Christian news worldwide

The Commentary

Why I am not an evolutionist

Despite the impression given by the BBC, all is not well with Darwin’s theory of evolution on this 200th anniversary of his birth.

For example, I noticed that Sir David Attenborough’s celebratory TV programme was titled Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life, but at the end of the January New Scientist magazine’s front page headline was ‘Darwin was wrong: cutting down the tree of life’. It reported that the data concerning the perceived connections between living creatures simply does not link together in a Darwinian tree-like fashion.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that New Scientist acknowledges God as creator. But it does mean that there is actually no generally agreed theory of evolution. One scientist quoted said: ‘The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs a change.’

Awkward marriage

Many Christians have tried to marry the Genesis account and the theory of evolution. I want to explain why I am very sceptical about this.

Let me first remind you that the NT affirms the details of Genesis 1 and 2.

For example, in Matthew 19, Jesus quotes from Genesis 1 in verse 4, and Genesis 2 in verse 5 and builds his conclusion about marriage (verse 6) on the assumption that what those texts say was true ‘from the beginning’. In 1 Corinthians 11.8,9 and 1 Timothy 2.13, you find Paul does exactly the same. So the Bible is a unity and to affirm one part while downgrading others really won’t do.

For me, Genesis 2.7 is one of the major reasons why a marriage between Darwin and the Bible doesn’t wash: ‘The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.’ Notice a few points.

* Inbreathing

The phrase ‘breathed into’ must represent communication from the outside into man’s body. It cannot be made to mean an evolution of potentialities from within, resident in the dust from which Adam’s body was made. There is a divine breath in man. This, obviously, is the opposite of what atheistic evolution teaches.

* Living being

According to 2.7 it is the inbreathing of God which gave life to Adam. The body of Adam was not alive before this inbreathing. This is the opposite of theistic evolution. Some try to unite evolution and Genesis by speaking of sub-humans (pre-Adamic hominids) who were physically alive and into whom God infused his image, so making them humans. But that is to violate the text. The inbreathing was not an action superimposed upon an already existing, living creature.

* Man

Not only did this inbreathing bring life, but it was this same action which constituted him man, i.e. a human being. Now, the definition of ‘man’ has already been provided in Genesis 1.26. Hence none other than man so defined is in view in 2.7. There is no thought here of God making something in 2.7 which later evolved into man, a lesser being which later developed full humanity.

The great theologian John Murray sums up the point like this: ‘That which constituted man an animate creature was that which also constituted him man and that which constituted him man constituted him an animate creature’. As far as I can see, this leaves no room for evolution (as classically understood) either way, becoming human at 2.7 or evolving into humanity afterwards. Much as we might like to match-make, a marriage between Genesis and evolution simply won’t work. But with the science in such flux, does it need to?

John Benton

Request Free Sample

<< March 2009 >>