Over at the thread on The Panda’s Thumb, Dan S. posted a long response to my comments. Since my response is even longer, and this particular debate is off topic for that particular post, I’ve decided to post my response here.

Dan S. wrote:

“If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality. There is only what we can get away with.”
While this is straying wildly off topic (*WARNING*), the view you express is one that I deeply dislike.  It may be an accurate description of your beliefs, or even your situation.  Objectively, it’s poppycock.  Balderdash. Bunkum.

That’s our basic disagreement in a nutshell. Is there an “objective” source for moral standards? My contention is that evolution disallows any such objective standard.

Dan S. wrote:

I think one of the problems (for many people expressing this view, at least I dunno ‘bout you) is that, imagining science to be opposed to religion, they assume it’s a mirror -image opposition.

First of all, I should point out that I make a distinction between honest science (searching for the truth) and junk science (the appearance of honest science but distorted to support a previously chosen conclusion). I have absolutely no problem with honest science. In fact, I’ve been working on a post for my blog which shows that the Bible encourages honest science. I would point you to it, but it’s not finished yet. On the other hand, I contend that evolution is not honest science because evidence which shows that evolution could not have happened is routinely ignored, distorted, discarded and attacked.

Second, it is illogical for a religion to say one thing about certain facts and science to say something different about those same facts. In other words, a statement like this would be illogical:

A = B and B = C and A ≠ C.

(In case it doesn’t work for some reason, that last equation is A is not equal to C.)

In logic, this statement violates the Law of Noncontradiction. Quite simply, it means that two conflicting statements cannot both be true. Period.

In the case of evolution and Christianity, the Bible says that God exists and that He created everything in six literal days, (the language used is very explict about the 6 days being six 24 hour days) and evolution says that we appeared by mere chance without the intervention or action of any God. Obviously both cannot be objectively true.

Admittedly, creation is a single point in the Bible. It’s the ramifications of what it means if the Bible is wrong that makes this disagreement such a big issue.

The first ramification is quite simply whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. It is supposedly God’s communication with us about who He is, what exists beyond the physical world that we can touch and examine, and what He demands of us. If the Bible is inaccurate it leads to two possibilities: 1) God lied and is untrustworthy, or 2) the Bible is mistaken and cannot be trusted to be accurate in any point. Either way, the Bible becomes nothing more than a smorgasbord of ideas from which we can pick and choose what we want to believe and disbelieve because it’s no longer even possible for someone to accept it all, nevermind being required to accept it all. That leads right back to each person choosing their own moral standards—just like under godlessness.

The second ramification is that almost everything the Bible teaches is based on the dual concepts that God exists and that He created everything. Removing everything based on God’s existence, creation and similarities to creation (supernatural events) from the Bible would leave it in tatters, removing the majority of the Bible’s content; something Thomas Jefferson supposedly did.

Dan S. wrote:

People  who believe evolution is true have *other* sources of morality, *including* for many, belief in God.  (For many people the two are entirely consistent.

As I said, without an absolute standard, a North Star of morality, each person can choose their own moral values and no one else has a right to tell that person they’re wrong. This holds true even if someone’s chosen morality says they need to destroy all other humans for some reason.

Can you name any religions (other than humanism) which does not conflict with the theory of evolution?

Dan S. wrote:

Individual experience:  I believe in evolution.  Many of the people posting on this site believe in evolution! There are people all around you that believe in evolution!!!  Nevertheless, I’ve never thought the things you imagine to logically follow from this belief.  I doubt most of them have either. Nor do I act in this fashion.  In fact I deeply care about all these things, and try to act accordingly, as do many other evolutionists.

Yes, most people (at least in this country) tend to share fairly similar moral values. But what is your logical, objective basis for those values? It’s safe to say that you and I agree that murder is wrong. I can state the logical underpinnings of why I’m certain that it’s wrong. Can you?

You expressed outrage at the idea that anything and everything is permissable if there is no objective basis for morality. Have you considered why? I think it’s probably because that idea justifies actions you consider reprehensible. Yet if you cannot state a logical, objective reason why your personally chosen moral code should apply to every single person on the planet, then you allow the possibility that the person committing the reprehensible act is legitimately free to choose a moral code which disagrees with yours; one which allows such acts.

