A Lutheran Family Road Trip ““ From Darwin to the Pill, by Jon Townsend

(Jon’s posts can be seen on the Regular Columns page under the title “God Desires Mercy, Not Sarcasm…)

In February of this year, I took a rare Friday off. “Where are you going?” my colleagues asked. “To Cincinnati, ah Kentucky actually,” I replied. “We are going to a museum.”

“What kind of museum is in Kentucky?” some asked.

“Well, uh, the Creation Museum actually.”

Some eyes rolled. Some showed no interest. Others, just said, “Townsend, tsk tsk.” No one was that interested. No one wanted to really debate it or discuss it; the avoidance was palpable. It was like I came out of the closet. The response was something akin to a twist on the famous “Seinfeld” phrase on the subject of homosexuality, “Oh so you are a creationist, (pause, nervous twitching) Not that there is anything wrong with that!” I went on to tell them of my plans to put my six year old in the back of the car at 6am, still sleeping, have my wife do the navigating and be at the museum that is a testament to the Biblical account of creation by 11am. I cemented my reputation as an eccentric, or kook, depending on how charitable my acquaintances/friends/colleagues are. (The bartender at my regular pub was by far the most charitable of all – the next Friday he asked if it was nice and if we had a good time! The vocation of the bartender is at times one of mercy!)

I often heard of the Creation Museum on Issues, Etc., either during commercial spots or when a guest from the Creation Museum was on the show. One of the things that struck me during the commercials for it was how the founder of the museum, Ken Ham, always made the connection between some type of sin or modern day sociological phenomena back to either the fall, or linked a modern day issue to the fact that society has rejected the Biblical account of creation.

The drive took us 5 hours and for me it was like going to an amusement park. There were dinosaur animatronics, there was a giant replica of Noah building the ark, and there were fossils and skeletons. My son enjoyed these things. There was a petting zoo with a Zonkey (half zebra, half donkey) and a Zorse (half zebra, half horse). My son was slightly disappointed that there not more dinosaur fossils, but near the end he saw a triceratops skeleton and was quite pleased. The museum is still in its early stages as I see it, but it gave us a chance to show our oldest boy a multi media presentation on a biblical worldview and to discuss it with him. We are very fortunate that he is taught a biblical worldview every day at school, but this was a family event to reinforce what we believe.

In all honesty the trip was not for my son, it was for me. Seeing an artistic representation of the Fall was good, especially one that actually taught the Protoevangelium and showed Christ’s atoning death as the solution to the mess of sin, death and the devil. They even got the details in the typology right, with a representation of God taking skins from animals to cover Adam and Eve, showing that sin must always result in payment through death. I had a chance to attend a lecture given by Dr. David Menton, the lone Lutheran on staff at the Creation Museum, on the flaws in Darwinian Evolution. It was the lecture I wish someone had given me in college! After the lecture he and I talked in the book store about all things confessional Lutheran for about 45 minutes. It was a lot of, “Hey you know him, I know him too! What do you think of this or that?” I am always astounded by personal conversations between confessional Lutherans. There is a substantial age difference between us and he is light years beyond me in intellect, but it was just an easy conversation that could have continued for hours if I neglected my vocation as father and husband.

The twisting of the famous “Seinfeld” quote was foreshadowing for this……..

Romans 1:20-27 (King James Version)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

One of the points that was repeated often at the Creation Museum was the idea that the increasing depravity we see in the world is magnified by an Evolutionist worldview. One can’t look at the evidence in natural science and come to Evolutionist conclusion unless one first suspends belief in a creator. If one approaches the natural world from a position that does not suspend belief, one cannot ignore the very finger prints of God.

St. Paul’s writings are prophetic in Romans chapter 1. Evolution is idolatry. A common non-human ancestor is our idol. The dust of the earth is given life by matter and energy itself rather than by the infinite. The idolatry of our age has less logic than the idolatry of any age to precede it, because idols of wood and stone represented something supernatural and transcendent. Now we idolize a theory that has nothing more than an eternal dirt nap to offer.

