Nepaug Bible Church - http://www.nepaugchurch.org - Pastor's Sermon Notes - http://www.nepaugchurch.org/Sermons/zz20041128.htm

ANSWERING OTHERS WITH REASONS FOR OUR FAITH
Part IV: Defending The Bible's Presentation Of Pure Creationism
(Genesis 1-3 with 1 Corinthians 15:20-23)

Introduction: (To show the need . . . )

Cal Thomas, a syndicated columnist reported several years ago in an article in the Waterbury newspaper, the Republican-American, that Pope John Paul II had said, "'Fresh knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.'"

Possibly due in part to Pope John Paul II's words, this theory of "theistic evolution" where God allegedly used evolutionary processes to create has fashionably gained ground in Christendom. Ken Ham of the "Answers in Genesis" ministry wrote in his September 2000, "Answers Update" newsletter, p. 2 that a well known Evangelical had promoted a book teaching, among other things, "The days of Creation could be ordinary days or millions of years - we can't know for sure."

Such a fashionable uniting of the Bible's teaching on creation with that of the evolutionary hypothesis form's what Cal Thomas felt was "an unholy alliance with evolutionists"; he claimed: "With his statement about evolution, the pope has caught up to the times. In doing so, he has accepted a philosophy that stands at the core of communism. Why would he want to accept the heart of a world-view that he spent his life opposing?" (Ibid.)



Well, every Sunday morning, in my introductory remarks, I state we believe God created the universe without any evolutionary processes. Should we then CHANGE our view to align with significant Evangelicals and Pope John Paul II hold to "theistic evolution", or does Cal Thomas have a point in implying that our adopting that view leads to serious theological and even ideological trouble?



WHY hold to pure creationism, and WHAT shall we answer those who ask us WHY we believe it as we DO?

(We turn to the sermon "Need" section . . . )



Need: "I hear Christendom is increasingly adapting to the view we should NOW no longer hold to 'pure creationism,' but hold God used evolution to create! WHY, then, hold to pure creationism?!"
  1. Contrary to what was implied by the 1925 Scopes trial, Genesis 1 does NOT allow room for "theistic evolution" to occur (as follows):
    1. A key stance held by the lawyer who defended the teaching of evolution in public schools at the 1925 Scopes Trial was that there existed no conflict between the Bible and evolution, cf. Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and the Christian Faith, p. 95.
    2. However, this argument clearly fails the test of Scripture's words (We limit our discussion to basic observations for the sake of time):
      1. Contrary to the "day-age" hypothesis, the "days" of Genesis 1 can not allow for the view that each of its "days" equals an "era" of time in which evolutionary processes would have time to occur:
        1. Some hold that as 2 Peter 3:8 states "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," the word, "day" in Genesis 1 could be an "era" when evolution occurred.
        2. However, each "day" of God's creative activity in Genesis 1 is said to consist of an "evening" and a "morning" (Genesis 1:5b, 8b, 13, 19, 23 and 31b), and these components of a "day" can only mean that the "days" in Genesis 1 are solar days, cf. Ryrie Study Bible, KJV, ftn. to Genesis 1:5.
        3. Also, everywhere else in the Pentateuch where the word "day" is modified by a numerical adjective [as it is in Genesis 1 to number the days of creation], it always means a solar day, Ibid.
        4. Then, when God set up the Sabbath solar day rest in Exodus 20:8-11, He modeled it after the "day" He rested after the "days" of Genesis 1, implying the universe was made in a solar week!
        5. [Historical evidence exists that the solar week was founded for a unique reason (such as the Creator instituting it as a witness to His creative work in six solar days only to rest on the seventh solar day, cf. Exodus 20): secular scholars claim the solar week is the only time measurement that does NOT have its origin in astronomy, National Geographic, March 1990, p. 127!]
      2. Also, Eve's origin can not harmonize with theistic evolution:
        1. As man is a mammal, to evolve, he would have to arrive on the earth from earlier life forms consisting of both male and female.
        2. Yet, the first woman was created from the rib of the first man according to Genesis 2:20-22, so EVE could not have evolved, and then neither did ADAM, Ibid., Davidheiser, p. 168!
  2. In fact, Scripture COUNTERS evolution in its teaching on death:
    1. For evolutionary processes to exist, natural selection must occur in which there must of necessity be the death of the weak that the fittest might survive, David H. Lane, "Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution," Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1994, p. 167.
    2. However, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 where Paul writes of the physical resurrection (cf. v. 12), he reveals death came only by Adam's sin so that in Christ, believers will have victory over sin and physical death.
    3. As Genesis 1 reveals man was created [by special creation] on the 6th day after 5 previous days of creation, and as 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 teaches there could not had been any natural selection in those first 5 days (since there was no death as man had not yet sinned since he was not then existing), Scripture denies evolution ever occurred!
  3. Then, allowing for evolution leaves one MISREPRESENTING the Bible's GOD as EVIL, the SAME act that SATAN did in Genesis 3:
    1. In tempting Eve, Satan implied God was evil in trying to monopolize His knowledge of good and evil in prohibiting her from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Genesis 3:4-5.
    2. Similarly, allowing for evolution causes one to fall into the trap of misrepresenting the Bible's God as evil like Satan did unto Eve:
      1. If one holds God used evolution to create, he implies that God is evil in having made a universe marked by suffering and death!
      2. Jacques Monod, a Nobel prize winner in molecular biology and an atheist has criticized Christians who hold to theistic evolution: he claims evolution's process of natural selection is so unethical just the opposite of the loving God of the Christian faith that he can not see why Christians say God used evolution to create, Ibid., p. 167!
Application: (1) Know that the BIBLE'S GOOD GOD created the universe by supernatural power WITHOUT any evolutionary processes in six consecutive SOLAR days as a NECESSARY fact to our WHOLE FAITH. (2) As such, may we TRUST in God's Son, Jesus Christ for salvation from sin and sins effects of suffering and death, John 3:16. (3) May we then live as truly LOVING believers, looking for the RESURRECTION in keeping with the nature of the God of Scripture Who made and saved us!

