Not Ashamed of Creation
In the minds of many Christians, the whole issue of creation versus evolution is a controversial issue to be avoided. Because no one is particularly fond of controversy, it is not uncommon to hear someone in church say, “Why get involved in controversial ‘peripheral’ issues like creation and evolution? Just teach the Gospel.” Or, another might say “The Bible’s not a science textbook. The Rock of Ages is what’s important, not the age of rocks. We should just ‘preach Christ.’”
I think it’s important that Christians believe, defend and proclaim the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1-2. I believe that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days. And I am not ashamed to say so.
The biblical account of creation in Genesis 1-2 and the account of evolution cannot both be true. The two concepts, supernatural creation by God versus evolutionary natural processes operating by chance, represent two different views of origins. They are opposite. They cannot both be true.
The BioLogos Foundation is one group that strongly asserts you can reconcile the Christian faith and evolution. According to their website, The BioLogos Foundation “is a group of Christians, many of whom are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators, who are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation.” This group of professing Christians says they are committed to promoting a perspective on the origins of life that is both theologically and scientifically sound. In the words of BioLogos contributor Tim Keller, their main point of advocacy is “that biological evolution and biblical orthodoxy can be compatible.” 
But I would contend that you can’t legitimately attempt to reconcile science and the Christian faith if your methodology disavows the very foundation of Christianity (i.e. the Bible). If you reject Genesis 1 and 2, then exactly where will you start believing the Bible?
I acknowledge that not all adherents of evolution are atheists. But many of the leading proponents of evolution have freely acknowledged that the concept they advocate intentionally leaves no room for the work of God in nature.
Quotes from Evolutionists
Sir Julian Huxley was perhaps the world's leading spokesperson for evolution in the Twentieth Century. He was a professor at Oxford University and Kings College in London. He was Secretary of the Zoological Society of London, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund, and the first Director of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Through his life’s work, Huxley did much to advance the cause of evolutionary humanism. In 1960 here is how he explained evolution:
“Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution ... we can dismiss entirely all ideas of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process.” 
In 1971 in France, Nobel Prize-winning zoologist Jacques Monod wrote this about the power of chance in distinction to the power of God:
"... it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation… Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution."
In 1986 no less an authority than The Encyclopaedia Britannica included this section regarding the impact of Charles Darwin and evolution:
“Darwin did two things: He showed that evolution was a fact contradicting literal interpretations of Scriptural legends of creation and that its cause, natural selection, was automatic with no room for divine guidance or design.” 
More recently in 2009, the famed atheist Richard Dawkins was commissioned by The Wall Street Journal to respond to the question "Where does evolution leave God?" Here is an excerpt from Dawkins’ response:
“Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in Natural Theology, that the creation of life was God's greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today we'd amend the statement: Evolution is the universe's greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated…
Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must be at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.” 
These men certainly made it clear, without any equivocation. When they wrote, they believed that the explanation offered in evolution and its natural processes replaced the need for the supernatural God of creation.
The Bible’s Account: Credible?
The Bible, in many places and in many ways, identifies God as Creator and claims that His creation was an act of forethought, of planning, of design.
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11). God’s supernatural processes were used to accomplish this, not natural evolutionary processes.
“For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: ‘I am the LORD, and there is no other’” (Isaiah 45:18). “You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created" (Revelation 4:11). It is quite clear. The Bible teaches that God created everything.
Yet is this view really credible? Or is it more scientifically credible to ascribe to natural processes functions and products which clearly are the result of supernatural, intelligent design? I don’t believe so. But having answered that, I would like to ask of the same of the evolutionist. Is evolution really scientifically credible?
A favorite scientific example creationists present to the evolutionists is the human eye. The eye has many functioning parts: the lens, cornea, iris, the controlling muscles, the optic nerve which speeds these signals to a decoding center in the brain. The eye was unquestionably designed by an incredibly intelligent Designer who had a complete grasp of optical physics. 
I find it instructive that Darwin was puzzled, even frustrated, by the eye's complexity (even though he knew only a fraction of what scientists have now discovered about the eye). In his book The Origin of Species, Darwin included a section entitled, "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication," in which he wrote:
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” 
Yet in the next several pages of his book, Darwin discussed how he thought it might have happened. You are left wondering why Darwin adopted and defended what he admitted was an absurd conclusion. Perhaps the best explanation is found in Romans 1:18 where it says that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” even though the truth of God is clearly evident.
Why is Creation Important?
Why is it so important to believe, defend and proclaim the biblical account of creation? I would simply say that it is important because our understanding of creation reflects our confidence in the authority of God’s Word. The confidence we have in the Bible determines whether we believe God means what He said in Genesis. Is the Scripture to be believed?
