Mutations: a problem for evolution

We’re breaking down.

As Dr. John Sanford outlines in this presentation, there are two conflicting worldviews at battle in out culture:

1) we as a species are naturally going up
2) we as a species are naturally going down

The first is the theory of evolution: Mankind is supposed to the end result of a long process of beneficial mutations that changed us, improved us, from our origins as a single cell, simple organism, to become the incredibly complex creatures that we are today. We as a species are improving.

The second is the Biblical worldview. After the Fall into Sin we know that the world was put under a curse. Things started off perfect, but are broken now. We as a species, like all of creation, are breaking down.

So which is it?

Well, what Dr. Sanford explains is that the supposed driver of evolution – mutations – are hurting, not helping us. While an occasional beneficial mutation can happen, Sanford discovered that the rate at which we are mutating, from one generation to the next, is so rapid that we, as a species, are not long for this world. These mutations are accumulating like rust does on a car. Just as a little rust doesn’t harm a vehicle, so too a few mutations won’t harm our genome much. But rust spreading across a car will eventually cause the whole vehicle to fall apart, and in this same way accumulating mutations are eventually going to do Mankind in. Roughly 100 mutations are being passed on per generation – we, as a species are going down. We are slowly rusting out.

To find out more, watch this very intriguing 1 hour presentation. Or you can visit, a site run by Dr. Sanford and a number of other scientists. Who is Dr. Sanford? He is a geneticist, a former professor at Cornell University, and one of the inventors of the gene gun. He was once an atheist and an evolutionist, but after bowing his knee to God he first investigated theistic evolution, then Old Earth Creationism, and finally settled on Young Earth Creationism.


God is visible to any who will see

Our universe, if just slightly different, would never have been able to support life. For example, a proton’s mass is 1,837 times greater than that of an electron, but it carries a positive charge that is exactly equal to that of the electron’s negative charge. How very strange that the two, so different in size, would yet be perfectly matched in charge! If they weren’t paired just so, then the vast array of elements could never have formed and life could never have existed.

This is but one example of the fine-tuning that so troubles atheists that they’ve resorted to “what if” stories to explain it away. Yes, they acknowledge, the universe is too finely tuned to have come about just by chance…if we’d had only one role of the dice to get here. But what if this wasn’t the only universe? What if there were billions and trillions and gazillions of universes out there somewhere? What if we could stack the odds in our favor by supposing as many universes as we might need? Then it wouldn’t seem so very improbable that at least one of these might be suited to life…right?

And these same atheists will mock Christians because we speak of faith!

A fire like moon
Shot of a solar eclipse blotting out the sun

There is no evidence of these other universes. None at all. So on what basis do they propose this theory? Because they need it to be true. The only case that can be made for it is that the alternative is too terrible for them to consider – that a Fine-Tuner brought the balance, order, and wonder to our universe.

Atheists can be clever, but God won’t leave them with any excuse. As Psalm 19 explains the heavens declare His glory. Want to explain away fine-tuning by postulating a multiverse? Well, then answer this: why would the Sun just happen to be 400 times bigger than our moon and also 400 times further away?

This precise pairing means that the moon and sun appear to be the same size in our sky. This allows us, during a solar eclipse, to study the Sun’s corona in a way that we just can’t any other time and wouldn’t ever be able to if the two celestial bodies weren’t sized just so. As the moon passes in front of the Sun only the corona is still visible – flaring fire crowning the moon in the dark daytime sky. Yes, dear atheist, we are not only in a universe impossibly finely tuned for life, but implausibly suited for us to study our own Sun.

Why would that be?

The multiverse doesn’t explain it. There is no reason that the one universe in which all the dice rolled just right for life would also be the same universe in which we’d be gifted with a moon that was sized exactly right to study our own Sun.

Atheists have no explanation.

But we do. We know our God created us as the very pinnacle of His creation (Psalm 8:3-9, Genesis 1:26-28) and that our purpose is to glorify Him. So it isn’t surprising to us that God would so arrange things that the size of the sizing of the moon enables us to study our Sun – God is showing us His wonders!

This article was first published in the May 2016 edition of Reformed Perspective.

