The Failed Experiment—Part 3

In Part 2, we tackled the accusation from theistic evolutionists that states the church in general would benefit (especially in witnessing) if Bible-believing Christians would give up on their embarrassing belief in biblical creation and simply accept that God used evolution to create.

We did so by exploring whether those ideologically opposed to the Christian worldview actively attempt to prevent Christian’s acceptance of the story of evolution, or rather, do they promote it instead? Because, 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.

What we discovered is that rather than oppose it in any way, shape, or form, atheists love it when Christians adopt evolution because they know the slippery slope of compromise often leads to apostasy.

We’ll now further analyze their claim that accepting evolution would benefit the church by examining the data from a large subset of Christendom that has embraced the story of evolution for many years now.

You see, the experiment proposed by theistic evolutionists has already been done by a large swath of churches and the results are in. So let’s examine the cold, hard facts to see whether it helped or hindered them in reaching the world with the gospel.

Inconsistency Doesn’t Help

In Part 2, we showed the following admission from the popular Canadian theistic evolutionist Dr. Dennis Lamoureux:

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.1

He then proceeded to ask (but never satisfactorily answered) the following key question.

Therefore, the burning question is: “How do evolutionary creationists interpret the early chapters of Holy Scripture?”2

This type of inconsistent thinking simply demonstrates the obvious cherry-picking of Bible passages that those holding to these views do and lacks rational consistency.

Well, obviously, admitting the contradictory nature of theistic evolution in a Christian worldview and providing no real answer is unsatisfactory to most rational people. This type of inconsistent thinking simply demonstrates the obvious cherry-picking of Bible passages that those holding to these views do and lacks rational consistency.

It leads rational people to think, “Why are you telling me I have to believe one part of the Bible as plainly written but not another part when you admit the biblical authors themselves (including Jesus) take all of it as plainly written?”

And this obvious nonsensical way of thinking leads many to abandon belief in any of the Bible as authoritative.

And this is likely a contributing factor as to why Christian denominations that have publicly embraced the story of evolution for decades now have all seen a massive decline. Some may argue against that conclusion, but let me make my case before you automatically dismiss the notion.

Mainline Meltdown

Now, I suppose I could take the time to document each specific denominational group’s official acceptance of the story of evolution within their theological statements. However, the Pew Research Center has already done a good job with a large number of them and has made the information available in their article “Religious Groups’ Views on Evolution,”3 so I’ll just summarize what you can find there yourself.

Broadly speaking, those denominations that accept evolutionary ideas are those commonly categorized under the somewhat generic term “mainline” denominations, which, according to an article4 on the popular Got Questions Christian website (with the very title “What Are the Mainline Denominations?”), are described as follows.

The mainline denominations are, as a rule, more theologically and politically liberal; they hold a more “modernist” theology, viewing the Bible as a historical document that may not be inerrant and is not “inspired” in the sense that it is the actual words of God.

They describe evangelical protestant churches in contrast to the mainline churches and then summarize the overall direction of church growth between the two groups.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, uphold the inerrancy, verbal-plenary inspiration, and authority of Scripture. . . . In the last six decades, the mainline denominations have seen a marked decrease in membership, while most evangelical churches have held steady or increased membership rolls.

A “marked decrease” is no overstatement, as a recent 2023 analysis of churches in the US described the state of the mainline denominations this way.

The mainline is just a bloodbath. Five traditions are down by at least 30%. The ELCA is down 41%. The United Church of Christ is less than half the size it was in the late 1980s. The United Methodists are already down 31%, but with over 15% of their churches disaffiliating just this year, I wouldn’t be surprised if membership is down 40% or more by this time next year.5

Indeed, to show the contrast even more clearly, a World faith and religion article titled “Lessons from Mainline Decline” by author Kevin DeYoung states,

At its height in 1965, mainline Protestant churches counted 31 million members out of a U.S. population of less than 200 million. Most Protestants were in the mainline denominations, and the country’s cultural norms were set, for better or for worse, by the old school Protestant establishment. Almost 60 years later, all of that has changed.6

The Big Picture Is Clear

Now, I fully acknowledge the many nuances and caveats that could be applied here in word usage between mainline Protestant and/or Catholic churches or certain beliefs in subsets within specific denominations that may reject evolutionary teaching. For example, there is a Catholic creation group called the Kolbe Center that teaches Genesis as plainly written.

