 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Two weeks ago [This article was written on October 29, 1996], the radio announced that the Pope has endorsed physical evolution as God's method of creating the human body. He claimed that evolution is more than a theory. Apparently he has become convinced that scientific evidence for evolution is strong enough to contradict the historical interpretation of Genesis. What are we to make of this?
First, let us consider the real issues in this hotly debated topic. The first issue is the issue of scientific evidence; the second is the proper interpretation of Genesis. Some scientists have scoffed for years at those wooden-headed literalists who take Genesis at face value under a historical literary genre. And in turn, many biblicists have scoffed for years at those atheistic, doctrinaire evolutionists who are just as religious as Christians (they just worship a different god) and are just as wooden-headed in pontificating on something they didn't witness. Are either of them right?
That depends upon the scientific evidence and the proper interpretation of Genesis. Whoever handles the evidence most accurately and interprets Genesis most accurately is right.
What, then, is the scientific evidence for evolution? There isn't any. Every piece of evidence that evolutionists set forth can be reasonably contested. Evolutionists know this. That is why they cannot stand the thought of creation being taught in the public arena as an alternative explanation of origins. They know that if the evidences are given equally for evolution and creationism, evolution will lose hands down, even among a godless generation. And how do they know this? By this simple fact: evolution has been the ONLY allowed dogma in secular education for several decades now, and yet the vast majority of people believe that God created what is. If this is so without an equal hearing for creation, how would evolution survive if it actually had to compete in the arena of ideas? It can't compete even in the heavily weighted arena of controlled education. Evolution isn't credible. If it were, we wouldn't be witnessing the debate even among evolutionists about the significance of the evidence.
What, then, about the proper interpretation of Genesis? Was it written as myth or history? Literary analysis puts it into historical genre. Jesus Himself spoke of the blood of righteous Abel as though Abel was a real historical person (Matthew 23:35). The apostle Paul spoke of the fall of Adam as the sin of one man, as though he believed in the historicity of the account of Genesis 3. Therefore, Genesis is history. The proper interpretation must be historical. Genesis claims that God created Adam's body from the dust of the ground, not the genes of some monkey.
Since both science and the Bible ought to be interpreted from a creationist perspective, what is the Pope doing by selling out creationism in favor of the dogma that has sponsored atheism, abortion, and every other materialist dogma in the world?