The Case Against Theistic Evolution

An Evolutionary Biologist Ernst Mayr once quoted, “No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact. “However, Christian Scholar, J. Vernon McGee, wrote about a spiritual conversation between an army Sergeant and George Dewey Blomgren. This story presents the army sergeant a chance to redeem himself and believe in the Creator.

It was years ago that Herbert Spencer said, ‘the most general forms into which the manifestation of the unknowable are re-divisible are time, space, matter, force, motion.’ Those were his categories of division. A very fine personal worker, George Dewey Blomgren, was talking to an army sergeant who was a law graduate. Mr. Blomgren was attempting to witness to him. The sergeant mentioned Herbert Spencer (Herbert Spencer developed the survival fittest argument and the Natural Selection argument, before Charles Darwin between 1820s-1900s.) So Mr. Blomgren replied, “Did you know that both the Bible and Spencer teach the great principle of creation?” the sergeant’s eyes widened and he asked, “How’s that?” the reply was, “Spencer talked about time, space, matter, force, motion. In the first two verses of Genesis we find: “In the beginning [time] God created the heaven [space] and the Earth [matter]. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God [Force] moved [motion] upon the face of the deep.’ It took Spencer fifty years to uncover this law, but here it is in fifty second.” The sergeant had no grounds for argument and soon trusted Christ as His savior. (McGee 12)

Did God create the earth without the means of natural processes? Should we support the rising theory of combining evolution and the Bible together? What is Theistic Evolution? Should it be taught in churches? What is the History or Background of this controversy? Is there any empirical evidence that supports the evolutionary side of things? Who advocates for the combination of evolution and creation?

The History of this controversy rests on two key concepts: evolution and creation. Some people agree with the creation model, while others agree to the evolution model.

Some Christians believe that God was involved in creation in the early 1700s to 1800s. The definition for Biblical creation is the concept that God created the earth without the means of natural processes and out of nothing (ex Niliho). Presently, a Concept exists with the school system. This Concept is Evolutionism. Evolutionism is “The atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose” (White 3). All public schools are teaching this principle. This concept arose from this controversy. Christian Scholars combines the Bible and Evolution to create the new concept called theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is the concept that God created the earth by the means of natural processes. Generally speaking, God jump-started the evolutionary process.

The first scholar to make an assumption of the evolutionary theory was Pierre Laplace. He first developed the Nebular Hypothesis in 1796. This theory states:

The material from which the solar system was formed was once a slowly rotating cloud, or nebula, of extremely hot gas. The gas cooled and the nebula began to shrink. As the Nebula became smaller, it rotated more rapidly, becoming somewhat flattened at the poles. A combination of centrifugal force, produced by the nebula’s rotation, and gravitational force, from the mass of the nebula, caused rings of gas to be left behind as the nebula shrank. These rings condensed into planets and their satellites, while the remaining part of the nebula formed the sun.” (HowStuffWorks)

In the Early 1820s, Herbert Spencer developed the theory of natural selection and the theory of the survival of fittest.

Natural Selection will ensure the survival of the fittest. Person B is dying from starvation because he is ill, old, and poor. Therefore, fellow humans ought to morally avoid helping person B so that the survival of the fittest is guaranteed.

This argument by Herbert Spencer teaches us that we should not help a fellow human being since it does not help us survive. The Survival of the fittest argument decreases the moral standards of people.

Thomas Chalmers formulated the gap theory. In Early 1900s as he was working as a Presbyterian minister, He advocated for the gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Thomas Chalmers first developed the Gap theory. Henry M. Morris contributes,

According to this concept, Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the universe. Following this, the standard events of cosmic evolution took place, which eventually produced our solar system about five billion years ago. Then, on the earth, the various geologic ages followed, as identified by their respective assemblages of fossils (trilobites, dinosaurs, etc.).  But then occurred a devastating global cataclysm, destroying all life on Earth and leaving a vast fossil graveyard everywhere. This situation is then said to be what is described in Genesis 1:2.  “And the Earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The cataclysm is thought to have occurred as a result of the rebellion of Satan and his angels against their Creator in Heaven, with God then casting them out of Heaven to the Earth.  Those who advocate the gap theory agree that the six days of creation week were literal days, but they interpret them only as days of recreation, with God creating again many of the kinds of animals and plants destroyed in the cataclysm. Henry M. Morris