The willful disregard of the Creator leads to perversion of the design He called good. In matters of procreation under this delusion, the sign, symbol and union in marriage that gives us a glimpse of the mystery of the relation between Christ and His bride must also be open to crass perversion when one embraces a worldview in which material takes on life without an influence outside of itself. This worldview could never logically see that an intimate union between two persons should by nature lead to incarnation. Union is random and there is no natural law that governs it, much less a Creator that created the order and Law behind it.

Other Christians, who do not embrace Genesis as literal, such as the Roman Church, also see St. Paul’s first chapter of Romans as prophetic to our day. But rather than making the explicit link between “creation” and the present depravity of our age, they make the link between “procreation” and the rise and acceptance of homosexuality. Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae accurately predicts the outcome of the sexual revolution and widespread use of contraception: Increase in divorce, infidelity, breakdown of the family, acceptance of abortion and an increase in homosexuality.

While taking a very strong stand on procreation, the Roman Church takes a very nuanced stance on the Biblical account of creation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church takes up the question of evolution with an extreme diplomacy that it does not give procreation:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies that have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

I will paint with a broad brush for the sake of brevity: One would find the most “creationists” amongst the more conservative Evangelicals in North America. One would find the most “anti-contraceptive” people amongst conservative Roman Catholics in North America. Both would look at Romans 1 and see it as prophetic. The Roman Catholic would look at Genesis 1:28 and take it literally. The same Roman Catholic would take verses 1 through 27 in some kind of poetic sense. The Evangelical looks at verses 1 through 27 and sees creation in six 24 hour days. Verse 28? “Great idea, but the pill is ok.”

Where does this leave Lutherans, or in this case Evangelical Catholics?

I believe that theistic evolution holds sway amongst the vast majority of conservative Lutherans. How many times have you heard these words from a Lutheran mouth, “Oh, but we do not know how long a day is in the sense it is used in Genesis 1.” Evening and morning must be mistranslated from the original Hebrew, I guess (sarcasm).

I believe artificial contraception is also the practice of choice amongst conservative Lutherans. Rehwinkel paved the way in the 1950’s.

I am afraid dear friends that confessional Lutherans do not have the luxury of picking and choosing what we like from our Christian neighbors for our doctrine and approaches to issues of both creation and procreation. We have to swallow verses 1 through 28 of Genesis whole and use the lens of Christ and His Incarnation, Death and Resurrection to figure out what it means.

As concerns creation: The second article of the Nicene Creed tells us that “Through Him all things were made.” In the beginning was the Word and God’s inerrant word tells us that God created everything in six days. You can no more deconstruct it than you can deconstruct or explain that God died on Good Friday. This is really where the rubber hits the road. Ask yourself, which takes more faith to believe: The Almighty and Holy Trinity created everything in 6 days or that God Incarnate died? It is much more logical that the Eternal God made heaven and earth and all that is within it in 6 days than that God from God, Light from Light died within 3 hours of a human designed crucifixion – yet somehow we allow the separation of the two doctrines.

As concerns procreation: I believe the time has come for serious confessional Lutherans to admit that we have selectively read the Bible, the Fathers and Luther himself and ignored all of the admonitions against contraception in the face of the idol of sexual freedom.

Lutherans are not halfway between Evangelicals and Catholics. We are not the “best of” either choices either. We are challenged and called to be more honest than we have allowed the greater body of Lutheranism and ourselves to become.

About Pastor Tim Rossow

Rev. Dr. Timothy Rossow is the Director of Development for Lutherans in Africa. He served Bethany Lutheran Church in Naperville, IL as the Sr. Pastor for 22 years (1994-2016) and was Sr. Pastor of Emmanuel Lutheran in Dearborn, MI prior to that. He is the founder of Brothers of John the Steadfast but handed off the Sr. Editor position to Rev. Joshua Scheer in 2015. He currently resides in Ocean Shores WA with his wife Phyllis. He regularly teaches in Africa. He also paints watercolors, reads philosophy and golfs. He is currently represented in two art galleries in the Pacific Northwest. His M Div is from Concordia, St. Louis and he has an MA in philosophy from St. Louis University and a D Min from Concordia, Fort Wayne.


