C.S. Lewis, Evolutionism, And Christian Apologetics

In 1999, when I was sixteen, the writings of C.S. Lewis awoke my interest in Christian apologetics. I have found his works very helpful to growing in understanding of the Christian faith. To this day I appreciate Lewis for both his apologetical and fiction writings.

The interesting thing is that while I defend biblical creation, C.S. Lewis started out his Christian life as a theistic evolutionist. His early theological works reflect a belief in evolutionism. 

At least at one point in Mere Christianity, Lewis made use of the evolutionary myth to try to illustrate what spiritual growth in Christ is like. 

The Problem of Pain is a good read. The book was written to answer the question of why there is suffering in the world, and Lewis made a lot of very helpful points. But there is a weakness in the book. 

If theistic evolutionism were true, that would mean that  there was suffering, disease, and death in the world before humans existed and sinned. That is an irreconcilable contradiction to God's word, which says 

"So, in the same way that sin entered the world through one person, and death came though sin, so death spread to all human being with the result that all sinned" (Romans 5:12 Common English Bible). 

Lewis seems to have tried to get around this by mixing evolutionism and creation in an inconsistent kind of mash-up (see chapter five of The Problem of Pain). It seems he was already showing a growing disbelief in evolutionism. 

It does make me glad that as Lewis grew in knowledge and understanding, his writings did begin to reflect a departure from theistic evolutionism. He began to show a leaning toward biblical creation.

He came to reject what he called "universal evolutionism"; apparently referring to macro-evolution as opposed to micro-evolution. Though for clarity, it is better to refer to micro-evolution as speciation within the biblical, created "kinds" (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24-25).

Lewis wrote, "You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl...universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owl's emergence from the egg" (see link).

So Lewis eventually came to recognize the fallacy of evolutionism. And that is good because holding to biblical creation makes for stronger apologetics. Conversely, the old-earth-evolutionary compromise is a weakness in the arguments made by many of the current leading Christian apologists. There is simply no reason for it. 

Evolutionism just does not mesh with the gospel. To defend the historicity of Matthew-Acts, but not that of Genesis is simply inconsistent. Believing in the events recorded in the Gospels and Act, there is simply no reason to disbelieve the events recorded in Genesis. In fact, the significance of the restorative works, atoning death, and redemptive resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is wholly predicated on Genesis.

In a debate with a Christian who accepts evolutionism, an atheist can mockingly say "You don't even believe the Bible, and you're trying to convince me!" The pastor at my church told of such an exchange that took place during a debate that he attended.

And evolutionism is not a scientific fact. Evolutionism is an interpretation of scientific data, just as creation is also an interpretation of scientific data. Not only is this so, but evolutionism, at its core, is a naturalistic, atheistic explanation of the universe, life, and origins.

Recommended sites:

www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
http://creation.com/

Galileo vs. Darwin - the Psalms vs. Genesis

Introduction

Often times, supporters of evolutionism will call to our remembrance the trial of Galileo. To the evolutionist this is an illustration of the more contemporary debate between creation and evolutionism. But there are two key differences between these two controversies.

Galileo vs. Darwin

One key difference is that Galileo made use of observational science to show that the solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric. His finding was not interpretive, it was based on observable facts.

In contrast, Charles Darwin's work was interpretive. His view of origins is based on deductive reasoning, not science. 

Darwin wrote: "No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef." 

Operational science is characterized by inductive observation, not deductive reasoning.

Darwin also wrote "In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling."

Darwin never observed humans evolving from molecules. He imagined that scenario before hand. And than he, and others since him, interpreted the data within that preconceived framework.

The evolutionary worldview is not science. It is not an observed fact. It involves the use of patently naturalistic, atheistic assumptions about the past to interpret scientific data in the present.

The Psalms vs. Genesis

Another key difference is that those who controverted Galileo relied on a verse from the book of Psalms to argue their case.

Psalm 104:5 reads: "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever."

However, the book of Psalms is admittedly a collection of poetic literature. And the cited verse is not meant to describe the earth as being fixed in space. It is meant to describe the earth as being a generally stable place for its inhabitants to live.

In contrast, we who controvert Darwin point to scientific data, interpreted within the framework of the book of Genesis.

Genesis is very clearly written to be understood as a literal historical narrative. It belongs to a completely different class of literature from the Psalms. 

The genealogical passages in Genesis clearly place the named persons and related events in the context of human history. And the genealogies of Jesus, recorded in Matthew and Luke, further connect the history of Genesis to New Testament history.

So not only do we consider Genesis by itself, but also its relation to the rest of Scripture. This includes the gospel of salvation by grace, through faith in the death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

To interpret the narrative of Genesis as non-literal is to completely disregard the context of the Scriptures as a whole. If Genesis were not a literal historical narrative, then the literal life, death, and resurrection Jesus the Messiah would have been completely unnecessary.