The Day Age theory followed the Gap theory. George Stanley Faber purposed the Gap theory. While George Stanley Faber was an Anglican theologian, he developed the theology that the Day Age theory is true because the order of events was inconsistent with the order of events in Genesis. Dr. Bert Thompson implies that the day age concept is that “the creation days in Genesis 1 were not literal, 24 hour days, but rather were long ages” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=391)

In 1917, The Restoration Movement occurred. This movement “is filled with examples of just how serious a threat Christian understood evolution to be.” (Bromling 2) G.C Brewer, in 1925, addressed the issue of Evolution by doing a lecture on evolution. 2 years following that Lecture, George Kingman created a book which is in direct refutation against the Pamphlet, Godless Evolution, which was written by George Smith. Many Authors in the Restoration movement proven that Evolutionism “Ultimately results in the destruction of faith in God and His word in the hearts of man.” (Bromling 2)

            From 1995-2002, a new voice arose to this controversy.  This voice strives for promote the concept of the Theistic evolution. Their mission statement is “to convince students that Genesis can be massaged to fit evolution, and Thereby remove the conflict between evolution and Christianity.” (Chiang, par. 6)  This Opponent is the Templeton Foundation. Over the course of last decades, the foundation gave the Biologos Founder, Francis Collins, 2 million dollars to promote their worldview of Evolutionary creationism.  Chiang States:

One Grant totally over $2 million US was given to Francis Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project and a Born again Christian, to start BioLogos, which describes itself as ‘a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and Biblical faith.’ Unlike Templeton Foundation, BioLogos is distinctly Christian, but like the Templeton Foundation, it fully endorses evolution and completely dismisses YEC and the straight forward interpretation of Genesis. (Chiang 2)

Chiang reveals that the BioLogos is exposing the message that they are straight forwardly accepting the fact that the Bible and the Evolution viewpoint can be smacked together and are distinctly Christian. In 1982, nine years prior to the promotion of the Science and religion program, Billy Graham disappointed the world by accepting the Theistic Evolution viewpoint. From 1990 to 2002, Templeton Foundation, who promotes TE, gave ten thousand dollars to each professors and clergy that taught a faith and science course. Resulting from the success of this award, Templeton spent close to ten Million dollars promoting the Science and Religion.(Chiang, Par. 3, 4, 5) This is how the Templeton Foundation came to being so influential.

Two Scholars has been influencing the culture in the present time. The First is Stephen Hawking. He believes this. “This Big bang theory picture of the universe is in agreement with all the observational evidence that we have today.” He implies that the Universe was produced thirteen billion years ago by a huge explosion. This theory is known as the Big Bang theory. Another Scholar and teacher, is Bill Nye. Bill Nye believes that in order to spread awareness about academic opportunities, children are denied being taught creationism. He believes that Creationism doesn’t help children think scientifically but he wants to thinking scientifically by using the model of evolution and the knowledge that evolution is a fact. So He accepted the Debate to bring up that we should not teach the students creationism.

Bill Nye debates with Ken Ham at Creation Museum in Legacy Hall on Bill Nye debated on the property of his opponent. Second, the Nye debate strategy is crucial. Bill Nye strategized a debate Tactic to slam His opponent with a great many scientific and common sense arguments. Since Bill Nye held this strategically tactic, it will be hard to make the time to respond against all of Bill Nye debate arguments. Bill Nye believes that Ken Ham wouldn’t have the time or focus to address many of them. (Ham, pg. ?) First, they discussed the Big Bang theory. Second, they discussed the Fossil record. I will further explain these concepts later in my paper.

Division exists in this controversy. The Division exists in the Morality of people.  Neal Buffaloe wrote in Mission Magazine the division, “The Concept of evolution is neither degrading to man, detrimental to Human dignity, nor in conflict with the Bible.” (Thompson 4) The Concept of Evolution is in conflict with the Bible as seen by the first claim in support of my thesis. The division has also gone into the churches. 

