BiblicalInsights.net

In a recent article by Jeff Miller, titled, “Should Christians Accept Evolution and an Old Earth To Win Converts?” Part 2, Reason and Revelation, May, 2022, Miller stated, “We would not suggest that every person must necessarily passionately believe in a young Earth and a literal Creation to be saved.”  This statement was made in the context of reason #6, “Teaching Error is sinful.”  Miller was affirming that if a person held a wrong view of literal creation, it would be okay, but if he taught that personal belief to others, it would be a sin.  The complete article can be accessed from Apologetics Press at www.apologeticspress.org. The statement by Miller brings up the question, “can a person believe a lie and not be damned?” Another question that might be asked is, “can a person sin in his/her mind or heart?”
Let’s consider some passages of scripture that will help answer these questions.
First, in II Thess. 2:10-12, the Holy Spirit through Paul declares, “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish: because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”  Paul states that it is possible to believe a lie and be damned.  Notice that he does not say that the person must teach the lie that he believes personally.  The sin is unbelief of the truth!  Unbelief leads to disobedience.  What is the lie that is held personally by the person who rejects a literal creation?  The lie is organic evolution or perhaps theistic evolution.  If I do not believe in a literal creation, I would have to believe in some form of evolution.  Organic or macroevolution denies the very existence of God!  It denies the spiritual aspect (the soul) of every human being.  It denies that there is any difference between animals and humans.  The implications of the lie of evolution are enormous.  Theistic evolutionists have varying views among themselves.  Many, such  as C. S. Lewis, believe in “common ancestry” or “common descent.”  This concept affirms that man evolved from some lower life form and then changed into the form of a monkey, and continued to evolve into a Neanderthal, and eventually several thousand Neanderthals were infused with a soul and became human beings about 120,000 years ago.  Such a concept denies the creation account given by God through Moses in Genesis 1 and 2.  This results in tampering with the lexical and grammatical aspects of Genesis 1 and 2 to make these passages figurative and mythological instead of literal and historical.  Such tampering with the sacred text is itself a sin.  Many theistic evolutionists also hold to an old Earth view and accept the evolutionary estimates that the universe is 14 billion years old and the Earth is 4-5 billion years old (John Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World is an example and, so is Nobie Stone’s book: Genesis 1 and Lessons in Space).  The age of the Earth can be determined through the chronology given to us in Scripture.  An old Earth view denies Scriptural chronology.  The chronology of the Bible is interwoven with the genealogy of the Bible.  If you attempt to destroy the chronology, you will destroy the genealogy and the genealogy is Christological.  You cannot believe a lie and believe the truth at the same time!  If you believe a lie, you reject the truth and if you believe the truth, you reject lies.  Believing lies will not save a person’s soul.  “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12).
Second, Eph. 2:2-3, Sins of the Heart/Mind
The apostle Paul writes by the Holy Spirit, “Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” The phrase lusts of the flesh is a reference to sinful desires–the desires of the flesh and of the mind.  Jesus was very clear about the fact that we can sin with our heart/mind.  “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery.  But I say unto you, That whosoever lookest on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”  Jesus also said, “…That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.  For from within out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:20-23).  What are “evil thoughts?”  Are they not sinful thoughts and demisings?  Deceit (dolos) is a reference to lies.  Lies originate in the heart and then, they are spoken or acted upon.  All unbelief is deceit.  Unbelief is the rejection of the truth. Rejection of the truth is not innocent or innocuous.  Lust precedes adultery and fornication.  The sin is in the heart. Consider a New Testament example.  In Acts 8, Philip the evangelist goes down to Samaria and preached Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God.  A man by the name of Simon who was a sorcerer was converted.  Later, Simon coveted the power of Peter and John that enabled them to convey miraculous gifts through the laying on of their hands.  Simon thought that he could purchase this power.  Peter rebuked him saying, “…Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:20-22).  Peter’s rebuke of the sin in the heart of Simon would be the appropriate response to the person who rejected the truth about the doctrine of creation revealed in Genesis 1 and 2.
The Doctrine of Creation
The doctrine of creation is part of the doctrine of Christ (II John 9-11).  If we do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, we do not have fellowship with God.  The doctrine of creation has a direct bearing on who Jesus is.  Jesus is the Creator of all things (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-18).  This fact is an important aspect of Jesus’ deity.  To deny the account of creation as given in God’s Word is to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.  Jesus is not only the Creator, He has told us exactly when He created all things (Genesis 1, 2; Exodus 20:11) and what He created and how He created it.  To reject this truth is to call God a liar and believe a lie.  Those who believe a lie will be damned.

