here to listen to a free MP3 audio recording about Evolution vs. Creation in
High School Texts
Click here for a brief summary of evolution vs. creation in the Bible.
Nothing lived on that long-ago Earth. But the oceans were astir with promise - they swirled and simmered a primordial soup that held the raw materials of life.
Somehow, probably in the first billion years of our world's existence, that promise was fulfilled. A nondescript glob of chemicals crossed some vague and wondrous boundary to become the first living thing.
From such unfeeling chemicals, Earth eventually filled with a teeming diversity of life, from microbes to Men. - "In the beginning," Robert Locke (Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel, 1/26/80)
This is a typical statement of the Hypothesis of Evolution. Most people hear it many times in schools, museums, books, and the public media.
Evolution may be defined as the belief that, multiplied millions of years ago, life began by natural causes from nonliving matter; then gradually that original life changed till from it came all the modern kinds of plants and animals including man.
Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, demonstrated the influence of evolutionary doctrine when he said: "I believe the most fundamental thing we can do today is to believe in evolution."
The Bible teaches that the all-wise, all-powerful, eternal God created the universe and all the forms of life in it, including people. So evolution and creation are two fundamentally competing beliefs about the origin of the universe, life, and mankind.
Some people speculate that we can believe both the Bible and evolution: the two can be harmonized. Theistic evolutionists say that all living things evolved from an original life form, but God began and directed the process. Progressive creationists claim that, from time to time over a period of billions of years, God intervened to make major changes but then allowed nature to gradually develop what had been made. Such people cannot, of course, take Genesis 1 literally, so they say it is symbol or legend.
But is it possible to believe both the Bible and major tenets of evolution? Does evolution necessarily contradict the Bible? Can a person defend evolution and still be a faithful Christian? May Christians believe that "creation" involved sudden major changes caused by God but followed by gradual natural changes over billions of years?
We will not here discuss much scientific evidence for creation or against evolution, though such a study can be profitable. Nor will we emphasize the reasons why we believe the Bible. We believe it, not only because it agrees with science, but because of fulfilled prophecy, the miracles done by Jesus and the Bible writers, the resurrection, and other such proofs (see our study about evidences on our Bible Instruction web site at www.gospelway.com/instruct/). In this study we simply wish to see if the Bible can be harmonized with evolution or progressive creation.
Consider these contradictions between evolution and the Bible doctrine of creation:
Evolution weakens faith in God, undermines the arguments for God's existence, and is a fundamental tenet of all unbelievers. True, some people claim to believe evolution and also believe in God. But all unbelievers accept evolution. And believing evolution weakens faith in God.
Charles Darwin, who popularized the modern theory of evolution, said:
"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older) but not always that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." (Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette, 1/4/82)
The Humanist Manifestos say: "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created ... Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process ... Many kinds of humanism exist [including] ... atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, ... and liberal religion ... We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural ... As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity ... science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces" - pp. 8,16,17.
Huxley, an ardent evolutionist, said: "It is clear that the doctrine of Evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation, ... Evolution if consistently applied, makes it impossible to believe the Bible." (HRQ, p. 63)
Charles Smith, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, said: "Evolution is atheism." (Evolution: Science False So-Called, 16th Ed., p. 87).
Woolsey Teller, also of AAAA, said: "The God idea cannot be reconciled with our knowledge of evolution." (Evolution: Science False So-Called, 16th Ed., p. 87).
G. M. Price said: "It is thus very evident that there is no similarity between the idea of Evolution and that of Creation; it is all contrast. The two terms are antonyms; they are mutually exclusive; no mind can entertain a belief in both at the same time; when one notion is believed, the other is thereby denied and repudiated." (HRQ, p. 63)
Higley said: "Theistic evolution, then, is a contradiction of terms. To maintain that evolution can be theistic is as inconsistent as to claim that falsehood can be true." (HRQ, p. 63)
After reading Darwin and Spencer, Andrew Carnegie said: "I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution." (Davidheiser, p. 350f)
In his biography of Joseph Stalin published by the Russian communists, Yaroslavsky says that, at an early age, Stalin "began to read Darwin and became an atheist." Later Stalin told a friend: "'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that ... all this talk about God is sheer nonsense'... 'What book is that?' I inquired. 'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me." (Davidheiser, p. 353)
A Russian communist newspaper once explained that they did not need to teach atheism directly in their schools. The could accomplish the same purpose by teaching "the foundations of Darwinism." (HRQ, p. 63)
These quotes clearly show that evolution is a fundamental tenet of unbelief, and that evolution has led many people to become unbelievers. Furthermore, atheists themselves agree that you cannot truly believe in evolution and in the Bible at the same time.
The Bible repeatedly affirms throughout that the world and the life on it are the result of Divine creation. To deny this denies, not just Gen. 1, but the fundamental essence of the whole Scriptures.
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The passage proceeds to describe the creation day by day.
Acts 17:24 - God made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth.
Hebrews 1:10 - You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Jeremiah 10:12 - He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.
Romans 1:20 - The Bible uses creation as evidence of God's existence, wisdom, power, etc. To deny creation is to deny one of the fundamental reasons why we should believe in God. [Psalm 19:1]
Just as creation is a fundamental reason for believing in God, so evolution is a fundamental tenet of unbelievers. No wonder that, when people come to believe in evolution, they often lose their faith in God. They have denied a doctrine found multitudes of times throughout the Bible, they have accepted a major tenet of unbelief, and they have denied an obvious proof of God's existence.
[See also Psa. 33:6-9; John 1:1-3; Psa. 102:25; 89:11; 90:2; 104:5-9,24-28; 19:1; 24:1,2; 95:5; 146:6; 136:5-9; 8:3,6-8; 148:5; Isa. 42:5; 45:18; 40:21,26; Jer. 27:5; Heb. 1:10; 11:3; Acts 14:15; 2 Pet. 3:5; 2 Cor. 4:6; Neh. 9:6; Psa. 100:3; Prov. 3:19; Jer. 32:17; 51:15; Zech. 12:1]
People who try to harmonize the Bible with evolution will say God began the evolutionary process and then just let it run, maybe helping it at difficult points.