According the American Research Group,

“sixty-one percent of often Sunday school attendees believe in evolution and millions of years.” (Ham)

Mohler states his opinion about the division that exists in the controversy. He conveys

“Given the stakes in this public controversy, the attractiveness of theistic evolution becomes clear. The creation of a middle ground between Christianity and evolution would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict. Yet, in the process of attempting to negotiate this new middle ground, it is the Bible and the entirety of Christian theology that gives way, not evolutionary theory” (Mohler 25)

This leads to my thesis; Theistic evolution should not be taught in churches. Mohler proclaims,

“Theistic evolution is a biblical and theological disaster.” (Mohler 25).

Four claims prove the fact that theistic evolution should not be taught in churches for the following reasons: First, the Bible and evolution cannot coincides (meaning that it cannot be put together to form theistic evolution); Second, scientific evidence points us to the fact that the earth is 10,000 years old; Third, the morality drops with the churches; finally scriptural evidence supports that Theistic Evolution should not be taught in churches.

Since we related the controversy to the division, we need to discuss the proofs of these four claims.

First, the Bible and evolution cannot coincide; Theistic Evolution concept promotes contradictions in the Bible, destroys and contradicts the Biblical record of Creation, evokes the concept that God’s word isn’t credible, is inconsistent with God’s method. Fifthly and finally, the evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-theistic systems.

First, the theistic evolution concept promotes contradictions in the Bible. James Coppedge asserts, “Some Believers in God are not clearly aware that the Bible and evolution are not compatible. They suppose that Theistic Evolution is a philosophy acceptable to the Christian faith, not having thought through the contradiction involved” (Brainyquote).

The theistic evolution mindset also reduces the Genesis Account to a nonliteral account. H. Von Ditfurth contributes the idea that when the Genesis Account is reduced to a nonliteral account, it promotes the concept of a mythical image and is reduced to superstitious thought. He states;

The Literal meaning of the Mythical imagery with which theologians proclaim their message bears no relation to the contents of the message. They were not even valid 2,000 years ago, when these images came into existence as expression of a living faith … that was two millennia ago, so it doesn’t hold for us anymore. The semantic “overtones” of the cultural matrix at the time of Christ’s birth have long since been forgotten. At that time the mythical formulas were impressed on the philosophy and customs of the Judaic-Romans world. Today we only have skeleton, the bare framework of words and sentences, which fills us with respect and awe as an echo of the time when they originated. The real meaning and significance they once had have long since been lost. .. Where mythical statements are reduced to their bare literal meaning, it becomes superstitious. H. Von Ditfurth

This Scholar asserts the idea that when we have mythical imagery like The Creation account, it bears no relation to the content of the message and reduces it to superstitious thought. Dr. Bernett puts it other words:

Theistic evolution’s attempted conflation reduces the message to insignificant… [The] scriptural events are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

These Dr. Bennett and H. Von Ditfurth agree that when we have a nonliteral account, it bears no message and the meaning of the account is lost. The text of Genesis 1-11 is distinguished as a Historical account of writing in the Bible and was inspired by God. Jeff Miller sums up this argument by saying, “

The Theistic evolutionist often tries to get around the clarity of the Genesis account of Creation by contending that it is not a literal, historical, account, but rather is figurative and symbolic…The Bible certainly uses figurative language at time (e.g., in the Psalms, Revelation, Daniel, etc.…) However, the fact that we know that such language is being used, proves that there are textual indicators that distinguish historical from figurative and symbolic genres of writing in the bible.

The Bible cannot coincide with evolution is also because people do assumes that the God’s word isn’t credible. According to Bible Information webpage, “If we dismiss the accuracy of the biblical Creation account, we are free to dismiss other parts of Scripture and thus become the judge of what is or isn’t true in spite of what Jesus and the Bible authors say.”

Scientific evidence leads us to the conclusion that God created the earth without the means of natural processes. The Big Bang and Radiocarbon dating prove that scientific evidence promotes the Biblical creation model and not the theistic evolution model.

