There are some things people just choose to believe, but I’m afraid I’ve never been very good at blind faith. I started asking “Why?” when I was about two years old, and over 60 years later it’s still one of my favourite words. One of the most incredible ironies in the modern world is that an enormous number of well educated people are blind to the fact that their worldview is based almost entirely on blind faith. Without really asking why, they believe in evolution as the origin of everything they can see, touch, smell, hear and taste; in reality what they believe is “it all just happened!” And yet they point to people of faith and say they do not use empirical evidence to come to their conclusions about the origins of all that exists in the material world.

Image from Smithsonian

From my years of observing the world around me I know without a doubt that everything that happens has a cause, nothing happens without a cause. It takes an incredible amount of blind faith to believe the universe simply burst into existence from nothing and then slowly, without any rational or intelligent external agency, became the superbly complex, intricately interdependent system we observe it to be today. Granted this faith is placed in experts, but these experts are just people, and scientists have been proven wrong many thousands of times before.

If I’m going to place my faith in something or someone, I want to have good reasons for believing. Over the years I’ve discovered the best way to understand the issues involved in any area is to look at it from as many perspectives as possible; to examine the data, or evidence, from as many angles as possible. Many years ago I decided I would not totally discount the idea that there is a spiritual world without examining it more thoroughly. It seemed obvious to me that if there really was a spiritual world it would never be possible to discover it through physical experiments – that just didn’t make sense. So I set out to investigate through study and observation of a number of different systems of belief. I must admit I was rather sceptical to begin with, but the 60s was also a time when anything goes, so I went with it.

The Beatles with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

People like Timothy Leary and The Beatles were doing it so it wasn’t an unusual pastime in the 60s to look into otherworldly ideas. But I think I approached it as a researcher, I really wanted to know if there was “another dimension” of reality. I suspended disbelief and threw myself into exploring the spiritual claims of as many concepts of a greater reality as I could find. What I found was a person, a trans-dimensional person who had lived on Earth, but had ascended to another plane of existence. He came to Earth as the only extra-terrestrial to be born on our planet and He changed the course of history. He also completely changed the course of my life.

It was many years after I met Jesus that I started to question my belief in evolution. After all, it had been proven, hadn’t it? But then, with my fondness for weighing up evidence, I asked myself why I had not looked at both sides of this debate, now that I realised there were two valid sides to the argument. It wasn’t long before I jumped ship. The more I read, the more I realised the evidence was just too strong to cling to such a flimsy film of science fiction. Following the rules of making the theory fit the facts, and not the facts fit the theory, I decided biblical creation was the most scientifically convincing view of the origins of life and the universe. Evolution is a carefully crafted story, but it is a story that really only holds water if you have already decided there is no God, and by that stage of my life I knew from the results of my earlier research that there is a God and He is very real.

The next jaw dropping realisation I made was that there are some Christians who seem incapable of letting go of their belief in evolution. They not only choose to hold fast to this scientifically unsound doctrine (nobody has ever observed evolution, we have observed adaptation, but that isn’t evolution), they refuse to even take a serious look at all the scientific evidence for biblical creation. If one is prepared to suspend disbelief in creation science, it does not take long to discover that the scientific support for the theory of evolution is extremely poor, and just like the fossil record, it is composed of more gaps than empirical evidence. Consequently, it would appear a belief in evolution is actually more a philosophical or religious belief, which creates a biased set of assumptions from which all data is interpreted.

Those who believe in evolution cannot look to sound science as the basis for their belief, they must place their faith in unobserved, hypothetical biochemical mechanisms to explain life, because of a prior commitment to philosophical naturalism. Unlike the founders of modern science, who had no problems with the idea of a creator God, science has now embraces a total commitment to naturalism. Why people who claim to be Christians should align themselves with this philosophical stance is a mystery to me. As Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse admitted:

….. at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.

Although he later defended evolution by stating that, in his view, it works, nevertheless he also said,

evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically (1).