The Warren Christian Apologetics Center under the direction of Charles Pugh III has been in existence for over a decade.  During this time, the Center (hereafter referred to as the WCAC) has proven through its publications and associations its true nature.  The WCAC is located at 850 Altman Ave., Parkersburg, WV 26104 and is currently housed in two trailers on a lot that once belonged to the owners of a Bob Evans restaurant which was subsequently sold and later donated by the new owner to the WCAC as a future location.  The director of the center, Charles Pugh III is largely responsible for the decisions made that give direction to the aim or purpose of the center.  The stated aim of the center is to “affirm and defend the Christian Worldview while challenging growing global influence of atheistic thought.”  The WCAC has been responsible for both publications and activities that do not uphold the Christian Worldview which can only be defined by God’s Word.  Consider the following seven glaring errors of the WCAC.
Error Number One:  Advancement of the False Theory of Theistic Evolution.  
The WCAC published a book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One And Lessons From Space (This book has been published twice by the WCAC. The first edition was published in 2014 and the second edition was published in 2017. I have written extensive reviews of each published edition and posted them under my Book Reviews page), in which the author affirms the Big Bang Theory and an old Earth view (both of which are tenets of theistic evolution).  Theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution as His means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet,including human life (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 233).  In five previous blogs, I have exposed the false concepts involved in the concept of theistic evolution.  Please refer to them for a thorough discussion of this topic.  In one of those blogs, I revealed that the old earth view (the view that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the earth is 4 to 5 billion years old) contradicts biblical chronology.  The WCAC by publishing and distributing a book that affirms a false view of the age of the earth (which contradicts plain statements in the Bible) contradicts its mission by compromising truth.  The Big Bang Theory has been proven both scientifically and biblically to be false.  Why would the WCAC use funds contributed to it by members of the Lord’s church and others to publish material that is blatantly false?
Error Number Two:  Errors of Epistemology
In the book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One and Lessons From Space, Stone affirms that we cannot know anything with certainty (see the second edition, p. 19).  He affirms probablism.  Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, its presuppositions and basis, and the general reliability of claims to knowledge (Paul Edwards, editor, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3 and 4, p. 9).  Thomas Warren, for whom the WCAC is named, believed that we can know with certainty that God exists, the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  It is interesting to note, that Charles Pugh III, director of the WCAC is on record as stating that the WCAC is not a cookie cutter of the apologetics of Thomas Warren (first edition, 157).  Why name the center after Thomas Warren and not represent the apologetics of Thomas Warren?  Nobie Stone denies that we can know anything with certainty.  How can the WCAC affirm the Christian Worldview and at the same time publish materials that deny we can know that God exists with absolute certainty?
Error Number Three:  Elevation of Scientific Theory Over the Scriptures
In the book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One and Lessons From Space, the author affirms that the theories of science, the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory take primacy over the Scriptures.  Stone wrests the scriputures in Genesis 1 to fit his bias toward these scientific theories.  The scientific theories have never been proven and, yet, they are elevated over the infallible Word of God.  This causes Stone to reinterpret the days of Genesis 1.  He affirms that each “day” was an indeterminate age and not a twenty-four hour period of time.  This is commonly referred to as the “Day-Age” theory.   Denis Lamoureux in Evolutionary Creation-A Christian Approach to Evolution, states, “The hermeneutical primacy of science certainly leads to a counterintuitive reading of the Bible” (p. 175).  In order to reinterpret the Scriptures to fit scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang, Stone must violate several hermeneutical principles including lexical meanings and grammatical forms of the Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was written.  I would like to affirm that the Scriptures are the final authority and not science.  God cannot lie!  (I Sam. 15:29, Titus 1:2, Heb. 6:18).  God expressly states, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).  Any theory that contradicts a plain passage of Scripture is a false theory (Thomas Warren affirms this principle in Logic and the Bible, 75,76).  The WCAC has affirmed that it will uphold the Christian Worldview.  How can you have a Christian Worldview without affirming the integrity of the Scriptures?
Error Number Four:  Practicing Ecumenism
