The Head and the Heart

Suppose two people are debating which part of the body is most important. Imagine that one of them insists the head is the most important part, while the other firmly defends the heart as being the most important. But isn't it true that the body must have both a head and a heart to live, and can not dispense with either one?

The literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is the heart of Christian doctrine and apologia, and the Genesis creation/fall is the head. It hardly seems reasonable to believe the one and not the other. 

And actually, the resurrection is a validation of the history recorded in Genesis. Jesus constantly made statements that validate both the Divine inspiration and the historicity of the Old Testament narrative. (For examples, see John 5:46, John 8:56, Luke 24:25-27, Mark 10:6, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 23:31-35, and Matthew 26:52-56). And His resurrection gives assurance that Jesus is the Son of God, so that His statements possess Divine authority.

But Jesus' resurrection from the dead was not merely to prove that He is the Son of God. Jesus arose from the dead to conquer death. God considers death to be an enemy to be destroyed (1st Corinthians 15:21-26). Death is not a part of the original created order. It was introduced into the world by sin. (Romans 5:12).

For theistic evolutionism to be true, there would have to be billions of years of death, disease, and suffering before humans even appeared on the earth. 

If the sedimentary rock layers of the geological column were laid down slowly over 4.5 billion years, the fossils inside them would show this to be the case. Death would be a part of the original created order. And so it would be silly for God to view death as an enemy to be destroyed. 

However, if the rock layers were laid down slowly, there would be no fossils in them. Those organic things would have decayed in open air, being reduced to dust before the sediment could cover them. This is especially obvious in the case of polystrate fossils.

Those layers were laid down after the Genesis fall. And they were laid down swiftly, by the flood that God sent to judge sin during Noah's lifetime. And truly, all scientific data can be best interpreted and understood within the framework of the Genesis creation/fall/flood scenario.

When Paul the apostle addressed a pagan audience at the Areopagus in Athens, he gave a message that centered on creation (Acts 17:24-30). Note the sweet affirmation that all nations are descended from one man (verse 26). So far, Paul's audience listened.

It's a rum thing because at the end of his speech he mentioned the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. And it was at that part that some in his audience mocked him (verses 31 & 32). This is the opposite of what often happens in contemporary Christian apologetics. 

Nowadays, it is common for people to believe in the resurrection and yet scoff at Genesis. It is as though Paul's generation viewed the head as the most important part, and saw no use for the heart. And the current generation views the heart as most important, and sees no use for the head. 

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

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.