We encounter references to evolution on a daily basis (if you’re fuzzy on the mechanics of

evolution, I’ve included a short description at the end of this).  It’s almost impossible to pick up a

newspaper or magazine, scan through a science article, or watch a nature program on television

without encountering a discussion of something that is millions of years old, or of how some form

of life has evolved.  Go to a zoo, the Baltimore aquarium, or any museum that touches on natural

history and you’ll be fed a non-stop flow of evolutionary belief.  Almost every American history

textbook begins with an account of primitive people migrating to North America ten thousand plus

years ago.  The belief that life evolved has become so pervasive that many people, even Christians

(myself included until a few years ago), assume that it is a settled, proven scientific fact.

After all, scientists are smart people.  They’ve invented lasers and computers, brought us modern

medicine, and sent humans to the surface of the moon.  If a group of people possessing such

intelligence, using the foolproof scientific method, tell us that something is an established fact,

how can we doubt them?  As Christians, all we need to do is assume the ‘days’ of the creation

account in Genesis 1 were actually long eras of time and we’ve successfully merged science with

the Bible.  Right?

That’s the way I thought for most of my life, but upon some investigation, I’ve come to understand

that forcing evolution into our history raises insurmountable problems for my Christian faith.  Here

are the top eleven theological reasons God could not possibly have created life using the

evolutionary process.  Because these are points of theology, you may ask “So what?” if you aren’t

a Christian.  If you are though, think carefully about the following:

• If God created life through the evolutionary process, then He created using death.  The Bible declares death to be not a good thing or a useful tool, but “the last enemy”.  The God of life does not embrace death.

• If man evolved, then humans evolved as a species, rather than from a single man; we don’t have a common human ancestor and are not all related by blood.  That means that sin didn’t enter the world through one man, and therefore our sins can’t be paid for by one man.  It means that death is natural and isn’t the penalty for sin, and therefore Jesus’ death was not the perfect, end-all-be-all payment against that penalty.  That means that we’re still dead in our sins, Jesus sacrificed Himself for nothing, and all is lost.

Also, Isaiah (in Isaiah 59?) spoke of the promised messiah as a‘ Kinsman-Redeemer’ – one who is related by blood to those he redeems.

• God declared the pre-fall creation ‘very good’.  This declaration of approval, coming from an infinitely good, perfect Being, doesn’t seem to leave much room for the violence, bloodshed, and death that the ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ evolutionary process requires.

• If God meant to tell us the creation days of Genesis were normal days when they were really long eras of time, then that would qualify as deception (especially since He would have foreknown the future confusion that would develop), which is a sin.  God sinning…  Talk about a paradox.

• God inspired the Bible.  He gave it to us because He wanted to communicate certain things to us.  It then stands to reason that He meant it to be understandable to us.  He said the days of creation were days.  He used the Hebrew word for an ordinary 24-hour-type day rather than an era.  He said that on each day there was a morning and an evening.  He provided a running count of the days.  How could He have more clearly phrased it to indicate the days were ordinary 24-hour-type days if that was His intention?  God INVENTED language.  Is it really possible that the inventor of language couldn’t think of a way to plainly say era if that’s what He meant?

In the words of nineteenth century Professor Marcus Dods, New College, Edinburgh:

“ … if, for example, the word ‘day’ in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four

hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”

• Is it really possible that God meant the ‘days’ of creation were eras and then proceeded to write the creation account in such a way that people would think they were ordinary days until finally, thousands of years later, science finally revealed the clear truth?  God to our ancestors: “I want you to know how the universe came to be; now wait until the 19th century AD to develop the knowledge you need to understand what I really mean.”

• The linguistic hoops those who believe that ‘day’ in Genesis 1 means ‘era’ must jump through to solve the problems this approach causes elsewhere in scripture are absolutely breathtaking (see 'Refuting Compromise' by J. Sarfati).  Moreover, the hoop-jumping is in vain.  Interpreting ‘day’ to mean ‘era’ still doesn’t turn the Genesis creation account into a straightforward description of the evolutionary timeline.  Genesis’ order of creation (the earth and light before the sun; plants before the sun; life on land before life in the sea; birds before animals) is wrong if evolution is true.  Bottom line:  If evolution is true, then Genesis is in error no matter how its description of time is interpreted.

• Evolution leaves no room for the Garden of Eden or the global flood.  Paul spoke of Adam.  Peter spoke of Noah and the flood.  Jesus spoke of both.  Not only did they consistently speak of these as real historical men and events, but they staked key points of teaching on the historical truth of the first few chapters of Genesis.

               Jesus on the marriage of Adam and Eve:   Matthew 19

               Jesus on Noah and the flood:                   Matthew 24

                                                                            Luke 17

               Paul on Adam:                                        Romans 5

                                                                            1 Corinthians 15

                                                                            1 Timothy 2

               Peter on Noah and the global flood:          1 Peter 3

                                                                            2 Peter 2

           If evolution is true, then Adam, Eve, Eden, Noah, and the global flood are fictional,

           and that would mean Jesus was wrong.  What else would He then be wrong about?