Neal Buffaloe is an elder in a "church of Christ" (institutional), an author of several books on biology, and a typical theistic evolutionist. He believes that God created "elementary physical particles," then natural processes took over and did the rest. (Gospel Anchor, 7/78, p. 21)
Genesis 1 shows that God personally and directly commanded and caused each step in creation. He spoke and it occurred, etc.
In Genesis 2 He formed man (v7), put him in a garden (v15), gave him instructions (v16f), brought animals for him to name, (v19f), and created woman from his side (v18-24).
Further, by God's direct involvement, all kinds of plants and animals were created from the very beginning (vv 11f,20f,24f). God did not personally make just one or a few simple kinds and then just allow natural processes to take over and gradually produce the other kinds. Rather, He personally spoke into existence all the different kinds.
2:1-3 - God rested from creation only after He had created all the kinds of living things. Theistic evolution and Progressive Creation have Him resting most of the time as living things develop. The Bible says He was directly involved throughout, then rested only after all was created!
Psalms 33:6,9 - By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. Note God's personal involvement. He spoke and it happened. And this is true of all the host of what was made.
John 1:1-3 - All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. Jesus (v1) was involved in every step of creation. Nothing that was made, was made without His involvement. If this is not history, how can we believe the account that follows regarding His life and death?
2 Peter 3:5 - For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water.
David, John, and Peter confirm what Moses said in Gen. 1. They do not take the accounts as legend or symbols. They do not picture God as starting the basic process and then just letting it run. Rather, they show God's personal involvement in each step and each thing created. To reject this is to deny the whole Scriptures.
Whereas naturalistic evolution removes God completely from the origin of earth and living things, Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creation seriously distance Him from that process. All such ideas conflict with even the most basic Bible teachings about God's involvement in creation.
Some people think that evolution has nothing to do with how life began, but deals only with the progressive development of life after it began. However, many evolutionists claim evolution does deal with the origin of life.
Our introductory quote said that billions of years ago the first living thing came from a primordial soup in which nothing was alive.
Sir Oliver Lodge said: "The law of evolution not only studies change and progress, it seeks to trace sequences back to antecedents; it strains after the origin of all things. But ultimate origins are inscrutable." (HRQ-60)
George Wald, a Nobel Prize winner and head of the department of biology at Harvard, said:
Genesis 1:11,20,24,26 - The Bible teaches throughout that the first living creatures were created by the eternal, living God.
Acts 17:24-29 - God is the giver of life, breath, and all things. In Him we live, and move, and have our being, because we are His offspring. Since we are His offspring, we should not think God is lifeless, material matter.
We partake of the nature of that from which we came. We are the offspring of God, so we must realize that He is alive and is the giver of life. Evolution, in contrast, says that life began by accident in a primeval swamp. Dead, lifeless matter could only make more dead, lifeless matter.
One of the most firmly established laws of science is the Law of Biogenesis, which says that life comes only from living things. There is no evidence that dead, non-living matter can spontaneously generate life. The Bible agrees with this scientific fact, for it says that life came from the eternally living Creator [cf. also Acts 14:15]. However, evolution contradicts both science and the Bible, since it demands that dead matter must have sometime come to life.
Our introductory quote claimed that non-living matter somehow produced the first living thing and from that came all the current kinds of life: "microbes to men."
Theistic evolutionist Neal Buffaloe wrote that after life somehow began, "species developed through change and the inheritance of change until the present time ... virtually all biologists of the present day accept evolution as an explanation for the variety of living forms..." (Gospel Anchor, 7/78, p. 22).
Genesis 1:11,12 - God made the kinds of plants at the beginning and made them to reproduce after their kind. There is diversity or variation within each kind, allowing for adaptation to environment, yet each kind remains the same kind. This agrees with what we see in nature today, but conflicts with evolution.
Reproduction after the same kind occurs because of the power of seed. Each kind of living thing has its own seed, and science has discovered that each seed has its own unique genes and chromosomes which determine the kind of plant that will develop from the seed. Therefore, each seed produces the same kind of living thing from which it came, just as Genesis says.
Genesis 1:21,22 - On the fifth day God created every kind of living thing to dwell in the water and every kind of bird. They also all reproduced "after their kind." As it was with the plants, so with the fish and birds. All the kinds have existed since the beginning, and they always form the same kind of offspring as the parents were.
Genesis 1:24,25 - On the sixth day God made the animals to dwell on dry land. Again everything reproduced after its own kind. What was true of the plants, fish, and birds, was also true of the land animals. This thoroughly contradicts evolution.
Matthew 7:15-20 - The principle that things reproduce after their own kind should be used to recognize a false teacher, even in disguise. False teaching produces false practices like thistles produce thistles. Good teaching cannot produce evil practices and evil teaching cannot produce good practices. [Cf. Matt. 12:33; Luke 6:44.]
But if evolution is true then, given enough time, thistles could produce grapes. So given enough time, maybe false teaching could lead to salvation and true teaching could lead to error! There would be no way to know what teachings lead to salvation and which do not.
Galatians 6:7,8 - Don't be deceived, God is not mocked. We reap what we sow. Sow to the flesh and you reap corruption; sow to the Spirit and reap eternal life (cf. 5:16-26).
But if it were true that sowing long enough could lead us to reap something different, then if we live in sin long enough maybe we could still get eternal life. Or maybe if we live faithfully long enough we could still be lost! That is exactly the consequence of evolution. But such views mock God, and those who believe them are deceived. [Cf. Jas. 3:12.]
1 Peter 1:23-25 - The word of God is spiritual seed which causes us to be born again as children of God, like physical seeds which reproduce plants. If plants could reproduce different kinds given enough time, then perhaps after enough time had past, obeying the gospel would make us, not children of God, but children of the devil!
Like Genesis 1, other passages throughout the Bible teach that living things reproduce after their kind. To deny this principle is to deny the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Himself. And it would be a denial of the very basis on which God will determine who will or will not receive eternal life.
Hence, whether atheistic or theistic, evolution simply cannot be reconciled with truth.
Our introductory quote claimed that the earth was new "billions of years ago," and the first living thing began billions of years ago.
