It’s clear from Darwin’s own writings—he was a conflicted, tormented soul who suffered the fate of his own doctrines. In that sense, he’s like all the other false teachers who have popped up throughout history.
If he’s not a Christian ally, why do so many Christians join forces with his followers?
Strong words from John MacArthur about evolution. Stick around. There’s a lot to back them up.
Here are three reputable scholars–responsible for teaching and training the current and next generation of pastors, Bible teachers, and theologians–explaining why you should not take the first chapters of Genesis in a literal, historic sense.
Evolution was introduced as an atheistic alternative to the biblical view of creation. According to evolution, man created God rather than vice versa. The evolutionists’ ultimate agenda is to eliminate faith in God altogether and thereby do away with moral accountability.
Whether we believe the Genesis record or not makes all the difference in the world. If Genesis is untrue, we might as well assume that no God exists at all. That is precisely the assumption behind modern evolutionary theory.
So if Genesis is false, nihilism is the next best option.
As the dominant worldview of the scientific community, naturalism is an imposing and intimidating opponent of Christianity. But these days many Christians are increasingly comfortable and vocal about harmonizing evolutionary theories with the Christian faith.
The question is why.
As you can see, metaphysical questions become practical very quickly. The essential question John brings out is this: What is the non-biblical basis for a universal, transcendent law?
The simple fact of the matter is that all the philosophical fruits of Darwinism have been negative and ignoble to mankind, and destructive to the very fabric of society.
Within the evolutionary worldview, there is no way to draw the line on human sexuality and remain consistent. That means the Bible will always be counter-cultural, especially when speaking about the family and morality.
The fact that we can carry on rational dialogue, and animals cannot, is itself reason to believe man is far above animals. Man possesses sensibility and personhood, which are totally absent in the animal realm.
Allow evolutionary theory to prevail, and mankind’s special place over the animal kingdom is gone. That’s scary.
Meaninglessness. It’s the current that flows through today’s music, entertainment, and social media. Meaninglessness has become the banner that hangs over Western culture. It’s the result of the nihilism at the end of the evolutionary road.
Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of Genesis have embraced a hermeneutic that is hostile to a high view of Scripture. Churches and colleges that embrace this view will not remain evangelical long.
Thanks to the theory of evolution, naturalism is now the dominant religion of modern society. Less than a century and a half ago, Charles Darwin popularized the credo for this secular religion with his book The Origin of Species.
When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, science was still relatively primitive. Electron microscopes wouldn’t arrive for nearly another century, and the ability to study complex molecular structures and discover encoded information in living organisms was unheard of. Darwin explained the universe based solely on his personal, untested observations. Without sufficient technology to debunk his faulty theories, Darwin’s observations went largely unchallenged.
John Ankerberg and John Weldon point out that matter, time, and chance constitute the evolutionists’ holy trinity. Indeed, these three things are all that is eternal and omnipotent in the evolutionary scheme: matter, time, and chance. Together they have formed the cosmos as we know it. And they have usurped God in the evolutionist’s mind. Ankerberg and Weldon quote Jacques Monod, 1965 Nobel Prize-winner for his work in biochemistry. In his book Chance and Necessity, Monod wrote, “[Man] is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged by chance. .. . Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.”
Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit (“Out of Nothing, Nothing Comes”)
Either there is a God who created the universe and sovereignly rules His creation, or everything was caused by blind chance. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. If God rules, there’s no room for chance. Make chance the cause of the universe, and you have effectively done away with God.
The hypothesis that the earth is billions of years old is rooted in the unbiblical premise that what is happening now is just what has always happened. This idea is known as uniformitarianism. It is the theory that natural and geological phenomena are for the most part the results of forces that have operated continuously, with uniformity, and without interruption, over billions and billions of years. Uniformitarians assume that the forces at work in nature are essentially fixed and constant. Scientists who hold this view explain nearly all geological phenomena in terms of processes that are still occurring.
