Wayne Grudem, “Foreword,” in Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific Responses 
(ed. Norman C. Nevin; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2011), 9–10:
This is a highly significant book because it persuasively argues that Christians cannot accept modern evolutionary theory without also compromising essential teachings of the Bible.
It may at first seem easy to say ‘God simply used evolution to bring about the results he desired’, as some are proposing today. That view is called ‘theistic evolution’. However, the contributors to this volume, both scientists and biblical scholars, show that adopting theistic evolution leads to many positions contrary to the teaching of the Bible, such as these:
- Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, but they were just two Neolithic farmers among about ten million other human beings on earth at that time, and God just chose to reveal himself to them in a personal way.
- Those other human beings had already been seeking to worship and serve God or gods in their own ways.
- Adam was not specially formed by God of ‘dust from the ground’ (Gen. 2:7) but had two human parents.
- Eve was not directly made by God out of a ‘rib that the Lord God had taken from the man’ (Gen. 2:22), but she also had two human parents.
- Many human beings both then and now are not descended from Adam and Eve.
- Adam and Eve’s sin was not the first sin.
- Human physical death had occurred for thousands of years before Adam and Eve’s sin—it was part of the way living things had always existed.
- God did not impose any alteration in the natural world when he cursed the ground because of Adam’s sin.
As for the scientific evidence, several chapters in this book show that deeper examination of the evidence actually adds more weight to the arguments for intelligent design than for Darwinian evolution.
What is at stake? A lot: the truthfulness of the three foundational chapters for the entire Bible (Genesis 1–3), belief in the unity of the human race, belief in the ontological uniqueness of human beings among all God’s creatures, belief in the special creation of Adam and Eve in the image of God, belief in the parallel between condemnation through representation by Adam and salvation through representation by Christ, belief in the goodness of God’s original creation, belief that suffering and death today are the result of sin and not part of God’s original creation, and belief that natural disasters today are the result of the fall and not part of God’s original creation. Belief in evolution erodes the foundations.
Evolution is secular culture’s grand explanation, the overriding ‘meta-narrative’ that sinners accept with joy because it allows them to explain life without reference to God, with no accountability to any Creator, no moral standards to restrain their sin, ‘no fear of God before their eyes’ (Rom. 3:18)—and now theistic evolutionists tell us that Christians can just surrender to this massive attack on the Christian faith and safely, inoffensively, tack on God, not as the omnipotent God who in his infinite wisdom directly created all living things, but as the invisible deity who makes absolutely no detectable difference in the nature of living beings as they exist today. It will not take long for unbelievers to dismiss the idea of such a God who makes no difference at all. To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.
I was previously aware that theistic evolution had serious difficulties, but I am now more firmly convinced than ever that it is impossible to believe consistently in both the truthfulness of the Bible and Darwinian evolution. We have to choose one or the other.
Related intramural debate:
- Wayne Grudem defends an “old earth” in his Systematic Theology (“The Relationship between Scripture and the Findings of Modern Science,” pp. 273–309).
- Terry Mortenson from Answers in Genesis (which defends a “young earth”) responds: “Systematic Theology Texts and the Age of the Earth: A Response to the Views of Erickson, Grudem, and Lewis and Demarest”
(Answers Research Journal 2 [2009]: 175–200).
We must learn to rest in God-ordained creational fiat. I suspect that many buy the evolution-view because they assume that the appearance of age is equivalent to chronological age.
While, needless to say before an already preached-to-choir, it bears repeating that the importance of a creationist view has wider implications. If we cannot take God at his Word, everything in Scripture then falls prey to eisegetical individualism. At the risk of introducing another area of debate, Satan was the first textual critic. We, too, endanger God-breathed Scripture when we question Gen 1-3.
Amen. Thanks, Andy.
It seemed odd to me that John Walton would be a contributor to this book but then I looked a bit more carefully and saw that John H. Walton is the author of “The Lost World of Genesis One,” while John C. Walton added a chapter in this volume. Those middle initials are important!
I could not find any information on the academic credentials of the men who presented the scientific evidence against evolution. I sometimes cringe as what passes for solid scientific evidence in Christian circles. For myself, I have come to the conclusion that using naturalistic scientific evidence and reasoning to prove the veracity of a supernatural event is the wrong strategy. Far better to do what the first part of this book does, and that is present the theological basis for belief in creationism.
Brother Naselli,
Was there any discussion in the book about the length of days for the creation week?
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Not really, Christian. The book doesn’t focus on that issue.
You can browse the contents by viewing the sample pages here.
Andy, thanks for posting this. Books like this are encouraging. Now Grudem needs to take the final step and drop the idea of an old earth. The scientific data are so much against an old earth that the concept is not defensible, except by using ‘data’ (actually, interpretations of data) derived by assumption that the earth is supposed to be old. But that is what the data are supposed to be proving. This kind of procedure is an exercise in philosophy, not science.
Of course, one problem in discussions over earth’s age is that theologians seem frequently to be unaware of data making a young age possible, and an old age impossible. Another problem in theological circles is that now there are so many theological defenses of an old earth that one can simply cite many of these and feel that the case for ‘old age’ is virtually certain. In this activity, theologians are like the Medieval scholastics who learned what others said about the Bible rather than what the Bible itself actually says. As Christians, we need to do better than this.
Amen, Jonathan!
My newly published essay on the historicity of Adam is online now.
Dr. Caneday,
Thank you so much for that article. That is exactly the type of response we need to see more of.
I have told people that I am a YEC because I believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If Adam is not an historical person, then either (1) God has imputed the sin of a fictional/mythological character to my account, or (2) I am a condemned sinner, not because of imputation but solely because of my unrighteous deeds. If (1) is true, what does that say about the justice of God and/or the historicity of Christ? If (2) is true, then the parallel with Christ and Adam that Paul puts forth means that I am counted righteous on the basis of my own righteous deeds, not the imputed righteousness of Christ. Paul’s whole argument is invalid.
Somehow, Andy, the notion that Adam was a mythical character who plunged himself, his race, and God’s created universe under the Creator’s curse does no more for my faith than a story about Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, or Goofy.
The linkage between divine justification and divine creation, according to Romans 4, is powerful. Isn’t it?