A Question I Was Asked:

'I think you are a very good Christian writer... but... shouldn't you leave evolution to the scientists?'

Okay, the above was a summation of the question which I now quote a little more precisely:

"I think you are a very good Christian writer especially in the discipline of Christian Apologetics, but evolution is a very tricky subject, shouldn't you leave evolution to the scientists?"

My Reply:

Well your question and suggestion are very interesting but you must allow me to explain exactly where I stand. I think I would want to make two points.

First of all, you make a very kind remark about my writing in Christian Apologetics. Well, this discipline aims to explain and to defend the Christian Faith. It does that wherever a fuller explanation and/or defence may be found to be necessary. Now evolution proceeds from a foundational base of Philosophical Naturalism; it insists on proceeding with the assumption that a supernatural God cannot exist! So it naturally follows that, since evolutionary teaching is now required science teaching in the schools, colleges and universities right across the civilised world, then people who might develop an interest in Christianity, or who may want to learn more about the Christian Gospel, are almost certainly going to have questions about the claims of evolution. I see it as my responsibility to have an answer and an explanation in this very important area if my credentials as a Christian Apologetics writer are going to be taken seriously.

The claims of evolution - make no mistake - are essentially atheistic claims. That is, these people set out to explain all of life, including human life, through purely random and chance factors and occurrences - never allowing for divine creation, or the input of intelligence at any point. Some Christians (misled in my opinion), form a position which they call 'Theistic Evolution' but it is truthfully a complete misnomer and the leading evolutionary thinkers and propagandists laugh at it. Why? Because they know that it is based on a misunderstanding of what evolution is all about. Evolution allows for no God, plain and simple. Phillip Johnson has well described Theistic Evolution as an oxymoron; that is, it is a contradiction within a term. So the first point is that, as a Christian theologian specialising in Apologetics, I cannot possibly ignore any creed or philosophy which has attained such a widespread acceptance which evolution has, if it claims that all of life, including human life, are fully explainable without any requirement for a supernatural God.

Secondly, I want to challenge the questioner's whole concept of evolution as a single scientific enterprise; as I hope I have already shown, it is much more than that, it is also a metaphysical statement about the universe: it sees a 'closed universe' within a naturalistic framework - no God anywhere. But evolution is not any one discipline: it's tentacles go into biology, astronomy, paleontology, chemistry, embryology and other areas too. No one person is an expert in all of those areas - that is impossible! Darwin himself had a little learning in both theology and medicine but no learning at all in the areas in which he came to concern himself!

Stephen J. Gould (1941-2002), who had much to say about evolution, was a paleontologist, but he was not as knowledgeable in all areas.

Carl Sagan (1934-1996) was an astronomer, but Sagan was no expert in biology or embryology; Richard Dawkins, who is probably now the leading evolutionary atheist in the world with regard to his influence, is a zoologist/biologist. He seems to have set himself up as a one-man propaganda machine for the most aggressive form of atheism, but some of his claims have been attacked and even ridiculed by other evolutionary teachers (incidentally, Dawkins has turned down opportunities to take part in public debates with Philip Johnson, Alister McGrath and others. A brief television interview with McGrath - apparently without Dawkins - was filmed to be shown in one of Dawkins' television programmes but it was cut at the last moment and never shown).

Regarding some of the opponents of evolution, Michael Behe is a molecular biologist, Charles Thaxton is a chemist, Professor Philip Johnson is a lecturer in Law and Michael Denton (like Behe), is a molecular biologist. Many other opponents of evolution - past and present - may be found in numerous fields, although mostly science related; The late Dr A.E. Wilder-Smith, for example, was a chemist and Pharmacology professor. But the point I seek to get across is that Darwinism covers a wide area and nobody claims expertise in every single area. Since the area is so wide, it is often most effective to attack the underlying philosophy which accompanies all evolutionary teaching; Philip Johnson does that and I also follow that route. Darwinism plainly contains a metaphysical/theological/philosophical teaching and the teaching is of a closed naturalist universe: man is all there is! Therefore, as a Christian theologian primarily concerned with Apologetics, I must see evolution as one of my primary areas of interest and concern. So, yes, I do write about evolution but I am cautious not to go deeply into areas (such as chemistry or physics), where my knowledge is limited but, rather, I am keen to recommend other writers who are able to do that. But since Darwinist writers unashamedly make statements and claims (Richard Dawkins is a chief offender) in areas in which its writers truthfully have very little understanding (theology, metaphysics, philosophy), I certainly get involved.

So it will be seen that since no single evolutionary writer is expert in all areas of the theory's application, I have as much right as anybody else to be involved. Ultimately, evolution presents a philosophical worldview, and this worldview really underpins all of it. I maintain that this worldview is seriously flawed and this is where my main challenge comes from.

Robin A. Brace, 2007.