A common refrain from Christians who have accepted secular interpretations in origins science relating to either deep time geology, biology, or cosmology (the supposed evolution of living things over billions of years) is “But how could all of those brilliant scientists possibly be wrong?”

It’s as if old earth creationists and/or theistic evolutionists are saying once a certain threshold of acceptance and agreement is met within the scientific community (51%? 75%? 90%?) then opposition to what the “experts” believe is unwarranted, and Christians should then accept these (old earth/evolutionary) conclusions and modify their understanding of Scripture accordingly—regardless of what the Bible clearly states.

Appealing to What’s Popular

This way of thinking is actually nothing more than an appeal to the popular view (“all scientists believe in evolution”) and an appeal from authority (“scientists are unbiased experts in their field and must be correct”). It’s simply saying if the majority of people believe something then it must be true.

However, not only does any discerning parent know this way of thinking consists of logical fallacies (“If 99 of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?”), but it also certainly isn’t a scientific way of thinking either.

Why? Because no credible scientist (regardless of their worldview) would ever agree to practicing science according to consensus. Many people need to understand that much of what is considered commonly held belief in science today was initially rejected by a majority of scientists for years before eventually being accepted as true.

However, the results of the acceptance of deep time and/or evolution upon a Christian’s belief in Scripture can be clearly seen when examining the interpretations of the Genesis 1–11 text, and the more credence given the evolutionary story, the more obvious the results become.

Examples

Just as a few examples, regardless of the clarity, grammatical integrity, or how clearly the text states the Genesis creation account, those who accept a millions/billions of years timeframe typically state,

• The days in Genesis were not literal 24-hour days (rather, vast time periods).
• Creatures were dying before sin came into the world (the fossil record and rock layers supposedly laid down during the modified 6 “days” of creation record death and disease).
• The flood described in Genesis 6–9 was a local event (not global).

And, in addition, for those who’ve accepted the story of evolution as the way God created over those supposed millions of years,

• Individual kinds of animals were not created separately (they evolved slowly over millions of years).
• Adam was not the literal first man (humans evolved from ape-like creatures).
• The confusion of languages at the tower of Babel was not a literal event (speech evolved).

Results in Belief

So, what we see is that, depending on how much of the naturalistic explanation of the world a Christian accepts, they either reinterpret what is plainly stated in Genesis by modifying its meaning (e.g., global flood becomes local flood), or they declare the entire body of text as metaphorical or symbolic (e.g., Adam as the literal first man God created from dust simply becomes a symbol of humanity).

Who Believes What?

Of course, the majority of scientists are evolutionists. And scientists as a group tend to be much less likely to believe in a God or any “higher power” than the rest of society.

For example, research conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press 2009, found that American scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power, with only 33% of scientists saying they actually believe in a god.

This contrasts sharply with 95% of Americans who believe in some form of deity or higher power. The poll also revealed that four-in-ten scientists identify as atheists—41% say they do not believe in God or a higher power whatsoever—while the poll found only 4% of the public shares this atheistic view.

This 10 times increased level of unbelief is significant, as the USA is considered to be the most “Christianized” country that has ever existed, which implies the majority of other countries’ scientists could be even less positive toward belief in God.

A Consistent Appeal to Authority

Having said all of this, let’s just go along with the idea that Christians should accept what the majority of scientists believe and play that out to its logical conclusion regarding the modification or allegorizing of Scripture. Let’s ask whether most scientists believe in the following:

• God exists.
• The God of the Bible exists.
• Jesus is God.

As discussed, if only 33% of scientists say they believe in a god, then the majority would say no to all the above. Would they affirm any of the following statements?

• The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
• Jesus was born of a virgin.
• Jesus turned water into wine instantaneously.
• Jesus miraculously healed disease and deformity.
• Jesus walked on water.
• Jesus calmed a storm by speaking.
• Jesus resurrected people.
• Jesus died and came back to life.

Obviously (if only 33% profess belief in God), the majority of scientists don’t believe a man walked on water, a virgin gave birth, and dead people can come back to life. Why? Because science doesn’t confirm it.

How about the following historical accounts from the Old Testament? Would the majority of scientists believe these events happened?

• An ax-head floated.
• A donkey spoke.
• A man lived in a great fish for three days.

Believers have to conclude then that the vast majority of scientists wouldn’t accept any beliefs based on the historical accounts recorded in Scripture! But does that mean we should modify or abandon the plain teaching of Scripture (including the miracles Jesus performed and his birth, death, and supernatural resurrection providing salvation)? True believers would say no.