Dan S. wrote:

You seem to say that belief in evolution -> disbelief in God and Meaning ->without a Higher Purpose (and afterlife w/rewards&punishment?) people will have no morals, and we will all revert to a savage and lawless ‘every person for themselves and only the strong survive!’ existence.

Not quite. I’m not saying that godlessness automatically leads to a complete lack of morality. What I am saying is that it allows a complete lack of morality. The two are vastly different.

Dan S. wrote:

Regardless of the answer to that old question - are people naturally good or bad or what? - I don’t know, but we mostly seem to be wired/raised to function within a moral system involving others.

That’s what the Bible says:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

(Rom. 2:14-15, NIV)

Dan S. wrote:

As an atheist, I don’t believe in God or Higher Purposes, etc.  But this *is* the only life I have! Why wouldn’t I want to make the best of it?  Expecting memory to vanish after death (along with consciousness) such selfish pleasures are merely fleeting; my only hope for ‘survival’ (of a sort) after death is in the good I’ve done, and in the memories of friends and loved ones.

That idea is the basis of my questions. If this life is all there is; if your consciousness simply evaporates when you die; if your body is destined to be nothing more than worm food; what do you gain by being fondly remembered after you die? The answer: Not a blasted thing! You’re gone! You don’t get the warm fuzzies whenever someone says “Dan was a great guy.” You don’t get a residual check every time someone thinks of your name. You get nothing, a big, fat zero.

In fact, if you sacrifice your life, you may get praised more by those who are still alive, but you yourself have taken a sucker’s deal. You’ve given up absolutely everything and gained… well… total destruction.

If this life truly is all there is, then isn’t it logical to maximize what you get (“He who dies with the most toys wins.” “If it feels good, do it.”) by any means possible? If you don’t then you’re just frittering your life away by letting a self-imposed moral code get in the way.

Dan S. wrote:

C.S. Lewis has written, awesomely, of the sheer wonder of living in a world (as he believed) where our friends, lovers, co-workers, folks we pass in the street, are all immortals with unbelieveable potential for good or evil.
…
There are things with value in themselves (at least as experienced): sunrises and kittens and sloths and asters and friends and love and and and …

Frankly, it has always seemed to me a rather joyless and despairing view that can’t even imagine any sufficient positive value to such things as truth/beauty/goodness in and of themselves

It’s obvious that you’ve read C. S. Lewis’ “The Weight of Glory”. It’s just as obvious that you’ve completely missed the point.

Christianity does not deny the value, joy and beauty of those things you’ve listed. Just because they come from God does not make them any less valuable. To be honest, I simply cannot conceive how the idea that something beautiful came from God could in any way reduce the value of what was given. If anything, it increases the value.

Let’s assume for a moment that you’re into hot rods. Let’s also assume that you don’t have the mechanical skills to build one. So you go to a shop and have them build one for you. After many months (and a severe drain on your checking account) you have your new toy. It’s very valuable and you get a lot of pleasure from driving it around and generally doing what you like with it. You’ve received pleasure and joy from owning a very cool car. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Now imagine that you get a call from a close friend telling you that you need to visit his house right away. When you arrive, your friend takes you out to the garage and shows you the hot rod he has secretly been building for the past three years. Then he hands you the keys and tells you that it’s yours. He built it just for you.

Which hot rod will be more valuable to you? (For the sake of this illustration, assume both rods are identical.) The one built by your friend should be more precious. It represents endless hours of work done for no other reason than to give it to you. Not only would you get the same joy from it as the one you had built, you would also be reminded of your friend’s generous love for you at the same time.

That’s how it is for Christians. Not only do we enjoy the beauty we see around us, we also see the love and care of God which prompted that beauty. Furthermore, God has promised that the beauty we see in this world is merely a reflection of even greater beauty to come. The joy you experience in watching a kitten play with a piece of string is merely a down payment on even greater joys that God has planned. The quiet conversation with a friend over a cup of coffee which tends to linger on in golden tinged memory is a promise of future conversions. Imagine talking with a friend without pressures such as the need to rush off to work or bed, or painful subjects cropping up to destroy your peace of mind.

