COULDN’T GOD HAVE USED EVOLUTION?

Anyone is welcome to read this section but it is written for Christians.

‘Why couldn’t God have created through evolution?’

Could God have created through evolution, as so many people seem to  say? There is enough material in that question to write a book, but I want to set out the issues as simply as I can.

To get a few essentials out of the way, I define a Christian as someone who is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth who holds to the historic essentials of the Christian faith as set out, for example, in the Nicene Creed. This does not necessarily involve either living a perfect life (which none of us does) or holding to a perfect set of beliefs about creation or anything else: none of us is perfect. So to put it plainly, your acceptability to God will not be decided by your views on evolution or creation but by your relationship with Jesus.

 In addressing my arguments to people who self identify as Christians I wish to be as broad and accepting as possible while remembering that Jesus explicitly warned that there would be false teachers and fake disciples to whom he will say on that terrible day‘Depart from me, I never knew you!’and of whom he said ‘Why do you call me ‘Lord!  Lord! but do not do what I tell you’.The New Testament tells us that we need to get right with God through Jesus whom God sent. We do not achieve this by ticking boxes but by surrendering our lives to Him.

If theistic evolution (the belief that the process of molecules to man evolution happened essentially as the followers of Charles Darwin say it did, but somehow God was behind the process) is a valid position for a Christian, then the following conditions must be satisfactorily answered. If not, then it must be rejected.

I argue that God could NOT have created through evolution if

1) Evolution did not occur.

2) Creating by evolution would have violated God’s nature and character.

3) God clearly said that he did not create through evolution, and so therefore it would make God a liar.

4) If the acceptance of Darwinian evolution clearly damages the Christian faith and/or causes evil.

let’s briefly consider each point in turn

1) Evolution did not in fact occur. I’ll be brief here, this matter is covered in the rest of the site and on links. In summary….

Darwinian evoution in the sense of all living things descending by innumberable small changes from a common ancestor, presumably a self-assembled bacterium, is pure speculation. It has never been observed. The so called evidence for it is endlessly repeated and grossly exaggerated. The abundant evidence it against sidelined and ignored, even prohibited by law. Its not a theory, its a fanciful and failed hypothesis, more of a myth really. Dr Vij Sodera’s book ‘One Small Speck to Man: The Evoution Myth’ shows brilliantly with meticulously assembled facts from a wide range of scientific disciplines just how tenuous and fragile the evidence for molecules to man evolution really is when you examine it critically.

Evolution is most often argued for by appealing to minor variations between isolated populations of animals on islands. This was the main item discussed on the recent Bill Bailey programme about Alfred Russel Wallace’s observations which were similar to Darwin’s. These changes are real, and explained by variation and natural selection, but they are very limited, i.e. they do not pass the genomic limits of the species and can often be reversed in a few generations (as in Darwin’s finches and the peppered moth).

Although we see minor variations within the genomic limits of species(e.g. the 6,000 or so varieties of apple, 200 or so varieties of dog, many different racial groups of human who remain a single species)  evolution beyond this has never been observed. Attempts to reproduce it have failed.  Darwin took the example of limited variation which we do see, and extrapolated from it to insist that far bigger changes must have happened in the distant past. But he had no evidence base for this assertion. Such major changes (sometimes called macro evolution) have never been observed. Apples, for example, have been actively cross bred during the whole of human history in a deliberate attempt to get as many different varieties as possible. Thousands of apple varieties have been bred,  but never anything other than apples. The same is true for dogs, horses, cats, grass etc,and humans too.

Darwin‘s beliefs versus the evidence

Variation within species has been demonstrated, but Darwin’s belief that the species barriers could be crossed so that all life forms could have descended from a common ancestor remains just that-a belief. And what is even worse for Darwin’s theory, if you leave highly bred apples or dogs to themselves, the number of vareties DECREASES quite rapidly as the fancy ones die out under natural selection leaving hardy crab apples and mongrels. Darwin knew this because he acknowledged the problem, so was he lying or just being thick when he insisted that natural selection could be assumed to do far more than intelligent selection-when he observed the exact opposite?

Irreducible complexity falsifies Darwinism.

