Does Belief That the Earth Is Spherical Require Belief in Evolution?

“I have been debating a number of flat-earth Christians over the last week. There is an argument they’ve all made that I didn’t see mentioned in any of your articles on the subject, nor in any articles by others. They all adamantly insist that belief in a globe earth and belief in evolution go hand in hand, that you can’t have one without the other. This seems to me to be a complete non sequitur, so I am wondering what causes them to believe it. Have you heard this argument and do you know where they get this idea?”

Indeed, I’ve heard this argument many times, though I haven’t written about it before. My 2019 book Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims reflected my thinking about the flat-earth movement at that time, but it wasn’t meant to be exhaustive. Consequently, I’ve continued to publish web articles and blog posts about the flat-earth movement as topics that I didn’t cover in my book occur to me. Since this person asked, I suppose that I ought to turn my attention to this question about the supposed connection between globe earth and evolution.

I’ve often heard flat-earthers make this alleged connection by derisively referring to conventional cosmology as “the spinning, wobbling, monkey, space-ball religion.” We all know what the “spinning,” “space,” and “ball” parts are about. I’m not sure what flat-earthers mean by the earth wobbling. I recently asked some flat-earthers what flat-earthers mean by that, but the flat-earthers I asked didn’t seem to know either. If I ever find out what that is about, perhaps I’ll blog about it. The monkey and religion parts obviously are a reference to believing in evolution, and by evolution, flat-earthers seem to understand that evolution is about more than just ideas about the naturalistic origin of man and life but also is about the naturalistic origin of the earth and the universe (some flat-earthers stick “big bang” into that phrase too). Good for them, for many other people don’t grasp the broader meaning of evolution.

The Supposed Connection Between Globe Earth and Evolution

But how does the earth’s shape relate to the origin of the universe, the earth, life, and man? After all, until recently I didn’t know any creationists who were flat-earthers, so it seems that evolution and the earth’s shape are not related. As I said, I’ve often heard flat-earthers make a connection between evolution and globe earth, though I’ve never heard that connection explained. I have spent much time listening to flat-earthers’ arguments, from which I think I can identify their chain of reasoning:

1. The earth is flat because God made it that way, with some using Bible verses to support this view. I’ve already discussed this.
2. The earth being flat is evidence of creation because a flat earth could not come about naturally.
3. If people are creationists, then they can’t be evolutionists.
4. Therefore, before one can convince people of evolution, one must first convince people that creation is not true (and hence there is no God).
5. The best way to convince people that creation is not true is to convince people that the earth is spherical.
6. If the earth is spherical, then it could come about naturally.
7. If the earth came about naturally, then everything else probably came about naturally too.
8. Therefore, the real agenda behind convincing people that the earth is spherical rather than flat is to hide God’s existence.

Examination of Each of These Eight Points

I start with the assumption that the earth is spherical because God made it that way.

There are several flaws in this chain of reasoning, such as starting with the assumption that the earth is flat. If the earth is not flat, then the rest of this reasoning is void. I start with the assumption that the earth is spherical because God made it that way. You see, I don’t believe in the naturalistic origin of the earth. The primary reason why I don’t believe in the naturalistic origin of the earth is that Genesis 1 teaches something very different. But another reason is that the naturalistic scenarios for the formation of planets have physical difficulties. That is, I don’t think properly applied science permits the naturalistic formation of the earth or any other planets. Most secular scientists assume that since planets exist, then those planets must have formed naturally, and they are not open to any other possibility. Apparently, flat-earthers fear that secular scientists must be on to something here, so they attempt to short-circuit the secular theories by denying some of the science that supposedly supports the naturalistic origin of planets, such as by denying gravity.

I suppose that I would agree that a flat earth could not come about naturally, but how do we know? I don’t think anyone has given any serious thought to the naturalistic origin of a flat earth. Evolutionists come up with explanations for all sorts of things, so if they put their minds to it, why couldn’t evolutionists come up with a natural explanation for how a flat earth came to be?

I, too, have difficulty conceiving how one can be both a creationist and an evolutionist, but there are many people who are, calling themselves theistic evolutionists, thinking that evolution was God’s method of creation. I don’t think theistic evolutionists realize the incompatibility of creation and evolution. At its heart, evolution is a naturalistic philosophy of origins. But God is supernatural. If naturalism suffices to explain our existence, then supernaturalism is not necessary. If supernatural suffices to explain our existence, then naturalism is superfluous.

Given the fact that there are many theistic evolutionists in the world today, I strongly disagree that one must be convinced that creation is not true to come to believe in evolution. Sometimes theistic evolution is a stepping stone to becoming a full-blown evolutionist, but sometimes theistic evolution is a stepping stone to becoming a full-blown creationist. Hence, theistic evolution is a two-way street, though some people remain parked on that street.

As I stated above, there are physical reasons why a spherical earth could not form itself, so it doesn’t follow that a spherical earth leads to a naturalistic origin for the earth. This takes care of points five and six.

Naturalism is a package deal, so I suppose that if one believes that the earth formed naturally, then most people would conclude that everything else formed naturally too. However, this conclusion does not follow strict rules of logic. Just because one thing has a naturalistic origin, it doesn’t follow that all things have a naturalistic origin. Such a conclusion amounts to an argument by analogy. Some flat-earthers point out this flaw in an argument for a spherical earth going back at least to Aristotle, that if the sun, moon, and other planets are spherical, then the earth must be spherical too. An argument by analogy is not a rigorous argument. Therefore, I find it strange that flat-earthers make this same leap of logic. OK, I don’t find it strange—I’ve seen flat-earthers frequently point out what they think are logical flaws in globe-earthers’ logic while committing the same logical blunders themselves.

Given all these considerations, it does not follow that “the agenda behind globe earth” is to hide God’s existence. If there is any agenda behind “the globe earth,” it is to teach people the truth about the shape of the world they live in. Flat-earthers often call themselves “truthers” or “truth seekers.” It’s sad that people supposedly committed to finding truth dismiss the abundant evidence that the earth is spherical.

Conclusion

The only way to find true peace with God is through the vicarious atonement of God’s unique Son, Jesus Christ.

The last of the eight points is very important. I repeatedly hear flat-earthers claim that the real agenda behind the globe earth is to convince people that God does not exist. Flat-earthers often say that flat earth leads people to believe that God exists. Good! But keep in mind that even demons believe and shudder (James 2:19). Some flat-earthers claim that flat earth brought them to true salvation through repentance and the finished work of Jesus Christ. I can rejoice in that, much as the Apostle Paul rejoiced in the preaching of the gospel by people with false motives (Philippians 1:15–18). However, I have observed that many flat-earthers subscribe to what I call the Touched by an Angel school of theology, the theology underlying the 1994–2003 television series by that name. That series did not teach the gospel but rather taught a humanistic sort of theology, that God wants us to know that he is real and cares about us and that knowledge is sufficient to help us in our daily lives. The same sort of theology was more irreverently found in the 1977 movie Oh, God! This leaves out the most important fact—that we are sinners alienated from a holy and righteous God and the only way to find true peace with God is through the vicarious atonement of God’s unique Son, Jesus Christ. While there are few atheists among flat-earthers, true biblical Christianity is relatively rare in the flat-earth movement. Many reject Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. Others are openly hostile to the God of the Bible. This is in stark contrast to the Bible-based mission of Answers in Genesis.