Lesson: The Bible DOES NOT and CAN NOT teach or allow for the belief that our GOOD God even USED evolution to create the universe!

Conclusion: (To illustrate the sermon lesson . . . )

 In our sermon so far, we have given the Bible's answer to the question of whether or not God even used evolutionary processes to create. However, increasingly, non-Christian scientists are beginning to oppose the theory of Darwinian evolution as well (as follows):

(a) Astronomer and mathematician, Sir Fred Hoyle has written: "'The scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth." (George W. Cornell, "Scientist calls Darwin evolution theory absurd," Times-Advocate (Dec. 10, 1982), A10 as cited in Dave Hunt's, The Berean Call newsletter, Feb. 1997, p. 1)

(b) Then, Biologist Michael Denton who wrote the work, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis has claimed: "science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded." (Ibid.)

(c) Mathematics professor Wolfgang Smith calls evolution "'a metaphysical myth . . . totally bereft of scientific sanction . . .'" (Ibid., Hunt in citing Smith's work, Teilhard and the New Religion , p. 242)

(d) Even "Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, confessed, after more than 20 years' involvement, '[T]here was not one thing I knew about it. It's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long.' Patterson 'started asking other scientists to tell him one thing they knew about evolution.' Biologists at the American Museum of Natural History in New York were speechless. Says Patterson: 'I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school.''" (Ibid., Hunt in citing Thomas E. Woodward, "Doubts About Darwin," Moody Monthly, September 1988, p. 20)

We must NOT give in to "pressure" to "keep up with the times" by yielding to the belief that God somehow USED evolution to create, for (1) evolution is not only NOT PROVEN to be fact, (2) it not only has SERIOUS PROBLEMS that EVEN reputable NON-Christian scientists have TESTIFIED, but (3) ANY form of EVOLUTION runs CONTRARY to the teaching of GOD'S WORD!

May we then hold to pure Creationism as GOD'S truth!