The Failed Experiment—Part 2

Despite the fact that attempting to compromise Genesis with evolutionary ideas clearly affects the gospel (by forcing death and suffering before Adam’s sin) and compromising biblical authority (by indicating the Bible does not have to be taken at face value), many Christians who’ve bought into the evolutionary timeline continue to blame those holding to the plain reading of Scripture as being harmful to gospel witness.

An example of this type of lamentation comes from Stephen Moshier (department chair of Wheaton Christian College) when he said,

Many of us at Christian colleges really grieve at what a problem this young-earth creationism makes for the Christian witness.1

This was published in an online Christianity Today article titled “Young Earth Creationism Makes Life Difficult for Everyone,” where (as the title likely makes obvious) author Rob Moll bashed biblical creationists in this fashion as well.

How to Tell If It’s Working

However, let’s just say we were to take their premise and weigh whether they are correct or not. What metrics could we use, empirical data could we analyze, and questions could we ask to determine whether their claims (that accepting the story of evolution into Christendom would benefit the church) are correct?

Well, two in particular come to mind.

1. One would be an analysis of a large portion of Christendom that has already embraced the story of evolution to see whether it helped them reach the world with the gospel.
2. The second would be to see whether those in direct opposition to the church ideologically (atheist and humanist groups) attempt to resist having Christians accept evolution or actively cultivate professing Christians toward it. (Obviously, if teaching Christians to accept evolution would be beneficial to the church, then opponents of the church would certainly not want that to happen.)

Do Atheists Want Christians to Accept Evolution or Not?

So let’s start with point two. And even with a cursory look, what you’ll quickly discover is that rather than oppose it in any way, shape, or form, atheists love it when Christians adopt evolution because they know where the slippery slope of compromise often leads.

Take, for example, an article on the Skeptic website2 listing “105 Ways to Promote Skeptical Activism.” In their “Quick Reference Guide,” point 20 reads as follows.

20. Make allies. Be cooperative . . . We need help. Build bridges. Work with religious groups. (Our best allies for defending evolution are members of the mainstream clergy groups.)

And atheists have been doing this (actively looking for allies in the church) for a long time now.

Take committed atheist Dr. Eugenie Scott, the former Executive Director of the grandiose-sounding National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit, supposed science education organization supporting the teaching of evolutionary science in public schools.

When giving advice as to how best to promote the story of evolution in light of those Christian students who push back against it, she actually suggested recruiting a theistic evolutionist clergyman to help.

I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!3

Atheists Have to Explain Their Existence Without God

That’s right. Skeptics are boldly promoting atheism by using compromising Christians! Atheists have to explain their existence without God, and so their foundational belief is in the story of evolution, which explains everything without God. So they willingly promote evolution-believing Christians to help grease the wheels in moving their agenda along.

And notice they aren’t collaborating with professing Christians purely to promote so-called “science” but to promote their anti-God ideology. In a web article titled “Seeing and Believing,”4 atheist Jerry Coyne admits belief in evolution can be directly linked to a lack of belief in God.

We see a statistically strong negative relationship between the degree of faith and the acceptance of evolution. Countries such as Denmark, France, Japan and the United Kingdom have a high acceptance of Darwinism and low belief in God, while the situation is reversed in countries like Bulgaria, Latvia, Turkey, and the United States.

Don’t Show Them Your Hand

Furthermore, he explains why tactically minded atheist groups tend to downplay this in public. They understand the promotion of evolution through whatever means ultimately benefits them overall, so they welcome “liberal religious people” as important allies.

This disharmony [between science and religion] is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel.5

He, like other atheistic strategists, understands that many Christian parents unknowingly send their children to publicly funded, state-run indoctrination centers that will convert them away from their parents’ core, fundamental beliefs in God, all at their own expense. And they purposefully try not to tip them off by upsetting their atheistic apple cart.