Scripture expressly condemns uniformitarianism in 2 Peter 3:4. Peter prophesied that this erroneous view would be adopted in the last days by scoffers—men walking after their own lusts—who imagine that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” The apostle Peter goes on to write, “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (vv. 5–6).
As Christians, we should never be intimidated by dogmatic naturalism, nor should we imagine legitimate science poses any threat to the truth of Scripture. Christians must stand firm on the clear meaning of God’s Word, trusting the Creator, and opposing every new theory of falsely-so-called science.
Secular evolutionary theory abandons God as the first cause, replacing Him with chance. But, what is chance? Where does chance get the power to bring everything we now see into existence?
There is a kind of science out there—evolutionary science—masquerading as a reliable, objective guide to the truth. But strip away the white lab coat, turn the microscope around, and make the subject the object of your study. Guess what you’ll find? It’s just another false prophet proclaiming his false religion, evolution.
Philosophical naturalism, because of its materialistic and anti-supernatural presuppositions, is utterly incapable of offering any answers to metaphysical questions. So, why do scientists continue to transgress the limitations of their discipline?
Maybe it’s the legacy of 150 years of evolutionary theory; or maybe it’s the basic human need to find an authority source in the vacuum of secular society. Whatever the reason, science is way out of its depth when it comes to questions of origins.
Throughout this series, John has demonstrated the inability of science to answer the key questions of origins. Scientists tacitly admit that reality when they change or adapt their evolutionary theories to fit new evidence. They call it being honest with the facts; for answering metaphysical questions, we call it a foundation of quicksand.
You’ve probably heard of dissonance. It’s a term normally employed by musicians to describe disharmony and disagreement between sounds. There is another term called cognitive dissonance used to describe similar discord in the world of ideas and beliefs. Maybe that’s a good way to view the debate about origins in Genesis—cognitive dissonance.
The straightforward, literal reading of Genesis 1-3 has proven to be a stubborn obstacle for those who embrace the “millions and billions of years ago” myth. To get around it, some evangelicals try to change the rules of interpretation in the first chapters of Genesis. After all, if the biblical creation account wasn’t meant to be taken literally, then those who insist upon a literal, six-day creation aren’t just wrong, they are doing violence to authorial intent.
It’s no surprise that the creation account has always been in the crosshairs of the enemy. Since the Garden of Eden, God’s Word has suffered and withstood many aggressive attacks, all driven by one scandalous purpose—to cast doubt upon God and the integrity of His Word.
Genesis in particular, has been a favorite target. Many are saying . . . Adam was not a real person, Eden was not a real place, and the talking serpent was not a real tempter. In fact, they start with the word, “day” in Genesis 1. According to the “framework hypothesis,” day doesn’t mean a real 24-hour period of time. John MacArthur goes on to explain . . .
Have you ever wondered: How did the world come to exist as we know it today? Why are there so many different cultures and ethnicities? Where did languages come from? How can we explain the presence of evil?
What if someone asks you, “Could God have used evolution as an agent of creation?” How would you respond? The question deserves an answer, and the text of Genesis 1 and 2 provide it. Maybe you’ve never thought about that kind of question. John MacArthur has, and he gives his compelling answer in the following short video excerpt. Don’t miss it!
Consult the doctrinal statement of 100 churches in America. You’ll probably find this phrase, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” What about the doctrine of creation? Is it essential or non-essential? According to John MacArthur, divine creation is one of the primary doctrines of the Bible.
According to Scripture, God created the universe over six days’ time and rested on the seventh day. But why six days? Not because he needed that much time to create, and certainly not because He needed to rest on the seventh. Rather, He was establishing a pattern for the cycle of work and rest—a permanent pattern for the good of humanity.
We’ll start with a few comments about BioLogos, the Pyromaniac, and Al Mohler. Then a look at Uniformitarianism and a universe with the appearance of age. Finally, we’ll pull out the roadmap to find out where we’re going next.
