Sacha Walicord–Guest Writer
A friendly response to Amelia Rens’ article “The evolution and faith paradox… or is it?” (Issue 2, February 15, 2018)
It is encouraging to see young Christians wrestle with difficult issues that pertain to our faith and I commend students for not running away from them. At the same time, there are some things in Amelia Rens’ article regarding evolution that –by way of conscience- I must reply:
First of all, I want to say that I agree with Amelia that this is not ideal for people to grow up “sheltered” from the “real world”. At the same time, I find this a little difficult to believe because the “real world” is everywhere. Sin is everywhere. TV is everywhere. The internet is everywhere. I wonder if people subconsciously exaggerate a tiny bit to fit a certain stereotype to make their case for evolution against a Biblical Christianity that seeks to separate itself from the world in a Biblical way (2 Cor 6:14-17; John 15:19 etc.).
Be that what it may, Amelia then described the powerful influence of a science professor who told her that there was no conflict between evolution (=science) and “faith” (that ambiguously deceptive word). But here is the problem with this overused false dichotomy: The real battle here is not between “science” and “faith” but between the faith of evolution and the faith of the clear teaching of Scripture (Genesis). Evolution is by no means a scientific concept. Natural science -even according to the chart is a method of studying the natural world (operational/experimental science) but evolution is a story about the unobserved past.
That brings me to the chart, which really troubles me, as I believe it is very deceptive for Christians.
Yes, God is the author of Scripture and the creator of nature, but Scripture is inerrant and nature is cursed since the Fall. Both speak, but Scripture speaks verbally in propositional truth statements whereas nature speaks non-verbally. Verbal communication is always easier to understand (when the speaker is clearly seeking to communicate truth, as God is doing in His Word), than is non-verbal communication (Belgic Confession Art. 2, re. “more clearly and fully”!). Verbal, propositional truth is necessary to understand, correctly, the non-verbal message. Therefore, Scripture should be used to guide our interpretation of nature and not the other way around.
Now, as Scripture tells us, nature does indeed reveal truth to us: it infallibly reveals the existence and some attributes of our Creator to all people in all times (Rom 1:20; Job 12:7-10; Acts 14:15-17, Acts 17:24-29, Ps 19:1, 97:6). Nowhere does the Bible say that nature reveals its origin and history and that man can figure it out apart from God’s 100% truthful eyewitness testimony about the past. No man saw the first days of creation, everything going on outside the ark, or Jesus’ conception or His resurrection; and yet God was and is an eyewitness to all the events recorded in Scripture in a manner that even a five-year old can understand.
True, humans interpret both Scripture and nature but most interpreters of nature today are in rebellion against God and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). Whereas Bible-believing Christian interpreters love God and love the truth. Scripture is not given to us only to interpret spiritual reality, as the chart suggests, but to inform us about all of reality – as Article XII of the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” rightfully states:
“We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”
True, God does not call us to be complacent. He does not call us to deny an entire spectrum of His creation. But no young-earth creationist does either. To deny evolution or to deny what the current secular scientific majority believes is not denial of an entire spectrum of His creation. On the contrary, it is the theistic evolutionists who are denying God’s Word (by their superficial attention to what is actually says regarding origins) and refusing to carefully consider the scientific evidence in God’s creation that clearly refutes evolution and millions of years.
If readers would like to learn more about scientific arguments in line with the teachings of Scripture, refer to websites like answersingenesis.org or creation.com