of the fittest to complete the job.10 Then there are the day/age theorists. Advocates of the day/age theory believe that life evolved over billions of years.11 And similar to theistic evolution, God guided evolution through evidences such as the geologic column and fossil records. Although the nuts and bolts of this controversy is between only two theories: Naturalistic evolution and creationism. Naturalistic evolutionists claim that the origin and development of the universe can be explained in entirely natural terms in virtue of purely natural laws operating over natural phenomena.12 Many are unaware of the two diverse forms of evolution––micro and macro. Micro-evolution is the change within species.13 On the other hand, macro-evolution claims that the processes described also resulted in changes from one species to another, ultimately culminating in human beings.14

The macro-evolution present disturbing accounts such as humanity evolving from apes or common birds forming into dinosaurs. As to the origin and development of life, evolution says that from nonliving matter there ultimately resulted a living cell capable of reproducing itself.15 Contrary to every evolutionary theory is the biblical form of creation. Biblical theists have invariably held that God created the universe and all its contents.16 Creationists hold to ex nihilo indicating a miraculous creation. Creation out of nothing means creation despite the absolute absence of anything. 17 Implying this, God is sovereign, even over matter and science. Herein is where much of the controversy lies. Most evolutionists are atheists or share some form of agnosticism. And the thought of God agitates them. But the thought of a God that transcends what they worship, which is science and the ego of their superior knowledge within it, infuriates and belittles them. Instead of getting upset, they should surrender to a God of this magnitude that cares deeply about them, so much so to redeem their souls.             

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001.
Hindson, Ed and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, OR:
Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
1 John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001), 541.
            2 Ibid.
            3 Ibid.
            4 Ibid.
            5 Ibid.
            6 Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 155.
            7 Ibid.
            8 Ibid.
            9 Feinberg, No One Like Him, 543.
            10 Hindson and Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, 154.
            11 Ibid., 156.
            12 Feinberg, No One Like Him, 543.
            13 Ibid.
            14 Ibid., 544.
            15 Ibid.
            16 Ibid., 548.

            17 Ibid., 552.

No comments:

Post a Comment