What are fossils? How were they formed? What clues, if any, do they provide for determining the age of the earth? Today, John MacArthur answers those questions as he explains what the fossil record proves, and maybe more important, what it doesn’t prove.
Looks like it’s the beginning of the end of The BioLogos Foundation, at least as the distinctively Christian organization it claims to be. As BioLogos President Darrel Falk demonstrates in his latest blog post, the distinctively Christian tenets of his faith have eroded on middle ground, the place he’s chosen to make his final stand.
John MacArthur explains how we can use the genealogical records from Genesis to help determine the earth’s age.
It’s all about your starting point, isn’t it? There’s a pile of evidence out there, and depending on how you approach it, it’ll send you in one of two directions. Find out what happens when you assume the truth of the biblical record and apply it to the natural world. There are plenty of indications of a young earth.
When God created the earth, it was fully functional in every way. Adam and Eve walked into a complete and mature garden, with “no assembly required.” Trees were producing fruit, animals were full-grown and ready to reproduce, and the earth was thriving with life. Everything was ready for the habitation and rule by God’s vice-regents.
“The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” It’s a short and well-known verse of Scripture, but don’t let brevity or familiarity eclipse the significance of Genesis 1:2. God is introducing us to some incredible things about to take place on the very first day of creation. John MacArthur explains…
Liberals, conservatives, scientists, and philosophers have offered—or demanded—their own interpretation of Genesis. They consult science, Ancient Near Eastern mythology, and even enlist the help of liberal scholars to advance their views. I’ve got a question: Why don’t they take the Creator’s word for it?
Creation Ministries International (CMI) has graciously allowed us to post a pre-print of Lael Weinberger’s recent interview with John. John provides some context and identifies the heart of the evangelical compromise with evolutionism. Take a look!
An old Arabian proverb says, “If the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” That happens all the time when Christians imagine a friendly alliance can exists between evolution and creation. Wedding the two is a compromise with enormous ramifications. In this brief article, John MacArthur explains . . .
The Genesis record is a beautiful picture of God’s creation. Order, purpose and harmony permeate His completed work. Man relates righteously to God; Adam and Eve relate lovingly to one another; and animals dwell peacefully among them. No sign of conflict, fear, violence or death appears, until the day Adam sinned against God. That’s a problem for evolution—a big problem.
Evidence of man’s sinfulness surrounds us. Daily newspapers publish it in their headlines; news programs feature it on the hour; websites make it public domain for all to witness; and it sweeps through the annals of human history. But how did we get into this condition? John explains . . .
What’s at stake in the ongoing battle for the beginning? Worship. Period.
From cover to cover, the Bible asserts and affirms the Genesis account to exalt God for who He really is—the Creator. We should reflect that pattern too. In fact, that’s not an option. As Sovereign Creator, God demands to be worshiped. John explains . . .
What’s at stake in the ongoing battle for the beginning? Worship. Period.
Series, we’ve endeavored to address them head-on—Who is the Creator?, How did God create?, and When did creation take place? Today, John MacArthur addresses the most important question yet. Why did God create? Here’s how John explains it. . .
Believing in evolution is not inconsequential. It has serious implications for the way we view our world—not just the beginning, the end too. The issue is purpose. God alone possesses the right to assign purpose to His universe, because He created it. Want to know what that purpose is? Listen in, as John MacArthur explains . . .
“Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil” (King Solomon, Ecclesiastes 8:11). That summarizes the attitude of a scoffer. He mistakes the patience of God for leniency, and mocks the prospect of a coming judgment. One of the defining qualities of a scoffer is to forget the past, willingly. Take the Genesis Flood, for instance . . .
Among the many issues discussed in this creation series, one emerges as central—the final authority of God’s Word. Not only is God’s Word sufficient to answer our most challenging questions about origins, it is superior to every other explanation. When Scripture speaks, it speaks with the full weight of divine authority. Science, archeology, and any other system of study must bow the knee. Check out John’s article as he explains . . .
A Stopping Point on the Dividing Line (creation series summary and conclusion)