Which means we could ask our old-earth and evolution-believing brethren the very same question they pose to us: “Then how could all of those brilliant scientists possibly be wrong?”

And the answer, of course, is that the majority of scientists are naturalists, do not accept the supernatural, and so automatically presume everything to have a materialistic explanation, which is consistent with their worldview.

But why should Christians be inconsistent and accept secular interpretations in certain areas and not others? What logical explanation is there for doing so?

Inconsistency in Church Leadership

This inconsistency in regard to what Christians do and do not believe regarding science and the Bible is not just restricted to the average church goer—it has crept into nearly all of our Bible colleges, seminaries, and pulpits now.

Interestingly, prior to approximately 200 years ago, virtually no Christian theologian would have held to an old earth or theistic evolutionary position as these beliefs simply weren’t available in the interpretive marketplace regarding the Genesis account.

So, it’s actually a little sad when pastors, theologians, and Bible professors who specialize and have expertise in Christian theology deny what Scripture plainly says because of claims from an area—science—outside of their (typical) area of expertise.

And, to add even more salt to the wound, many of these theologians actually criticize Christians who do have scientific credentials, unless their interpretation lines up with what secular scientists (often naturalists and atheists) conclude.

They follow the mainstream narrative as if afraid the world will criticize them as “unintellectual,” even though they can’t truly defend the “science” of evolution but simply trust that the majority of scientists know what they are talking about.

But if it’s a matter of trusting the experts in their field, why then can’t scientists trust theologians to know what they are talking about? Because in their minds, science holds the ultimate authority over the matter of origins. For both secularists and compromising Christians, so called “science” is in the driver’s seat, not Scripture.

Inconsistency Leads to Disrespect

And it’s not as if atheistic, evolutionary scientists are flocking to Christianity in droves because of the compromising Christians acquiescing to evolutionary beliefs. Rather it’s the opposite. Trying to describe Genesis (and the rest of Scripture, for that matter) as compatible with the story of evolution is indefensible against an informed opponent. Atheist Jerry Coyne capitalized on this weakness in his review of two books by theistic evolutionists where he said,

Why reject the story of creation and Noah’s Ark because we know that animals evolved, but nevertheless accept the reality of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, which are equally at odds with science? After all, biological research suggests the impossibility of human females reproducing asexually, or of anyone reawakening three days after death. Without good cause, Giberson and Miller [theistic evolutionists whose books he was critiquing] pick and choose what they believe.

Coyne scored points here by simply relying on the bedrock of logic—the law of non-contradiction. He knew that people who contradict themselves look foolish and used that to affirm the trope of unintellectual Christians and to point out that their belief in the Bible is so malleable that it can be made to say whatever is desired—which means it has little directive value whatsoever.

And this inconsistency has been exploited by atheistic thinkers many times when engaging with compromising Christians.

For example, the anti-theistic Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins once called out the Bishop of Oxford (and fellow evolutionist) Richard Harries rather contemptuously on a BBC program. In response to Harries declaring the biblical definition of marriage should be reinterpreted because he believes modern scientific findings demonstrate same-sex attraction is somehow copasetic with Scripture, Dawkins said,

It seems to me an odd proposition that we should adhere to some parts of the Bible story but not to others . . . Why bother with the Bible at all if we have the ability to pick and choose from it, what is right and what is wrong?

And, of course, because of the open inconsistency the Christian church has demonstrated, this is just what the general public is now asking as well: Why bother with the Bible?

The respect for biblical authority in western culture has diminished considerably.

Seek God’s Approval, Not Man’s

Interestingly, as caustic as Jerry Coyne (quoted above) has been to Christians in general, the only morsel of respect he grants is to biblical creationists:

At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board.

So, believers looking for respect and approval in the scientific community should understand something. The only real respect will come to those who hold consistently to the authority of God’s Word as plainly written. Regardless, Galatians 1:10 poses the most serious question Christ’s servants should ask.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Instead of living with an inconsistent worldview and attempting to insert materialistic explanations into Scripture, why not learn how to explain what we see in the world (like fossils and rock layers, dinosaur bones and DNA, changes in living things and different people groups) according to what Scripture says? (A great way to learn apologetics is through our Answerstogo.ca platform!)

Remember, our comfort is in knowing our salvation is secure because of the truth of God’s Word. Believers should always keep in mind,

Proverbs 29:25 KJV – “The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe.”