That’s what C. S. Lewis was trying to describe: not that the beauty of nature is worthless, but rather that nature’s beauty has great worth, yet it only scratches the surface of what is in store.

Throughout this response, I’ve asked four basic questions. To summarize, those questions are:

1. Is there an “objective” source for moral standards?
2. Can you name any religions (other than humanism) which does not conflict with the theory of evolution?
3. Most people tend to share fairly similar moral values. What is your logical, objective basis for those values?
4. If this life truly is all there is, then isn’t it logical to maximize what you get by any means possible?

Dan, what is your answer to these questions?

Someone posted a link to Vox Apologia VII in the comments of a post about the debate over Intellegent Design and the Dover School District at The Panda’s Thumb, a pro evolution blog. The resulting debate has been quite a bit of fun. (I’m having some trouble keeping up with all the posts.) Head on over and join in!

IMHO, the recent Vox Apologia VII on whether the debate over evolution vs. creation has been a big success. There were even a few late entries which I’ve since added. The list is now up to 12 entries, so if you missed any, be sure to go read them. In fact, the comments on some of the posts make revisiting the contributions worthwhile.

One of the more interesting aspects of this VA has been the related followup posts. For example, Matt of Wheat and Chaff had a very interesting followup thought.

Myopic Zeal makes a very important observation in “Know Your Personal Bias”.

Revenge of Mr Dumpling (What a name!) had pointed to a series on “Evolution and Scripture” by A Physicist’s Perspective.

Shannon Love, while apparently rejecting creation outright, has an interesting take on how leftists tend to ignore the logical implications of evolution when they become inconvenient.

John Shroder of Blogotional follows up his earlier post with “It Just Doesn’t Matter…”

It’s apparent that there is still much to discuss on this topic. (I know I have more to say!) If you have a response to any of the posts, either through your own blog or via comments, please take time to do a trackback or post a comment here so others can follow the discussion.

Update: Evolutionists are now taking notice of this Vox Apologia. More here: Vox Apologia VII and The Panda’s Thumb

The results for Vox Apologia VII are in! The topic at hand is “Evolution vs. Creation: So What?” This was apparently a popular topic, producing 12 excellent posts. (Or 11 plus my own. ) So without further ado, on to the posts:

Does The Creation/Evolution Debate Really Matter? by Jeff Smith of Proverbs Daily

After an examination of two worlds: one full of only Evolutionists and the other only Creationists, the answer to the question “does the Creation/Evolution debate really matter?” comes into focus.

Intelligent Design…Time to Wade In by John Schroeder of Blogotional

Faith should not be dependent on science and science has nothing to say about faith.

The Problem of Death Before the Fall by Dory of Wittenberg Gate

Dory encourages Christians not to compromise the foundations of our Faith because of the uncertain claims of popular science.

The Inescapable God by Dave Ulrick of The (In)Scrutable Observer

The debate over evolution vs. creation is vitally important, but not so much on scientific as on theological grounds, because it implies the vitally important question, “Is there a God and, if so, what is he like?” In my article, I strive to demonstrate that science is incapable of answering this question, and that the worldview we adopt, whether it be Biblical Christianity or atheism, will be based on the faith-based presuppositions we make regarding God and the Bible rather than on scientific inquiry.

C v E - What’s the Fuss? by Ron Stewart of Northernburbsblog

While not the most important priority we should have as Christians, we cannot abandon the discussion. Those who seek truth need both sides engaged. And for those who seek meaning, the debate can provide some possible answers.

Naturalist - Naturalism by Scott of Christian Naturalist

I explain why I am a naturalist but don’t believe in naturalism.

Vox Apologia VII - Evolution vs. Creation: So What? by Janet Lee of Newton’s 1st Law of Motion

Denial of creation - indeed, denial of a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis - necessarily results in the denial of essential Christian doctrine. Hence, the creation - evolution debate is of paramount importance to the believer.

