Can God and Darwin Fit Together?

People like Hugh Ross, Greg Neyman and Walter Kaiser, Jr. think they can manipulate and reinterpret Scripture to fit secular explanations for the origin of the Universe. Some call that aligning Scripture with the evidence. Others call it "politically correct". People like me would call that "compromise". (See Refuting Compromise (Dr. Jonathan Sarfati))

So what's wrong with theistic evolution? Let's go over my main points, and I'll expand:

• It doesn't fit the evidence
• It's reinterpreting Scripture, undermining its authority
• It doesn't fit God's character

Point 1) It doesn't fit the evidence

I've posted many, many articles regarding the problems with a secular explanation of the origin of the Universe (Big Bang and naturalistic evolution) in my Google+ community Biblical Creation Apologetics (you can see the evidence here). All that applies to theistic evolution as well. If the secular explanation is refuted, then compromise is destroyed as well. Theistic evolution is essentially the neo-Darwinian synthesis with a "God" sticker slapped onto it (I always illustrate it that way when I'm talking to theistic evolutionists).

Point 2) It's reinterpreting Scripture, undermining its authority

Where in the Bible does it say millions of years? And when did death and suffering begin? These questions stumped prominent theistic evolutionist Hugh Ross. Sure, the Bible doesn't specifically say 6,000 years either, but biblical chronology and biblical bloodlines only stretch as far back as 6,000 years. Also, when Jesus referred to Genesis, He interpreted it in a literal sense (see Jesus on the age of the earth). Therefore, Jesus Himself refuted day-age creationists. 

Furthermore, since the theistic evolution theory requires guided natural selection (kind of an oxymoron, if you ask me), then death is required. And if it took millions of years of death and adaptation to produce humankind, then how did death come before Adam? If you recall from the Genesis account, death occurred after Adam sinned. So how did death occur before Adam? Also, fossils of thorns were found in rock layers before we see human fossils. And if the rocks at the bottom are older than the ones on top (according to evolutionary thinking), then how did thorns appear before Adam (thorns are also the result of Adam's fall)? No theistic evolutionist has answered these questions. All Hugh Ross and Walter Kaiser did was dodge the question in their debate against Ken Ham and Jason Lisle. Watch this video (or just listen to it, it's just audio):

Point 3) It doesn't fit God's character

Why would God put some bacteria on a blown-up planet and leave them to develop on its own? Why would He use millions of years of mutations and death to produce us? If He were to demonstrate His power, wouldn't He have just created us much faster? Theistic evolution just doesn't fit God's character. God wouldn't leave us to evolve on our own, because He loves and cares for us, and He would take care in designing His creation. He wouldn't use millions of years of mutations and death because He intended us to be perfect, blameless, and immortal. God wouldn't take millions of years to create us because that would fail to show His creative power.

At the end of the day, theistic evolution fails. It fails because it doesn't fit the evidence, it's unscriptural, and it doesn't fit God's character. So no, God and Darwin cannot fit together. Refuting theistic evolutionists is relatively easy. Just point out how it's unscriptural, point to the evidence, and their belief is destroyed. You can use these tips for your next debate with them. Tune in tomorrow for my next blog: How Evolution Fails to Explain Ethics & Morality!