Since the Second Law of thermodynamics is proven, the Big Bang theory is invalid. The Big Bang concept is defined as a Singularity that exploded over 14 billion years ago, resulting in the creation of the universe. Charles C. Ryrie explains this concept better. He notes,

The Planets and stars resulted from a big bang explosion of compressed, rotating protons and neutrons. This dense, compressed mass continues to expand away from the original nucleus at fantastic speeds. An alternate to this principle is the so-called steady-state theory that teaches matter is continually being created in outer space and that this process has been going on for an infinite period of time. (Basic Theology, 198)

Charles Ryrie reveals two theories that are conflicting; the big Bang theory and the steady state theory. He asserts that Steady-state theory is the concept that matter is continually being made in outer space and that this process has been going on for eons of times. The Steady-state theory originated and first developed by a group of British scientists in 1948. Sir Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Sir Fred Hoyle were the British scientists that formed the group. The steady-state theory is incorrect. According to Encyclopedia Britannica,

Observations since the 1950s (most notably, those of cosmic microwave background) have produced much evidence contradictory to the steady-state picture had have led scientist to overwhelmingly support the big-bang model. (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica)

The American Society has strayed away from the Steady state theory because sufficient scientific evidence points to the big bang theory. For Example, the cosmic microwave Background proves the Big Bang theory to be accurate. For Clarification on Microwave Background, NASA tested the Big Bang: The CMB. NASA found:

The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place and that as it expands, the gas within it cools. Thus, the universe should be filled with radiation that is literally the remnant heat left over from the Big Bang, Called the ‘the cosmic microwave background”, or CMB” (Wollack, pg. 1)

The Second Law of thermodynamics prove that the need for a beginning. According to Lectures in Systemic Theology,

The second law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy, indicates that the universe is running down. Energy is becoming less available, and order is giving way to randomness. If the universe is running down, then it is not self-sustaining; and if it is not self-sustaining then it must have had a beginning. (Thiessen, pg. 28) 

He reveals that if it is not self-sustaining then it must have had a beginning. A Sustainer had to be out of time in order to keep the universe sustaining. The Sustainer is God. Genesis 1:1 “In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Who created the Heavens? The Almighty God created the universe.

This reason is proven by the Teleological argument. The Teleological argument states,

Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe had an intelligent and free cause…The teleological argument suggests not only that the first cause is intelligent and free, but that it is outside the universe, for design is seen to emanate not simply form within, but also and chiefly from without, by the adaptation of things external to the organisms and by the disposition and orderly arrangement of vast bodies of matter, separated by millions and billions of miles. We conclude, therefore, that the argument proves that the first cause is intelligent, free, extramundane, and incomprehensibly great. (Thiessen, pg. 28-29)

These are the two reasons presently that supports that God created the universe.

Radiocarbon dating cannot be accurate. For the following reasons; First, Radioactive molecules half-lives are not constant; In addition, Helium trapped indicates the earth is merely 6,000 years old.

Reifenschweiler showed the half-life of Tritium was forty percent with changing temperature. Example number 2: Bosh and others showed that in fully-ionized state, the beta decay rates of heavy isotopes can be accelerated by a factor of a billion. These two examples prove that the half-lives can change which reduces the credibility of the radiocarbon dating method.

Helium trapped in Zircons indicates the earth is merely 6,000 years old. This is validated by three labs. Helium diffuses so quickly that all the helium should be out of the Zircon in about 100,000 years which disproves the radiocarbon dating method. (Wile)  Also, fifty-eight percent of all helium that could have been diffused is still in the crystals. In addition, scholars indicate that there is a low amount of helium in the atmosphere. Not only does dating of Helium makes the Earth about 6,000 years old, Scientist are trying to argue that helium is not escaping the crystals or the helium diffused into surrounding environments. These ideas are refuted because the Zircons are surrounded by mica sheets. Also, Scientist measured the surrounding materials and they found that the surrounding material measures less Zircons.