A Lutheran Family Road Trip ““ From Darwin to the Pill, by Jon Townsend — 25 Comments

  1. The starting point of science is an empirical and materialist world view that what you see is what you get and that there is nothing “outside” to interfere. If you are going to work within that framework then the evolutionary framework is the most well-supported explanation of the world and allows science to push back the inexplicable by twelve billion years. This is indeed where rejecting God comes in – an incorrect starting point.

    The problem that Christians often have is that they try to argue for creationism from inside the assumptions of science – “this couldn’t have happened because it’s too complex to happen in one step” or worse, “that’s against the second law of thermodynamics.” This is why they look like fools so often. Ham seems to get it right (on his commercials anyway) as he takes things back to the Biblical account as his authority rather than engaging in such silliness. Arguing within the assumptions of science is futile.

    [Now, why does Ham assume that dinosaurs ever existed as anything other than fossilized bones? Things could be explained much more simply if the fossils were created along with all the rest of the Earth].

    Now my question: isn’t breeding zebras with horses and donkeys a violation of “each after its own kind?” This sort of thing has always seemed a perversion of the design God called good.

  2. I am much more comfortable with the Reasons to Believe
    (http://www.reasons.org/)interpretation of the creation account. They present what I find to be a very compelling case for Old Earth Creationism using both good science and the bible. The plain and obvious fact, attested by multiple dating methods that all give the same results, is that the universe is 12-13 billion years old, and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If I am ever *required* to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old in order to remain in my congregation, well I will need to look for a different church. I can’t force myself to believe something I know is not true, I would just end up saying something like Galileo was alleged to have muttered, “It sill moves.” though in my case it would be, “It’s still old.”

  3. Now my question: isn’t breeding zebras with horses and donkeys a violation of “each after its own kind?” This sort of thing has always seemed a perversion of the design God called good.

    1. They’re both equines.

    2. They’re infertile; thus, causing such a ‘mild mutation’ (as well as the non-occurrence of such in the wild) works as an argument against evolution, imo, so it is worthwhile to do.


  4. Important stuff, since our depraved default setting is to think that we get to pick and choose–and we’re always sure that We have picked the important stuff to stand on, while They are the ones who missed the crucial points.

    Our family also made it to the Creation Museum awhile back (though in its pre-zorse days, alas!), and thought it a very worthwhile field trip.

  5. Larry,

    Science tells us that homosexuality is a matter of genetics and not a choice of the will. There is also “incontrovertable” evidence from science that man evolved from monkeys.

    I do not accept something as true because science says it is. Besides, all of scientific theory falls prey to David Hume’s (and other sceptics) clear reasoning that all empirical conclusions are debatable.

    Science also denies us the blood atonement of Christ. It says that it cannot be “proven” to be true but the Bible says that it is.

    I am much more confident in the word of a God who gave his son to die for me (this is why I accept the truth of the scriptures) than in the scientists’ word as compelling as it might be.


  6. Thank you very much for this post. I too visited the Creation Museum about two years ago, and found it quite an experience. I’ve always been a six-day creationist – I cut my teeth on Ham’s “D is for Dinosaur.” Taking Genesis at face value simply seemed the natural thing to do. But recently (the past year) as I’ve rubbed shoulders with Christian proponents of old-age origins and ‘creation of man via common descent’ at College, I’ve been thrown a little off balance.

    While I know that God COULD have created the universe in any way He chose, He told us how he did do it. If one honestly believes that there is more to ‘what is’ than what can be quantified, there is absolutely no reason to think that an account of a unique, unobserved event formulated on purely naturalistic principles MUST be accurate.