The Image of God vs. The Image of Progress by Joshua of RazorsKiss

Despite the philosophical dexterity accompanying the devaluation of man, while simultaneously exalting his attributes - we should take it as a warning. If we exalt the natural - we dethrone the supernatural - we dethrone God - and take His place as the pinnacle. When we take over the pinnacle - we set ourselves up as God.

Does Evolution vs. Creation Matter? by Ed “What the” Heckman of The Greatest Pursuits

This is my own thoughts on the matter. I explore four areas of life where the different assumptions produced by evolution and creation each lead to diametrically opposed conclusions. I am convinced that the search for objective truth always matters.

A Purpose Driven Life? by Dave of Revenge of Mr Dumpling

I believe that if we follow the assertions of the Theory of Evolution to their logical conclusions, we will find that they are incompatible with Scriptural truth, and therefore Christian belief. In this post I have picked two of the most glaring to illustrate my point.

Evolution vs. Creation, again. Why does it matter? by Matt Powell of Wheat and Chaff

Matt points out that most people choose what they want to believe because they like the story rather than because of any real knowledge of the facts.

Vox Apologia VII (7) by Andrew of Weapons of Warfare

I was really hoping Andrew would weigh in, and he didn’t disappoint. He explains that while it is unscientific to claim God as the cause for phenomenon which are simply not understood, it is just as unscientific to discount real evidence because it actually does point to God. The result is an argument based entirely in philosophy even when dressed up in the language of science.

Update: I’m tracking some of the followup postings on this subject here.

Several months ago, I was involved in an online debate over evolution vs. creation. The debate went pretty much as expected. Then as the debate was winding down, an interesting question was asked. In essence, the question was this: “Why bother debating over evolution vs. creation. That was a long time ago. What’s the point?” This is my answer to that question.

Rodney had been distracted for weeks when one of his friends cornered him and demanded an explanation for his behavior. When he admitted that he had been pondering the meaning of life, his friend suggested he visit the local wise man.

After climbing for hours, he finally reached the cave where the old hermit lived. Before approaching the cave, he rested for a bit to tend to his sore muscles, scrapes and bruises. Finally, gathering his courage he approached the cave and asked the old man, “Why am I here?”

“You are here,” the old man replied, “to get me a cold beer. Now get moving. I’m thirsty!”

The debate over the theory of evolution vs. creation is ultimately a debate over the meaning of life. Our view of the origin of humanity essentially determines our view of the world we encounter in our daily lives.

At some point in their lives, most people ponder the same question as Rodney. Getting a beer for a senile old coot is a pretty poor excuse for a meaningful life. Yet the answer evolution gives is even worse: “There is no meaning. You are merely an accident.” On the other hand, the answer creation gives is that every person was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) for His glory (Isaiah 43:7) for a reason; there are no accidents.

To see the impact of the debate over evolution vs. creation, I’m going to look at how these worldviews affect a person’s thinking in four specific areas: human rights, marriage, the rule of law and the reliability of the Bible.

Human Rights

One of the core theories of evolution is that of natural selection. Natural selection says that the weak perish while the strong survive and thrive, passing on their genes to the next generation. Those who survive overcome competition from weaker organisms around them, including those of their own species. The only rule is survival over others and producing as many offspring as possible.

By this rule, there is nothing wrong with the stronger taking resources from the weaker, even their lives. Whether taking resources is cheating someone out of their money — including a fair wage — enslavement, or even killing them (yes, I’m talking about murder), it’s all fair game under the survival of the fittest. Those who are most successful at eliminating competition without creating new competition and are able to gather strong allies are the most likely to survive to produce children. The exact methods of achieving success doesn’t matter to evolution, though I suspect quick and permanent removal of competition (i.e. fatal) would tend to trump more uncertain methods such as negotiation.

The theory of natural selection also requires the removal of the weak and infirm in order to move evolution along and remove “unnecessary” burdens on the healthy. Thus the elderly, the handicapped, and those with other “undesirable” physical traits would need to be removed from the gene pool in order to allow humanity to advance. In the effort to create a “super race” Nazi Germany instituted sterilization in 1934 and “euthenasia” in 1939. (See here and here.) And Germany was not the only country to institute such programs. Other countries, including the United States, have instituted forced sterilization and sometimes euthanasia programs in an attempt to “improve the human race” by preventing those with “defects” from reproducing. (Also see the first paragraph of this article by Margart Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League which eventually merged with similar organizations to became Planned Parenthood.)