Radioactive half-lives are not as accurate as we once thought. So In a closer look of these dating methods, the American society can make the assumption that helium diffusion is the better dating method than radiocarbon 14 dating. Dr. Jay Wile proclaims, “The diffusion rates were measured, and the data lined up perfectly with the young Earth!” Dr. Jay Wile indicates that the evidence of Helium diffusion proves that it is the better dating method than radiocarbon 14 dating. Here is other table that proves again that the Helium diffusion dating is the way to truly understand that the earth is only 6,000 years old

Table 1: Values that Indicate a young Earth

 RATE Group states,

“[Table 1] shows those values, plotted with Creation model—as close as errors in the data and approximations in the model would lead us to expect. The data points extend past the “knee” of the model at 197º C, into the lower-temperature “defect” region determined by radiation damage in the crystals. This was quite important to examine, because the defect part of the curve can vary greatly from site to site (Humphreys et al., 2003a, §§ 3, 4). Even in the defect region, the data agree quite well with the model. It is not often in science that experimental data so clearly validate a pre-published numerical model … we can also compare the new diffusivities with the observed retentions to calculate the age of the zircons. Doing that point-by-point gives an average of 5,681 years with a sigma (square root of variance) of 1,999 years (Table III). We round that off to 6,000 ± 2,000 years” (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm)

            These Two evidence that we prove; the big bang and Helium diffusion dating method proclaim the fact that God did create the Earth.

                        Following the scientific evidence for the God creating the earth, the theistic evolution model decreases the morality of the churches. According to Ken Ham, “In “Already Gone”,

Those students who attended Sunday school (61%) are actually more likely than non-attendees (39%) to not believe that all the accounts and stories in the bible are true, doubt the Bible because it was written by men, defend keeping abortion legal, believe in Evolution, and believe that good people don’t need to go to church. (Ham, Already Gone)

Figure 1: The Belief in Evolution among teens.

In figure 1, it shows that sixty one percent of often Sunday school attendees believe in Evolution. When children or teens believe in evolution, it starts to cave the sound doctrine of the church. In figure 2, it shows that when children believe in evolution, it leads to defending keeping abortion legal.

Figure 2: Should Abortion continue to be legal in most Instances?

As the American Society can see by these two charts, when the American Pastors break our sound doctrine and accepts the theistic evolution, it decreases the morality as a church.

First, The Concept of theistic evolution decreases the morality in the church through diversion from sound doctrine. Diversion from sound doctrine splits the churches. When the American leaders in the church split the congregation, it leads to a decrease of morality within the churches because the split causes other ideas to formulate in the churches such as homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex and that the Bible stories are just stories. In figure 3, it shows that the Sunday school students are okay with premarital sex. Figure 4 indicates that when churches question the Bible, it leads the students in Sunday school to the doubt that the Earth is 10,000 years old. This is primarily due to the diversion within the churches about this controversy. When The American Societal Leaders combines Sound doctrine and Evolution, it causes friction and diversions within and out of churches. Thus, Diversions from sound doctrine decreases the morality within the churches.

Figure 3: Is Premarital Sex Okay?

Figure 4: Which of these makes you question the Bible the Most?

The fact is that when we take Genesis 1-11 not literally, it causes the teens to accept many bad moral standards thus leading the churches’ morality.

Jeff Miller notes in churches that “Of those who attend seldom or never, thirty-eight percent believe in theistic evolution and only twenty-five percent believe in creationism.” Then the author goes into the implications of this research. He implicates “That less religious a person becomes, moving away from a consistent contemplation of spiritual matters (i.e., the worship of God and a study of His word), the more he will capitulate to the prevailing secular viewpoint instead of the Biblical viewpoints.” (Miller) He goes as far as to the say that Theistic evolution is “A gateway doctrine that leads many to atheism.” (Miller) He uses research to back up this contention. He researched by the means of the Gallup polls that “The percentage of those who believe in theistic evolution, in one form or another, appears to have gradually declined over the years (from thirty-eight percent to thirty-two percent), while the percentage of those who believe in secular evolution has increased by the same amount (from nine percent to fifteen percent) (2012). That’s nineteen million people.” (Miller) This proves that the theistic evolution model stunts the growth of the church because people are straying away from the Theistic evolution mindset to atheism. As a result, it contributes to the lack of church attendance across the world.