    The oddest thing for me to comprehend, which I’d be very interested to hear commentary on, is that many of the people I’ve met who uphold the probability of old earth origins and theistic evolution of some variety or another (often specifically un-Darwinian) also have a deep belief in natural law and objective morality. Some hold that the Bible can’t be taken literally, and yet that we don’t have freedom to interpret it as we please. How the two can reconcile with each other, I haven’t yet teased out.

    All that to say, thanks much for this post. I hadn’t yet had the courage to delve into Lutheran views of Creation.

  7. It’s so refreshing to know there are other Lutherans out there who hold to the traditional doctrine concerning contraception. Thanks for the encouragement!

    P.S. – Larry, just curious… are you an evolutionist? If so how do you reconcile the doctrine that man brought death into the world through sin with the evolutionary imperative that life as we know it came about through generations of death before man even existed? If God created through evolution, then He also created through death.

  8. 1. I would be interested in reading why dinosaurs could not have been created “in the beginning” and destroyed in the flood (or, as a Texan has suggested, hunted to extinction). In either case they would exist with man on the earth rather than solely as fossils to lead people astray.

    2. What did ‘Rehwinkel'(the Concordia Sem professor, whose son Gene was adopted?) have to do with contraception? And did he have other children of his own?

    I believe married couples who are physically able should have families. I am not sure that being reasonable about numbers is necessarily a sin. (I do not remember that Luther’s remarks about killing yourself in the effort are in the Confessions.)
    I’m not sure that extraordinary means utilized at the expense of other people in your insurance plan are necessarily a virtue. If the reason is that children were postponed for a career until begetting them becomes a laboratory ordeal involving the deaths of embryos, I rather doubt it.
    Perhaps, if God does not provide natural children by normal effort, your job is to care for children deprived of parents for whatever reason?

    3. Larry, the numbers which “prove” an old earth assume that things always happened exactly as they are observed to happen now. There is no way to prove that is the case.

    My biology prof, trained as a Lutheran pre-sem as all were at our college in his time, said that, in his opinion, both the “scientists” and the “theologian-philosophers” who got to heaven would be surprised at “the rest of the story.” 🙂

  9. 2. What did ‘Rehwinkel’(the Concordia Sem professor, whose son Gene was adopted?) have to do with contraception?

    Because of his book extolling”Planned Parenthood.”


  10. Ken Ham’s most vigorous argument for young earth is that if we accept the anti-Biblical premise that the days mean something other than ordinary days, we’re stuck with human and animal death before sin. That completely undermines the doctrine of sin and the preaching of the cross.

  11. (Larry) As for the old Earth, while it’s certainly possible, keep in mind that the universe has to have been created in some state that scientifically implies a previous state. The created state might have been the big bang, but it would have been no different to create an Earth with air and water and dirt that looked old, with old isotope ratios. Once you drink the creation kool aid 🙂 both are equally possible for God to do.

    (Helen) The dinosaurs could have died before the flood or after, but remember, Noah took ALL the kinds of animals on the ark. So they wouldn’t have died out in the flood. The only reasons I think it’s more likely that God merely created bones is that there are so many kinds, and none mixed in with arrow points or knives and forks.

    Would dinosaurs be clean or unclean? I don’t think they have split hooves nor did they likely chew cud…

    (Pastor) I once listened to a conversation with Roger Penrose. He began nearly every thought with “it appears that…” That’s good science.

  12. An excellent testimony, Jon Townsend. And, way to see the big picture–the big story.
    How we fail to understand the utter totality of The Fall! Likewise, we fail to grasp the utter perfection of God’s original creation.

  13. (Bubbles) As for the old Earth, while it’s certainly possible, keep in mind that the universe has to have been created in some state that scientifically implies a previous state. The created state might have been the big bang, but it would have been no different to create an Earth with air and water and dirt that looked old, with old isotope ratios. Once you drink the creation kool aid 🙂 both are equally possible for God to do.