In 1977 the American Humanist Association published a Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science. It said: "It is also verifiable today that very primitive forms of life, ancestral to all living forms, came into being thousands of million of years ago." (Christian Citizen, 5/81, p. 1)
Genesis 1:31-2:3, however, says God made the heavens and earth and everything in them in six days, then rested on the seventh day. What is the significance of "day"? Should the days be understood to refer to the natural concept of a 24-hour day? Some attempt to harmonize the Bible with evolution by saying the days were long ages, hundreds of millions of years long.
95% of the time, the Bible word "day" refers to a natural day (24 hours) or the daylight period of a day. This is the normal meaning and should be accepted unless there is reason in the context to accept another view.
It is true that the word "day" has various uses. It may even be used, especially in prophecy, to refer to a period of indefinite duration (Isa. 2:12-22; 2 Pet. 3:8; Jer. 46:10). However, this is not the normal meaning of the word, and no passage ever uses it to refer to a period of millions of years.
But consider the evidence that the days in Gen. 1 are natural days of essentially 24 hours. Note that the 7 "days" must all mean the same throughout Gen. 1. God itemizes them one after the other and makes no distinction among them. Each consists of "evening and morning," each is counted, etc.
A miracle by nature is always an event impossible by natural law that occurs by the supernatural intervention of God. Each supernatural aspect of Bible descriptions of miracles must be taken literally, otherwise we undermine or destroy the force of the event as a miracle.
One of the supernatural aspects of Bible miracles is the time element: the length of time the miracle required to occur. For example, Bible healings are often said to occur immediately. To take this symbolically and argue that the healings took many months or years to occur would be to make it appear the event could have happened naturally. Likewise, to argue for long ages in creation is to weaken its supernatural character, making the miracle less wonderful, and thereby making it easier to believe that life could develop naturally.
1:3-5 - God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." This was the evening and the morning of the first day.
1:16 - The sun is said to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. Since each day consisted of "evening and morning," we conclude that each of the six "days" consisted of a period of darkness followed by a period of daylight.
If each day were millions of years long, then there would have been millions of years of darkness followed by millions of years of light. Neither plants nor animals could survive such "days."
The significance is to describe the dark period and light period of the day, so the day is a 24-hour day. Such language always refers to 24-hour days in passages of history or doctrine. Consider these examples:
Exodus 18:13 - On the next day, Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.
Ezra 3:3,4 - The people offered burnt offerings to the Lord, both the morning and evening burnt offerings. They also kept the Feast of Tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings in the number required by ordinance for each day.
(For extensive documentation of the Bible use of "day," see our Bible Instruction web site at www.gospelway.com/creation/.)
Each day of creation is counted, listed, and identified by a sequential (ordinal) number: first, second, etc. See Genesis 1:8,13,19,23,31; 2:2,3; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Hebrews 4:4.
This usage, in which the Bible identifies days with a sequential number, occurs over 200 times. When this occurs in contexts of history or doctrine, "day" always without exception refers to literal, consecutive, sequential days.
Remember that "day" must mean the same for all seven days of creation. If the seventh day was a 24-hour day, so were the other six days.
Genesis 2:2,3 - When God rested the seventh day, was that a period lasting millions of years?
Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. [31:17]
Hebrews 4:4 - For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works."
God's resting on the seventh day was the basis of the 7-day week and the Old Testament 7th-day Sabbath. But the days of the week and the Sabbath day were literal days, so the word "day" refers to literal 24-hour days throughout these passages. (Ex. 20:8-11; 31:15-17). Could it be that God is still resting?
Plants were made the third day, but no animals till the fifth and sixth days. That would require that plants survive throughout the entire fourth day without animals.
That would be fine, if the fourth day was a literal day. But if it was millions and millions of years, how could plants survive so long without animals?
Many plants cannot even reproduce without animals. Many need bees and other insects to pollinate them.
Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. [31:17]
Over 600 times "days" is used in the plural in the Bible in books of history, doctrine, or poetry. Always, without exception, the word refers to literal days in such contexts.
In books of history or doctrine, over 200 times "days" is used with a number that counts the days. Always, without exception, the word refers to literal, consecutive, sequential days.
More specifically, ten times the Bible describes an event as occurring "in X days." Always without exception, the meaning is literal, consecutive days. See, for example Nehemiah 6:15; Matthew 26:61; John 2:19; Acts 20:6; etc.
To deny that the "days" of Gen. 1 are natural days, is to undermine the historical accuracy of Genesis and therefore of the whole Bible. We should let the Bible itself convince us what it means. We should never allow unproved human theories to determine how we view the Bible. To do so is to begin the long road to religious liberalism and ultimate rejection of the authority of Scripture.
We will see that there are many other major objections to evolution from the Bible account. So evolution cannot be harmonized with the Bible, even if we take the view the days were long periods. So why take a view that contradicts the apparent meaning of the Bible simply to satisfy an unproved, man-made theory with which the Bible can never harmonize anyway? Such compromises just lead us to surrender more and more Bible truths.
Our introductory quotation said regarding the original life: "From such unfeeling chemicals, Earth eventually filled with a teeming diversity of life, from microbes to Men."
Neal Buffaloe said, "The best evidence indicates that man himself arose from a primate stock which at least 25 million years ago separated from the evolutionary line that produced other living primates."
Buffaloe also described Darwin's views, expressed in The Descent of Man, as follows: "...evolution reached by implication and by direct evidence to man himself, reducing his biological nature to the level of other higher animals." (Gospel Anchor, 7/78, p. 22)
Richard Leakey, a famous paleontologist, said: "There is no law that declares the human animal to be different as seen in this broad biological perspective, from any other animal." (Quoted by Bert Thompson, in "Can America Survive the Fruits of Atheistic Evolution?")
Note this quote from prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:
"Few doubt that [man's] closest living relatives are the apes. On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists ... state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." (via Evolution: Science Falsely So-called, pp 51,52)
Genesis 2:7 - The Bible says God made man directly from the dust of the earth. Then God breathed into the man the breath of life. If man came from the lower animals, he would already have the breath of life for they surely have it. [3:19]
The Bible pictures the creation of man as a direct miraculous creation, not a formation from previous animals.
