With this being the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, there will undoubtedly be much discussion this year (there already is) of his impact upon modern society. Since 2009 is also the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin will be difficult to ignore.It does not surprise me that secularists in general and atheists in particular believe in evolution. It only makes sense that people who do not know Jesus Christ will also hold faulty views about the beginnings of the universe.
It does surprise and trouble me that some Christians believe that God used evolutionary methods to bring His creation into existence. I've heard this many times from people who I have no doubt are followers of Jesus Christ. I believe that these Christians mean well. They are trying to in some way reconcile the differences between Christian theism and secular-naturalistic beliefs about the beginnings of the world.
Despite their good intentions, Christians who believe in some sort of evolution (macroevolution, not microevolution) have a big theological problem on their hands. The big problem is this: in their view, death MUST come before sin. If plants and animals existed for millions of years prior to the first humans, then there must have been a great deal of death before any humans walked the earth.
Romans 5:12 makes this clear. Paul writes, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned..." (ESV)
The bible tells us that death is a consequence of sin. Death comes from sin. In fact, this is what we see when we give a literal reading to Genesis 1-2.
A related problem for Christians who hold to evolution is this: if death comes before sin in Genesis 1-2, then to be consistent it seems that death must still exist in Revelation 21-22. Is the Christian/evolutionist ready to say that death will exist after sin is done away with by Christ? We certainly can't believe that this will be the case.
It saddens me that many Christians are willing to sacrifice theological truth on the altar of secular scientific theory. Christians must realize that evolution today is pushed and promoted by secularists. It is secular scientists who are trying to force their beliefs on our culture. On the other hand, many scientists who are also Christians believe that the objective scientific data corresponds closely with a literal reading of Genesis 1-2.
It is a great biblical truth that death only came after sin. We also know that after sin is gone, death will be gone as well.
I have never once heard a good answer from a Christian/evolutionist as to how death can come before sin.
I'm still waiting.
(For a great deal of excellent information on Creationism, go to AnswersinGenesis.org.)
6 comments:
Eric,
I agree and disagree. I agree that macro-Evolution is wrong, for many, many reasons. But I think you're argument is wrong.
I may very well say this.
Adam and Eve had not eaten from the Tree of Life (the only tree that could have either given them immortal life or given them forever life - there is a difference). So, by that very definition, the *could* have died. Further, since Adam didn't "die" when God said he would, then perhaps the use of the word "die" was meant to mean "spiritual death" (which many argue today). If that is the case then Romans 5:12 is also not talking about physical death, but spiritual death. So an evolutionist may say that this leaves room for death until the very first spirit was created in man (when God breathed into him).
Now, like I said, I don't believe in Evolution... but I also don't think that Adam was immortal.
God Speed,
Lew
Lew,
I appreciate what you have said. I'll give it some thought.
The trouble I have is that if death comes before sin, then God's creation is not perfect. However, when we read the creation account, the sense is one of absolute perfection in every sense. Death is nowhere to be found until after the first sin. Additionally, if death comes before sin, does death then exist after sin is done away with in Revelation 21-22? Those two chapters seem to closely mirror Genesis 1-2.
Hey Eric,
Were do you read that after creation everything was absolutely perfect? I see "good" and "very good". Further, who defines what these terms mean? What if it is good/very good/perfect for man to die physically?
By the way, I believe there may have been pain in the Garden of Eden. It is completely based on one verse (and the logical extension of said verse).
Genesis 3:16 - To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
This verse is usually used to prove that there was no pain before Adam's fall. However, the use of the word "multiply" seems to indicate there must have been some sort of pain. Because anything multiplied by zero is zero. So, the logical conclusion that I have drawn is, that during the childbirth process, Eve would have felt some sort of pain. But because of her sin, she, and all women, feel much more pain.
God Speed,
Lew
Lew,
You are asking some good questions. I'll tell you what I think.
When God declares His finished creation "very good," I think this implies that there would be no death. There is no hint whatsoever that death exists until after the Fall.
Additionally, Rev. 21-22 mention death being done away with just after sin is done away with. Death appears to always exist because sin exists.
As for Genesis 3:16, you make a good point. I'll give more though to that. What I think Gen. 3:16 is emphasizing is not that the woman's pain would multiply over what it once was, but rather that she would now have a consequence for her sin. Related to that, Adam would now have to work the ground, where he didn't have to do that before. For both Adam and Eve, these are new consequences, not just increased consequences.
Thanks, Eric
Hey Eric,
Thanks, this use to be a pretty passionate topic for me. I always loved studying creation/evolution, etc. You are right that there is no hint that death exists until after the fall, which is a point on your side of the argument, although it is a silent point :).
I also agree that the point of Gen 3:16 isn't the pain, it is the consequence. But I think it is possible to glean truths from Scripture even if those truths aren't the main points of the verses.
By the way, I think you are slightly off with Adam. He did in fact have to work the ground before he sinned. Genesis 2:15 "Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it." The consequence of Adam's sin wasn't the work, but that he'd have to work really hard to get very little from the ground.
God Speed,
Lew
Lew,
Thanks again for your comment. I appreciate the dialogue.
Regarding Genesis 2:15, I have a different interpretation of the meaning of that verse than you do. I think it focuses on the ideas of worship and obedience rather than working and keeping. I realize this has been argued about by many people before us, and in the big picture of the gospel is a relatively minor issue.
My main reasons for this interpretation are: 1) the ground already made enough food for Adam and Eve without the need for Adam to work the ground for food (Gen. 2:9); 2) Gen. 3:23 shows us that working the ground was part of the curse; and 3) throughout the OT, there is a connection between the themes of worship and land. There is much less connection between the ideas of work and land.
Thanks, Eric
Post a Comment