As a result, the American societal leaders of the churches need to strive for sound doctrine to increase the morality of the churches. Titus 2:1 states this truth. “You, however, must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine.” (NIV, 1984)

Scriptural references support that the Bible never conveys the message that God used Evolutionary Creationism. The Bible implies that men are without excuse when they believe in the Creation account and Unrighteous men are suppressing the Truth. Romans 1:18-20 conveys,

For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth….For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, having been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a Result, people are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

The World is suppressing the truth of the Biblical creation model. People, who believe in the creation account, are without excuse. In addition, when men are suppressing the Biblical Truth; it means we are walking in the Path of unrighteousness. Psalm 1:1-3 demonstrates this truth. Psalm 1:1-3 “How Happy is the man who does not follow the advice of the wicked or take the path of sinners or join a group of mockers! Instead His delight is in the Lord’s instruction, and he mediates on it day and night. He is like a tree planted beside streams of water that bears its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever He does prospers.” David conveys the message that when we take the advice of the sinners, we will not prosper.

As the American society realizes the proofs of how theistic evolution is wrong, the American society needs to also realize the problems with biologos viewpoints and Bill Nye’s viewpoints. Biologos is “The Current leading organization that promotes theistic Evolution” (White 2). Biologos viewpoint is that the Bible and science cannot relate with each other for the following reasons; first, The Bible is not a reliable source of scientific knowledge about the origin of the earth and the universe including living things –because it was never intended to teach us about science; Second, The Bible is a reliable source of Knowledge about God and spiritual things; Third, scientific evidence is irrelevant to the Bible—it is simply not a science book; fourth, The Creation Story in Genesis 1 is a confession of faith in the true creator, intended to refute pantheism and polytheism, not to tell us how God actually created the Earth; fifth, The Bible tells us that God created, not how God created. These are refutations against the stance that Theistic evolution should not be taught in churches. These points are wrong because of the following reasons: first, The Bible is a reliable source of knowledge about the origin of the Earth and the Universe; In addition, Scientific Evidence is relevant to the Bible; finally, the Creation account does in fact tell us how God created the World.

First the Bible is reliable source of knowledge about the origin of earth and the universe. The New Testament scholars (for instance Paul and Jesus) confirmed the Biblical Creation. Also Scholar J. Vernon McGee also asserts the idea that the bible is reliable source of knowledge about the origin of the earth and the Universe. He presented the story about Herbert spencer and shows the relation between Herbert spencer and George Dewey Blomgren quote. The Relation was this.

In the first two verses of Genesis we find: “In the beginning [time] God created the heaven [space] and the Earth [matter]. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God [Force] moved [motion] upon the face of the deep.’ It took Spencer fifty years to uncover this law, but here it is in fifty second.”  (McGee 12)

This relation shows that Bible is a reliable source of knowledge about the origin of the Earth and the Universe.

In Addition, Scientific Evidence is relevant to the Bible. Scientific evidence is relevant to the Bible because some scientific theories such as the Big Bang Theory can either support or threaten the Bible. For instance, Helium diffusion is a scientific fact that does indeed back up the Bible. This theory does not threaten the Bible. So my opponent is incorrect because the Bible is relevant to the Scientific Evidence because of these reasons as shown above.

Not only Scientific Evidence is relevant to the Bible, The creation account does in fact tell us how God created the World. My Opponent quoted Cardinal Baronio. He stated, “The Intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to Heaven, not how heaven goes” (Davis 3).

Bill Nye “the Science Guy” approves the Evolution model for the following reason; first, it helps the children to contribute their ideas and concepts to the scientific community; third, the Biblical creation model prevents them from thinking scientifically; fourth, it is a fact of life. Bill Nye’s view can be shut down and destroyed for the following reasons; first, it affects the morality of the Children; In addition, it leads the Sunday school students to doubt the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.; Not only does it lead to doubt, the creation Model does not prevent them from thinking scientifically.

Figure 2 (Should Abortion be legal in instances) indicates that evolution leads more kids to believe that abortion should be defended. The Research states, “forty percent of often Sunday school attendees believe that abortion should be defended.” (Ham) This figure shows the truth that evolution affects the morality of the Children.

In addition, students doubt that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. According figure 1, “Sixty-one percent of often Sunday school attendees believe in millions of years and evolution.” This statistic leads to a question: “Should evolution be taught as Bill Nye pointed out?” The answer is no, because we have looked at two reasons why evolution crushes the morality of the children and leads to doubting the inspired Word of God. Another fact indicates, “Twenty-nine percent of often Sunday school attendees doubt that the earth is only 10,000 years old.” (Ham) These two reasons so far gives a clearly picture on how Bill Nye viewpoint is not credible.