           How can we know when to listen to Him and when to disregard Him?  Why should we

           believe John 3:16 if we can’t believe Genesis 3:16?  Jesus raised this very point

           himself when he asked his critics “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe,

           how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”    John 3:12

• The Bible speaks of a future paradise being a restoration of the former world (Acts 3:21, for example) with no more curse (Revelation 22:3).  What former paradise is being restored if Eden never existed as described in Genesis?  What curse will be lifted, and why does it exist in the first place, if this isn’t the curse applied to creation in Genesis 3?

• The Bible seems to make it clear that we are the only creatures within all of creation designed in God’s image, and that can have a loving, parent/child relationship with Him.  We are unique relative to all other creatures, and God seems to have created specifically to bring us into existence.  It makes no sense that He would waste billions of years with nothing but rocks, bacteria, and eventually animals to keep Him company when OUR creation seems to have been His primary goal.  True, God is outside of time, but the point still stands…

• Evolution operates on natural selection, where the weak perish and the strong survive.  It REQUIRES a struggle between the weak and strong, and elevates the strong at the expense of the weak.  This is in direct opposition to the attitudes of God (both Father and Son) recorded in the Bible.  God repeatedly passed over the firstborn son and selected the younger and/or weaker for His plans (recall Jacob, Joseph, David…).  He demanded that the wealthy see to the well-being of the poor, widowed, and orphaned.  This type of thinking is exactly the opposite of what we’d expect from a being who would choose to create using evolution.  Our God could never have embraced the mechanics behind evolution.  They are against His unchanging character.  If our creator did embrace the strong-subduing-the-weak mentality of evolution, then he is not the God of the Bible.

Could God have created through evolution?  OF COURSE!  The real issue though is not what He

could have done, but what he said he did!

My sixth-grade social studies teacher was also an ordained pastor.  I vividly remember the day he stood before our class and declared that we had to decide whether we believed in the Biblical creation account or in evolution (can you believe what public school teachers were able to get away with in the 80’s???).  He said that it was impossible to merge the two.  I sat at my desk smugly wondering how any adult could be so dense, because if he only recognized that the days of creation in Genesis were actually ages, then there was no more conflict.  Obviously, God used evolution to create all the forms of life.

That incident often came to mind over the following 17 years, and it would never fail to make me shake my head and feel embarrassed for Mr. Byers for being so blind to the obvious.  It was Christians like him that made the church an object of such ridicule to the rest of the world. 

Over the past couple of years though, I’ve been presented with the issues listed above.  I now see that I owe Mr. Byers a HUGE apology.

P.S. – If anyone reading this is now concerned about having to abandon their faith in either the Bible or in science, not to worry.  Believe it or not, there is both a wealth of scientific evidence undercutting evolutionary theory and a wealth of scientific evidence supporting the history gleaned from a straightforward reading of Genesis.  I don't have the time to go into those issues now, but relevant resources ARE out there. Answers in Genesis's archives and Henry Morris's books are a great place to start.

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp)

Crash Course on the Theory of Evolution  

The theory of evolution describes the supposed process through which all life slowly developed

from non-living chemicals to primitive single-celled organisms to advanced animal species and

humans.  It starts with the observation that in any environment, there is a limited set of resources

such as food and water, and that there are dangers such as predators, disease, and harsh

weather that in some way threaten the survival of each species in that environment.  It recognizes

that in any given species, random genetic mutations occasionally occur in individual members of

the population.  It then assumes that some of those mutations affect the individual’s ability to

survive in its environment.  If the mutation makes it more difficult for the individual to survive, then

it will be less likely to produce offspring than its non-mutated peers, and even when it does, its

offspring will inherit the same mutation, passing on the disadvantage.  Over time, those with the

mutation will die out, ridding their species of that particular genetic anomaly.

On the other hand, the mutation may give the afflicted individual a survival advantage compared

to its peers.  The mutation may make it easier to take its share of the limited food resources, or

enable it to more easily escape predators.  This individual will pass on this trait to its offspring.  In

time, individuals with this new trait will thrive at the expense of the rest of the species, who will

eventually die of starvation, predators, and so on.  Eventually, only those with the new trait will be

left alive, making the species stronger than it formerly was.  Evolution says that in time, enough

genetic changes will occur that the species in question will become an entirely new species.  

The theory of evolution isn’t for the squeamish.  It depends upon the strong subduing the weak.

For a mutation to strengthen and evolve the species, weaker individuals MUST die.  They must

fall victim to disease and harsh weather patterns.  They must be killed and consumed by predator

species.  The onward march of evolutionary progress demands it.  Watch a rabbit get

chased down by a fox.  Witness the ocean boil red with blood as a pack of orca kill a humpback

whale calf.  See a large herd of deer wither and die from starvation as they overwhelm the winter

food supply.  Observe a once inspiring stand of elm trees rot from a particularly aggressive

disease.  They aren’t pretty sights, but according to evolution, it’s the process through which

simple single-celled life produced human beings.  This process of the fit surviving and the less-fit

dying is referred to as ‘natural selection’.  (Note that natural selection itself HAS been observed

and is also a vital component of the creationist's explanation for the post-fall world we see today.

The dispute lies in the nature of gene mutations.) 

In short:  The strong survive at the expense of the weak.