RELATED ARTICLE: Observatory Earth: Eclipses and our Privileged Planet

Keller: If biological evolution is true, are we just animals driven by our genes?

Keller’s white paper asks a second “layperson” question, one that really gets at a problem: “If biological evolution is true—does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?” Keller’s provides this short answer, “No. Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a world-view.”

Two senses of “evolution”: EBP & GTE

In explaining this question and his response, Keller distinguishes evolution in two senses. The first is the teaching that “human life was formed through evolutionary biological processes” (he gives the acronym EBP for this), and the second is evolution “as the explanation for every aspect of human nature,” which he calls the “Grand Theory of Everything” and refers to as “GTE” (6). We might call this evolution as a worldview. Similarly, some Canadian Reformed authors have argued for the distinction between “evolution” and “evolutionism.”[1]

Screen Shot 2016-03-07 at 5.43.39 AM.png

The problem Keller is addressing is that self-described “evolutionary creationists”—such as those at Biologos tend to be—end up hearing the same critique from both creationists and evolutionists: both argue that you can’t hold the theory of biological evolution without at the same time endorsing atheistic evolution as a whole. Essentially both critics assert that evolution is a package, a worldview, a big-picture perspective, and you can’t just isolate one part of it.

Keller suggests to his fellow Biologos members that most Christian laypeople have a difficult time distinguishing EBP from GTE. They have a hard time understanding that it is possible to limit one’s commitment to evolution to “the scientific explorations of the way which—at the level of biology—God has gone about his creating processes” (6, Keller quoting David Atkinson). “How can we help them?” Keller asks, for “this is exactly the distinction they must make, or they will never grant the importance of EBP.” He simply states that Christian pastors, theologians and scientists need to keep emphasizing that they are not endorsing evolution as the Grand Theory of Everything.

Keller’s helpful critique of evolution as the GTE

To support this, Keller provides a brief but helpful analysis, showing that evolution as the GTE is self-refuting. I’ll explain his point with the help of an online video where he elaborates a bit more. Basically, according to those who hold to evolution as the GTE, religion came about only because it somehow must have helped our ancestors survive (survival of the fittest). In fact, they say, we all know there’s no God, no heaven, no divine revelation. Such things are false beliefs. But if that is the case, argues Keller, then natural selection has led our minds to believe false things for the sake of survival. Further, if human minds have almost universally had some kind of belief in God, performed religious practices, and held moral absolutes, and if it’s all actually false, then we can’t be sure about anything our minds tell us, including evolution as the grand theory of everything. Thus, with reference to itself, evolution as the GTE is absurd.

In the online video that I used to supplement the explanation here, Keller is dealing with the problem that opponents of Christianity and of religion generally try to “explain it away.” He states, “C. S. Lewis put it this way some years ago, “You can’t go on explaining everything away forever or you will find that you have explained explanation itself away.”

Keller, following Lewis, illustrates “explaining away” with “seeing through” things: A window lets you see through it to something else that is opaque. But if all we had were windows—a wholly transparent world—all would be invisible and in the end you wouldn’t see anything at all. “To see through everything is not to see at all.”

How does that apply? Keller asks. He then shows that many universal claims are self-refuting.

If, as Nietzsche says, all truth claims are really just power grabs, then so is his, so why listen to him? If, as Freud says, all views of God are really just psychological projections to deal with our guilt and insecurity, then so is his view of God, so why listen to him? If, as the evolutionary scientists say, that what my brain tells me about morality and God is not real—it’s just chemical reactions designed to pass on my genetic code—then so is what their brains tell them about the world, so why listen to them? In the end to see through everything is not to see.[2]

As usual, Keller is an insightful apologist for the Christian faith. He helps us oppose evolution as the Grand Theory of Everything. Just the same, I heard another prominent evolutionary creationist, Denis Alexander, answering questions at a recent conference (2016) and musing about our lack of knowledge as to when “religiosity” first evolved among our ancestors. So, Keller’s helpful critique notwithstanding, at least one of his co-members at Biologos appears to think that religiosity is an evolved trait (or at least allows for this view).