Ecumenism is the false practice of fellowshipping denominational persons and errors without rebuke.  The WCAC is a parachurch organization.  The WCAC has attempted to legitimize its practices and open fellowship of false religion by stating that they are not the church of Christ.  They have accepted and will accept monies from any source that is friendly toward their stated purpose.  A parachurch organization is an organization that functions outside of the church but claims to be doing a work of the church.  Apologetics is a work of the church (I Pet. 3:15).  The WCAC is not the church, but claims to be doing a work of the church and so claims to help the church.  However, when the WCAC became involved in publishing and promoting religious error, it ceased being helpful to the church and became an enemy of the church.  When the WCAC began to openly fellowship those in religious error, they stopped being a friend of the church of Christ.  The open fellowship of religious error is a violation of Ephesians 5:11.  “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”  And, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (II Cor. 6:14-15). The WCAC demonstrated its willingness to openly fellowship religious error by hosting Devin Brown in the recent spring lectures.  Brown is a scholar from Asbury University (a Methodist school-specifically Wesleyan-Arminian).  He is an expert on C.S. Lewis.  C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionists who affirmed common descent believing that human beings evolved from lower life forms (monkeys to man theory).  C. S. Lewis is referred to by Brown and by Charles Pugh III as a Christian theist.  C.S. Lewis was never a member of the church of Christ. C.S. Lewis was a member of the church of Ireland which was Episcopal.  Robert Beasley in his book, Set Me Free, offers a suggestion on how members of the churches of Christ could fellowship denominational people.  He mentions parachurch organizations.  Beasley states, “There are a number of parachurch organizations that are intended not to replace the church, but to focus on particular issues confronting Christians in our modern world. The focus of these groups will be on the essential truths of the Christian faith, without delving into issues that divide denominations” (188).  Beasley suggests Promise Keepers as an example of a parachurch organization that members of the churches of Christ could fellowship.  Charles Pugh III is using the WCAC in a similar fashion.  Is there any person involved in teaching or promoting religious error that the WCAC would not fellowship?  If so, on what basis?
Error Number Five:  Misuse of Funds
The WCAC directors solicit funds from anyone who is sympathetic toward the stated purpose of the center.  They solicit funds from Christians and from churches of Christ and from non-members who are unbelievers.  This of necessity involves the attempt to combine together individuals who are both believers and unbelievers in a common religious cause.  It is an attempt to bring together the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God in accomplishing one cause.  This is a fundamental error of the design of the WCAC.  Jesus stated that, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25).  Does this principle apply to the WCAC?  If the WCAC upholds the truth about God, Jesus Christ and the Bible, would not that very truth destroy the denominationalists who were supporting the WCAC with their money and their resources?  The WCAC uses funds contributed to it to publish religious error (Big Bang theory, old earth view, false views of epistemology–all noted earlier).  For instance, $15,000.00 has been spent to publish Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis One and Lessons from Space in the two editions printed.  How many members of the church of Christ know that the money they have contributed to the WCAC has gone to publish religious error and promote false religionists?
Error Number Six:  Hypocrisy
The WCAC fellowships the unfruitful works of darkness in order to do a work of the church!  The WCAC director pays lip service to the Bible while publishing materials that contradict plain passages of Scripture in the Bible.  The biblical definition of hypocrisy is stated by the Lord in Matthew 23:3, “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”  Hypocrisy involves saying one thing and doing another.  Hypocrisy is also manifested in the fundamental error of the WCAC in its attempt to bring together the kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God in order to accomplish a work of the church of Christ.
Error Number Seven:  Division
A sad state has developed in the churches of Christ due to the divisive nature of the WCAC.  Churches and brethren have been separated.  Lines of fellowship have been drawn.  Apologetics Centers have been pitted against each other.  For instance, Apologetics Press, in 2019 has printed five different articles upholding the young earth view which is a stated purpose of the apologetics center.  Most know that this center is closely associated with the churches of Christ.  The articles appeared in Reason and Revelation a publication of Apologetics Press.  The recent articles are:  21 Reasons To Believe The Earth is Young, Jeff Miller, Ph.D., Jan. 2019, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 2-5, 8-10.  How Long Were Adam and Eve in the Garden Before Sinning?  Jeff Miller, Ph.D., February, 2019, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 20-23.  Was the Flood Global?  Jeff Miller, Ph. D., April, 2019, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 38-47.  Behemoth and Leviathan Part I, May, 2019, vol.  39, no. 5, Dave Miller Ph. D., pp. 50-57.  Behemoth and Leviathan Part II, Dave Miller, Ph. D., June, 2019, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 62-69.  The WCAC does not uphold the young earth view as noted above as evidenced by their publication of Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis One and Lessons From Space.  Apologetics Press has also published numerous articles refuting the Big Bang Theory which was advanced by Nobie Stone in his work (I have referenced these in my reviews of both editions of Nobie Stone’s book).  This clearly pits one apologetics center against another apologetics center which is ironic since both claim to be upholding the Bible.  No parachurch organization is worth causing division in the body of Christ.

