Creation or Evolution – Why We Must Choose

Posted by Duane

Mar 28

In 1886 Charles Spurgeon gave a sermon in which he stated the sharp dichotomy between creation and evolution: “In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.”

Over 100 years later, this distinction still needs to be affirmed by bible believing Christians in the face of compromising (though often well-meaning) Christians who still think that there need not be a dividing line. David Anderson takes on this responsibility is his freely downloadable response to Denis Alexander’s book “Creation or Evolution – do we have to choose?”

Dr. Denis Alexander, a fellow of St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge, and director of the “Faraday Institute for Science and Religion”. Dr. Alexander is both an evangelical Christian and a professional biologist. He is also a Darwinist, not a creationist. The aim of his book is to explain why you should be too.

I was given a copy of this book in Summer 2008, and its contents deeply concern me. Dr. Alexander professes to be an evangelical. The methods of Biblical interpretation which he applies in this book, however, are not. I do not agree with the book’s overall thesis – that Darwinism can be harmonised with the Bible – but the liberal hermeneutical methods which are used to justify that thesis concern me more. Dr. Alexander does not present any argument for his assumptions in this book, but simply presents them to the naive reader as unquestionable.

If evangelicals take the contents of this book to heart, they will not only be endorsing a certain set of conclusions regarding origins; they will also be embracing a seriously erroneous approach to interpreting the word of God as a whole, and its relationship to other areas of knowledge. Such an approach, if carried out consistently, will ultimately damage the whole structure of Biblical revelation and the gospel itself – a road which I believe Dr. Alexander in this book has already travelled a long way down. I agree with Professor Andrew McIntosh, whose review in “Evangelical Times” published in September 2008 asserted as follows: “By writing this book, Alexander has placed himself on the side of liberal theologians and, in this reviewer’s opinion, has departed seriously from the evangelical faith.”

http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/writings/creation-or-evolution-dr-denis-alexander/index.php/intro

David Anderson’s complete review is available as a free PDF download (It is also available in MSWord format and viewable online in html at the link above)

PDF

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Date: 28 Mar 2010

Categoriess: Creation/Evolution

149216 comments2010-03-28+12%3A00%3A34Duane

Comment by Larry on 29 Mar 2010 at 02:58

I see, so if I don't want evolution to be true, I just “choose creation”? If that's not what you're saying, why does choosing have anything to do with it?
Comment by Duane on 30 Mar 2010 at 07:47

Thank Larry,

I encourage you to read my post in its proper context and even better, to read David Anderson's review, before reconsidering your line of questioning, which is at this moment teetering on the edge of empty rhetoric, rather than sincere, intelligent conversation.
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 30 Mar 2010 at 11:18

Inverting a statement is often the easiest and most obvious way of seeing what sort of legs its standing on: “So if I don't want creation to be true, I just ‘choose evolution’?” Right, that’s just prima facie wrong, isn’t it? It’s not about what a person ‘wants’ to be true, but what he recognizes as true based on the evidence. Your comment was a red herring and quite unhelpful.
Comment by Larry on 2 Apr 2010 at 08:48

So, you're saying that we cannot choose? I'm confused. Your blog title states outright “why we must choose.” What does choosing have to do with it?
Comment by Duane on 3 Apr 2010 at 00:55

You think you're confused! I just told you to take the time to read the post in its proper context and then you respond with exactly the same question. Not only that, but you appear to think that it's intellectually honest to make sweeping statements about a post based solely on its title. I mean, who does that?

Larry, you implied the choice is arbitrary, e.g. “…so if I don't want evolution to be true, I just choose creation?” I thought Ryft responded quite appropriately to this and yet you have persisted. Was there some part of his response that was unsatisfying to you?

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like your questions betray a vice, more than a demonstration of intellectually-honest confusion.
Comment by Mathew on 3 Apr 2010 at 07:09

Larry – the basic synopsis of this post is that creation is incongruent with evolution. Yet the Christian mentioned, Dr Alexander, seems to suggest that this is not the case. And then we have a quotation from a critique of Dr Alexander's work that proves, point by point, where Dr Alexander's arguments for the harmonization of creation and evolution fall down.

So far, I'm puzzled as to how your comments have addressed what the post is expounding. Could you respond to the content of the post rather than the title of the post, which you seem to be misunderstanding?
Comment by Duane on 3 Apr 2010 at 09:50

Larry,

I thank you for shedding some additional light on your query.

If choice has any bearing on the matter, I'd choose creation over evolution. But what bearing does choice have on the matter? It is implied that it does bear on the matter.

Implied by what… the post title? Allow me dispel your concerns then. I was not implying that one's choice somehow determined the truthfulness of the matter. Apart from the rather obvious non-sequitur that this presents, it's clear from the post what “why we must choose” means, and virtually impossible to discern from the title alone without making some rather unfounded assumptions.
Comment by peter on 15 Apr 2010 at 07:13

the main problem i see is that the weight of evidence is the same for evolution as it is for gravity.

many young people have been taught their entire lives that either evolution is a lie, or Christianity is.

when they go on to further study, where they can see evolution first hand, many fall away from god because their parents did not teach them that our god is a god of truth and that truth should always be more important than dogma.