Those who are absolutely committed to a belief in evolution usually insist that it is only through purely materialistic science that we can hope to arrive at real truth in our understanding of the universe. This is philosophical naturalism, a metaphysical stance which has its roots in ancient cultures. The majority of evolutionists would contend that their ideas are modern, whilst insisting biblical creationists are simply adhering to outmoded concepts. These same adversaries would no doubt insist that biblical Christianity is now a “disproven relic of the past.” This understanding is far from the truth.

An old edition of The Encyclopedia Britannica gives an interesting insight into the religion of the Mayan people, who lived around 600 BC. They believed:

…themselves to be of one blood, descendants of a common ancestor. … Thus, the Turtle clan of the Iroquois are descended from a fat turtle, which, burdened by the weight of its shell in walking … gradually developed into a man. The Cray-Fish clan of the Choctaws were originally cray-fish and lived underground, coming up occasionally through the mud to the surface. Once a party of Choctaws smoked them out, and, treating them kindly … taught them to walk on two legs, made them cut off their toe nails and pluck the hair from their bodies, after which they adopted them into the tribe. But the rest of their kindred, the cray-fish, are still living underground. The Osages are descended from a male snail and a female beaver (2).

It is possible that evolutionary thought began with the Hindu concept of reincarnation, and there is also reason to believe the Greek philosophers built on this idea, or perhaps the ideas of even earlier cultures (3). The Greek philosopher, astronomer, statesman and mathematician, Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) proposed the idea that life originated in water (4), while his student, Anaximander (611–547 BC), developed his tutor’s proposals further, concluding that humans evolved from fish or fishlike creatures. He also suggested that these fish-men eventually cast off their scaly skin and moved to dry land.

Thales of Miletus

Sadly, theistic evolutionists choose to ignore the philosophical bias of evolutionary teachings and generally refuse to look at the masses of evidence for biblical creation. There are even websites set up by these sadly deceived people, who are trying to encourage others into their unholy compromise. I am at a loss to know why they would want to cling to something that is so patently false. The only explanation I can find is in Jesus’ words:

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and they will show great signs and wonders; so that, if possible, they will deceive the very elect. (Mat 24:24)

Jesus does not say it is impossible to deceive people who choose to be deceived. And with the wonders of modern technology, those who are not prepared to accept the authority of The Bible are inevitably going to fall prey to the passing ideas of human society. The great signs and wonders of the modern age are the complex pseudo-scientific stories we are told from childhood, which are now accompanied by, not just elaborate charts and graphics, but convincing computer modelling and animations. We are even presented with robotic replicas of dinosaurs, which we are authoritatively told went extinct millions of years ago, despite the fact that some of their fossils still have tissue and red blood cells clinging to their bones. We are also instructed by the dictators of modern science that these magnificent creatures lived long before humans became humans. This leads me to the reason I am certain theistic evolution is an unholy compromise.

Although there are hundreds of reason for believing the earth is less than 10000 years old, the dominant geological paradigm has so smothered dissent, there is now almost no opportunity to be taken seriously when we try to present an alternative perspective on the age of universe. Not only is an alternative perspective smothered, it is also censored, so that the majority of people don’t even realise there is a viable alternative view.

This is why I am confident in calling this whole complex lie unholy. If it were of the Light it would welcome scrutiny, but even Christians who hold this perspective will rarely consent to discuss the topic with evolution sceptics. I have always followed the principle that if something is sound it stands up to any amount of scrutiny. However, whenever I have tried to join in discussions with people who are committed to a belief in evolution, rather than stay on topic, they inevitably resort to personal attacks or say they don’t really want to continue the discussion. As Paul told the Ephesians:

But all things being exposed by the light are clearly revealed, for everything having been revealed is light. (Eph 5:13)

Presenting evolutionists with robust scientific evidence that clearly points to biblical creation usually ends the discussion, shutters go down. It seems to me they prefer to keep any flaws in their theory in the dark. Even theistic evolutionists refuse to suspend disbelief in biblical creation long enough to examine their belief in evolution. Why choose to cling to something that is based on a philosophical bias that is diametrically opposed to a belief in God and needs so much blind faith to accept, while refusing to properly examine scientific evidence for biblical creation and a biblical timescale?