Screen Shot 2016-03-07 at 6.06.49 AM.png


Screen Shot 2016-03-07 at 5.43.39 AM.png
But not GTE

But Keller doesn’t prove that EBP doesn’t lead to GTE

Although I’ve highlighted something helpful in Keller’s white paper, the main point he needed to do was to prove that one’s commitment to the theory of evolutionary biological ancestry for humans (and all other living things) does not entail holding to evolution as the grand theory of everything. He didn’t do this because the setting in which he spoke was Biologos, an organization which is committed to EBP but wants to avoid GTE because the members are Christians. They’ve already crossed that first bridge. Nevertheless, this is the real point at issue.

Can and will Christians be able to hold to EBP without moving to GTE?

I seriously doubt that Christians can or will be successful in adopting evolution as EBP while avoiding the trajectory that moves toward evolution as GTE. Here’s why, in short.

It seems to me that as soon as one adopts EBP, the following positions come to be accepted (whether as hypotheses, theories, or firm positions):

  1. Adam and Eve had biological ancestors, from whom they evolved (some sort of chimp-like creatures).
  2. These “chimps” in turn had other biological ancestors and relatives, as do all creatures.
  3. In fact, there is an entire phylogenetic tree or chain of evolutionary development that begins with the Big Bang. All living things have common ancestry in the simplest living things, such as plants. At some point before that the transition was made from non-living things to the first living cell (some evolutionary creationists assert that God did something supernatural to make the transition from non-living things to living).[3]
  4. Evolving requires deep time. “Multiple lines of converging evidence” apparently tell us the universe is 14.7 billion years old; the earth is about 4.7 billion, life is about 3 billion, and human life is probably about 400,000 years old (these numbers may vary; I happen to think 6-10 thousand is rather ancient as it is!).
  5. Humans do not have souls; they are simply material beings. This is being promoted by Biologos and other theologians and philosophers.[4] Not all evolutionary creationists would agree; some say God gave a soul when he “made” man in his image, others that the soul “emerged” from higher-order brain processes at some point in the evolutionary history.
  6. The world is on a continual trajectory from chaos to increasing order, or from bad to good to better to best. This creates great difficulties for one’s doctrine of the fall, redemption in Christ, and the radical transition into the new creation.
  7. The earth, as long as it has had animal life, has been filled with violence. Keller admits in his paper how critical this is: “The process of evolution, however, understands violence, predation, and death to be the very engine of how life develops” (2). This presents enormous difficulty for one’s doctrines of the good initial creation, and the fall into sin.
  8. The universe’s order arises mainly due to the unfolding of the inherent powers and structures God must have embedded in that initial singularity called the Big Bang. There is a movement toward Deism inherent in the theory.
  9. Much of what the Bible ascribes to God’s creating power and wisdom actually belongs to his providential guidance, which itself was probably a rather hands-off thing.
  10. God’s nature—particularly his goodness—needs to be understood differently if creation was “red in tooth and claw” from the beginning.[5]
  11. The authority of God’s Word falls under the axe due to the exegetical gymnastics required to accommodate EBP. Scripture apparently no longer means what it appears to mean. This opens up the reinterpretation of everything in the Bible.


In sum, Keller provides a helpful critique of evolution as the Grand Theory of Everything, but fails to demonstrate that holding to evolutionary biological processes does not in itself, very much open one up to evolution as the GTE, and may in fact ultimately make it impossible to avoid more and more of evolution as the GTE. This is surely because for the most part evolution as such depends upon atheistic presuppositions. And in fact, it’s actually quite hard to determine just where the line is between evolution as EBP and GTE. I’m afraid that’s a sliding scale, depending upon which scientist or theologian presents his views. Once the camel’s nose is in the tent . . . you know the rest.

The academic and religious trajectories of scholars who were once orthodox and Reformed show how hard it is to maintain evolution as EBP only. I’m thinking of such men as Howard Van Till (who is now more of a “free thinker”),[6]  Peter Enns (who now only holds to the Apostles’ Creed and treats the Bible as arising from the Israelites, not from God),[7] and Edwin Walhout (who advocated rewriting the doctrines of creation, sin, salvation, and providence).[8] There are whole swaths of theologians and scientists associated with Biologos, the Faraday Institute, and the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation who are trying valiantly to hold together their Christian faith with evolutionary science, and the money of the Templeton Foundation will ensure that pamphlets, presentations, conferences, and books, will bring these views to the Christian public. Holding to Dooyeweerdian philosophy’s sphere sovereignty may help some of these Christians compartmentalize their biology, geology, and their faith, but that philosophical school has been subject to severe criticism in our tradition, and on precisely this point.[9] I fear that the dissonance of EBP itself with the historic, creedal Christian faith will prove to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Christians to keep their faith and EBP together. I also doubt that one can very easily maintain evolution as EBP only.