Unlike the animals, man was created in the image or likeness of God. As a result, God gave men dominion over the animals. Note that we are not equal with animals, nor are we just advanced animals. We have dominion over the animals, even as we do over the rest of the earth.
What is involved in the "image of God"? It appears that man is similar to God (though not on His level) and unlike animals in the following ways:
1. Man has rational intelligence. He has ability to reason, invent, communicate, etc., in ways far beyond animals. His ability in this regard allows him to communicate with God and understand God's purpose for man's existence.
2. Man has a will, and a power to choose. He is a free moral agent. He is able to choose between alternatives and determine which course he will pursue. He is therefore accountable before God to make the choices and pursue the goals that God instructs him to.
3. Man has emotions. He can experience joy, love, anger, hatred, sorrow, etc. The Bible also attributes such feelings to God.
4. Man has a conscience. He is able, not only to distinguish right from wrong, but also to have an inherent sense of guilt when he has done wrong and a sense of approval when he has done right.
5. Man has a spirit nature, which has the opportunity to be with God in eternity. [Cf. John 4:24 to Ecc. 3:21; 12:7; etc.]
The image of God may involve more than this, but it surely includes all this. In all these ways men are like God, but unlike animals.
Psalm 8:4-8 - God placed man over all creation, including all animals (cf. Heb. 2:6-8).
1 Corinthians 11:7 - Man is the image and glory of God.
James 3:9,10 - Men should not curse other men, because they are made in the likeness of God. But if man is not really in God's image, but just an advanced animal, would it be all right to curse them? Could it be that one reason why we today hear so much cursing and profanity is that people no longer respect other people as being in God's image? [Gen. 9:6]
These verses show that Genesis 1 is not to be taken as myth. The Bible teaching about the nature of man is treated as historical truth throughout the Bible.
Here is another major contradiction between the Bible and evolution. As Acts 17:24-29 shows, we must partake of the nature of that from which we are the offspring. If we evolved from the animals, we are just animals. But if God created us, then we are the offspring of God and we partake of characteristics in common with God. We are distinct from the animals and have dominion over them.
Earlier quotations show that evolution says people came from lower animals.
Genesis 2:21,22 - But the Bible says woman was created by a direct act of God. She did not evolve from lower animals. She was formed from matter taken from the side of man, after God had caused the man to sleep.
This story is the crowning blow that proves evolution - theistic or otherwise - is hopelessly incompatible with the Bible account. There is no way anyone can take this as truth and still believe woman evolved from a lower animal. If woman evolved from lower animals, why would God include a statement like this?
Don't say that God knew ancient people could not understand evolution, so He did not try to describe it. They could have understood it as well as we can. But even if they could not, that is no excuse to tell them bare-faced falsehoods. God could have simply said woman developed from other animals over a period of many ages, if that were true. But instead He said she was made from the side of the man.
1 Corinthians 11:8,9 - The man was not created for the woman but the woman for the man. Here is an express New Testament confirmation of the Genesis account of creation of woman. She did not evolve from lower animals, but was created for the man as Genesis says.
1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47 and 1 Timothy 2:13 likewise confirm the Genesis account of the creation of the woman. (See further discussion on these passages later.)
We must either accept the Bible and reject evolution, or else accept evolution and reject the Bible. There can be no compromise or harmonizing them.
Evolution says people developed gradually from lower animals over millions of years; in that case, there would be no individuals you could say were the first man and woman. To harmonize this with the Bible, the references to Adam and Eve are taken as symbols, legends, etc.
Neal Buffalo argued that Adam in Genesis could not have been an individual man, but the passage is just describing the beginning of mankind. (Gospel Anchor, 7/78, p. 27)
Genesis 2:7,21-24; 3:19 - The man was made from dust and the woman from the man's rib. God ordained marriage for them.
Genesis 3:20 - The woman was named "Eve" because she is the mother of all the living. This contradicts evolution by claiming that a particular woman was the first woman and that all other people have descended from her.
Genesis 5:1-5 - Adam had children, just like other historical characters in the genealogy. He lived a certain number of years and then died, etc. He is listed in a genealogy as a man like other men, but he is the first man. What could be more historical than a genealogy? (5:1-5ff).
1 Chronicles 1:1; Luke 3:38 - Genealogies begin with Adam and name many generations including Abraham, David, even Jesus. Were these other men mere legends? If the account of Adam is not historical fact, then these other men must not be history either. But if these other men are historical characters, then so must Adam be.
Further, the genealogy in Luke is the genealogy of Jesus. Jesus and Adam are in the same genealogy! If Adam was a mere legend, then was Jesus just a legend? How can a man be a true disciple of Jesus and believe Jesus never really existed? Yet Adam was just as real as Jesus. Belief in evolution leads to unbelief in Jesus!
Matthew 19:4-6 - From the beginning God made male and female. These two become one in marriage (one man and one woman). Jesus confirms the Genesis account of creation of one original man and one original woman - two people. Jesus treated Moses' account of creation as factual history. To deny it is to deny the word of Jesus. Belief in evolution leads to unbelief in Jesus! [Mk. 10:6-8]
1 Corinthians 15:22,45,47 - Adam is the first man. He is called by name. He became a living soul. All die as a consequence of what he did. This expressly confirms the Genesis record of Adam as the first man. Furthermore, it compares Adam to Jesus. If Adam is legend, why should we believe in Jesus? Belief in evolution leads to unbelief in Jesus! [I Cor. 11:8,9]
1 Timothy 2:13 - Here is confirmation of all the basic facts Genesis states about Adam & Eve. Both are named. Man was created first, then woman. [Jude 14; 2 Cor. 11:3]
To deny the historical accuracy of the Genesis accounts of Adam & Eve is to deny the accuracy of many major parts of Scripture, including the teaching of Jesus Himself. Adam was as much a historical character as Jesus. To consider Adam a legend is to compel yourself to the conclusion that Jesus was merely a legend.
