In a June 7^th post at his blog (The Search for the Historical Adam 2), theologian Scot McKnight interacts with an article in Christianity Today by Richard Ostling. Ostling’s article concerns itself mainly with the results of genetics, their possible impact on our view of evolution, and how these issues may affect our view of the early Genesis account. In my estimation, Ostling's article is well-written, fair, and balanced, as far as it goes, including multiple viewpoints and raising important questions with regard to the contents and potential consequences of the debate itself. McKnight, however, is quite straightforward in his advocacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution, common descent, and natural selection, and seems to believe that Christians must take this theory seriously, perhaps even adjusting our traditional creationist notions on the historicity of the Adam and Eve account, including the concept of a historical Fall. He admonishes Christians that

The scientific data cannot be brushed under the rug and ignored. I continue the discussion here because I am convinced that the scientific evidence for an old earth, evolution, and common descent is so strong that Christians must adjust – this is a reprise of Copernicus and Galileo.

I agree with McKnight that “the scientific data cannot be brushed under the rug and ignored”. This is precisely why the Church, the pillar of truth, must embrace an old earth and an old universe. However, it is also precisely why we should let the theory of evolution drown in its own primordial soup. As far as this moment being a “reprise of Copernicus and Galileo”, nothing could be further from the truth. Copernicus and Galileo were vindicated by the evidence. Darwin has been decimated by the evidence, and devoted evolutionists continue to prop the theory up with ad hoc proposals like punctuated equilibrium. The universe and the earth are old, and the theory of evolution is false. This is where the evidence continues to lead us, genetics notwithstanding, and I believe that, if alive today, even Darwin would agree and recant.

McKnight concludes his blog post, favorably quoting Ted Olson, another CT writer on this topic:

At this juncture, we counsel patience. We don’t need another fundamentalist reaction against science. We need instead a positive interdisciplinary engagement that recognizes the good will of all involved and that creative thinking takes time. In the long run, it may be the humility of our scholars as much as their technical expertise that will bring us to deeper knowledge of the truth”.

Olson offers a false dichotomy. For Olson, there appear to be only two possible responses to the current state of scientific affairs, “another fundamentalist reaction against science” or “a positive interdisciplinary engagement.” Despite his irenic tone, I hear a sophisticated and subtle rebuke of creationists who are not embarrassed by the Bible and insist on the historicity of Genesis 1-3 and everything that comes with it. 

First of all, one can be “fundamentalist” regarding the Bible’s historical account of creation without buying into a particular chronology (e.g., young earth creationism). Secondly, the beef is not with science, but with evolution, which has been wrongly identified with science. Science has superbly constructed an evidential argument for an old universe and an old earth. Science has uncovered scant, if any, real empirical support for the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin, and prospects are getting worse, not better.

As Phillip E. Johnson has asserted, theistic evolutionists seem to believe that “the job of Christian intellectuals is not to challenge the picture of reality provided by a science committed to naturalism, but to accept the picture and show how it can be given a theistic interpretation” (See "God and Evolution: An Exchange"). This is a problem because the longer we accommodate those who popularize the notion of metaphysical naturalism, the more damage they do and the less they have to account for it. The notion that God may be somehow vaguely behind the process of descent by modification through natural selection is not strong enough to establish that he is necessary. It is but a small step from here to relegating God to the isolated ghetto of deistic irrelevance or non-existence altogether.

Biblical “humility” is not exhibited by capitulation to the ascendant scientific ideology of the moment and the prevailing strong scientism that it spawns, which claims, unscientifically, that science is the only source of substantial knowledge. In truth, science blindly and dogmatically clings to Darwinism against the evidence with the same religious tenacity as the Church clung to the epicycles of Ptolemy in the day of Copernicus. Meanwhile, the Church will demonstrate true humility and godly courage when we demur from  a strategy of accommodation and once again begin to fulfill our mandate to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and...take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

For starters, I invite you to consider the following articles at this blog.

Humans: God’s Unique Creatures on Earth 

Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creationism 

There are seven other articles within the category of Science and Faith that may be of interest to you. Please feel welcome to browse and comment in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15-16.

Blessings,

Arnie Gentile