There are many complex and vital systems in biology which contain many different sub-systems, all of which must be present in perfect working order before any of it works. Photosynthesis, Krebs cycle, DNA check and repair, protein synthesis, the immune system, cell division, the mammalian ear, vision etc are just a few examples. How could these structures have come into being by gradual chance processes and natural selection, since they don’t work AT ALL until they are 100% complete? You cannot travel gradually by many small steps from A to Z if P is fatal. The irreducible complexity of these structures and systems completely destroys Darwinism. No wonder that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate with creationists and uses behind the scenes lobbying and insults to stop people hearing the evidence against his beloved Evolutionism.

We have been deceived

Darwinian evolution is inconsistent with many scientific facts, such as the observed fixity of species within narrow limits, the deleterious nature of mutations, the lack of intermediate forms in life or the fossil record, the irreducible complexity of cellular nanomachinery, what we know about the origin of meaningful information, and the non-functional nature of supposed intermediate forms (e.g. half formed lungs, bones, blood cells etc which don’t work until they are fully functional thus destroying the ‘gradualist’ argument). These points are developed in depth elsewhere in this site and on linked sites. The point is that these issues are never discussed-all we ever get is the constant drip, drip, drip indoctrination of evoutionist propaganda.

Not guilty!

Imagine the denouement at the end of a TV Agatha Christie detective play. The suspects are gathered in the library as the detective confidently explains how the circumstantial evidence points to Colonel Mustard as the man who killed Miss Primrose. The police are about to put on the handcuffs when there is a knock at the door and in comes the lady in question, alive and well! The case is dismissed. Colonel Mustard cannot have killed Miss Primrose as she is still alive! There is no need to frame God for evolution, as it did not occur!

There is no need for Christians to sell or debase large parts of our faith to the atheists by surrendering to evolutionism, just say no! Their so called ‘mountains of overwhelming evidence!’  mostly consist of bluster, misrepresentation, compulsory indoctrination, bullying, censorship and propaganda.

2) Creating though evolution would have violated God’s nature and character. God is what he knows himself to be. He cannot be what he is not. He cannot act against his nature.

There is a rather childish question ‘Can God make a rock so big that he could not lift it?’ The answer is no, because a rock that is too big for God to lift is an absurdity, a contradiction in terms like a triangular circle, therefore by definition it cannot exist. God cannot be what he is not, and he cannot act against his nature.

God is greater than us, and our fallen sinful nature separates us from him due to his perfect goodness. We must be careful not to misrepresent or diminish the Deity, nor to pretend to understand more than we do. However, some aspects of the divine nature have been revealed to us through the creation (e.g. Psalm 8, Psalm 19, Romans 1:19-20).Furthermore God has also revealed himself through his word, e.g. Moses and the prophets. Most of all, he has revealed himself through his only begotten Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

I assume that anyone reading this who calls themself a Christian believes that Jesus is the co-eternal and co-equal second member of the Blessed Trinity, begotten of the Father before time began, born in Bethlehem of a virgin according the prophecies, healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, and as the spotless Lamb of God died for our sins, was buried, rose on the third day, ascended into heaven where he is seated at the right hand of God and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. I assume therefore that you accept the words of John’s Gospel chapter 1 which says that ‘Through him all things were made’and that therefore he deserves the title King of Creation?

Did this Christ, who wept at the grave of his friend Lazarus, who said he saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18), and who said that he would be the judge of all men at the Last Day, create men from microbes over billions of years through the lumbering, chancy, destructive process of Darwinian evolution? Have you thought through what that would look like? The Jesus of the Bible, the Son of God, the Holy One, cannot have ever done anything which would violate his nature and character. Do you understand the process of Darwinian evolution as it is explained to us by those who insist it is how we were made?

Darwinian evolution supposedly involves millions of years of random mutation, deformity, disease, fighting, animals parasitizing and eating other animals, struggle and death. In evolution, the strong kills the weak while Nature, ‘…looks on with indifference, indeed with satisfaction.’ After millions of years and trillions of deaths, the struggle for inadequate resources eventually produces the first man, who now by some means aquires God’s image. And God calls all this ‘Very good’ (Genesis 1:31). Some mistake, surely?

