right belief is important, especially for
those of us who adhere to the fact that
Christianity is all-encompassing Truth, not
simply a personal value judgment as
equally valid as every other religion.
My article titled “What About Theistic
Evolution?” was written specifically for
Christians—for those who presumably
believe that the evidence of Scripture
carries some weight. The scientific side
of the debate was set aside to concentrate
on the main thesis, which is that a nonliteral (in this case, evolutionary) interpretation of Genesis compromises the
integrity of the Bible itself and cannot
hold water logically, theologically, or
literarily when held up to the light of the
Bible’s claims regarding itself and the
nature of God. My point was to show the
reader that given the defining presuppositions regarding our faith and some basic
logic, an evolutionary interpretation of
Genesis quickly leads to insurmountable
theological barriers.
But given the presuppositions that
virtually every Christian on the planet
has—that God is good, that He wants to be
known, and that He is the ultimate Author
of the Bible—one must ask why so many
Christians feel the compulsion not to take
the opening chapters of Genesis literally?
I would submit that the only reason is
because they have bought into the notion
that evolution is an indisputable fact of
science. They must, therefore, by necessity, find a way to make it compatible with
the Bible. As a result, Scripture must be
allegorized or stretched beyond its
intended meaning, read and interpreted in
an unnatural way.
The “literalist” approach to Scripture, of
course, accommodates simile, parable, and
metaphor when the context demands it. But
Genesis does not. It is, plain and simply,
written (by God) as actual history set in
space and time. Lots of people make the
claim that “there is more than one way to
interpret Genesis.” Well, of course there is.
But there can be only one correct
interpretation. I say that because Genesis is written,
from beginning to end, as historical narrative. It is not meant, as is the case with other
kinds of Biblical literature—parables, for
instance—to be open-ended with, perhaps,
multiple meanings, each as valid as the
next. Genesis is history. The events related
there either happened or they didn’t. If they
didn’t, I don’t see how that fails to make
God a liar. If it’s allegory, then a dangerous
precedent has been set allowing free rein to
46 Teachers Lounge
allegorize any part of the Bible, whether it
was intended to be or not, and, in effect,
allowing us to make it say anything we
want it to say. This renders the Bible meaningless as a communiqué from God and
effectively denies its inspiration.
This is the kind of impasse we face at
every turn when we try to meld the Bible
with evolution. This is why I’m not so sure
that “it is possible to be an orthodox,
‘Bible-believing’ Christian and also be
something other than a literal creationist.”
The alternative (allegorical, metaphorical,
and mythological) views of Genesis so
quickly lead to conclusions that are
unorthodox and contrary to the Bible—i.e.
God is a liar, the Bible is not inspired, or
Jesus is not divine—that they are unacceptable as Truth.
It’s one thing to paint with broad strokes
a picture of a Bible that is big enough to
accommodate a nonliteral, evolutionary
interpretation but a dramatically more
difficult thing to actually construct such an
interpretation. Honestly, I have never heard
such an interpretation of Genesis that is
logically consistent (noncontradictory)
with the whole of Scripture and does not
eventually lead to a denial of Christianity’s
defining beliefs.
Clearly, there are Christians who have
formulated theistic evolutionary views
that, in their own minds, are consistent
with the Bible and with which they can
live, but I, personally, have found it impossible to mesh evolution with Scripture in a
way that does justice to the Word of God.
Fortunately, I no longer feel the need to.
The Bible and the scientific evidence overwhelmingly support the literal creationist
view of reality.
—Darren Nelson
[Author of the article titled “What
About Theistic Evolution?”]
Dear Editor:
The article on Intelligent Design by Carl
Wieland . . . in the Summer 2008 edition of The
Old Schoolhouse is interesting, but is unfortunately very unbalanced in its perspective, with
several serious errors in fact. Dr. Wieland
incorrectly implies that all born-again
Christians embrace his young-earth creation
perspective (a universe that is about 7,500
years old), and those who hold an old-earth
perspective have rejected God’s Word and
embraced Darwinian evolution (naturalism):
“Biblical Creationists have long pointed out
that the ‘millions of years’ concepts in fields
such as astronomy/cosmology and historical
Do you have
something to share?
Write to us at
TL@TheHomeschoolMagazine.com
or Attn: Teachers’ Lounge,
The Old Schoolhouse® Magazine,
P.O. Box 8426, Gray, TN 37615.
All submissions become the property of
The Old Schoolhouse® Magazine, LLC
(“TOS”) and will not be returned.
Submission of a letter or comment to the
Teachers’ Lounge constitutes full consent
and a grant of unlimited permission and
non-exclusive rights for TOS, to print,
publish, broadcast and use all portions of
your letter or comment, including without
limitation your full name, on Internet
websites owned or operated by TOS and
in any and all Company publications,
including The Old Schoolhouse®
Magazine. TOS will make reasonable
efforts to withhold personal names if
requested in the letter or comment.
geology . . . . were not neutral deductions from
the facts of nature but rather resulted from
presuppositions based on the deliberate rejection of God’s Word and its authority regarding
the world’s history” (p. 88).
There are in fact many Christians
today—and throughout history—who
hold to an old-earth interpretation of
Genesis, holding to a literal interpretation of “yom” [day]. There is also
complete agreement by credentialed
scientists about the scientific evidence
for an old earth. There is no ambiguity or
“presuppositions” about this evidence—
other than a belief by most that science
provides us with real, valid observations
about creation.
From Jeremiah 33: 25 we know that the
laws of science were “fixed” by God from
creation—and thus are still “fixed” today.
Thus, the science we use to observe
creation does in fact reflect Truth about
God’s creation—not some type of mystical
illusion. Biblical Christianity stands alone
among the world’s religions in its complete
agreement with science and what we
observe through science about God’s
creation. We should celebrate the validity
of God’s Word, proclaiming this to the lost!
If TOS is interested in a “
counterpoint” article from the old-earth perspective, I hope you will consider publishing
