She has allowed me the honor of posting one of her first blogs here on Confident Christianity. I know my readers will welcome her and, of course, discuss the arguments with her!

Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution by Melissa Travis of Hard-Core Christianity If you have spent time around small children, it’s likely that you are familiar with the shape-sorting toys that consist of a container, a lid with different shaped holes, and an assortment of blocks in the various shapes. Perhaps you’ve also witnessed the frustration of a toddler trying fruitlessly to shove the round block through the hole meant for the square blocks, or a star-shaped block through the triangular hole. Try as he might, it just won’t fit.This is an appropriate analogy for attempts to reconcile the belief of the Creator revealed in the Bible with Darwinian evolution. There are fundamental incongruities between them, and the only way to make them fit together is to compromise one or the other to the point that integrity is lost. If you file down the corners of the triangular block so that it will pass through the round hole, you will be successful in accomplishing your end-goal, but the block is no longer a triangle. Similarly, proponents of theistic evolution (TE) consider the theory a diplomatic solution to the debate between naturalistic, neo-Darwinian evolution and the existence of a Divine Creator. However, this involves theological compromises that contradict essential tenets of Christianity. “Christians who are theistic evolutionists are in a cruel bind,” says Dr. Paul Nelson, philosopher of science. These TE proponents adhere to current consensus science, but with great detriment to the legitimacy of their faith.There are several variations of the theory of TE, but for this post, I will use the following definition: TE = matter + evolutionary factors + very long time periods + GOD To clarify, TE makes the claim that the modern plant and animal kingdoms were derived, by God’s providence, through chemical evolution (inorganic material changing to organic due to natural forces) and then biological evolution (random genetic mutation combined with natural selection) over enormous periods of time. Theistic evolutionist Howard Van Till uses the phrase “fully gifted creation.” In other words, he believes that the originally created physical matter had all of the necessary qualities and capabilities built into it originally in such a way that nature, using its unguided processes and laws, could bring about the grand diversity and intricacy of life we witness today. God is thrown in as the “gap-filler” in explanation of where this gifted matter originated. One of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith is that God directly and purposefully created mankind in His own image. Genesis says, “Then the Lord God formed man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being” (2:7) and “So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female” (1:27). How do theistic evolutionists handle scriptures like these? They relegate them to the genre of myth or allegory. In other words, they do not consider Adam and Eve to be, literally, the first man and first woman directly created by God. They are simply mythological figures conceived in the minds of ancient Jews. Theistic evolutionist George Murphy describes them as “theological representations of all humans.” He says, just because “Judaism of the time… thought of Adam as a historical figure does not mean that we must.” This view is supported by the writings of some highly respected biblical form critics. In his work, The Legends of Genesis, the late Hermann Gunkel calls the account of Genesis a myth derived from primitive legends that “come from a period of Israel’s history when the childlike belief of the people had not yet fully arrived at the conception of a divinity whose operations are shrouded in mystery.” In other words, the purported legends were conceived by an uneducated, unenlightened people to explain man’s origin, his mortality, and the circumstances under which he lives.This allegorical approach to the Genesis creation account sharply contradicts the principle of authority and divine inspiration of scripture. There are ramifications that reach well beyond Genesis and into the New Testament. In Matthew 19:4, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 when he said: “He who created them in the beginning made them male and female.” Obviously, Jesus did not consider the special creation of man to be a myth. Thus, when TE supporters dismiss the Genesis creation account as allegory, subsequent passages are discounted and doubt is cast on the reliability of the NT teachings and the text as a whole.This brings us to perhaps the most serious theological problem for TE: the doctrine of original sin and the necessity of the redemptive work of Christ. If man evolved gradually from primate ancestors, where does sin enter the picture? Theistic evolutionists again attempt to utilize the scapegoat of allegory to explain away this predicament and seriously downplay the relationship between original sin and the Atonement. George Murphy says, “The Christian claim is that a savior is needed because all people are sinners. It is that simple. Why all people are sinners in an important question but an answer to it is not required in order to recognize the need for salvation.” Yet, Paul obviously believed in the original sin of Adam and its direct association with the redemptive work of Christ: “So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone. For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience they many will be made righteous.” (Romans 5:18-19) It is easy to recognize that this is another instance of TE supporters compromising on the authority and accuracy of scripture in order to adhere to the scientific paradigm.In his book, Saving Darwin, theistic evolutionist Karl Giberson rejects the idea of original sin, choosing instead to adopt the idea that mankind never experienced an initial, innocent state, but instead was imperfect, sinful from the beginning. Many of his TE peers agree with this view, going as far as claiming that the Bible says nothing about mankind being created sinless at the start. Giberson and others in the TE camp apparently choose to ignore scripture such as Ecclesiastes 7:29: “Only see this: I have discovered that God made people upright, but they pursued many schemes.”If the very creation of mankind was accomplished through gradual evolution with its intrinsic violence, selfishness, and other sinful behavior, wherein is the need for a redeemer? The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is only understood as rational and imperative when we recognize that it’s the remedy for intentional disobedience by a previously innocent being endowed with free will, an individual from which all human sin perpetuated. The God of the Bible is a just God (Deut. 32:4). He created an innocent man in his own image that had the opportunity to live in obedience but chose rebellion instead.Evolution, as a supposed method of creation, is utterly contrary to the nature of our Divine Creator. It’s a process that directly depends upon natural selection, which is driven by competition for resources, suffering, and death. The members of a population that manage to survive longer than the others (by fighting for and winning the larger share of resources, mates, and/or territory) are the ones that go on to be more prolific in reproduction, making a larger contribution to the gene pool of that population. According to TE theory, the genetic mutations that made those individuals “fitter” for survival and allowed them to procreate more are the very source of the gradual genetic change that brings about biological diversity of species from common ancestry.In contrast, 1 John lists the following fundamental aspects of God’s nature: God is love (1 John 4:16) God is light (1 John 1:5) [and] God is life (1 John 1:1-2). Would the God of the Bible, the one described as love, light, and life, use such a horrific method of creation? In addition, the Genesis account certainly doesn’t allow for this idea: “So God made the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kind. And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:25).An indispensable element of the theory of evolution is the frequent occurrence of genetic mutations (mistakes) in the duplication of DNA during reproduction. These mistakes are considered to be responsible for the theoretical progression of life from simple to highly complex. Beneficial mutations are preserved through natural selection, while harmful or benign ones are not. It is a process filled with dead-end, extinct species and wastefulness of life. It is impossible to reconcile this cruel, inefficient trial and error scenario with God’s character, which is so eloquently described in Psalms 145:17: “The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all his works.”Theistic evolution is the fateful outcome of philosophically and theologically naïve Christians seeking common ground in the hostile, intimidating territory where faith and the current science paradigm clash. The issue at stake is not just argument over an allegorical versus literal reading of Genesis, but also a stark misrepresentation of God’s nature. It conflicts with the biblical perspectives on the nature of man, original sin, and the necessity of Christ’s redemptive action in salvation history. If one but listens with a practiced ear, it is not harmony produced by the theory of theistic evolution, but a piercingly sour note.