Despite the fact that well trained and qualified scientists all over the world have compiled tomes of robust, scientific information on biblical creation, some Christians have never taken the time to give it a second glance. Why these people should blindly place their faith in naturalism’s creation story is a mystery to me. Is it pseudo-intellectual pride? Fear of man? Fear of rejection by naturalist peers? Or just genuine, misplaced trust in “people who should know”, who assure them evolution is the truth?

The very nature of the Father we present under the theistic evolution lie is that of a god who was happy to use death and destruction in the creation process. Many creatures would have died long before Adam had developed to the stage where this god was prepared to call him man. To create a being in his own image, this god would have presided over millions of years of pain, death and suffering before he was ready to breathe his spirit into a creature ready for his purpose. This scenario clearly places physical death millions of years before Adam and Eve sinned.

We need only examine the life of Charles Darwin to understand how a father’s heart is torn by the physical death of his child. If our Father chose to encompass death, pain, decay and suffering in his creative process, He must have planned this as an integral part of the human experience from before the foundation of the world. No person who has experienced the death of a child could say this is “wholly good” (Gen 1:31). This is not part of the plan revealed by the Father in His Word, The Bible clearly states God created perfection. Adam and Eve were created fully and perfectly human, with vast amounts of genetic variability. Humans have been humans from their first appearance in the fossil record. The biblical account is clear, God created each kind and the first two humans without the need for any death to precede their appearance. Then the Creator gave Adam and Eve an enormous responsibility, along with enormous privilege, they were to have dominion over the creation (Gen 1:26), but they abused God’s trust.

God warned His new humans of the consequences they would face if they chose to ignore His only negative directive. They believed Satan’s lie, followed Satan’s guidance rather than their Creators, and death entered God’s magnificent creation. It could no longer be called “wholly good”, it was corrupted by sin. Adam and Eve, and all the other living things within their dominion began to die.

Some theistic evolutionists point to the death and destruction God brought about in the Old Testament (OT) and propose that death is not such a big deal to God. Once again they besmirch the character of God (Ezekial 33:11) and they also reveal a very limited understanding of God’s revelation. All the physical death in the OT was the direct result of people’s sin. Again and again this sin threatened to derail God’s plan to bring a human community to a point at which He could be born into their midst. God wanted only to bless and heal, but sometimes people had simply gone too far for Him to bring them back (Hos 6:4-7:2).

Despite thousands of years of careful preparation, Jesus was threatened almost immediately after His birth and His parents had to flee and hide Him away from danger. Finally, when He grew to manhood, many of the leaders of His own people contributed to His death. But the Father had worked hard to create an environment where there were enough people who would recognise their Messiah to carry on spreading His message of salvation to humanity. Since the birth of Jesus our Father has never called for the death of a single person. His mission has been accomplished.

To present the Father as one who is complacent about death, is to totally miss what it cost Him to send His Son and the teachings in the Bible’s bookends. Genesis begins God’s revelation to humankind by showing us that physical death is an enemy (1 Cor 15:26) that entered God’s creation because of sin (Gen 2:17; Ez 18:4; Ez 18:20; Rev 21:8), while Revelation reveals that God will eventually destroy death and recreate His universe without death or the accompanying pain and suffering that sin also produced (Rev 21:4). Death will be swallowed up in victory (1 Cor 15:54). If Christians try to add evolution to this revelation they completely compromise this message and belittle the physical death Jesus suffered on our behalf.

I believe theistic evolution is an unholy compromise. I don’t expect any theistic evolutionists to challenge this statement, as I have discovered neither they, nor their atheistic fellow believers, are open to discussion on the topic. They prefer to keep it in the dark away from the light of scientific scrutiny, whilst systematically besmirching both those who believe in biblical creation and the reputations of the scientists who carry out research from a biblical base, as opposed to a naturalist base. May our Father open the eyes of the brothers and sisters who have been deceived by this complex lie. It didn’t all just happen, our Father has given us a very accurate record of exactly how He brought His creation into existence.

1 National Center for Science Education, PO Box 9477, Berkeley CA 94709–0477, USA
2 Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Werner Co., New York, Vol. 23, p. 467, 1898
3 Osborn, H.F., From the Greeks to Darwin, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, p. 54, 1929
4 Birdsell, J.B., Human Evolution, Rand McNally, Chicago, p. 22, 1972