In a series of articles, we have been exposing the fallacies of Theistic Evolution.  Part V of this series, continues to reveal the false ideas inherent in the doctrine.
9.  Some Theistic Evolutionists deny substitutionary atonement.  Substitutionary atonement is the biblical doctrine that Jesus died in the place of sinners, i.e. He endured the punishment (unjustly) that sinners rightfully deserve. Jesus did this to satisfy the justice of God and provide for the atonement of sin.  Joseph Bankard on the BioLogos (a term coined by Francis Collins) website affirms: “substitutionary atonement does not fit well with the theory of evolution.”  He explains, “If evolution is true, then the universe is very old, humans evolved from primates…[and]…the Fall is not a historical event….However, if denying the historical Fall calls into question the doctrine of original sin, then it also calls into question the role of the cross of Christ within substitutionary atonement.  If Jesus didn’t die in order to overcome humanity’s original sin, then why did Jesus die?  What is Jesus, the second Adam, attempting to restore with the cross, if not the sin of the first Adam? Substitutionary atonement sees original sin as a major reason for Christ’s death. But macroevolution calls the Fall and the doctrine of original sin into question.  Thus, evolution poses a significant challenge to substitutionary atonement” (Theistic Evolution, p. 707).  Bankard affirms in Part 2 of his article that, in his alternative view of the cross, “Christ’s death was not a part of God’s divine plan” (emphasis added) (Theistic Evolution, p. 707 an article by Colin R. Reeves, “Bringing Home the Bacon: The Interaction of Science and Scripture Today). The doctrine of substitutionary atonement is taught in the Scriptures.  Peter states, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed” (I Peter 2:24).  God’s Word declares “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself…So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9:26,28). In refutation of Bankard’s claim that “Christ’s death was not a part of God’s divine plan” consider Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”  “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). With respect to substitutionary atonement, theistic evolutionists sound similar to evolutionists who are also atheists.  G. Richard Bozarth, an atheist, states, “…evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.  Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god…If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing! (Theistic Evolution, 706). We cannot accept the claims of evolution and adhere to historical Christianity.  Theistic evolutionists attempt to marry the lie of evolution with the truth of creation.  But, they fail to realize that the result is another lie and not the truth.  They thus assault the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Theistic Evolution is the belief that God used evolution as his means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life.  Several of the consequences of Theistic Evolution have already been considered in previous posts.  In this article, we want to consider yet another result of Theistic Evolution.
8.  Some Theistic Evolutionists deny the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (also referred to as the perspicuity of Scripture).  Francis Collins, a theistic evolutionists, in his book, The Language of God, 153, states, “Despite twenty-five centuries of debate, it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be.”  The word perspicuity means clarity.  To say that something is perspicacious is to say that it is clear.  The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.  Genesis 1 and 2 contain the essential information  concerning the doctrine of creation.  If we affirm that no one can understand these two chapters in Genesis, we are giving up on one of the most important doctrines in the Bible.  Genesis 1 and 2 answer the question of man’s origin, nature, and relationship to his creator.  Creation is a supernatural act performed by an all-powerful, all-wise God.  The doctrine of clarity of Scripture is taught in several passages both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.  For instance, in Deut. 6:6-7, Moses instructs the Israelites to teach the Law to their children.  If God intended for children to learn the Law, then, certainly adults can learn it.  The creation of all things by God is one of the things that children can learn.  Paul told Timothy, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:15).  The phrase, holy scriptures, is a reference to the Old Testament which includes an account of the creation.  Paul knew that children could understand the Scriptures.  Understanding God’s Word is essential to being wise.  “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).  The person who knows and obeys the sayings of Jesus is a wise man (Matt. 7:24-27).  Jesus said that knowing the truth is essential to salvation (John 8:32).  Jesus also referenced Gen. 1 and 2 in Matt. 19:4 and understood it literally.  Spiritual discernment involves knowing good from evil (Heb. 5:14).  Paul states, “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:6).  Paul’s mission was to open the eyes of the Gentiles, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive the forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18).  Paul opened their eyes through the proclamation of the gospel of Christ (I Cor. 1:23 and 2:2). The apostle Paul referenced Adam as a historical person and called him the “first man” (I Cor. 15:45; Rom. 5:12-21).  Both Jesus and Paul understand Genesis 1 and 2.  Why doesn’t Francis Collins?  Collins attempts to escape into agnosticism because he will not elevate the truth of the Scriptures over his own interpretation of scientific data.