If man and woman just gradually evolved, then the marriage institution itself must also have gradually evolved. So, many evolutionists conclude that marriage is not ordained of God but is simply a social custom gradually developed by men. This pleases many people, like feminists, homosexuals, and others, who then feel free to simply ignore Bible rules about marriage.
Genesis 2:24 - Marriage is clearly ordained of God. Since He created it, it is part of His wise plan and provision for man. It is part of that which is "very good" (1:26-28,31).
Matthew 19:3-9 - Jesus Himself quoted Gen. 2:24 as the basis for His teaching that marriage is ordained of God and must follow God's intention. He used this to teach that marriage is a lifetime commitment and divorce is contrary to God's will. Could it be that one reason we see so much divorce, adultery, and other violations of marriage law is that people have come to believe the evolutionary doctrine that marriage is just a human invention?
Ephesians 5:31 - Paul also by inspiration quoted Gen. 2:24 and compared marriage to the relationship between Jesus and the church (Eph. 5:22-25,31-33). To belittle the marriage relationship - to say it just evolved, is not ordained of God, and was not part of God's plan - would be to likewise belittle the relationship of Jesus and His church!
The New Testament expressly confirms the Genesis account of the origin of marriage. If Genesis is legend, then so must Jesus' teaching be and also that of Paul. But if their account of the origin of marriage is historical truth, then so must be the Genesis account of the creation of woman and of marriage. And that destroys evolution (theistic or atheistic), as well as the rationale for feminism, homosexuality, and other views that belittle marriage.
Not all evolutionists accept all the conclusions that appear to follow from evolution. But many accept the conclusions, and accepting the theory surely encourages people to accept the apparent conclusions.
One such conclusion is that, if man has evolved from lower animals and is essentially the same in nature as the animals, then man must be wholly physical in nature like animals. When he dies that is the end of his existence. He has no spirit that continues to exist after death. Hence, there is no life after death and no eternal rewards for how we live on earth.
Famed evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson said that "evolution is a process entirely materialistic in its origin and operation." (Evolution: Science Falsely So-called, 19th Ed., p. 81)
Richard Leakey said: "There is no law that declares the human animal to be different as seen in this broad biological perspective, from any other animal. There is no law that declares the human species to be immortal." ("Can America Survive the Fruits of Atheistic Evolution?", Bert Thompson)
Raymo said, "...nothing we know about life requires the existence of a disembodied vital force or immaterial spirits." And "Everything we have learned in science ... suggests that the [universe is] ... oblivious to our fates [and] that the grave is our destiny." "Our lives are brief, our fate is oblivion." He says that almost all scientists believe that the idea of a human soul is a "bankrupt notion"; consequently Darwinists consider it "almost a truism" that we are "merely a computer made of meat." (via Impact. 6/2001)
2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1 - Man has both an inner man and an outer man. When this earthly tabernacle (body) is dissolved, we yet have an eternal home with God in the heavens.
Luke 16:19-31 - After death, Lazarus and the rich man continued to exist in a state of comfort or anguish, depending on how they lived in this life (vv 24,25). Unlike with animals, death is not the end of man's existence.
Matthew 22:23-33 - Jesus argued for the resurrection of the dead by showing that men who had died physically were still alive to God. God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Could this be said regarding animals? Did these dead men pass out of existence like animals do?
Matthew 25:46 - In describing the judgment, Jesus said the wicked would go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. So there is an eternal reward for those who are righteous, and that reward is eternal life. It is the opposite of eternal punishment for those who are unrighteous. [Rom. 2:5-11; I Thess. 4:16-18; 5:9,10; Rev. 20:11-15]
1 Corinthians 15:20-22 - In contrast to the death that came upon all men as a result of Adam's sin, when Jesus comes again He will raise us from the dead. But if, as evolution says, there was no real Adam and his conduct did not really bring sin and death into the world, then why should we believe there was a real Jesus who arose and will return to raise us up?
Accepting evolution leads logically to a denial of man's spiritual nature and eternal destiny after this life is over.
As already cited, evolution says that men evolved from lower animals gradually over millions of years. This means death must have existed among lower animals for thousands of generations and was a necessary part of the process of developing new kinds including man.
It follows that the ancestors of men died, and as men developed, they inherited death as a part of the natural process of existence on earth. So death would not be a punishment for sin but a part of the natural order. The fossil record would be a history of the death of animals and of man's "early ancestors."
These conclusions are generally accepted and defended also by theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.
If evolution or progressive creation are true, there was death throughout the days of creation. Creation was a constructive process, forming what was new and good. But death is a destructive, decay process. How can it be compatible with creation?
Genesis 1:31 - What God made throughout creation was all "very good." If death existed then, it would be a part of that which was "very good." But death involves pain, suffering, shedding of blood, disease, accidents, and violence. Is all this "very good"?
On the other hand, the Bible presents death as an enemy, a curse, the power of the devil (Gen. 2:16,17: 3:17-19; 1 Cor. 15:26,51-57; Heb. 2:14,15; Rev. 21:4; 22:3). How can such a curse and enemy be part of God's "very good" creation?
Genesis 2:16,17; 3:17-19 - God said man dies as a result of sin. This includes physical death, since the curse said man had been formed from the dust and would return to the dust (cf. Psa. 104:29; Ecc. 12:7). Later he was cut off from the tree of life so he could not live forever (3:22-24).
1 Corinthians 15:21,22 - The consequence of death passes on to all people who have lived from Adam and Eve on, but this problem will be overcome by Jesus who will return and raise all men from the dead (vv 25,26).
Hebrews 2:14,15 - The devil has the power of death. Jesus had to become a man and die and be raised to defeat the power of Satan, thereby delivering man from the fear of death.
Revelation 21:4; 22:3 - In heaven we will experience none of these problems brought on by the curse of sin
But if death existed throughout man's development and was a natural part of that development, how can it be the power of the devil, and why should it be something for men to fear? How can it be a consequence of sin, since it existed before sin occurred? Why would Jesus want to defeat it?
Genesis 1:28,29; 2:16; 3:2 - Before sin, man had dominion over the animals, but nothing says he ate them. God told him to eat herbs and the fruit of the trees.
Genesis 1:30 - In creation God also ordained that animals eat herbs.