We are told In Genesis and Paul’s letter to the Romans (the theological heart of salvational Christology) that ‘death came into the world through sin.’ (Romans 5:12, also 1Corinthians 15:21). If evolution is true, then death existed for millions of years before sin. God used death as a creative mechanism, and said that it was ‘very good’. Then why did he weep at Lazarus’s tomb? We read that Christ came to destroy death (1 Corinthians 15:26). Why would he do that if death is ‘very good’?

The Genesis story speaks of God making everything ‘very good’ and doing so in a very short time. Why would he create over millions of years, using a process which it is claimed by its promoters does not require any divine design or intervention? When Jesus multiplied loaves and fishes and turned water into wine, and most importantly when he raised Lazarus from the dead, he did so near-instantaneously, in seconds at most. This was God breaking into our world, showing us what he was like. So why would he not act in the same way when he was creating the heavens and the cosmos, earth, animals, plants and people? Attempts to fudge this issue like saying each of the days in Genesis represents millions of years, that there was a pre-Adamic race, or most sadly that it was somehow more of a miracle for God to create indirectly through evolution than directly by the word of his power result in messy and unsatisfactory compromises. 

If God could have spoken things into existence fully formed near instantaneously, why wouldn’t He? The miracles of Jesus and the resurrection happened near instantaneously by God’s divine command, why would He use a totally diferent method to create over millions of years? People who say that ‘science disprove miracles’and insist on materialistic answers must deny the resurrection as well as creation, and hence deny the whole basis of the Christian faith. I’m talking to Christians here-why accept one lot of Biblical miracles but deny another lot? Do you think that you will escape the sneers of the enemies of the Gospel until you have abandoned every last bit of it?

The idea of God using Darwinian processes of gradual improvement though millions of chance mutations and survival of the fittest has been described by David Rosevear of the Creation Science Movement as ‘wasteful, gambling and cruel.’ I agree. The supposed god of evolution is not the God of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He is an unimpressive being with poor communication skills and dumb followers who needed the godless Charles Darwin to set the record straight. I see no reason to worship or admire this deity nor any cause to fear him, as he seems just to sit back and let things happen however they will. This diminished, harmless little deist/pantheist god of evolution is no challenge to the world view of atheists or pagans. Millions have left or avoided the church because of the substitution of this sorry little god for the real One.

It is not as so often said that belief in creation puts people off church, it is more that the absent minded, weak, non-interventionist god of theistic evolution isn’t worth worshipping. He commands neither our admiration nor our fear. This is a god you can take or leave. The claims of theistic evolutionists like Dennis Alexander that creationists are putting people off the Gospel are absurd and, like the claims of Darwin, the opposite of the observable facts.

3) God cannot have created through evolution if he clearly said that he did not create through evolution. This is where theistic evolutionists will play the ‘Interpretation’ card. They will say ‘It’s all  matter of interpretation, and we can quite properly interpret the Bible to say that God created by evolution, not in six days as the text appears to say. This may have been good enough for our less enlightened ancestors, but we know better now, and we must interpret the Bible according to modern science.’The person who makes this sort of assertion will often throw in something about the Bible teaching that the earth is flat. (Which it doesn’t, that was a propaganda lie deliberately invented in the19th century to make Christians look silly-Google ‘flat earth slander’.)

This ‘interpretation’ thing is a cop out which if we go with it does not just ‘re-interpret’ the Bible but shreds it, both Old and New Testament. I am not saying that there is no possibility of Christians having differing emphases and/or equally legitimate understandings of some biblical doctrines. This is OK up to a point, although in some such cases we can see that one side is wrong because they place tradition above Scripture (as Jesus said of some people in his day). Some ‘interpretations’ may not be legitimate. We were warned about false prophets teaching false doctrines. But how can we tell which ones? I would argue that the safest way is to begin and end with Jesus and the Apostles whom he chose and appointed to carry on his work and to whom he gave the Spirit of Truth. To put it bluntly, if we want to know how best to interpret the book of Genesis, we should ask ‘How did Jesus interpret it?’