    I agree, there is no reason God could not have created the world in 6-24 hour days, or over several billion years starting with a big bang, or in 10 seconds or even instantaneously last Tuesday at 6:17 AM with everything in place to *appear* really old. I just think that the bible and the RTB model of science fit together nicely without the use of the giant shoe horn that is required to make Young Earth Creationism fit the evidence. I’ve read widely but I’m not a real expert. I do believe man is a special creation, as are the higher orders or families of animals. While evolution certainly has changed a common ancestor into zebras, donkeys and horses and an ancestral dog into wolves, dogs, hyenas etc. I don’t think it can change fish into dogs or chimps into humans. 🙂

    Ken Ham’s most vigorous argument for young earth is that if we accept the anti-Biblical premise that the days mean something other than ordinary days, we’re stuck with human and animal death before sin. That completely undermines the doctrine of sin and the preaching of the cross.

    I do think death was around in the animal kingdom before the fall, but that *man* as a special creation of God was meant to be eternal because he was made in the Image of God. In fact, how would Adam even understand what “you shall surely die” meant if there was nothing to point to? I believe Adam and Eve were real people, I believe in the fall, in sin and in the necessity of the cross for salvation. Knowing the earth is 4.5 billion years old doesn’t seem to undermine any of it for me. YMMV.

  14. ‘While evolution certainly has changed a common ancestor into …’
    It *certainly* has?
    You must thnk again if you continue to think an old age to the earth hasn’t undermined anything for you.
    Read Jon’s post again. It undermines everything, first of all by undermining faith. How can you have faith in a word that’s so easily miscontstrued, and at its very first utterances? Which words are true, and which are not true words, and based on what extra-Biblical knowledge?
    What giant shoehorn are you talking about? Ultimately, that giant shoe horn is faith in the written word of God, isn’t it? After all, the 6-day creation isn’t the idea of the writer of Genesis, any more than the murdered and risen God is the idea of the Gospel writers.
    What informs you that man is so special, only he was spared death from among all creatures?
    You say Adam would have had no concept of death. How did he have any concept of anything God told him, such as ‘Be fruitful and multiply’? How did he have any concept of Woman, or of sleeping or laughter or of even aging? How did he understand anything, until he experienced or witnessed it?
    How about this: that it was given to him to understand that, regardless of what he comprehended in what God said, he at least comprehended his creator’s command to not eat of the specific tree. He surely knew enough that, once he’d eaten of it, he hid. (So then, at least, he knew perhaps a little about death, and about separation from God.)

  15. I am surprised at the comments by Bubbles. I have an Electrical Engineering degree, and have had a LOT of science classes. I believed the evolution dogma I was feed in high school until I really started studying the science.

    Your statement that Christians look like fools when they approach creationism from science – well I will happily step forward as a fool because I do believe that things like the 2nd law of Thermodynamics does indeed argue more than strongly against evolution. In my view it makes it null and void. I would agree that one must start with the Word. Careful scientific examination of the facts lying all around us does not necessarily lead you down the path of billions of years.

    What about dating methods? Carbon dating is only accurate over a few thousand years. Other dating methods are supposedly accurate over longer periods of time. They all assume a steady state model of the universe – or the way things are now are the way they were going back to the beginning. Well, how do we know that is the case? A BIG assumption if you ask me.

    As to the irreducible complexity argument I would pose that this argument is not iron clad, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good argument. As a person that develops software, creating something as trivial as a piece of software, it is amazingly difficult thing to do well and get everything right. Thinking that something like an eye could be accidentally arrived at – even with the contrivance of a large amount of time – is patently ridiculous. Many experiments have tried to create the simplest form of life and have only produced the seeds of proteins (amino acids) which are a far cry from a protein let alone life. Yet this could happen accidentally?