A Natural Mystic

"Many more will have to die

Many more will have to cry - Don't ask me why

I say things are not the way they used to be - Don't tell no lie

One and all have got to face reality now

Though I try to find the answer

To all the questions that they ask" Bob Marley; Natural Mystic

Disclaimer

I have thought twice about whether or not I should write a post based on a Bob Marley song, since this is a blog about Christian theology. I'm not a Rastafarian, as Bob Marley was. Rastafari is a false-gospel (Galatians 1:8-9). 

Not that I would exalt myself over anyone. I know that I am a sinner and that I am only saved by God's grace.

But Haile Selassie was not a reincarnation of Jesus the Messiah, or God the Father, as Rastafarians believe he was. In fact he personally denied being the reincarnation of Jesus the Messiah, or God the Father. 

Jesus Himself warned that false-prophets and false-messiahs would come, and that we must not believe in them (Matthew 24:4-5, 23-25).

However, even the apostle Paul sometimes quoted pagan poets and philosophers to make a point (see Acts 17:28, 1st Corinthians 15:33). And many of Bob Marley's lyrics are based on the Scriptures. So I enjoy his music while being careful to discern biblical truth from unbiblical falsehood.

I like reggae music and I have a lot of Bob Marley's material in my collection. And I also enjoy listening to Christafari and other artists who play reggae music with a strong emphasis on biblical, non-Rastafarian theology.

Body

Recently, Natural Mystic came up on my mp3 player as I had it on shuffle. In the song, Bob Marley describes the brokenness and injustice of this world in contrast to "the way [things] used to be". We do live in a world of suffering, and death, and violence. We live in a world that is broken by the curse of sin.

According to the evolutionary worldview, however, things are precisely the way they have always been. According to the evolutionary doctrine of uniformity, the world has always been undergoing the same processes at the same rates as it is at present. 

According to evolutionary philosophy, there never was a perfect world in the beginning; from which humanity has fallen away, and to which Christ has come to restore us. For as long as life has existed, there has always been suffering, disease, and brokenness - for as long as the universe has existed - from the very beginning. 

If the sedimentary rock layers of the geological column were laid down slowly over billions of years of evolutionary history, than the fossil record is indeed a record of suffering, disease, and death from the very beginning; with no such cause as the curse of sin. There are fossil evidence of animals having cancer and other terrible ailments; as well as ferocious predatory carnivorousness.

"Though I try to find the answer to all the questions that they ask"

The theistic evolutionist is at a remarkable disadvantage when it comes to answering the question of why there is suffering, disease, and death in the first place. If theistic evolution were true, than God created the world broken and cursed from the very beginning, because He likes it that way - BROKEN!

In his book, Contact, Carl Sagans attributed his rejection of God to this: that in his view, if God exists He created a broken world. Richard Dawkins has also attributed his atheistic beliefs to his "understanding of evolution".

But Sagans was wrong. And Dawkins is wrong. God's word is Truth (John 17:17). And Bob Marley was at least right about this one thing: 

"Things are not the way they used to be - Don't tell no lie

One and all have got to face reality now"

In truth, God created a perfect world in the beginning. He did not create a sin-cursed, rebellious, violent, sorrow-pierced, broken world. 

The world became the way it is because of the decision made by Adam and Eve, using their free-will to disobey God. The gospel is predicated on this.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...For if by one man's offence many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:12, 15).  

This does not mean that every time something bad happens to an individual, that that particular person is being punished for a specific sin. But what it does mean is that the reason suffering, disease, and death even exist in the first place is because of sin. 

And as unpleasant as we may find it, we are all inheritors by birth, of a fallen human nature. As the Scriptures attest:

"Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).

As for the geological column, which is mentioned above: These sedimentary layers were laid down swiftly during the Flood, burying the creatures that have since become fossilized. They are a record of God's judgment on sin. 

All the great fountains of the deep were broken up (Genesis 7:11), and the rain fell for forty days. And the water covered the earth for a year. Most of the world's current mountains are made of sedimentary rock layers which were laid down by the Flood; and have been pushed up and bent by tectonic activity, which was first caused by the breaking up of all the great fountains of the deep.

Check out the linked sites below to read material written by trained scientists who affirm biblical creation.
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org

Dark Sayings? Dark Sayings. History! (Context and Consequence).

Introduction

Many people wrongly claim that the history recorded in Genesis (and especially the earliest history) is allegorical, and never actually happened. The reasons for such a claim are ideas that are not extrapolated from the Scriptures but are read into, or forced onto the Scriptures from outside.

There is the evolutionary worldview for example. Evolutionary doctrine is not science. It involve the use of patently atheistic assumptions about the past to interpret scientific data in the present. And then there is postmodern philosophy which asserts that there is no absolute truth, but that individuals can make up their own truth. Postmodern philosophy is really neo-paganism. But God's word remains the Truth (John 17:17, 14:6).

The aim of this entry is to show from the context of the Scriptures that the Genesis narrative is historical, and that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis is theologically destructive. Interpreting the Scriptures with the Scriptures, we can see clearly that they are God's word, and that their contextual integrity confirms the historicity of Genesis.

Dark Sayings?

Remember that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are the Five Books of Moses. This Pentateuch ("Five Books") was written by Moses under the direction of God.