I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I am told by those who are that the book of Genesis is clearly written as history. Yes, I know that the Bible contains poetry, proverbs, apocalyptic imagery, metaphors, dreams, visions and even a few puns and other jokes. For example when Jesus said we should pluck our eyes out if they tempt us to sin he was evidently using a strong metaphor, the Bible elsewhere forbids us to self mutilate. It is clear from the context and using Scripture to interpret other Scripture that we are not to tear our eyes out or cut off our hands. So, Jesus used a strong metaphor on this occasion which was not to be taken literally. This was understood by his hearers and is the plain meaning of the passage. We can agree on that. But can we legitimately leap from this kind of example to assert that the Genesis creation story is a metaphor? Hardly. Metaphor is metaphor, history is history.

It is clear from the style and context that Genesis is written and was meant to be understood as history, even if the detail is limited. Jesus, Peter, Paul and John clearly took this view. Theistic evolutionists who think people like me are pests often berate us for‘imposing a narrow, outdated interpretation’ on Genesis. NOT GUILTY your honour! We just read it like it is. Who was it that said if we do not enter the Kingdom of God like a little child we will never enter it? The term ‘interpretation’ seems to be used to get rid of the obvious meaning that was intended by the creation account. Once this is allowed, we find the same principle is applied to the rest of the Scripture. Genesis is always the first book to be interpreted into meaninglessness by ‘modernisers’ but is rarely the last.

Phrases in the Genesis creation account like ‘..and there was evening and morning, a fourth day’ leave us in no doubt that literal days are meant by the text. Similarly, despite Dennis Alexander’s views on there being several diferent meaning of the word Adam, the plain reading of the text-and it was written for plain people- is that there was a literal Adam. A literal Adam is refered to several times in the New Testament, clearly as a historical figure. When we use the NT to interpret the OT we find a literal Adam and Eve. I use the term ‘we’ to mean a regular believer of average intelligence who fears God more than Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough. When people use appeals to sophisticated levels of scholarship that are not available to the simple believer as they seek to bring Scripture into line with the secular humanist consensus, I smell a rat, or indeed a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This ‘interpretation’ of scripture to water it down and make it less offensive to unbelievers is what the so-called ‘Higher Criticism’ was all about. Liberal theologians have tried to construct a ‘modern’ version of Christianity with most of the supernatural bits, certainly the scarier stuff, removed. So we find that the uniqueness of Christ, the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection and the last judgment are all up for ‘interpretation’ otherwise known as ‘explaining away’. For example, Jesus didn’t really miraculously multiply loaves and fishes, he just preached about love so persuasively that people shared the food they had been hiding ‘Which was perhaps a greater miracle’ as I’m sorry to say I once heard taught in RE class.

We need to be very careful about adopting a new, ‘modern’interpretation that differs from what our ancestors in the faith understood, especially as the New Testament has so many warnings about false teachers, of which perhaps the following is the most disturbing from 2^nd Peter chapter 2 verse 1

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce damnable heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.”

Jesus repeatedly warned against false teachers who would ‘lead many astray’ (see Mark 14: 22 and Matthew 24:24). In the last few pages of the Bible we find the terrifying words

“If anyone adds to the words of this book, God will add to him the plagues in this book: if anyone takes away from the words of this book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city which are described in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19)

The Bible plainly teaches that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in six literal days, about 6,000 years ago according to the genealogies. Despuite theistic evolutionists’ frequent appeals to a selective quotation from Augustine which might appear to hint at evolution, 6 day creation was the main stream Christian view for most of the centuries of Church history. This straightforward reading of Genesis is central to Paul’s salvational Christology as a plain reading of Romans tells us. If church modernisers want to tell me that during most of the Church’s history, most Christian scholars got it wrong until a godless man who rejected the Bible put them right on the basis of unproven speculation, they will have to do better than this. Which leads me to my fourth point, that the acceptance of evolution in the Church has had consequences that we may consider as evidence as to whether or not it is of God.

(PS The well known Christian leader Steve Chalke has just come out and said he has decided to ‘interpret’ the Bible to say that homosexual acts, when ‘loving’ and monogamous, are blessed by God. It is noteworthy that a few years ago at a time when his Oasis organisation was being  entrusted with much government money for his academy schools programme, Chalke severely attacked Christians who question Darwin. May we ask if this had anything to do with conditions attached to the money for his schools programme? His recent espousal of the secular humanist consensus view on same sex so called marriage, under a cloak of ‘interpretation’ of  scripture passages to make them mean the opposite of their plain meaning, as well as his watering down of the doctrine of the Atonement, is a logical development from his rejecting the plain meaning of Genesis. See Romans chapter 1 verses 18-22 and 2 Peter 2:1-3.  

