Look at the following picture. What do you see? Schaeffer suggests that this picture is what it must be like to have knowledge of various subjects yet have no upper-story story. With no overarching story the beads just lay there. They will never be pulled together into something even more wonderful. But look at these beads. Stare at them. As you stare, don't you feel the temptation to see patterns and purpose? Where did that desire to see patterns and purpose come from? Why do we not look at these beads like other animals do? And why are scientist, biologists, chemist, and others so determined to suppress that upper story story as they stare at their assortment of beads all day?
I am reviewing No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer to assess its impact on Christianity amid current discussions about Jewish supremacy. Does this book lead Christians towards a blend of Judaism and Christianity, or does it deepen their understanding of Christianity itself? I question the use of the term Judeo-Christian, equating it with Zionism, a sect many Christians find alluring but I find harmful (Proverbs 14:12). Unlike these zealots, I seek God based on truth revealed by Him as stated in Romans 10:1-2 and Proverbs 24:5-6. We've been warned about the way to life abundant; there is only one way. (John 10:10; Matthew 7:26-27). Finally, I want to know how God formed a people into a nation. I look at the elements of nationhood. I am skeptical of America's shift since the 1960s towards being a melting pot. America abandoned foundational principles for globalism and multiculturalism, which harm nation, family, and individual. Drawing parallels with the Exodus story, I stress the importance of remembering our history to avoid passing on a harmful legacy to our children. After all, our children ask for bread and deserve bread, not the snake we have created and are about to pass on to them (Matthew 7:9-10). With these thoughts in mind, I invite you to study along. To go to the beginning of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here.
Two Limits
Having delineated these seven freedoms, I will now mention two limits that seem to me to be absolute. The first is that the use of the word bara insists that at the original creation, at the creation of conscious life, and at the creation of man there was specific discontinuity with what preceded.[1]
One other limitation is that Adam was historic and was the first man, and that Eve was made from Adam. It could not be: male-female-male-female-male-female, and then suddenly Zip!—male-female of man. It would be worthwhile here to read again all the New Testament references to the early chapters of Genesis found on pages 12–14. Among these it is most important to recognize that 1 Corinthians 11:8 affirms that Eve came from Adam: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” First Corinthians 11:12 and 1 Timothy 2:13 also relate to Eve’s coming from Adam.
Consequently, what is involved here (as in this whole discussion) is not ‘just the first chapters of Genesis, but the authoritativeness of the New Testament as well, and especially the writings of Paul. If Paul is wrong in this factual statement about Eve’s coming from Adam, there is no reason to have certainty in the authority of any New Testament factual statement, including the factual statement that Christ rose physically from the dead. If we say this factual statement about Eve was culturally oriented, then every factual statement of the New Testament can be said to be culturally oriented; and any or all of the factual statements of the New Testament can be dealt with arbitrarily and subjectively. The Bible gives a specific limitation: Adam was created by God, and then Eve was made from Adam by God.
In passing it should be noted that it is not inconsequential that Eve came from Adam; rather, this gives the basis for the absolute unity of the whole human race.[2]
Having set forth these two limitations, I must now say I have never heard anyone holding any form of theistic evolution who follows these two limitations. I think the reason for this is that holding these limitations in any system of theistic evolution would separate the one who holds such an evolutionary theory from the usual evolutionists as completely as holding a totally nonevolutionary theory would. To put that another way, someone affirming these limitations would be as completely separated from those who hold the evolutionary position in its normal form as would someone who did not hold any form of evolution. And this is the reason, I think, it has not been put forward, at least never to the best of my knowledge.
In conclusion, I would make two points. First, even if I were still an agnostic, as once I was, I would not accept the concept of evolution from the molecule to man in an unbroken line. My rejection of this does not turn upon my being a Christian, but comes rather because I think this concept is weak and certainly has not been proven (in any sense of the word proven). It is a theory with many unproofs. It has not been demonstrated either theoretically or empirically that time and chance can explain either the universe with its high complexity or man as man. Statistically, Murray Eden of MIT has insisted that it is impossible that the universe and its complexity were produced by pure chance out of chaos in any amount of time that has so far been suggested (see “Heresy in the Halls of Ivy—Mathematicians Question Darwin,” in Scientific Research, November 1967, pp. 59–66). And equally, no one has demonstrated that man as man could have been brought forth from non-man merely on the basis of time and chance. When this has been tried, it ends by reducing man to non-man and man’s aspirations to illusions.
Both Darwinism as it was first presented as the survival of the fittest and neo-Darwinism have been shown to have not only philosophical, but methodological and statistical problems.[3] And trying to make final explanations on the basis of reductionism has now largely been set aside.
The concept of an unbroken line from the molecule to man on the basis of time and chance is, it seems to me, very clearly a faith position held by modern rationalistic man. He holds it tenaciously because it is the only thing which he has to give unity to the particulars of knowledge which he has in his hand; and it is all he has to give an illusion of meaning for man in a meaningless universe.
If modern rationalistic man were to give up his theory of evolution in an unbroken line from the molecule to man on the basis of time and chance (and with it the unnecessary but usually held corollary of sociological evolution), he would be left with his bits of knowledge like loose beads scattered on the floor. To put it another way, the evolutionary theory of an unbroken line from the molecule to man on the basis of time and chance is the only frame of reference that modern rationalistic man has; therefore, he holds it in faith.
Second, I do not hold to a concept of theistic evolution, but it must be said that there is a certain possible range of freedom for discussion in the area of cosmogony while bowing to what God has affirmed.
Questions & Notes
The first limitation emphasizes the idea that creation, particularly the creation of conscious life and humanity, involved a distinct __________ with what came before. ↑
Another limitation highlights the biblical account of Adam being the first man and Eve being created from Adam, affirming the __________ of the human race. ↑
The rejection of evolution isn’t solely based on religious beliefs, it is underscored that the concept of evolution faces challenges both __________ and methodologically. ↑
Click on the "No Final Conflict" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here.