Can evolution be pushed at Christians with money?
So it seems the BioLogos Foundation is taking a page out of government liberalism by dangling wads of cash in front of churches, academics, and ministries to get them to change their position on macroevolution. With so many weeds growing amidst the wheat, I have no doubt many large checks will be greedily accepted, and a storm will approach from the visible horizons of professing Christianity.
Thus, Rick Phillips writes at Reformation21.org, “Is Evolution Biblically Acceptable? The Question of Genesis 1.”
Given what World Magazine has called a “major, well-funded push” to promote the acceptance of evolution among evangelical Christians, the case must be persuasively made against the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. In answer to this pro-evolutionary stance, I am one of those Bible teachers who believe that the implications of evolution involve sweeping changes to the Christian faith and life.
While I appreciate the moderate spirit of many who want to find a way to accept evolution alongside the Bible, I find that the more radical voices are here more helpful. For instance, I share the view of Peter Enns in the conclusion to his book The Evolution of Adam, writing that “evolution… cannot simply be grafted onto evangelical Christian faith as an add-on,” but requires a fundamental rethinking of doctrines pertaining to creation, humanity, sin, death, and salvation. But Christian ethics must also be revised. Enns writes that under evolution “some characteristics that Christians have thought of as sinful,” including “sexual promiscuity to perpetuate one’s gene pool,” should now be thought of as beneficial. Even so foundational an issue as the Christian view of death must be remolded by evolution. An evolution-embracing Christian faith must now see death as an ally: “the means that promotes the continued evolution of life on this planet.”
I am not a qualified scientist and have virtually nothing to contribute to the science involved in evolution. As a Bible teacher and theologian, my concern is the necessary beliefs that flow from the Word of God. For the ultimate issue involved with evolution is biblical authority: must the Bible submit to the superior authority of secularist dogma? Or may the believer still confess together with Paul: “Let God be true though everyone were a liar” (Rom. 3:4).
Well, some of us aren’t taking the bait! That said, I do realize that if Matthew Vines can peddle his worthless Gruberisms with the help of wolves in fine wool coats, BioLogos will no doubt attract many helpful minions as well. Hirelings can always be found for the right price.
Whatever. I’m with Rick Phillips. When you’ve built your house on a rock-solid foundation, and your ship is securely anchored, one can weather storms.
Virtually all “science” on origins begins with philosophical assumptions that largely determine the final conclusions. In the case of macroevolution, those key assumptions are simply incorrect (and unwarranted!), making it impossible for a materially-bound, philosophically-naturalistic “science” to ever come up with the right answers—even though we all look at the same physical evidence.
Naturalistic assumptions are akin to denying the possibility that 2+2=4, and then going forward to build a complex mathematical equation upon that flawed assumption. It’s a house of cards that will ultimate come collapsing down upon all who take shelter within it.