Currently an intensifying battle is being waged to win the hearts and minds of Christians to accept the evolutionary worldview as the correct one and to recognize that the biblical account of creation needs to be interpreted in that light. Well-known and respected theologians cause many orthodox believers to waver and doubt as they push evolutionary views through organizations such as BioLogos. ¹ Some consider it anti-intellectual to reject evolutionary theories of the world's origins and to accept the clear testimony of Scripture. The effects of this conflict are also felt in our circles and the stakes are very high. At issue is the authority of Scripture and whether one can really believe the clear teachings of God's Word. In this editorial I would like to focus on one example of what happens when the clear teaching of Scripture is challenged. But first we need to remind ourselves of the nature of the struggle that we are engaged in.

The Nature of the Struggle⤒🔗

Evolutionary theory on the origin of creation is ultimately rooted in the conviction that God has little to do with the material world in which we live. This world came about by chance. Consistent evolutionists believe that there was no divine Creator. The fervency with which this article of faith is held is obvious from the heated attacks against those who would suggest that creation and the natural world can best be explained by an intelligent cause rather than a random undirected process of evolution. To suggest an intelligent cause is to suggest that God must be behind creation and he must be excluded! It is unscientific to presuppose God's existence and involvement in nature. The vilification of creationist scientists is even worse.

When evolutionary theories of earth's beginnings have such godless roots, the fruits of such thinking predictably contradict the Bible. While Scripture teaches that God created man with a definite purpose and agenda, evolutionary theory denies any purpose of creation and man in particular. According to Neo-­Darwinian theory (one popular interpretation of evolution), it all evolved randomly and boils down to a struggle for survival and only the most fit make it. While Scripture teaches that God created Adam and Eve as the first humans on earth, evolution denies this truth and speaks of Adam having ancestors. It is clear that evolutionary theory arises out of a worldview that is hostile to a biblical way of thinking and looking at the world.

But, someone may ask, has science not shown that Adam and Eve were not the first humans and they had animal ancestors? There are interpretations of the evidence to this effect, but such a view is not the same as a fact. It is beyond the limits of this editorial to go into depth, but a few comments are appropriate. Scientific theories are not neutral. Information is interpreted on the basis of certain presuppositions and one's worldview. It has been correctly said that "you can find scientific proofs for just about any world-view you happen to fancy. Any scientist could come up with equally good proofs for the opposite of evolution."²

With respect to the hypothesis that humans have animal ancestors because they share much genetic material (DNA), there are compelling scientific reasons to cast doubt on this theory. Furthermore, and more fundamentally, science moves beyond its competence when it starts to pontificate about origins and how things were in the beginning. In much current discussion this central fact is largely ignored. This limitation needs to be reaffirmed and underlined. Science as practised using the scientific method must deal with current phenomena and observable facts that can be recorded and measured. Proposed explanations find support when phenomena can be reproduced by scientific experiments or when they make predictions which are later verified. Science cannot know how this world and everything in it was made and scientists cannot reproduce God's acts of creation. God's work of making this world out of nothing must be accepted in faith on God's authority as he has informed us in his Word (Heb 11:1-3). For this reason, the struggle against the dogma of evolution is ultimately about whose authority to accept – God's or man's.

To help us distinguish the spirits of the times, our Saviour has given us a helpful criterion. He commanded in his Word: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them ... every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matt 7:15-17). We need to consider the fruits of evolution theory. Let us consider one recent example of interpreting the Bible with a view to evolution.³

Was Adam a Real Person?←⤒🔗

One consequence of evolutionary theory has been the denial of the existence of Adam. The BioLogos website expounds this view because evolutionary theory demands it. If Adam did not exist, how then does one interpret the opening chapters of Scripture? Peter Enns of BioLogos has come up with a novel approach.

The account of Adam's creation and subsequent disobedience is simply a late reflection of Israel's history. The history of Israel came first and "the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel's origins."⁴ The reasoning of Enns is as follows. As Israel was "created" by God at the Exodus after a cosmic battle against the gods, so Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1. As Israel was given a land flowing with milk and honey, so Adam was given paradise. As Israel would remain in the land as long as they obeyed God, so Adam could remain in the garden as long as he obeyed God. Because of disobedience, Israel was sent out of the land of promise. Similarly Adam and Eve were evicted from paradise. In light of these analogies, Enns concludes that the paradise account must be a reflection of Israel's history. The end result of this type of thinking is that Genesis 1-3 do not give us divine revelation of historical events but only later fallible human reflections. This is bad fruit and exposes evolution as a bad tree.

Apart from whether Enns' scenario is even logical, the objections against this type of de-historicizing of Genesis are obvious to those who take the authority of Scripture seriously. The creation narratives flow seamlessly into subsequent chapters of Genesis. If Genesis 1-3 are not historical, where then does history truly begin? If Adam is not historical then the genealogies which include Adam are also in error (Gen 5:1-3; 1 Chron 1:1-4; Luke 3:38). Furthermore, if Adam is not a real person, how can Scripture say that "just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19)? If the first person in this verse, Adam, was an imaginary figure, what about Christ? Is he also fiction? The New Testament consistently presents Adam as a historical figure (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 14).

Consequences←⤒🔗

It is obvious that if you deny one part of Scripture on the basis of current science, you will need to deny other parts as well. God's Word is a unit. If evolutionary theory states that Adam could not have existed, how can science possibly live with the virgin birth of Christ or his resurrection from the dead? Current scientific knowledge does not support the likelihood of a dead body becoming alive. Why should one part of Scripture be subjected to current scientific norms and not other parts? It all comes down to which is authoritative: God's Word or current scientific theory?

There is a warning lesson in all of this. When a person accepts evolutionary theory of origins and denies biblical authority by rejecting the creation account Genesis, it is a small but logical step to go on and deny the authority of all of Scripture. This is unbelief.

A Dutch dissertation has recently been published⁵ which shows that when the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (GKN), the so-called synodical churches, accepted evolutionary theories of origins, their view of the authority of Scripture declined dramatically. Indeed, it no longer mattered whether Scripture related real historical events or not because the Bible was not direct revelation from God but a reflection of human experiences in their relationship with God. May the Lord our God spare us from such a development for in the end it will come at the cost of the gospel.