Genesis 3:21 - After the sin, God clothed people with animal skins. This is the first indication of animal death.
Genesis 9:3 - Only after sin occurred did God ordain for man to eat animals. If death was the natural order, why did God not authorize eating of animal flesh from the beginning? And why did He give special authority for men to practice it after sin had come into the world?
Birds and fish were created on the fifth day and other animals on the sixth day. If these days lasted hundreds of millions of years and death was the order of nature throughout, why is there no indication of any animal death prior to sin?
Death is a curse, not just on man, but upon the whole earth.
Genesis 3:17 - The ground was cursed after man sinned.
Romans 8:19-22 - The whole creation is subject to futility so it groans and labors. Through Jesus it will eventually be delivered from the bondage of corruption.
If death is a curse and all the world came under that curse as a result of sin, why would death exist before sin? If death was the order of nature in the "very good" creation before sin, then how could it constitute a curse for sin?
God says: "by man came death" (1 Cor. 15:21). But evolution and progressive creation both claim that death existed for millions of years before man sinned and death was fundamental to man's development. The effect is either to deny the existence of God or else to blame God for that which the Bible calls a curse, the enemy of man, and the power of Satan!
The Bible doctrine of death is taught throughout the Bible. Once again, evolution and progressive creation cannot be harmonized with Scripture; they deny doctrines taught throughout the Bible.
Evolution would be a natural process that, if it occurred in the past, ought to be continuing in the present.
Andrew Carnegie, after his conversion to evolution, said that from lower life forms man "had risen to the higher forms. Nor is there any conceivable end to his march to perfection." (Bolton Davidheiser, p. 351)
Darwin himself said: "As natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." (Evolution: Science Falsely So-Called, 16th Ed., p. 79).
A 1963 Biology textbook ends: "The possibility of the biological improvement of our own species through a wise application of the principles of evolution makes one hopeful of the future progress and happiness of mankind." (Davidheiser, p. 359)
Much of the "evidence" used to defend evolution would require that it still be occurring. They talk about how flies have become resistant to DDT and moths have changed colors to adapt to their environment, etc. These examples actually prove, not that new kinds of living things have evolved from previous kinds, but that animals can adapt to their environment - something no creationist denies. But the fact evolutionists make the arguments prove they believe evolution is still occurring.
Genesis 2:1,2 - The heavens and earth and all the host of them were finished in the six days (cf. 1:31). On the seventh day He ended His work and rested from the work He had done. The Bible presents the work of bringing living things into existence as a completed work. God did the work, then ceased because the job was done. [cf. v3]
Exodus 20:11 confirms the teaching of Gen. 2. God made the heaven and earth and the sea and everything in them in six days. Then He rested on the seventh day. Again the Bible says everything was made in six days. The process of introducing new kinds of living things is no longer continuing.
Psalm 33:6,9 - The heavens were made. God spoke and it was done. The action is complete in the past tense. David confirms Moses.
Acts 17:24 - Paul likewise confirms it. God made the world and everything in it.
The Bible throughout presents creation as a completed activity. It is not continuing by any means. Evolution again contradicts the Bible, not only in Genesis but repeatedly.
[Heb. 4:4; Jer. 10:12; Psa. 148:5; 104:24; Gen. 5:1,2; Isa. 42:5; 45:18; etc.]
If evolution is true, man is the highest form of life that has evolved - the highest peak of evolutionary development. And it follows that he should be getting even better.
As Carnegie said, "Nor is there any conceivable end to his march to perfection."
Man was created "very good" (Gen. 1:26,27,31). He was placed in a garden with all his needs supplied, with no death, suffering, or hardships (2:7-10).
However, the serpent tempted the woman so she and the man disobeyed God (3:1-7). As a result severe curses came on mankind and on the earth. Women had to bear children with pain (3:16). The earth was cursed so it would not produce for man as before (3:17-19). Hence, the whole world is under a curse because of man's sin (Gen. 5:29; Heb. 1:10-12; Rom. 8:20-22).
Man would also die physically as a result of sin (3:19). He was cut off from the tree of life so he could not live forever (v22-24).
2 Corinthians 11:3 - The serpent beguiled Eve. So this Genesis account, which many treat as mere legend, is viewed by Paul as absolute fact.
1 Timothy 2:14 - Adam was not deceived, but the woman (Eve - v13), was deceived and fell into transgression. [John 8:44]
Romans 5:12 - Through one man (Adam - v14) sin entered the world.
1 Corinthians 15:21,22 - Furthermore, the New Testament confirms that the consequence of death passes on to all people who have lived from Adam and Eve on. [Cf. Rom. 5:12-18).
Evolution says man has evolved from lower animals to his highest point, hence, man is better now than he ever has been. However, the Bible repeatedly affirms that, because of sin, man has fallen to an accursed state, not as good as originally. Again we cannot reject the Genesis account without rejecting the Bible as a whole.
If evolution is true, then life exists as a result of a series of accidents in nature. There could not possibly be any real meaning to it. Not all evolutionists accept this conclusion, but many do. And it must be accepted, if evolution occurred by wholly natural processes.
Aldous Huxley, grandson of well-known evolutionist Thomas Huxley, classed himself among those who find "no meaning in the world." He said,
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation." ("Can America Survive the Fruits of Atheistic Evolution?," Bert Thompson)
George Gaylord Simpson said, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (Impact, 6/2001)
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins' said the characteristics of the universe imply that it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" (Impact, 6/2001)
Futuyma said, "if the world and its creatures developed purely by material, physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal." (Impact, 6/2001)
Ecclesiastes 12:13 - The whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commands.
Matthew 6:33 - We should seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Romans 12:1,2 - Present your bodies a living sacrifice to God.
If there is a God who made us, then He made us for a purpose, and our responsibility is to determine what the purpose is and to achieve it. The Bible repeatedly confirms this to be the case, but naturalistic evolution denies this and leaves man without reason for life.
[Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; Matt. 16:24,25.]