Third, Creation model doesn’t impede their scientific understanding. As I have found researching this topic, it takes a lot of science to prove the creation model but it doesn’t take a lot of science to prove the evolution standpoint. So in the end, the creation model doesn’t impede their scientific understanding.

These three reasons destroy Bill Nye’s argument that we shouldn’t raise a generation of creationists.

The American society can note three distinct claims that are evident in this controversy. First, Theistic Evolution hurts the church and morality as demonstrated by the empirical evidence. Second, Theistic evolution cannot coincide with the Bible. Third, Theistic evolution contradicts scientific evidence as seen in the Big Bang theory and In the Radioactive dating. Then we looked at two opponents that were wrong and are not valid. These two opponents were Bill Nye and biologos. As a result, we should strive for sound doctrine by not teaching Theistic evolution in the churches. The American society needs to strive for good morally standards in order to keep this nation striving for God’s Glory. Therefore, we should go out and proclaim the truth that God created the earth without the means of natural processes. In conclusion, Jeff Miller inspires, “It is critical that the Christian prepares himself for the defense of the truth on any topic (1 Peter 3:15)…The Christian should be ready to cast down arguments (Miller 3)” We need to stay on track with sound doctrine and not divert our course.

References

Bibleinfo.com “Does evolution contradict the Bible” Published: 2012 Publisher: Bible Information Editors Date Accessed: April 18th, 2017 URL: http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/can-evolution-and-creation-go-together

Bromling, D. Min, Brad “The Threat of Evolution to Christian Education.” Published: 1995 Publisher: Apologetic Press. Date Accessed: April 18th, 2017. URL: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=363

Chiang, Dr. R. Gary “The Rise of Theistic Evolution in Christian Higher Education” . Published May 2013 Date Accessed April 18th, 2017. URL: http://evidenceweb.net/pdfs/theistic-evolution-chiang.pdf

Davis, Ted “Science and the Bible: Theistic Evolution, part 1” Published: August 15th, 2012. Publisher: BioLogos. Date Accessed April 18th, 2017. URL: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/science-and-the-bible-theistic-evolution-part-1

HowStuffWorks “Nebular Hypothesis” Published: April 2015 Publisher: HowStuffWorks Date accessed April 20th 2017. URL

Thompson, Ph.D. Bert “What’s wrong with Theistic Evolution” published 2001. Date Accessed April 18th, 2017. Publisher: Apologetic Press. URL: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=306

Theissen, Clarence Systemic Theology “The Definition and Existence of God” pg. 23-29. Date Published 1982. Publisher: Eerdmans Date Accessed April 23rd, 2017

Miller, Ph.D. Jeff “Literal Creationists Holding their Ground in the Polls” Published: 2012. Publisher: Apologetic Press. Date Accessed: April 18th, 2017. URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4509

Molher, J. Albert Jr. “The New Shape of the Debate” pg. 25 Southern Seminary Ex Niliho published: Winter 2011 Publisher: Southern Seminary Date Accessed: April 18th, 2017 URL: http://equip.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ssmn-winter-full-digital-low.pdf

McGee, Vernon thru the Bible: Volume 1 Genesis-Deuteronomy “Genesis” pg.11-12 Published: 1981 Publisher: Zondervan. Date Accessed: April 23rd, 2017

Ryrie, Charles Basic Theology “Evolution and origin” pg. 198 Published 1999. Publisher: Moody Publisher. Date Accessed: April 23rd, 2017.

White, J. Gene “Theistic Evolution-A Biblical and Scientific Analysis” Published: September 16th, 2016, Publisher: Sunny Brooke. Date Accessed: April 18th, 2017 URL: http://www.sunnybrookepub.com/theistic_evolution.html

Wollack, Edward J. “Tests of Big Bang: The CMB” Updated: May 9th, 2016 Publisher: NASA. Date Accessed: April 18th, 2017 URL: https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

#KenHam #TrustinginGod #GeneralThoughts #CaseagainstTheisticEvolution #TheisticEvolution