Many other high profile Church leaders have followed a similar path-first Genesis is ‘interpreted’ to mean the opposite of what it appears to say,then various other key passages of Scripture, until eventually the salt has lost its savour and the candlestick is near to being removed from its place. And all the time they tell people like me that we are the problem. Funny thing, if rejection of Darwin damages the church, how come the churches who accept Darwin are declining fastest?

4) God cannot have created though evolution if the acceptance of Darwinian evolution clearly damages the Christian faith and causes evil?

Does God fight against himself? Is not all truth God’s truth? How could a more perfect knowledge of God’s creative acts damage the church as evolutionism has so evidently done?

Could anything be clearer than that the widespread acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been extremely destructive to the Christian faith? Having rejected or watered down and explained away Genesis, people have proceeded to do the same to the rest of the Bible.

No Creator, no Lawgiver, no Judge-so no need for a Saviour.

Creation is foundational to the Gospel. Every half serious New Testament student knows that the way of Salvation is set out in Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 1 to 8. in chapter 1:18-22, as soon as he has got the greetings over and at the start of his main theological argument, Paul affirms a divine supernatural creation by a sovereign God, and he also affirms that the fact of this is so obvious to all that those who deny it are culpable. Read it.

Paul writes that men who deny God ‘..have no excuse because God has made himself known through the things that have been made’. This is not an obscure little verse tucked away in a little read and difficult section of the Bible, this is straight down the line point number one in the New Testament’s most profound exposition of the Gospel. Romans goes on to tell how Christ  the second Adam died for our sins. ‘In Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive’. But if we evolved from slime, ultimately from inanimate gas that was throw out by the supposed ‘big bang’, ratyher than being created in God’s image as Genesis tells us, it is reasonable for the unbeliever to ask‘What sins?’ Theft, rape and murder for example are rightly forbidden as sinful by Scripture, but would have been integral to the evolutionary process. Why call theft sin if its perfectly natural to steal in the Struggle for Life? Why call any behaviour reprehensible if it has survival value since under evolutionism we are only deterministically derived lumps of impure carbon, prisoner to our genes?

The creation Gospel

When Paul preached to Jews, he didn’t mention creation as it was assumed they accepted this as foundational, just as there was no need to tell them that man on man sex was cursed of God. They knew that already. But when he preached to pagans in Athens, he began by proclaiming the God of creation‘in whom we live and move and have our being’. See Acts 17:16-34 especially verses 23-24. Paul was telling the pagans in Athens that they must repent of their sins, including their culpable unbelief, not because ‘Jesus loved them’ (although he did) but because Jesus had MADE them! (John 13‘Though Him all things were made, and without Him was not anything made that was made.’

If it hangs out with ducks, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck….

Darwinian evolution is beloved and enthusiastically promoted by secularist enemies of the Christian Gospel. Why would this be the case if evolution is of God? If evolution tells us more perfectly about the works of God which as the Psalm says ‘are studied by all who take pleasure in them‘ then surely evolution should turn people toGod, not away from him as we see happening. What company do we keep if we accept Darwinian molecules to man evolution? Is it company we can be happy with? You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.

The Russian dictator and mass murderer Josef Stalin and the anti-Christian polemicist Richard Dawkins were both raised as Christians but turned to atheism after reading Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ (*). Stalin murdered tens of millions in the name of his godless political creed, Dawkins notoriously opposes and blasphemes the Gospel and teaches others to do so in the name of HIS godless materialist creed. Darwinismwas also inspirational toMarx and Engels, whose wicked and false social and political philosophies spawned a century of misery and tyranny under godless communism. Their dire philosophical and economic legacy is still doing much evil today, although the harm being done today by Marxist philosophies under other names takes us beyond the scope of this essay.