    Answers in Genesis does in fact argue from science while starting from the Bible. If God created the world, then the science should show that. Science is nothing more than a feedback loop – theory, experiment, examination of evidence, modify the theory to agree with evidence. Evolution can NOT be verified with scientific principles since it can NOT be verified in the laboratory. You can only get to the first step, theory. You can’t experiment. You only have the evidence lying in the ground. Many interpretations of that evidence exist, and proving which is correct cannot be done. Answers in Genesis has a staff of scientists and produces journals on science supporting the creation view. You can pose that these staff scientists are fools. You can say I am a fool. But if you really dig into the evidence you may find it doesn’t necessarily point in the direction you thought it did.

    I’ll end on this note, which others have brought up. If you believe the Bible, death did not enter the world until Adam ate the fruit and God sacrificed an animal so they would have clothing. Evolution is a theory that necessitates death to even get to a point where a human is present in the world. But to get to a human it would be a gradual thing over millions of years, and death occurring along that gradient. Where does the Adam event occur in this scenario? How does that event even make sense in that context were death is a given already?

    “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

  16. Hi RonTheRanchHand,

    In my defense, I didn’t call anybody a fool, I just said sometimes people look like fools.

    2nd law of thermodynamics: besides being merely statistical, the 2nd law only applies in a closed system. But the Earth isn’t a closed system, we happen to have a nearby entropy sink converting a billion tons of matter into low-disorder energy every second. We seem to violate the second law all the time – water moves from the ocean to the tops of mountains, little acorns turn mud and rock into mighty oaks, and single cells turn into highly complex babies. We can violate the 2nd law because a whole lot of entropy is created elsewhere.

    Irreducible complexity has always seemed an arrogant term, as if we know what can and can’t happen. I read about a guy who watches E. Coli colonies grow. One day, one sample suddenly became able to metabolize citrate. It couldn’t do it, and then it could. We might well have said that the sophisticated metabolic pathways of citrate metabolism were irreducibly complex because the various changes that led to it showed no benefit to the bacteria. But it happened. (And by the way, this is a demonstration of evolution – significant modification of a genome accompanied by natural selection – in the laboratory. It happens, though this doesn’t demonstrate that this is how man came about).

    It still seems that science starts with the flawed assumptions that there is nothing outside of it and that all states come from prior states. If you’re going to argue God’s intrusion or if you’re going to argue for an initial state, then you have already stepped outside of the bounds of science into some metasystem that science itself won’t accept.

  17. Bubbles,

    I didn’t accuse you of calling anyone a ‘fool’ except generically Christians. 🙂

    The 2nd Law applies to the universe as a whole:
    “In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics), and the entire universe can be implied if you scale large enough.

    The water cycle of the earth (your example of violating the 2nd Law) is in fact Thermodynamics at work. Evaporating water cools the earth’s surface and then precipitates back when it is moved to a lower temperature location (the mountains) similar to how an air conditioner works (though with a different coolant). The energy of the sun provides the work to heat the ocean and evaporate the water.

    Life (the acorn in your example) does ‘violate’ the 2nd Law – as you state, and here I would agree with you. Without Life there is no violation of the 2nd Law. The input of energy from the sun is used by life to decrease entropy (increase order) of its system.

    The E. Coli colony that suddenly metabolized citrate, and you applied natural selection in this case and also used as a demonstration of evolution. I agree it could be an instance of natural selection, but not evolution. Evolution requires a decrease in entropy, but this has never been proven. Natural selection always increases entropy sometimes in the form of a mutation (always harmful to the organism) or in this case, breed for those bacteria that exposed some already existing capability of the organism. Frequently antibiotic resistance is used as ‘proof’ of evolution, but this is the same type of occurrence.