My brother found studying science challenging. not because scientists were lying to him in some kind of global conspiracy, but because simple experiments demonstrated the truth of something he had been taught was a lie.

in my own experiments, the adaptation of cells-(the cornerstone of evolution), caused my experiment to go awry as the cells adapted to the environment in which i put them. fortunately, i had had time years before to come to realise that the scientific conspiracy of evolution is a myth and that any scientist who could disprove evolution would win a nobel prize and be famous for generations.

if you assume that he would be paid well to keep silent, consider that he would be paid be every talk show to come on, paid for every speaking engagement, and have his own department, with offers of grants showering like rain.
Comment by Duane on 15 Apr 2010 at 10:24

I appreciate your comments Peter as you appear to have some experience in the field and can perhaps provide invaluable insight on this topic. But at this stage all I can ask you to do is to define your terms and give some clearer examples, because unless you are equivocating over the word “evolution”, the Christian world view and the evolutionary world view (the scope of which extends far beyond adaptations) are quite clearly at odds. I know of no informed creationist who is claiming that organisms can't change or adapt a little here or there, but to suggest that these changes are evidence of the kinds of changes required to reasonably demonstrate goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution, is quite another thing altogether. And that some people have made peace with that is really besides the point.

For example:

Evolution teaches design by chance; life came about from a random process of interaction within non-living chemicals
The Bible teaches God created from nothing by the power of His Word (Gen 1)

Evolution teaches that death was the necessary antecedent of man.
The Bible teaches man was the cause of death; death came after sin (Gen 3:17-19, Romans 5:12)

Evolution teaches death is a permanent part of our history and our future.
The Bible teaches that death is an enemy (an intruder) that was not part of God’s original creation (Gen 1-2; 1 Cor 15:26) and that it will not be a permanent part of our future either (Rev 21:4)

Evolution teaches that many animals changed (evolved) into other animals over millions of years.
The Bible teaches that God created specific plants, animals and mankind to reproduce after their kind (Gen 1:11-12, 21-22, 24-25, 27-28)

But here is what I would find helpful so I am not misunderstanding the position you are presenting. From the list below, which if any do you consider to be observable examples of what you would call evolution?

- Helicobacter Pylori developing a resistance to antibiotics?
- The sizes of finch beaks changing on the Galapagos as a result of food shortage?
- The population of peppered moths changing from predominantly light to predominantly dark as a result of the industrial revolution?
- The arrival of the short-legged Ancon sheep?

Alternatively, give some clear examples of your own and explain so that I can know what you mean when you say things like, “in my own experiments… the cells adapted to the environment in which i put them.” I think that my first item on the list above might fall into this category?

Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Comment by fr0d0 on 20 Apr 2010 at 19:57

Evangelical fundamentalists (as illuminated here) really are the church going cave men of these modern times. How long can they continue to cling on to beliefs dis-proven by fact beggars belief. It really makes you wonder if faith has any real use at all in this modern world when reduced to such impotency.
Comment by Duane on 20 Apr 2010 at 20:54

(Gee, what is it with the delayed interest in this post all of a sudden?)

Ok Frodo, I really do not know what you mean?

Do evangelical fundies earn the label of “cave men” because of the “fact” that dead men can't rise from the dead also? And what do you even mean by “disproven by fact”; what is it that such “facts” have disproven?

I assume given the context of the post, you are referring to creation/evolution controversy, but there was very little substance in your comment. Elephant hurling does not a rational argument make. And until you can explain yourself better, your lament concerning faith really has no context either. In fact I suspect you are playing a little fast and loose with the word “fact” also. But we shall see?
Comment by fr0d0 on 20 Apr 2010 at 21:20

It was the leading lines of Peter's comment that sucked me in :)

No, they earn the label for literalising what is sensibly within the realm of science already, although I think you (agreeing with the consensus here) would argue black is white over.

Personally I find theistic evolution (if that truly fits me, I care not) satisfying and coherent. I found Anderson's criticism of Alexander astoundingly naive (in the parts I skim read. I have no access to Alexander so in depth study would be pointless).

As an indication of my POV on this, I think Father Coyne puts it well : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc&feat...
Comment by Duane on 21 Apr 2010 at 08:56

Thanks Frodo,

I hesitate at having to point out that once again you have not been very specific with your comments. Did you want to have an actual discussion about how and why you think that theistic evolution is coherent, or did you simply want to air your opinions?

I mean, if you want to discuss why you “found Anderson's criticism of Alexander astoundingly naive”, then it will not do to simply make the statement. I am happy to consider your rejoinders but I cannot respond to vague generalisations.

Much worse though was your assumption that I would likely “argue [that] black is white over.” This I take it is your way of saying that I would deny what is demonstrably true? The irony of this statement is that it was you who made broad unsupported truth claims about what facts are and what such so-called facts have disproved, without qualification. Now somehow I am apparently implicated as having taken a position in direct opposition to these mysterious “facts” despite you having not made any comments of substance to which I can respond. We have a saying for that where I come from. What the…?
Comment by fr0d0 on 21 Apr 2010 at 16:16

I'm sorry Duane that you found nothing to reply to. I too found nothing chewy enough in your article to make specific argument against. So I made a generalised comment. I linked you a video of an opposing stance in reply to your link to a review of a review of a book I can't get hold of.
Comment by Duane on 21 Apr 2010 at 18:25

Frodo,

There's no need to be sorry, just offer something of substance to discuss and we'll be on our way. (This was basically my appeal to Peter and it is my continued appeal to you also.)

I think you are missing the point of a blog. An article is often intentionally superficial for several reasons. But it is intended that interested persons will then do their own research and/or discuss and seek further clarification of the matter with the author of the blog. You have not discussed anything, but continue to make generalised statements when here I am willing to discuss details with you, if only you raised one point of substance for discussion.

Before you post again, please familiarize yourself with our comments policy to avoid having further comments on this post withheld.
Comment by Ryft Braeloch on 22 Apr 2010 at 19:59

Oh no, fr0d0 has been here. Now I have to disinfect and sanitize the site. (Been a while, mate. Nice to see you here and ruffling feathers.)