Huxley said: "Evolution if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible." (HRQ, p. 63)
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins' said the characteristics of the universe imply that it has "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference" (Impact, 6/2001)
Robert Ingersoll said: "Morality does not come from the clouds; it is born of human want and human experience." (HRQ, p. 57)
Prof. S. J. Holmes: "Darwinism, consistently applied would measure goodness in terms of survival value." (HRQ, p. 59)
Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:
"Man stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself, and it is to himself alone that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but is his own master. He can and must decide his own destiny." (Thompson)
Aldous Huxley: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption ... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do ... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, ... we desired ... liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." (Thompson)
Dr. Edmund Leach published an article entitled "We Scientists Have a Right to Play God," in Saturday Evening Post, 11/68. He said:
"There can be no source for moral judgments except the scientist himself. In traditional religion, morality was held to derive from God, but God was only credited with the authority to establish and enforce moral rules because He was also credited with supernatural powers of creation and destruction. Those powers have now been usurped by men, and he must take on the moral responsibility that goes with them." (Focus on the Family Newsletter, 4/80)
Harlow Shapley, Director of Harvard Observatory, said: "Our god is humanity; our creed is effective participation in universal evolution." (Evolution: Science Falsely So-Called, 19th Ed., p. 81).
Prof. E. C. Woodcock of the Univ. of Durham said: "Christ was produced by one of those mutations destined to start a new species." (Evolution: Science Falsely So-Called, 16th Ed., p. 9).
A founder of the United Church in Canada is reported to have said, "It is possible through evolution for the human race to produce a greater man than Jesus Christ." (Evolution: Science Falsely So-Called, 16th Ed., p. 9).
Belief in evolution tends to lead men to reject the Bible as a standard and Jesus as the Savior. Instead, it leads men to trust in their own wisdom to know how to live life, set their standards, and solve their own problems.
Genesis 3:5 - From the beginning, Satan tempted people by appealing to the desire of men to "be as gods." Men never seem to be satisfied with their position above the animals. No matter how richly they are blessed, they want more. They want to usurp the role of God.
Isaiah 55:8,9 - "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."
Evolution convinces us we are the highest wisdom in the universe, so we can direct our lives by our own thinking without revelation from God. In contrast, creation shows that the all-wise Creator is much wiser than we are. The very world He created is, in many ways, beyond our understanding.
Jeremiah 10:23 - O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. Because God is so much wiser than we are, we should not attempt to decide right from wrong nor solve the problems of life without His guidance.
Proverbs 3:5,6 - Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths. Instead of following human wisdom to deal with life, we should trust in God's wisdom. Let Him direct our lives.
2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. The Bible reveals God's plan for our lives; it is His standard of right and wrong.
Acts 4:12 - Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. When we disobey God, as all people do at times, we have a means of forgiveness. Salvation is only through Jesus.
Jesus is not a highly evolved human. He is the Son of God who came in the flesh to die for our sins. He is the only means of salvation. No one else can match him now or ever.
Not only is evolution false, it leads men away from the true source of guidance. By leading people to think they can devise their own solutions and there is no higher source, evolution leads men to deny and ignore God's source of true wisdom, the Bible.
Not all evolutionists accept all of the beliefs we are about to list. But all of the following beliefs and practices can be proved to be based on or encouraged by evolution.
We have already thoroughly documented that evolution is a necessary, fundamental belief of those who reject faith in God. They must have an explanation for the universe without God, and evolution is the only possibility. We have also shown that acceptance of evolution has led many people to lose their faith in God.
Anthropologist Ashley Montagu described a book entitled Germany and the Next War written by Friederich von Bernhardi. He said that Bernhardi believed war "'is a biological necessity' ... In proof thereof such notions of Darwin's as 'The Struggle for Existance,' [sic] 'Natural Selection,' and the 'Survival of the Fittest' are invoked ..." This book was written in 1911 and was approved by German officials. Three years later WWI began. (Davidheiser, p. 352)
Wallbank and Taylor said, regarding the views of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche:
"Social Darwinism and the antidemocratic cult of naked power, as preached by advocates like Nietzsche, were laying the foundations of fascism, which would one day plunge the world into the most terrible convulsion in its history." (Davidheiser, p. 352)
Benito Mussolini brought fascism to Italy. Robert E.D. Clark said:
"Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it should hinder the evolutionary process." (Davidheiser, p. 352)
Hitler said: "The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, an eternal victory of the strong over the weak." (HRQ, p. 58; Evolution: Science Falsely So-called, 19th Edition, p. 81)
Dr. Raymond Surburg said of Hitler:
"Few people realize that Hitler, in bringing about World War II, merely put into practice what he believed was human evolution. Darwin and Nietzsche were the two philosophers studied by the National Socialists in working out the philosophy set forth in Hitler's Mein Kampf. In this work, Hitler asserted that men rose from animals by fighting." (Thompson)
Sir Arthur Keith said: "The German Fuehrer ... has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." (Thompson)
This was the reason for the holocaust: Jews and other races were considered "inferior" to the Germans and were not "fit" to "survive." Hitler practiced "survival of the fittest" and sought to improve the human race by selective breeding and elimination of those unfit.
In the preface to the Communist Manifesto, Engels said that the basic theory of communism "is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology."
A few months after Darwin's Origin of Species was published, Engels wrote to Marx saying, "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." Later Marx wrote to Engels: "...these last few weeks, I have read ... Darwin's book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." Shortly afterward Marx wrote: "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history" (Impact, 10/87).
The International Socialist Review, 11/80, contained an article by Cliff Conner regarding evolution vs. creation. He said: "Defending Darwin is nothing new for socialists. The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start." He included some of the material quoted above, then he concluded: "...we are especially grateful to Charles Darwin for opening our way to an evolutionary dialectical understanding of nature." (Acts & Facts, 2/81, pp. 2,4)
Marx allegedly wanted to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin. Marx autographed a copy of the book for Darwin saying he was a "sincere admirer" of Darwin. (Impact, 10/87).
Lenin said: "Darwin put an end to the belief that animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God..." (Impact, 10/87).
Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism (p16) defines the Marxist view in a way that is clearly evolutionary: "Nature, as well as all its individual phenomena, is in constant process of development. The laws of that development have not been ordained by God ... They are intrinsic in nature itself...."
