Dear Christis,

I thought it necessary to respond to the letters written concerning my article (Theistic Evolution — issue 34). It will be easier if I go through the letters one at a time, answering the relevant points.

Firstly, thank you Mr Filby for your letter, the polite manner in which it was composed was appreciated.

In your letter you compared the incarnation with theistic evolution, a comparison I found somewhat odd. Of course I believe in the doctrine of incarnation. I do this because it is a doctrine clearly laid out in the Scriptures. There are many references to the deity and manhood of Jesus, as well as the importance of why Jesus had to be fully God and fully man. Theistic evolution is not clearly laid out in Scripture but is a way of interpreting Genesis 1–11 as allegorical. This, unlike the plain teaching of the incarnation, is open to the possibility of being erroneous. Both the deity and humanity of Jesus is plain to all; the idea of theistic evolution cannot be clearly seen from Scripture, but is a way of interpreting Genesis 1-11 to fit in with the scientific evidence presented for evolution.

I still maintain that evolution is atheistic. By definition, not all theistic evolutionists are atheists (a theist not necessarily being a Christian) but they are in error for trying to incorporate an atheistic theory into a monotheistic religion.

I fully agree that God has revealed Himself by general revelation (Rom 1:20) but surely observing and recording that an elephant has a trunk cannot be put on a par with interpretation of results produced from dubious techniques (radioisotopes and radiocarbon dating has come under severe and damaging criticism recently, cf The Facts of Life by Richard Milton (an agnostic)). There is evidence for and against evolution and creation, and surely the place to go for the definitive inerrant answer is the Bible — where we read that God created all things in six days. Complex scientific techniques, results and particularly interpretation are subject to error.

I totally reject the notion that Genesis 1–11 is allegorical. I do this for two reasons. Firstly, it is clearly presented as history. The context, the narrative prose and the geographical references all point to an historical account. Genesis 1–11 contains 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, 48 generic names, and at least 21 identifiable cultural items. Phrases such as “These are the generations of …” implies straight forward history. Other Scriptures also depend on it’s historicity for validating their message: Ps. 104; Matt. 19:4,5; Luke 3:23–28 (where does allegory become history? — somewhere before Mary, I presume); 2 Peter 3:5; Rom. 5:12–19; 1 Tim. 2:13,14; 1 Cor. 15-22; also see the parallel between Rev. 8,9,16 and Gen. 1.

Secondly, I cannot accept that the foundation of the Christian faith is based on stories and poems Moses told. Surely the foundation of Christianity, namely; God created a perfect world, it was ruined by man, and from that moment forth everything either points forward to Christ (OT) or points back to Him (NT, sacraments etc.), can be based on nothing other than historical events that occurred in the concrete plane of time. Indeed Christianity stands or falls on it.

As requested, I retract my statement that theistic evolutionists make God out to be a ‘liar’. If I have offended anybody, then I am truly sorry. But your theory still implies that both Paul and Christ were incorrect to rely on and assume the historicity of the creation account for their teaching. An equally impossible situation for an infallible God.

In response to Miss Dunn’s letter, due to the fact that I had limited printing space I had to approach the subject from a particular angle. This meant that I was unable to cover other areas, including the wealth of scientific evidence for creation. I am fully informed on the theory of evolution (having had all of my schooling in this country’s education system, I have had little other choice). I have read books, articles and papers (oh, and the Bible as well) on each and I remain convinced that Genesis 1–11 is literal and historical.

The editor was made aware of my use of Dr Johnson’s article, and it was used as he expressed, a lot better than I could, conclusions I had already arrived at before reading his article.

In response to Miss Wadington’s letter, I will simply repeat the fact that evolution is only a theory and most scientists recognise it as so. Nobody witnessed the events of our origins, and therefore theories have to be put forward to fit the evidence. I am concerned with your views on the fall. I think it was Spurgeon who said, “Some Christians think that when Adam sinned he broke his little finger”. The fall was a cataclysmic event in the history of the world, and Genesis 3 cannot be touched with allegory. To suggest some form of developmental depravity is totally unbiblical and dangerous.

In Romans 5, Paul explains that through one man (Adam) sin entered the world and that through one man (Jesus Christ) the sin of the world is taken away. The basis and strength of Paul’s argument is in comparing historical Adam with historical Jesus. For such an argument to be effective both have to be either actual people or both have to be imaginary people and consequently the passage has to be interpreted in one of these two ways. Anybody holding to the latter does not believe in the same God as me.

Apologies for the length, but important points had to be made. I remain true to my article, and if it were not so fundamental to the Christian faith then I would not be so emphatic and dogmatic … but it is.

Yours,

Matthew Moxon