This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict.6

Evolution in Direct Opposition to Christian Theology

Indeed, it seems as if the atheistic community understands just how powerful indoctrinating generations of students with the story of evolution has been. Take F. Sherwood Taylor’s analysis of what changed his country into a post-Christian nation.

I myself have little doubt that in England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.7

And he’s not the only one. Just look at the following quotes from two Cambridge University professors (Peter Lawrence and Simon Conway Morris) commenting on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 2009.

In this vital mission to discredit the supernatural, nothing has proved more important than The Origin of Species.  . . . .First and foremost, The Origin is an exorcism of the doctrine of special creation, and conducted by one of the most skilled exorcists science has ever seen.8

Jerry Coyne (quoted earlier) also chimed in.

In the end [Darwin] so convinced his readers that they not only bought his ideas, but in the process jettisoned three thousand years of religious explanation for life and its apparent design.

This is why atheists love it when willing allies in the form of professing Christians jump on board their bandwagon. It accomplishes so many things for their cause simultaneously.

1. It builds up their foundational worldview structure—the story of evolution (providing them with a way of explaining all of existence without God).
2. It gains them new believers. They know that many formerly professing Christians testify they deconstructed specifically when exposed to the story of evolution. (Ask any professing atheist who formerly declared Christ as Savior—all now declare belief in evolution).
3. It breaks down the Christian worldview (the predominant one in the West) by often showcasing professing Christians as being inconsistent and illogical in their thinking.

A Clear Inconsistency

A clear example of this last point came when French atheist, biologist, and philosopher Jaques Monod engaged with his Christian interviewer (who was a theistic evolutionist) during an ABC interview.

The professing Christian (John) seemed to want to weave a commonality between Christian beliefs and that of Monod’s atheistic and evolutionary ones by asserting God could have used evolutionary mechanisms to accomplish his purposes:

One could conceive of God using randomness, just so long as there was the pattern which he was imposing upon the results of the chance mutations.

Monod was quick to point out the obvious inconsistencies in this idea and likely did so in a way John hadn’t ever considered closely.

Monod: “If you want to assume that, then I have no dispute with it, except one (which is not a scientific dispute, but a moral one). Namely, selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms.”

John: “Cruel?”

Monod: “The more cruel, because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”9

And of course, Monod isn’t the only atheist to see the obvious inconsistency with believing the loving God of the Bible somehow used the story of evolution to “create.” Just listen to Bible skeptic David Hull’s analysis of so-called theistic evolution.

The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a Darwinian version of evolution implies. . . . The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror. . . . The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.10

Atheists Actively Promote Theistic Evolution—as Irrational

Indeed, trying to blend evolutionary processes with Christian theology presents a conundrum at a foundational level. And that is simply the fact that attempting to do so renders the entire concept of biblical interpretation—based on the plain reading of Scripture—virtually impossible.

It leaves the person obviously cherry-picking Bible passages with an inconsistent and unjustifiable hermeneutic, lacks persuasive power, and inspires no confidence in the reasoning ability of those espousing it. Just look at arch-atheist Richard Dawkins’ analysis of professing Christians that compromise with the story of evolution.

I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded.11

Dawkins continues by saying what is so obvious to so many: “There is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.” And one can see this obvious incompatibility in the writings of many professing believers, such as popular Canadian theistic evolutionist Dr. Dennis Lamoureux where he never satisfactorily dealt with the problem or the question he mentioned:

The greatest problem with evolutionary creation is that it rejects the traditional literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Scripture. . . . Even more troubling for evolutionary creation is the fact that the New Testament writers, including Jesus Himself, refer to Genesis 1–11 as literal history. . . . Therefore, the burning question is: “How do evolutionary creationists interpret the early chapters of Holy Scripture?”12

Well, obviously, admitting the contradictory nature of theistic evolution in a Christian worldview—and providing no real answer—is unsatisfactory to most rational people and provides no confidence in it as a rational belief system.

And in Part 3, we’ll explore whether this is likely a contributing factor as to why Christian denominations, which have publicly embraced the story of evolution for decades, have all seen such a massive decline.