Theistic Evolution is not innocent.  Theistic Evolution involves the attempt to marry the lie of evolution with the truth of creation.  However, the result is not the truth, but another lie.  In Part I of this study, we considered three consequences of theistic evolution that sufficiently show the errors involved in this theory.  Now, we will consider more problems that this theory presents.

Fourth, some theistic evolutionists deny the incarnation of Jesus.  The idea of evolution and thus of “common descent” undermines the foundation of the incarnation of Jesus.  Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of the incarnation with evolutionary thought:  “The only way that I see of resolving the contradiction (between evolution and the incarnation of Jesus) is to ascribe a basic historical relativity to the person of Jesus Christ” (Werner Gitt, Did God Use Evolution? 96).  Theistic evolution contributes to a loss of meaning regarding the nature of Jesus Christ.  This fact violates I John 4:2-3 and identifies some theistic evolutionists as anti-Christ.  John writes, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

Fifth, theistic evolution relativises the work of Jesus’ in redemption.  In the New Testament, Adam is identified as the first man (I Cor. 15:45; I Tim. 2:13).  Many theistic evolutionists deny that Adam was the first man and they deny that Adam was created by God directly.  They interpret Genesis 1 and 2 as myth and not as historic fact.  Francis Collins in his book, The Language of God, denies that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical reality.  Instead, he argues that they must be interpreted as symbolic allegory (myth).  Collins denies that Adam and Eve were historical humans that actually lived in the Garden of Eden.  He writes, “As noted previously, studies of human variation, together with the fossil record, all point to an origin of modern humans approximately a hundred thousand years ago, most likely in East Africa.  Genetic analyses suggest that approximately ten thousand ancestors gave rise to the entire population of 6 billion humans on the planet” (207).  Collins affirms that humans descended from great apes as part of an evolutionary process.  He states as tenets of theistic evolution, “Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes” (200).  How did humans come to possess a soul and express moral law?  Collins defers to C. S. Lewis for the explanation.  Lewis, a theistic evolutionist,  wrote the following explanation, “For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself.  He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated.  The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends.  Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past…We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state, But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods…They wanted some corner of the universe of which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But, there is no such corner” (208-209).  Collins quoted at length from Lewis’ work, The Problem of Pain, 68-71. Both Collins and Lewis believe that God used evolution to create.  However, Collins affirms that once the process of evolution began, God ceased to have a part.  Yet, when quoting from Lewis, it appears that God caused a new kind of consciousness to descend upon animal creatures specially prepared by God.  After receiving this undefined spiritual infusion, the creature fell.  Thus we have Collins’ explanation for man’s soul and his fall into sin.  Jesus places the creation of the first man and woman at the beginning (Matt. 19:4-5; Gen. 1 and 2).  Paul spoke of Adam as a historical reality (Romans 5:12-21).  Paul connects the redemptive work of Christ (the second Adam) to the introduction of sin into the world by Adam.  He shows that Christ’s redemptive work is able to correct the spiritual loss brought about by Adam’s sin and the subsequent sins of human beings by providing atonement for sin.  If Adam is not a real, historical, person, how can we accept Jesus’ redemptive work as real?  Compare Lewis’ explanation of the origin of the soul of man with Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.”  Which seems more reasonable?  Which seems “historical” and which seems “mythical?”