If the first chapters of Genesis are explained away or disbelieved, then upon what basis can you believe the rest of Genesis through Revelation? Genesis 1-11 (with the creation account, the Fall, the Flood, the long life spans of people) is an integral part of the biblical record. Those chapters are not unreliable nor are they a source of embarrassment. Jesus accepted them as correct and reliable, and used them as a basis for many of His teachings.
Note what Christ said in John 5:46-47, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings [including Genesis 1-11], how will you believe My words?" Also note that when asked a question about marriage in Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus went straight to Genesis 1:27 and 5:2. He was not ashamed of Genesis. If the Genesis account of creation turns out to be a myth, as many today would have us believe, Jesus is likewise reduced in stature. The two do indeed stand or fall together. If Genesis was important to Him, it should be equally as important to us.
The Apostle Paul also believed Genesis. In Romans 5:14, Paul spoke of Adam “who is a figure of him who was to come.” The word “figure” is a translation of the Greek word tupos (type). Adam was a “type” of Christ; the two were inextricably linked in Paul’s thinking. In 1 Corinthians 11:8,12, Paul contended that woman was “of man.” The Greek for the word “of” is ek, meaning “out of” (which of course is what Genesis 2:21-22 says when God created Eve out of Adam’s side). In Colossians 1:16 Paul wrote that “by Him [Christ] were all things created,” not by the process of natural selection of evolution. In 1 Timothy 2:13, Paul called Eve by name, denoting her as a literal, historical character. And Paul also made this observation based on a literal understanding of Genesis 3: “the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness” (2 Corinthians 11:3). Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve and beguiling serpent just as Moses wrote in Genesis.
The Apostle Peter also believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. Peter used the Flood to discuss an analogy of our salvation (1 Peter 3:20-21). Peter also referred to the time of Noah and the Flood as an illustration of how scoffers will respond in the last days (2 Peter 3:3-7).
The Apostle John is the one who wrote the Gospel of John where Jesus is quoted in 5:46-47, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.” The Apostle John also wrote the book of Revelation. And in that book he recorded the song of the redeemed in heaven’s throne room: “You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created" (Revelation 4:11). It is obvious that the Apostle John believed in the creation account of the Genesis.
Casting doubt upon creation and the literalness of Genesis also casts doubt upon the rest of Moses’ writings and upon the words of Jesus and upon the New Testament books of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Revelation. And I have not even included all the passages in the Old Testament where God is presented as the Creator who made everything that exists. These passages would include Psalm 104; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 41:20; 42:5; 45:12,18; Malachi 2:10. When those passages are included with the New Testament passages discussed above, doubt is cast upon the entire Bible when the literal creation account is doubted! It is a serious matter to cast such doubts upon so much of the Bible. It is better to simply believe what God says, whenever He says it in the Scripture.
I do not think that the issue of creation versus evolution is an issue to be avoided. I’m not fond of controversy, yet creation and the authority of Genesis 1-11 are not peripheral issues. The Rock of Ages is important, but so is the age of rocks. Because the God of the universe has revealed Himself in an authoritative way, and in His record (the Bible) He told us how everything came into existence, these matters are vital.
I think it’s important that Christians believe, defend and proclaim the biblical account of creation in Genesis 1-2. I believe that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days. And we in IFCA International are not ashamed to say so.
Tim Keller, “Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople” posted on the BioLogos Forum (http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf
), Keller is author of The Reason for God: Belief of God in an Age of Skepticism
, named Book of the Year by World
magazine in 2008. In the book, Keller states that he wants to defend the Christian faith from the challenges of skeptics and atheists. The book focuses especially on the interaction of science and religion, maintaining that evolutionary theory need not be considered a deathblow to faith. However, Keller stated that he prefers to be “noncommittal” on the theories of origins in his writing, so as not to alienate those who prefer one view of creation over another.
2 Julian Huxley, in Issues in Evolution, Sol Tax, ed. (University of Chicago Press, 1960) p. 45.
3 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), pp. 112-113.
4 The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition, "The Theory of Evolution," 1986, Vol. 18, p. 996.
Richard Dawkins, The Wall Street Journal
, Saturday, September 12, 2009, Life & Culture Section, Essays, p.1. This article may be accessed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html.
Similar thoughts are expressed by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion,
and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.
6 John Morris, “Natural Selection versus Supernatural Design.” Article #223, January 1992 issue of IMPACT, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. Now available online at www.icr.org
7 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859 (Sixth Edition, 1872) (New York, Mentor Books, 1958), p. 133.
VOICE, January / February, 2011