However, in the big picture sense, we can say that within the general mainline church denominations that are declining, all have broadly not only accepted evolution as supposedly compatible with what the Bible clearly teaches, but they had also accepted it very early after the popularization of Darwin’s books.

For example, the Church Life Journal article (from the University of Notre Dame) specifically examining when the introduction of evolutionary teachings into the Catholic church began admits they adopted them very early on.

Catholic encyclopedias by the beginning of this period were already stating that the evolutionary origin of plants and animals was not a matter of theological concern. Pierre-Julien Hamard wrote the following in the Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique (1889): The Bible grants equal freedom to transformists and to the defenders of successive creations . . . The teaching of evolution is in no way incompatible with Christian dogma.7

Interestingly, in an article touting how the Catholic church is growing around the world, a nugget of truth within it gave the real state of affairs among that organization’s individual churches. Because despite the fact that many children are born into Catholicism and counted among the church numerically (inflating the figures regarding church members), it said,

Formal religious affiliation and commitment, along with being an active member of a parish, are all declining.8

Even in a purely physical sense, mainline churches are disappearing from the landscape of towns and cities across the Western world.

Even in a purely physical sense, mainline churches are disappearing from the landscape of towns and cities across the Western world. For example, here in Canada, a 2019 CBC article9 reported how a national heritage group had predicted an estimated 9,000 religious spaces (a third of the faith-owned buildings in our entire country) would be lost within a decade.

Perusing the article, it would be hard not to notice the correlation between the predominantly mainline denominations mentioned to the specific churches that have, are, or will likely be closing. And this was before the COVID-19 situation wreaked so much havoc on many older church congregations.

The Evolution Connection

Now, although many may howl in protest against my linking of the acceptance of evolutionary teaching within the mainline churches to their overall decline, consider that even atheist Eugenie Scott (mentioned earlier in Part 2) recognizes,

In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church.10

And, of course, these are primarily the sort of churches from which she likes to recruit those clergymen with their “backwards collars” to come and help her promote the story of evolution within the Christian community.

So while people can jump up and down yelling “correlation does not necessarily imply causation” all they want, the fact is (even though it’s not a given) very often they do correlate. And some further, very detailed, comprehensive research under the direction of Christian Smith (professor of sociology) from the University of Notre Dame further supports the evolution connection. How?

What Happened to the Youth?

Well, a common saying regarding many mainline church congregations is the fact that there’s “a lot of snow on the mountain tops,” referring to the large amount of older folks (with white hair on their heads) in their services and suggesting a lack of youth being kept within those churches.

Obviously, a congregation’s youth are the future of any church, and if they abandon their affiliation with it, then as the congregation eventually dies, the church will disappear. This is exactly what the data is showing regarding most mainline churches. There isn’t an argument as to whether it’s happening or not, only “why” it’s happening is up for question.

Well, Smith has conducted “the most extensive sociological project on youth and religion ever undertaken.”11 Over a 16-year period, his team gathered data from over two thousand students from a wide variety of backgrounds ages 13 to 17. During that time, they were asked “in-depth questions regarding faith, spirituality, family, moral behaviour etc.”12

Science vs. Faith—or Evolution vs. Faith?

A video presentation by Smith summarizing this study—complete with a Q&A from his audience—can be seen on YouTube. And among the data being delivered is a very interesting bit of information that’s revealed as Smith answers a question regarding science and faith and what demographic among the study’s sampling was most likely to view science and religion as compatible.

Now, first, when he is referring to “science and religion,” he’s obviously not talking about science in the empirical sense. The type of science that gives us cars, computers, and technology isn’t really that controversial to the average person. The type of “science” that is objectionable to many people of faith is evolutionary science, which directly contradicts the plain reading of Scripture.