Theistic Evolution attempts to marry a lie (the theory of evolution) with the truth (the creation of all things by God).  The result is a false theory.  Yet, theistic evolution is popular among evangelicals and other Christians.  Theistic evolutionists vary in their explanations of how God used evolution to create.  They are also married to the concept of an old earth (4 to 5 billion years) and an even older universe (approximately 14 billion years).  A good definition of theistic evolution is: “Broadly speaking, theistic evolution is the belief that God used evolution as his means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life” (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 233). What are some of the consequences of theistic evolution?

First, there is the denial of central biblical teaching.  The Bible is the final authority in all matters that pertain to religion.  The apostle Paul believed everything that is written in the law and in the prophets (Acts 24:14).  Jesus authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible (Luke 16:17).  Jesus believed in the historical account of the creation of the first human couple (Matt. 19:4-5); the universality of the flood (Matt. 24:38-39); and the history of Jonah (Matt. 12:40-41).  Theistic evolutionists deny that God created all things in six days (Gen. 1; Exodus 20:11).  The theory of evolution demands long ages or periods of time.  This fact forces theistic evolutionists to alter the interpretation of Gen. 1 and 2 to accommodate long periods of time.  The problem with this is that it contradicts plain passages of Scripture.  It contradicts God and calls God a liar.

Second, theistic evolution misrepresents the nature of God.  The Triune God is creator of all things.  Jesus is the true God and the everlasting life (I John 5:20).  God the Father created all things through His Son (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16).  All things in the heavens, the earth and the sea (Exodus 20:11).  All things including things that are visible and invisible (Col. 1:16).  Everything God created was perfect and good.  In the theory of evolution, progress is brought about by pain and death.  The Darwinistic principle of “the survival of the fittest” means that superior organisms will win the battle for survival. The biblical principle of God’s nature (the goodness and the holiness of God) is distorted when death and ghastliness are presumed to be creative principles. Wolfgang Böhme, a theologian who supports evolution, even goes as far as to say that he regards sin as a harmless evolutionary factor. “If development has to go forward, sin is a marginal phenomenon at the edge of the great process of evolution, perhaps even a necessary feature.  Nature cannot sin.  Can man then be sinful when he is merely the product of nature, a link in the chain of nature’s creatures, taken from the earth to which we must someday return?” (Werner Gitt, Did God Use Evolution, 93).  If man is not capable of sin, the entire scheme of redemption revealed in God’s Word is useless.

Third, the nature of man is distorted.  The theory of evolution promotes the idea of common ancestry and affirms that human beings are the result of evolution from lower life forms.  In the book, Apes, five stages of development are considered:  orangutans, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and human beings.  Francis Collins argues in The Language of God that “the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable” (The Language of God, 136-137).  Collins is a theistic evolutionist.  Evolutionists are materialists who deny the spiritual realities including that man has a soul.  Theistic evolution attempts to marry a purely materialistic explanation for life with a miraculous explanation for life (God’s creative acts).  Evolutionists would completely reject this attempt.  Here are some of the distinctions between animals and man: (1) The human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world; (2) Man possesses the faculty of speech.  He is able to make abstractions and to use his system of signs for metalingual purposes; (3) Only man is fully bipedal; (4) only man is able to express emotions; (5) only man is created in the image of God; (6) Only man received the breath of God and became a living soul (I Thess. 5:23); (7) Only man can actually communicate with God; (8) Only man has free will and is accountable to God; (9) Only man has the faculty of creative thought.  Human beings possess gifts such as freely developing personalities, inventiveness, and the capacity of cultural development (writing, music, historical awareness); (10) the Bible clearly differentiates between different types of flesh (I Cor. 15:39); (11) Only man receives the calling to become a child of God (John 1:12); and (12) Only man is an eternal being (Luke 16:19-31) (see Werner Gitt, Did God Use Evolution?, 68-70). (More to follow).