    Another point is addressing your example of the sun – it is increasing the entropy of the universe, not decreasing it as you stated. Hydrogen is converted into helium, which takes more energy to ignite than does hydrogen. It has less potential to produce work, not more. Pumping in large quantities of released energy into the earth is what produces the previously mentioned water cycle, again in the confines of earth demonstrates thermodynamic laws. Just because the sun is an ‘entropy sink’ (your words not mine) doesn’t mean things on the earth can violate the laws of thermodynamics. The sun is simply providing an energy input to the ‘closed’ system of the earth.

    Evolution requires an increase in order (a decrease in entropy) and something like an eye (or even the most simple protein) requires a ridiculous increase – to the point of breaking any credibility as a theory. Simply adding energy to a system (think sun) does not provide for increasing order. If that were the case, an explosion would once in a while create something other than a hole in the ground.

    I’ll take another step out into irreducible complexity land. Take the symmetry of most higher life on the earth. If this happened by evolutionary process’, how would the same thing happen twice, all throughout our bodies? A mutation causing an arm would only cause a single arm, leg, eye, etc. We would be an amalgamation of parts that ‘happened’. No, we are designed, as any engineer worth his salt could tell you.



  18. Let’s consider another set of questions in response to the theistic evolution types. Since God is above all and can do all things, is not as said by a preivious comment that if this is the case it is ceratinly conceivable that God can and did take a literal six days to create this planet we live on? This happened!

    I would also like to state that as much as science reflects intelligent design as the way the earth was created, we don’t really need these things to prove what has already been revealed by God.

    Since God is above our thoughts we cannot attempt to humanise God and his reason with ours. In otherwords, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man. We need not go any further than the scriptures that state this. After all are not the Scriptures the reason we believe? Science is nothing more than a picture of Gods creation at work but it is not God nor can it explain God. It explains the process of how his creation works. When we start needing to look to science to explain God then we have nothing more than a weak faith and lack of trust in God’s Word.

  19. One connection Mr. Townsend didn’t draw directly between Darwinism and the Pill is eugenics. Darwinism begets “survival of the fittest”, which in turn begets Social Darwinism, which, when it has matured, begets eugenics. Then, along comes a sweet old lady named Margaret Sanger who happens to be a fierce defender of both Darwinism and eugenics. Ms. Sanger, being in possession of a small fortune, decides the best way to promote her cause is to throw her money and time into financing the development of (gasp) the Pill. Oh, she also pays a good piece of the legal bill to get contraceptives legalized in the U.S. just to make sure everyone, but mostly “dysgenic groups”, can go ahead and stop reproducing all those “unfit” babies. Yet we think we can go ahead and use this glorious invention without participating in its racist, Darwinist, eugenic past?

    I’m sure it’s all just coincidence.

  20. Jon,
    Great article.
    I like to discuss creation vs. evolution in this way. Jesus speaks of creation, institution of marriage in the Garden, the Fall, the Protevangelium, as given facts of history of which He was a participant (creation) and witness (the Fall and Gen 3:15). Therefore you must come to one of three conclusions regarding Jesus and his statements:

    1. He knows creation is a myth, but He is just accommodating the unscientific people of his day. He is telling a “pious lie.” Therefore Jesus lied and cannot be the Savior of all.

    2. Jesus didn’t know all about how the world came to be and how it was ruined in the Fall. Therefore He really isn’t God, and therefore also not the Savior.

    3. Jesus is speaking truthfully as a participant and witness and it happened as his account through Moses testifies. Therefore Jesus is the God-man as He claims and the Savior of all.

    I will stand with Jesus because the Holy Spirit has worked the faith to trust Him for my redemption, as my Substitute and the Christ who lived and died for all the fallen children of Adam.

    Pastor Paul Schaefer

    PS Both Creation and the Theory of Evolution must be accepted by faith, neither can nor will be proved. I know I would rather trust God and His Word than some man-made theory that is constantly evolving.

    PPS A Blessed Holy Week and Feast of the Resurrection to all.

  21. “11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. ”

    How mature does a fruit tree have to be to yield fruit? The tree did not start out a zero; it had to be more mature. God spoke it into existence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.