At time code 43:55, Smith answers the question and says,

We did look at which . . . teenagers are the ones that are most likely to say religion and science can integrate fine . . . they are not in conflict. Which are the ones who had the combination of answers that said it can all work together? The one factor that put kids way up there . . . is that they went to private, Protestant schools.13

Why that answer stands out is that earlier on in his presentation he’d addressed how his research has shown “science” (read evolution) had a direct effect on the faith of the youth he studied, saying 70% believe there are major conflicts between them, and that religion is “always the loser.”

Indeed, by age 13, the majority of youth he studied picked “strongly agree” when asked the question as to whether they thought that “the teachings of science and religion often ultimately conflict with each other”.

Obviously, there is a far greater chance that private Protestant schools (especially evangelical institutions) would be more likely to teach biblical creation (along with the difference between operational and historical science and the huge flaws in evolution), demonstrating there is no conflict between true, repeatable, observational science and what the Bible teaches.

Whereas the students attending mainline churches would be far more likely to be taught evolution as science, thus creating the “conflict” they could so clearly see. They might be youth, but they aren’t unable to see the massive inconsistencies presented by a theistic evolutionary worldview, which downplays biblical authority and directly affects the gospel, as demonstrated by Bible skeptic Peter Bowler very succinctly:

If Christians accepted that humanity was the product of evolution—even assuming the process could be seen as an expression of the Creator’s will—then the whole idea of Original Sin would have to be reinterpreted.

Far from falling from an original state of grace in the Garden of Eden, we have risen gradually from our animal origins. And if there was no Sin from which we needed salvation, what was the purpose of Christ’s agony on the cross?”14

The Theistic Evolution Conundrum

Ultimately, attempting to blend evolutionary, “deep time” ideas into the Bible leads to confusion and a rejection of biblical authority for most people exposed to it, which is exactly why atheist groups love enticing Christians into accepting it.

And it’s not as if they gain some kind of newfound respect for those Christians who bend the knee to their naturalistic worldview—far from it. Take our atheist friend Jerry Coyne, mentioned in Parts 1 and 2, who made the following derogatory comments while reviewing books penned by two professing Christians who were desperately arguing for supposed compatibility between the story of evolution and Scripture as plainly written.

Of course, from Coyne’s point of view, the story of evolution is “scientific,” so he equivocates back and forth in his comment between true science, which is observable and testable (i.e., blood clotting), and unobserved evolution (one kind of creature into another, etc.). However, his analysis of their attempts to accept evolution because of “science” while still accepting the “Christmas story” because of Scripture led him to say,

This leads to a conundrum. Why reject the story of creation and Noah’s Ark because we know that animals evolved, but nevertheless accept the reality of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, which are equally at odds with science? After all, biological research suggests the impossibility of human females reproducing asexually, or of anyone reawakening three days after death.

Accepting both science and conventional faith leaves you with a double standard: rational on the origin of blood clotting, irrational on the Resurrection; rational on dinosaurs, irrational on virgin births. Without good cause, Giberson and Miller pick and choose what they believe. 15

Interestingly, the only hint of any type of intellectual respect given to Christians by Coyne comes in his follow-up comment.

At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board.

And as a biblical creationist (especially in light of James 1:5–8), I’ll wear that backhanded compliment proudly.

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

The Experiment Has Failed

To all my brethren out there who have compromised with evolutionary ideas, understand that what you are trying to do has already been attempted, and it has failed.

Far from benefiting the church to any degree whatsoever, toying with evolutionary ideas and attempting to place them into God’s Word has never worked because truth and falsehoods simply do not mix.

Far from benefiting the church to any degree whatsoever, toying with evolutionary ideas and attempting to place them into God’s Word has never worked because truth and falsehoods simply do not mix.

One needs to understand that the story of evolution is not scientific in the sense that it can be empirically observed or repeated in a lab. It is simply an interpretation of the facts we all observe in the world according to atheistic presuppositions. It is ultimately a story that promotes the atheistic worldview, and God’s Word is clear there should be no partnerships with unbelievers.

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)