By contrast, the Bible teaches that humans are created in the very image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), that God knows and celebrates every human life (Psalm 139:13-16), and that we are to always act in each others’ best interests as much as in our own (Matthew 22:39) even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44), and take care of the weakest members of society (James 1:27).

The most famous passage in America’s founding documents is the beginning of the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Under the theory of evolution, this sentence is meaningless because there is no creator, there is no equality, there is no such thing as unalienable Rights because there is no higher authority which establishes those rights; there is only stronger and weaker.

Marriage

A successful species by evolutionary standards is one which produces many successful offspring. Therefore, what matters is reproduction, not love; impregnation, not marriage. As long as many children are produced, it doesn’t matter what else occurs.

Such a standard not only allows for multiple partners, it encourages them, especially for men. By Darwinian standards, the man who fathers hundreds of children is significantly more successful than a man who fathers only 1 or 2. It should also be obvious that marriage is not necessary in order to father children. Rather, it is actually an impediment to evolutionary success.

In fact, this logical extension of evolution’s theory can, and has, been used to justify rape as a means of reproduction. (See “A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion” by Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer. I will not link to this book from my site. It can be found on Amazon.) Of course, because evolution is based only on natural laws and has no moral laws, there is no built in impediments to non-heterosexual behavior, such as homosexuality, bestiality, etc.

By contrast, the Bible says that humans were designed to live in a lifelong exclusive marriage relationship consisting of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6) where each meets various needs of the other.

The Rule of Law

As I’ve mentioned before, the theory of evolution is based upon the idea that only the strong survive. Another way of putting this is the “rule of claw,” where power is the only fact that matters. Or as Mao Tse-Tung put it, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Under evolution, the only laws which exist are natural laws and consequences. While it would not be possible for a man to deny or break the law of gravity, there are no inherent moral restrictions. For example, lying would be okay as long as you could get away with it. Stealing would be okay as long as you didn’t get caught. Heck, even murder would be okay as long as the consequences — such as someone else seeking revenge — can be avoided.

In fact, under evolutionary theory, all laws are merely human inventions. They can be created, changed and abolished or ignored at a whim by those with the right kind of power. So instead of laws being based on eternal principles, they become a means for one group to impose its will on another.

One hard-core atheist I debated accused Christians of attempting to impose their morality on others. What made it so hard for me to swallow was that his statement was in response to links to studies showing why the behavior under discussion was a really bad move. It wasn’t until I thought through this principle that I finally understood why he sees it that way. The logic works like this:

1. Evolution means that there is no God. (Or at least that there isn’t a “god” powerful enough to matter.)
2. Therefore, all religions/gods are made up by men.
3. Therefore, all moral rules taught by those religions are also made up by men.
4. Therefore, attempting to impose those rules for any reason is an attempt by one group to impose their will on another. In this case, the method of imposition just happens to be religion.

By contrast, if creation is actually true, then there truly is a God who has the authority (the creation belongs to the creator, lock, stock and barrel) and the power to impose and enforce moral laws. There is a standard of moral laws which supersedes all human authority. It is absolute and inviolable with no escape from consequences for even the smallest infraction. Attempting to live outside those laws becomes like playing russian roulette; you may escape the consequences for a little while, but not forever.

In fact, the concept of forever comes into play here. Under evolution, this life is all there is. Once you die, that’s it. There is no reward, no punishment. “He who dies with the most toys wins” and “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” become valid lifestyle choices. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain become all there is to life.

But under creation, this life is no longer all there is. It is merely a training and testing ground. This life is merely a temporary flash in the pan where any rewards received or pain endured are mere sparks which are gone in an instant. (Romans 8:18) Even if justice is not done in this lifetime, it is perfectly carried out in the next.

Reliability of the Bible

In the book of Genesis, the Bible clearly states that God created all life in 6 literal days. When He was finished, He had created a perfect earth with two perfect humans. Those humans made a choice which resulted in death and destruction entering the world.