Graham Bell, James McGill Professor at McGill University in Montreal, and author of the Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, provides the headline, “The Queen of Evolutionary Problems.” Bell states, “Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality” (F. LaGard Smith, Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem, 160).

The Problem
“There is no viable evolutionary explanation for the existence of male/female meiotic sexual reproduction (Ibid. 88). Lacking any sexual DNA, mitosis could not have provided either the information or mechanisms required for the radically different process of meiosis (Ibid. 88).

What is Mitosis and Meiosis?
Mitosis is a process of cell reproduction that is observed in one-cell organisms and human cell growth.  No male and no female are involved in producing cell duplication. Mitosis is a process of cell duplication, or reproduction, during which one cell gives rise to two genetically identical daughter cells. Before a cell divides to make two cells, it copies all of its chromosomes.  These copies, called sister chromatids, are identical.  The result of this cell division is two identical cells each having 46 chromosomes.  
Meiosis is a type of cell division that results in reducing the number of chromosomes in half and creating genetic diversity.  “Meiosis begins like mitosis: the cell copies each chromosome.  But unlike in mitosis, homologous chromosome pairs line up and exchange pieces-a process called recombination. Remember, homologous chromosomes have the same genes but with slight differences. Recombination increases genetic diversity by putting pieces of slightly different chromosomes together” (https://learn. genetics.utah. edu/content/ basics/diagnose/). Then, the two newly combined homologous chromosomes are divided into two daughter cells which have 23 chromosomes having a unique combination of gene variations. This process of cell division produces egg and sperm cells.  Through the process of fertilization, the egg and sperm cells combine to make a cell with 46 chromosomes called a zygote.  The process of fertilization involves a male and a female of the same species.  
Mitosis and meiosis are both processes which describe the production of new cells. Mitosis produces two daughter cells which are genetically identical to the parent cell. Each daughter cell is diploid (contains the normal number of chromosomes). This is the result of DNA replication and 1 cell division. Mitosis is used in growth and asexual reproduction. Meiosis produces 4 daughter cells, each of which are unidentical to the parent cell and to one another. Each daughter cell is haploid (contains half the number of normal chromosomes). This is the result of DNA replication, followed by crossing over of homologous chromosomes and separation of chromosomes. There are two cell divisions: the parent cell divides once and then each cell produced by this first division divides once. Meiosis is used to produce gametes (sperm and egg cells), the cells of sexual reproduction. Two gametes fuse to form a zygote, a diploid cell with the full number of chromosomes.

Evolution Refuted
Evolution theory teaches that the first organisms simply copied themselves (mitosis). Consequently, normative gendered sex as seen throughout nature could not have begun without the appearance of the first-ever male and female organisms, mating in a never-before-seen way, and reproducing by a revolutionary method of reducing their chromosomes precisely by half then blending those halves together to produce one-of-a-kind offspring (Ibid. xxi). The queen of evolution’s problems is to explain how those first-ever sexually reproducing organisms possibly could have evolved before sexual reproduction existed. Evolutionists have failed to show how organisms could go from mitosis to meioses through gradation. The process of sexual reproduction is irreducibly complex. Consequently, there are no steps from mitosis to meiosis.

Darwins’ Admission
Darwin states, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” (Ibid. xi). It is impossible for organisms to evolve through gradual steps from mitosis to meiosis.

Creation’s Affirmation
The creation account in Genesis 1 affirms that every creature is created by God and is capable of bearing after its kind. This is the law of kinds. Jesus affirms the truthfulness of this law in Matthew 7:16-ff. Microbe to man evolution is false.