Spent some time this morning reading articles by Darrell Falk professor of Biology at Point Loma Nazarene College. He is a theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolution is the idea that God created the "world" or at least the building blocks of the world and then allowed the process of Macro-Evolution to produce the results guided of course by the Big Biologist in the Sky aka God. In one article, he was responding to Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge trained philosopher of science. Falk, first of all in syrupy language, talked about how great a philosopher Meyer was, but then slammed him as having no right to critique a biologist. Why is it that people automatically think that just because they have a diploma they are above criticism. I've heard the same arguments from teachers complaining about mothers who home school, or physicians who won't listen to their patients. The attitude is "I've studied; therefore, who are you to tell me anything." Nowhere can this attitude be found with such vigor as in institutions of higher learning. In my field as a theologian and pastor, I would be run out of the church if I took such an attitude. There are smart people who don't have diplomas hanging on the wall but whose faith can move mountains. I believe the attitude of "I know more than you- so shut up" is detrimental not only to fair debate but to the growth of the person with said attitude.
Then Falk went on to quote scripture saying he believed in Romans 8:38-39 and that he was sure Meyer also believed this in order to facilitate common ground. However, here is the real crux of the issue: is the bible true or not. The theistic evolutionist must be selective in what he believes is true in the context of scripture for the fact of the matter is that the first chapters of Genesis have to be myth according to Falk. The Genesis creation narrative must be understood or "explained away" by making it man's account (though a far better account than other creation myths) in which to convey things for a human perspective that at the time where unexplainable. The problem is that the Apostle Paul states that "all scripture", not just the New Testament, is "God breathed" or "inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, the Genesis account of creation is not man's explanation but God's revelation. The Genesis account itself claims to be history in chapter 2 verse 4 which means in layman terms: it should be interpreted literally and not figuratively or mythologically. If we say Genesis 1-3 is myth, why not Mathew through John; they too are full of miracles and even resurrection accounts, how can that be any different then interpretationally? No, the creation account of Genesis is not myth any more than the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; otherwise, our faith would be useless. Theistic evolution is completely incompatible with orthodox Christianity and it undermines the faith of scripture.
The other problem was that Falk intimated a stupidity on the part of Meyer when he said there was biological evidence contrary to Meyer's stated opinion to the contrary. However, it is interesting to point out that where evolutionists see chaos and chance often times creationists see purpose and intention. Ultimately it is a matter of faith not biology. So the Philosopher Meyer is right to criticize the Biologist Falk. As a theologian, my advice to macro-evolutionists is "repent and believe".
If you want to know more see http://biologos.org/blog/on-reading-the-signature-a-response-to-stephen-meyer/