In Numbers chapter 12, we read about how Moses' brother and sister criticized him for marrying an Ethiopian woman. It is not clear why Aaron and Miriam objected to the marriage. The possibilities are another subject for another time. In any case, Aaron and Miriam went so far as to question Moses' authority as a prophet on account of his marriage to the Ethiopian woman.

God Himself answered Aaron and Miriam's criticism. Verse 6 reads:

"Then He said, 'Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD,  make Myself know to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream.'"

And here it is, verse 7:

"Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses" (emphasis added).

So here God is saying that He spoke plainly to Moses and not in dark sayings. And in this context the word "dark" means "cryptic" or "mysterious". So don't worry, I'm not going to get all Poe on you now.

Dark Sayings.

Several centuries after the time of Moses, the psalmist Asaph prophesied of the coming Messiah, writing:

 "I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old" (Psalms 78:2).

Jesus fulfilled this prophecy by using parables to illustrate His message about the kingdom of God. 

The verse also seems to be referring back to itself. Jesus frequently quoted poetic prophecies like this one, saying that His ministry was the fulfillment of the Scriptures. He read Isaiah 49:8-9 aloud when He began to teach and preach at a synagogue in Nazareth, and told the congregation that the prophecy had just been fulfilled in their hearing. (Luke 4:18-22)

The prophecy that was given through Asaph is similar to the prophecy that God would use strange language to communicate His message, since people wouldn't listen, but disobeyed when He spoke plainly through Moses (Isaiah 28:11-12). The apostle Paul highlights the fulfillment of this prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14:21.

So the reason that Jesus told parables, and the reason the early church spoke in tongues, is because Moses wrote plainly, without story-telling, and the message was disobeyed. However, by paying attention to the context of any passage, one can determine with a fair level of ease when a parable is being told and when the text is narrating actual events.

It is also important to read each passage within the context of the whole Bible. As the saying goes, "Interpret Scripture with Scripture." An understanding of all the Scriptures will aid the student in understanding the various passages within the Scriptures. This way the student is able to objectively determine the author's intended meaning.

History! 

As it has been noted, the contextual character of the Bible makes it fairly easy to distinguish the historical narrative from poetic passages, parables, dreams, and visions.

Jesus Himself made it very clear that the narrative of Genesis is historical. And by His constant quoting from the Old Testament, and saying things like "The Scriptures must be fulfilled" (Matthew 26:52-56, Mark 14:46-49), He unmistakably confirmed the Scriptures as the authoritative word of God.

Why would the fulfillment of the Scriptures be so important unless they are God's word? The fulfillment of the Scriptures has always been of utmost important to the Son of God because they are His word. And He will always keep His word.

When His critics prodded Him with questions about marriage, He answered "But from the beginning of creation, God 'made them male and female'" (Mark 10:6). 

In Matthew 23:29-36, Jesus referred to all the righteous martyrs, "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah" as belonging to the pages of history.

On another occasion Jesus made it unquestionably clear that Abraham was a real historical person. He said to His critics "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56).

How could that be if Abraham was a made-up fictional character? Jesus' critics got it. And they said "You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?" (8:57). They understood that Abraham really lived, and that he lived much more than just fifty years before their own time.

Jesus answered them with a stunning declaration of His eternal existence. He said "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (8:58).

Here He is claiming to be equal with God! He is identifying  Himself as one and the same with Him who spoke to Moses from out of the burning bush and said "I AM that I AM... Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'" (Exodus 3:14). Indeed it was the preincarnate Son of God who spoke to Moses "face to face" (Numbers 12:7) and to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

When Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" He is saying that Abraham had his place in time when he was living upon the earth, and that Jesus Himself always is from eternity to eternity! And He is saying that He saw Abraham when he lived upon the earth. It was the preincarnate Jesus Himself who visited Abraham and told him that he would be a father by his wife, Sarah. On that same visit He told Abraham about the impending doom that was to fall upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18).

After His resurrection from the dead, Jesus appeared to some folks on the road to Emmaus. They were distraught over His crucifixion. And they didn't know it was Jesus who was talking to them because He had transfigured His appearance.

When they expressed their sadness and disappointment, Jesus said to them "Oh foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" The text goes on, "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Him." (Luke 24:13-32 emphasis added). 

Conclusion: Theological Consequence

So from the context of Scripture, and on the authority of the Son of God Himself we have strong confirmation that these things really happened just as the Scriptures tell. And to deny the reality of these events has tremendous theological consequences. The entirety of biblical Christian theology is built upon the reality of these events.

In order to be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that His death on the cross paid for our sin, and that God the Father raised Him up bodily from the dead (Romans 10:8-10, 1 Corinthians 15, Hebrews 1:1-4).

Jesus' death on the cross for our sin, and His resurrection from the dead are entirely because of the events recorded in Genesis 1-3. There was no death or suffering of man or beast until sin entered the world by one man (Romans 5:12-21).

If theistic evolution were true, that would mean that there were millions of years of suffering and death before humans ever even existed to sin. God would be unjust, and Jesus' death on the cross would be meaningless. When a person denies the historicity of Genesis, that person is butchering Scripture and denying the authority of Jesus Christ!