Thousands of years later, according to the Bible, a man who was “God In The Flesh” walked the earth using the name Jesus. He lived a perfect, sinless life and was crucified for His trouble. Three days later, He returned to life on His own.

Both incidents are equally difficult to believe. And both depend on each other. Without the creation, there was no perfection and no fall to be rescued from, thus no reason for Jesus to die in the first place. Without the ability to create life in the first place, there is no power to return to life after death.

The theory of evolution strikes at the very reliability of the Bilical narrative. If the incident of creation didn’t actually happen, then the Bible either lied about what happened, or it is mistaken. Either way, the Bible cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything — including Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. And if Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead as an objective fact, then Christianity is a fraud.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

(1Cor. 15:12-19, NIV)

By contrast, if the Biblical account of creation is true then it becomes obvious that God can do anything and the entire Biblical account is trustworthy.

Objective Truth

Ultimately, the debate over evolution and creation is the debate over objective truth. There can be only One. There is only one reality which we all share. Either we accurately recognize what that reality is and act accordingly, or that reality will grind us to dust without even slowing down if we try to oppose it. Recognizing objective truth is accurately recognizing reality. That is what science is supposed to be — the search for objective truth. Yet the “science” of evolution has become anything but the search for truth.

Even as evolution science has made claims of being “objective” it has been defined as only accepting naturalistic answers. Any possible conclusion of design or creation in the debate over origins is automatically deemed as “unscientific,” even if that is where the evidence leads.

It’s as if a math teacher was giving problem sets to her students. As she hands out the papers, she tells the students that ‘4’ is never a correct answer. In fact, if she sees the answer ‘4’ anywhere on the paper, that paper will be given an ‘F’ grade. Among the problems, the students find these: ‘2 + 2 =’ and ‘5 - 1 =’. What will the students write as their answers? It won’t be ‘4’ even if that is the correct answer. (Unless, of course, a student is as stubborn about truth as I am.)

If you think I’m overstating the case, just consider this section from Nancy Peacey’s excellent book, “Total Truth”:

Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin gave the game away in a highly revealing article in the New York Review of Books a few years ago. Lewontin starts out by admitting the darker side of science (it makes extravagant claims, causes environmental problems, and so on). And yet, he quickly adds, we must still prefer science to any form of supernaturalism. Why? Because, “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
…
“It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation” of the world, Lewontin explains. “On the contrary,” he says, “we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations.” Translation: We first accepted materialism as a philosophy, and then refashioned science into a machine for cranking out strictly materialistic theories.

Finally, he warns that this materialism must be “absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” That final phrase points to what’s really at stake in the evolution controversy. Why does Lewontin urge us to define science as applied materialism? Because otherwise we might let a “divine foot in the door.” And we all know what happens then: When a salesman gets his foot in the door, pretty soon his brooms and brushes are all over your living room. If a “divine foot” ever got in the door of science, that would provide the groundwork for the entire Christian worldview, with its theology and biblical morality. That’s what sends a shiver of fear up the spine of many secularists.

Let’s face it, the Bible claims to be objective truth. It says that God “created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) It says that God’s handiwork is displayed all around us. (Psalm 19:1-2) It says that Jesus actually came to earth “in the flesh.” (1 John 4:2) In other words, it claims to be an accurate historical record of actual events. Therefore, it’s entirely reasonable for honest science (without the naturalistic biases) to agree with the Bible.

That is why the debate over evolution and creationism matters. It is a debate over objective truth. It is a debate over whether the Bible is factually accurate; and that is a debate Christians must be willing to engage in. If we do not, we automatically concede “objective truth” status to those who refuse to accept even the possibility of God’s existence. And in so doing, we abandon many who are searching for the honest objective truth to eternity in hell.

Exercise: I discussed four areas where the starting assumptions about evolution and creation create diametrically opposed approaches to the issues. Can you think of any other areas where a person’s preference for evolution or creation produces vast differences and what those differences are? Some possibilities include: self-esteem, the role of government, charity, health care, biotechnology, the environment, etc.