A Question I Was Asked:

'Isn't it time For Christians like You to Embrace Evolution?'

I was recently asked:

'Isn't it time for Christians like you to embrace evolution?

Wouldn't people be more ready to listen to your other (theological/religious) views if you supported evolution?'


My Reply:

I would be the first to embrace evolution - if it were true - but it is not.

Now let me attempt to explain this. Suppose I lived in a society in which everybody believed in a flat earth. Should I support the flat earth principle in order to encourage people to accept my theological views? Many people might scoff at me for believing in a round earth, so should I just accept 'Flatism' in order for people to like me and to take all my views more seriously? (As an aside, Christians never believed in a flat earth because of Isaiah 40:22 which clearly compares the earth to a circle. At one time we believers were mocked by 'flat earth' people).

Now I suppose I could say that I teach theology and not science therefore I don't care what people think about the shape of the earth or about evolution, but - wait - there is a vital principle at stake here because as Christian believers we believe the Holy Bible to be inspired by God and evolution cannot be found within its pages. Moreover, this book - after all - teaches us about how and why we were created, therefore this becomes a point of pivotal - not of minor - importance.

We also need to look at that word 'evolution' more closely. Today we have 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution.' The Bible does teach micro-evolution! Actually it is a very bad name, this refers to variations within kinds and to natural selection. Genesis has no problem with that - it occurs and may be observed. On the other hand, Macro-evolution (the human race are descended from apes and every living thing originally came from some primitive single cell organism in primeval slime) is extrapolated from the observable micro-evolution and evolutionists insist that it is the same thing when it plainly is not (and they know it perfectly well!)

Huge swathes of what Darwin wrote in Origin of Species is no longer accepted by anybody but scientists are remarkably quiet about this fact! Darwin was just plain wrong not in minor details but in some quite broad areas. This is known and Darwinian apologists must be congratulated for their editing work on his writings. All that is really left is a reliance on mutations to have caused the huge changes which were required in primitive organisms in order for Darwinism to be true. You might not believe that because of all the bluster coming from certain writers such as Richard Dawkins, but this is truthfully where Darwinian "science" currently stands! The theory currently stands in a serious crisis. So much has been kicked out of court that only mutations are left as an explanation for the claims which are made; this is despite the fact that nobody has ever observed a positive mutation - they are either positively harmful (the usual), or completely neutral (more unusual). What may be observed and is testable is 'variations within kinds/species' - that is not new or revolutionary, it may be found in Genesis 1:24-25. So Darwinist scientists call this 'micro-evolution' as a Darwinist smokescreen which is, frankly, calculated to confuse. So 'variations within kinds/species' is obviously incapable of producing apes from primeval slime-type amoebas (even after billions of years!!!), and it is likewise incapable of fashioning the human race from apes (after millions of years).

If I may briefly broaden this out a little into geology, several professional and studied geologists will quickly agree that what they discover in the ground is frequently best explained by a huge worldwide deluge of water; I am reliably informed that many of them are well aware that this could explain a lot of what is discovered. However, they will NEVER publish any such thing in any accredited geological study because it would sound too much like Noah's Flood and they would receive ridicule from their colleagues. So evolutionary teaching is plainly prejudicial and it is anti-science; yet writers like Dawkins still peddle the old chestnut that Darwinist science is clever and sophisiticated but Christians are superstitious and stupid.

I could say a lot more but we have covered this subject exhaustively in several articles already.

Robin A. Brace, 2008.

UK APOLOGETICS HOME