We have earlier quoted Stalin's biography which shows how he became an atheist from reading Darwin.
Clearly these communist leaders all believed that Darwin's view of evolution served as the basis for atheism and communism. Furthermore, they practice "survival of the fittest" like Hitler did. They have murdered millions of people whom they considered to be "inferior," because they opposed communism.
There is a major, highly influential branch of psychology called Humanistic Psychology. But we have already documented that humanists are unbelievers in God but believers in evolution.
Sigmund Freud described himself as "a completely godless Jew," and "a hopeless pagan." He is called a "follower of Darwin." (Berkley, p. 104; Adams, p. 16). He viewed the Bible accounts as "fairy tales" (Adams, p. 16).
Erich Fromm is described as an atheist, materialist, and humanist, who believed that, if such a thing as Divinity exists, it is man who is Divine (Vitz, p. 20). He said: "The position taken by humanistic ethics [is] that man is able to know what is good and to act accordingly on the strength of his natural potentialities and of his reason..." (Vitz, p. 19).
B. F. Skinner was so committed to humanism that he signed up as an official endorser of "Humanist Manifesto II."
The modern New Age Movement is an attempt to introduce paganism and the occult into the thinking of modern Americans.
James Lovelock is a leader in the modern Gaian Hypothesis, which views the earth as a goddess, a living organism that evolves and controls evolution. He wrote: "...as far back as the earliest artifacts can be found, it seems that the Earth was worshipped as a goddess and believed to be alive." He said also: "The evolution of the species and the evolution of their environment are tightly coupled together as a single and inseparable process."
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake said: "All nature is evolutionary. The cosmos is like a great developing organism, and evolutionary creativity is inherent in nature herself."
These views are the basis of much of the current thinking of the environmentalist movement. (All the above found in Impact #234, 12/92.)
Evolution contributes to the modern acceptance of abortion.
Dr. Carl Sagan is a well-known astronomer and author, who appears on the Cosmos series on Public TV. He is an ardent evolutionist, and a defender of abortion. In Parade Magazine, 4/22/90, he co-authored an article defending abortion on the basis of the evolutionary argument that the developing fetus in the mother's womb passes through the various stages of its evolutionary history. The force of his argument is that, in the various animal stages it passes through, it is no more wrong to kill it than it would be to kill an animal. (Back to Genesis, #48, 12/92)
The fact is that abortion fits perfectly with the evolutionary mind set. If killing animals is acceptable, then killing humans is acceptable too since we are just advanced animals. And the less advanced the human is, the less intelligent and capable of productive work it is, the more acceptable it is to kill it. This justifies the modern abortion and euthanasia movement.
Hitler practiced abortion as a means of "survival of the fittest." He believed people unfit to live should be killed. Much of this was done to unborn babies, but he was willing to practice it on people of all ages. How far is our society from his?
Matthew 7:15-21 - False teachers are known by their fruit. Good trees cannot bear bad fruit and bad trees cannot bear good fruit. Any doctrine that produces fruit such as we have seen evolution produces, must be an evil doctrine, and those who teach it must be false teachers. But those who speak the truth must teach and do the will of the Father in heaven.
Acts 17:24 - When we realize that God is the creator, we must also recognize Him as Lord. If He made the world, He deserves to rule it and we must accept His will. His will, as we have seen, is revealed in the Bible. [Rom. 1:20]
When we compromise the Bible statements about our origin, we end up being confused about our purpose in life, our destiny after life, and the standard by which we ought to live our lives. We can understand our purpose in life and the proper standard for life only when we understand our origin.
Let us summarize the fundamental dangers that face anyone who becomes a believer in evolution or who compromises the Bible teaching of creation:
1. Evolution undermines faith in God and encourages unbelief.
2. It denies the truth of hundreds of passages throughout the Bible and leads to rejection of the Bible as our standard of right and wrong.
3. It encourages denial of other miracles including the virgin birth and the resurrection.
4. It denies man is in the image of God and views us as mere animals.
5. It denies the Divine origin and authority for marriage.
6. It destroys our means for recognizing false teachers.
7. It denies the fall of man and the origin of sin and death.
8. It implies that life is without meaning or purpose.
9. It implies that man is wholly material without eternal rewards.
10. It leaves us with no basis for determining eternal rewards.
11. It implies there is no means and no reason for becoming a child of God.
12. It implies Jesus was just a fallible human or a legend.
13. It undermines the relationship between Jesus and His church.
14. It destroys the concept of absolute moral standards and promotes human wisdom and lack of restraint.
15. It undermines the need for salvation through Jesus.
Any attempt to compromise with evolution leads inevitably to a rejection of Bible teaching.
Acts and Facts, Institute for Creation Research; (El Cajon, CA).
Back to Genesis, Institute for Creation Research; (El Cajon, CA).
"Can America Survive the Fruits of Atheistic Evolution?" Bert Thompson; (Pro Family Forum; Ft. Worth, TX).
Competent to Counsel, Jay Adams; Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1978.
Evolution and Christian Faith, Bolton Davidheiser; (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co.), 1969.
Evolution: Science Falsely So-called, International Christian Crusade, 16th edition (1965) and 19th edition (1974).
Handbook of Religious Quotations (HRQ), Samuel G. Dawson and Rod MacArthur.
Impacts, Institute for Creation Research; (El Cajon, CA).
"Psychology and the Bible," Warren E. Berkley; Gospel Anchor, Dec., 1986-Feb., 1987.
Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship, Paul C. Vitz; William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977.
"Review of the 'Sharp-Buffaloe Discussion' on Creation and Evolution," Glenn R. Burt; Gospel Anchor, 7/78.
Copyright 1998, 2006, David E. Pratte
Local churches and individuals may, within limits, distribute this Bible study guide for free, but not for sale. Web sites may link to this page but not reproduce it. For details click here for our copyright guidelines.
Topics for further Bible study
for more Bible studies relating to creation or evolution.
Evidences for God, Jesus, & the Bible
The Meaning & Purpose of Life
Life after Death, Resurrection, Judgment
Why Do We Need Forgiveness of Sins?
Free audio Bible