From Darwin to Hitler

European history professor Richard Weikart’s scholarly study ‘From Darwin to Hitler’ explains in detail the role of Darwinian thinking in the development of Nazi theories on racial supremacy, eugenics and euthanasia. Darwinism did not desire or cause the Holocaust, but his philosophy was one of the things that helped enable it, as Weikart argues. The widespread German cultural acceptance of Darwinism facilitated the Nazi’s racist philosophy both by removing the wholesome restraints Biblical Christian faith places on the worst aspects of sinful human behaviour, and also by supposedly establishing that the way to racial perfection was through the strong eliminating the weak and preventing the ‘unfit’ from breeding. It’s not exactly cryptic, the subtitle of Darwin’s Origin of Species is ‘The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’. It is futile to deny that the Nazis were influenced by Darwinian thinking, although clearly other factors like nationalism, militarism, anti-semitism (for which the church shares some guilt)  and psychopathy were involved.

Did Darwin reveal the mind of God?

Does any of this (again, I am primarily speaking to Christians here) suggest that the Holy Spirit was working through Charles Darwin to reveal the mind of God? Has any scientific discovery, for example the discovery of gravity, the periodic table or DNA had a similar effect of turning men away from God? None that I can think of. Real science increases the believer’s sense of wonder at our great God (see Psalms 8, 19, 148, book of Job etc for a sense of this awe and wonder that was felt by the ancients) but evolution tends to turn people away from God. How then can it be of God?

There is no getting away from the fact that evolutionism is absolutely foundational to atheism and the whole secularist godless mind set. Dawkins clearly understood this when he wrote in his book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ that ‘Darwin made it possible to be am intellectually satisfied atheist.’ Since this is so, should Christians promote the ‘theory’? We are warned to avoid godless philosophies that are according to this world and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

If we came, not ‘from monkeys’ but from primal sludge, from dirty water, volcano belches and sparks, and before that from hydrogen atoms thrown out by the supposed ‘Big Bang’, in a process in which God was at most an occasional tinkerer, at worst an indifferent bystander, then this has profound implications for who we are and where we are going.

The Christian religion is diminished by evolutionism whatever gloss anyone puts on it. If evolution were true, we would have to accept this diminution and deal with it-but it isn’t, so we don’t. As it is, very few theistic evolutionist Christians even attempt to deal with the conflict, they simply avoid and try to smooth over the fundamental dissonance between the two positions and perhaps buy another worshiptainment CD or preach a sermon about ‘inclusion’ as secularists and Islamists make ever greater advances against a church that won’t stand her ground.

By their fruits shall ye know them

Jesus said we would know false prophets by their fruits (Matthew 7:16) by which he evidently ment the outcomes of following their teachings.. The fruits of Darwinism include communism, atheism, agnosticism, the destruction of the traditional family and a weak church with a low view of Scripture. Funny thing that, don’t you think, if evolution is of God? If it was really of God, shouldn’t Darwin’s suposed discoveries have led to a great revival of true faith rather than the great falling away they have in fact led to?

If God had created through evolution, Jesus would have known.

If evolution is of God, why did it take the agnostic Darwin and aggressive anti-Christians like T H Huxley and Ernst Haeckel to develop and progress the theory? How is it that Christians who worship Jesus, who clearly took Genesis as history whenever he referred to it, need to be told how to interpret the words of Jesus by enemies of the Gospel? Was Jesus thick? Was he holding back on the full truth as it would have been too difficult for people to understand? Given that he spoke some very difficult things indeed, so tat some said of him ‘This man speaks hard things, we will no longer follow him’, this makes no sense.

 If Christ was the true Son of God, the Angel of the Lord, the glorious ever-existing second person of the blessed Trinity, then if he had created through evolution, he would have know it. He said that‘before Abraham was , I AM‘ and ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven’.These two statements clearly show that Jesus not only knew that he was God but that he remembered the events of past ages as he had been there. How do we square this with the assertion of theistic evolutionists that Jesus the man had as apart of laying aside his majesty to become man had also laid aside important memories? If the TEs are to be believed, then the statements of Jesus about the historicity of Genesis were either forgetfulness of deliberate lies.

As a doctor, I sometimes tell patients (for example with cancer) less than the whole truth, although I willl always tell them anything they ask to be told even if its dreadful. Its generally accepted that you don’t force some kinds of information on people unless they are clearly ready for it or ask direct questions. But I would never tell them a completely different version of their prospects that bore no relation to reality. If God had created through evolution over millions of years, if there had been no literal Adam and Eve and no Flood, Jesus would have known, so why didn’t he say? He could have given a simple version for a pre-scentific age. The pagans of the time had ideas about the universe birthing itself and life gradually forming. No, Jesus stuck to the Moses account. Theistic evolutionists, think carefully about this before attacking creationists as pea brained simpletons, as you are saying the same about our Lord.

The specially prepared people, the Jews, to whom the Christ, the saviour of mankind came according to God’s pre-ordained plan from ages past evidently took Genesis literally. So did God choose and instruct the Jews in error? If God new He had created through evolution, He could have told the story to Moses in a way that the Jews would have understood. No, we are turning the Bible inside out and upside down in order to try to avoid criticism -from people who think we are deluded  superstitious morons anyway!

Is creation the sore point for unbelievers, or obedience to God?

Imagine a man who becomes convicted of sin and turns to Christ. At pre-baptism talks he accepts the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the atonement, resurrection and eternal life, but when told that the church also teaches Biblical creation he turns his nose up at this‘One miracle too far’ and goes back to atheism.

How likely is this?

Yet theistic evolutionists repeatedly accuse those of us who share the creationist beliefs of our Christian forebears of putting people off the faith. Is it not rather the other way around? The growth is happening in churches that take the Bible seriously. Christianity is meant to be counter cultural and distinct from the world, at least when the Church finds herself in a pagan culture which I fear we must now recognise Britain as.

‘I will spew you out of My mouth’

Islam does not negotiate with Darwinism or allow its ‘holy book’ to be ‘interpreted’ by people who are opposed to it. Islam with its simplistic and intolerant message is growing in the West, and may grow more as people increasingly become dissatisfied with hedonism and godless materialism. As the world gets worse and worse, spiritually hungry people will look to a religion that has confidence in itself and its holy book, not one that is always backing down before the materialistic world system. Jesus said that if salt loses its savour it is fit for nothing but to be thrown out (Matthew 5:13) and that if we became lukewarm, he would spit us out of his mouth (Revelation 3:16). Surely in these last days it’s better to take a bold stand for biblical creation and accept the slander of those who detest us (they will detest us anyway) rather than whimperingly back down and be ignored as an irrelevance by all. May as well be hanged as a creationist sheep as a resurrectionist lamb.

Worship God for Evolution? if not, why not?

Finally, I want to ask if evolution is of God then why don’t we praise and worship him for it? I have heard God praised for his work in creation in many hymns, choruses and worship songs during my decades as a Christian in Catholic, Anglican, Baptist and Charismatic churches. I have never heard a hymn praising God for random mutations, struggle for existence and natural selection. If God created through evolution, we should worship him for it. Why don’t we? Could it be because it would be absurd and embarrassing? If so, what can we learn from that?

There is however a mocking parody ‘Evolutionary Hymn’ from the great C S Lewis, see adjacent page  C S Lewis on evolution.

<><><><><><><><> 

Theistic evolution seems to me a failed attempt to gain respectability by compromising-very one sidedly I might add-with a world system that is separated from God because of its proud sin and hard heart. I will say it again, churches and individuals that start by rejecting Genesis to be ‘modern’ end up rejecting the miracles, the atonement, the resurrection and the coming judgment.

Friends, brothers and sisters in Christ, what is the worst that could happen if we adopt a plain 6 day creation within a time span indicated by the genealogies? Currently, the church in the west, having largely adopted Darwinism and theistic evolution, is on the slide while hedonism, New Age spirituality, indifference, nature worship, atheism and Islam are all growing. For me, the greatest tragedy in all this is that the evidence that exposes Darwinism as failed science, revoutionary propaganda and materialist philosophy with its roots in paganism (see Andrew Sibley’s new book ‘Cracking the Darwin Code) is really quite straightforward once you examine it. As the song goes, ‘A little bit of courage is all we lack.’ Please join me to throw some rotten cabbages and bad eggs at the naked emperor.

The only thing that Dawkins truly fears from the church is that we should comprehend and over throw the mountain of lies that support his beloved idol Darwin.

We may as well be despised and rejected as creationists. The world despises and rejects Jesus anyway. Who is on the Lord’s side?