[1] See, for instance, Accessed 24 Feb 2016.

[2] See Accessed 24 Feb, 2016.

[3] As an example of an evolutionary creationist attempting to defend the evolutionary link from egg-laying reproduction to placenta-supported reproduction, see Dennis Venema’s recent essays on vitellogenin and common ancestry at Biologos. See Accessed 25 Feb 2016.

[4] See my essay entitled, “In Between and Intermediate: My Soul in Heaven’s Glory,” in As You See the Day Approaching: Reformed Perspectives on the Last Things, ed. Theodore G. Van Raalte (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 70–111.

[5] See Accessed 27 Feb 2017.

[6] See Accessed 26 Feb 2016.

[7] See his book, The Evolution of Adam (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press 2012), ix–xx, 26–34.

[8] See Accessed 26 Feb 2016.

[9] For example, see J. Douma, Another Look at Dooyeweerd (Winnipeg: Premier Printing, 1981).

Keller’s advice to fellow Biologos members

Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 7.02.16 AM

A theological orthodoxy as well-aligned as that of Timothy Keller is hard to find among the increasing numbers of scientists, theologians, and organizations currently urging evangelical Christians to accept biological evolution. He is the pastor of New York’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) and is well-known through his writings on apologetics, church planting, and preaching. His 13 page white paper, hosted by Biologos and entitled “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople,” has been referenced favourably by scientists and theologians in conservative Reformed churches.[1] For example, when Frieda Oosterhoff introduced Keller’s paper some years ago on the Reformed Academic website, she stated,

(Readers of this blog, incidentally, will notice that our blog partner Dr. Jitse van der Meer sees eye to eye with Dr. Kidner in the matter of human evolution, the historicity of Adam and Eve, and the descent of all humans from Adam, and that he affirms the same tentative approach as Kidner and Keller.)[2]

In his paper Keller entertains the real questions of concerned Christians and offers answers as to how to help them integrate evolution with their faith. We have intended to interact with his arguments for some time.

Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 6.57.28 AM

It’s important to situate accurately our debate with Keller. The debate between us is not whether the Christian faith and current science (or what is claimed to be science) are irreconcilable, for we all agree that in many respects they are reconcilable while in some respects they are not. The debate, rather, is in what particular respects they are and are not able to be reconciled.

The debate between us is not whether evolution is a defensible worldview that gives us the basis of our views on religion, ethics, human nature, etc. We all agree that it is not the “grand theory/explanation of everything.” We all agree that there is a God and he is the God of the Bible—Triune, sovereign, covenant-making, gracious, atonement-providing, and bringing about a new creation. Nor am I debating whether Keller is an old-earth creationist aka progressive creationist or an evolutionary creationist or a theistic evolutionist. His own position is a bit unclear so I will simply deal with what he has published in this paper.[3]

The debate between us is not whether matter is eternal; whether the universe’s order is by sheer chance; whether humans have no purpose but to propagate their own genes; whether humans are material only; whether human life is no more valuable than bovine, canine, or any other life; whether upon death all personal existence ceases; or whether ethics is at root about the survival of the fittest. We all agree that none of these things are the case—Scripture teaches differently. We are not debating these points.

Our differences emerge in the compatibility of Scripture with biological evolution, namely, whether Scripture has room for the view that humans—insofar as they are material beings—have a biological ancestry that precedes Adam and Eve. Is this a permissible view?

The first thing to realize as one reads Keller’s paper is its context and purpose: Delivered at the first Biologos “Theology of Celebration” workshop in 2009, Keller lays out 3 (at first 4) concerns that “Christian laypeople” typically express when they are told that God created Adam and Eve by evolutionary biological processes. Keller advances strategies to help fellow Biologos members allay these fears of Christian laypeople. The context thus is that biological evolution is a permissible view; the scholars just need to figure out how to make it more widely accepted.

Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 6.55.08 AM

Keller deals with the following “three questions of Christian laypeople.”

  1. If God used evolution to create, then we can’t take Genesis 1 literally, and if we can’t do that, why take any other part of the Bible literally?
  2. If biological evolution is true—does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?
  3. If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve how can we know where sin and suffering came from?

These are excellent questions! Keller provides summary answers and longer explanations for each question. His short answers to the first two questions seem solid enough on the surface of things, yet his longer explanations deserve careful examination. His short answer to the third question is something we have directly contested on more than once, from the standpoint of Scripture. Here are his three summary answers. You can correlate them with the questions above.

  1. The way to respect the authority of the Biblical writers is to take them as they want to be taken. Sometimes they want to be taken literally, sometimes they don’t. We must listen to them, not impose our thinking or agenda on them.
  2. Belief in evolution as a biological process is not the same as belief in evolution as a world-view.
  3. Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in an historical fall and a literal Adam and Eve. There are many unanswered questions around this issue and so Christians who believe God used evolution must be open to one another’s views.

With this introduction in place, we can now interact with Keller’s advice to his fellow Biologos members in his longer explanations of each of these summary answers.

[1] Keller’s paper can be found online at Accessed 22 Feb 2016.

[2] See Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

[3] For this debate see Accessed 27 Feb 2016.

Follow the Evidence?

gil-gThere was a refrain frequently heard on early episodes of TV’s CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Gil Grissom was training rookie crime scene investigators, sharing with them his many years of experience in the field. Grissom would often say, “Follow the evidence…” The understanding was that just following the evidence would lead to the perpetrator of the crime. Following the evidence would lead to the truth.

In the world of TV crime scene investigation, this might usually work as a sound philosophy. Even there, occasionally writers and producers have explored the possibility that the evidence can be tainted by factors related to those investigating it. The evidence is not always interpreted objectively and thus conclusions (right or wrong) can still ultimately be reached on the basis of prejudice or gut feeling. The philosophy sounds good in principle, but it doesn’t always work out in practice.

Moving into the real world, the principle of “follow the evidence” is the basic philosophy behind much of Christian apologetics today. Walk into a vanilla Christian bookstore these days and if they have an apologetics section, likely everything there will be based on this principle. Lee Strobel is popular with his The Case for a Creator, The Case for Faith, and The Case for Christ. I won’t discount everything he writes in these books, but it should be noted that his basic principle is the same as CSI Grissom: follow the evidence. The same is true for the majority of others writing on the subject of apologetics today. For that reason alone, this principle needs critical evaluation.

Yet there is another reason why we should pause for careful reflection. We’re in the throes of debate on the compatibility of Christianity and evolution.  We ought not to kid ourselves, these issues are not going away. If the historical experience of the Christian Reformed Church is any indication, we should expect proponents of theistic evolution to keep trying until they not only make room for their position, but also gain converts to the point of having their position as the dominant one.

In this discussion, the allegation has been made that young university students have been sent into turmoil when encountering the evidence for evolution. As the story has it, these students were taught creation science at home, church, and school. They were told that the evidence made it clear that God had created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six ordinary days some thousands of years ago, not millions or billions. Arriving at university, they encounter a different batch of evidences not previously considered. This sends their faith into a tailspin and, so the story goes, some of them even end up committing suicide.

On a superficial level, we can join in bemoaning this approach to such issues. Here is some common ground with those attempting to make room for theistic evolution in our churches. We can agree that something has gone awry with those young university students, though we would still likely disagree on the details. From their perspective, the problem rests with creation science which produces faulty evidence because of certain faith convictions regarding creation. From our perspective, staking your faith on extra-biblical evidences is always problematic. Let me explain why.

The Theological Background of Evidential Apologetics    

Evidential apologetics is a philosophy of defending the faith which rests upon the use of evidence. This system of apologetics is usually traced back to Joseph Butler (1692-1752), an Anglican bishop. Butler lived during the time of the Enlightenment, also known as “The Age of Reason.” Serious challenges were being posed against the Christian faith. Rationalism, the belief that reason could provide the basis of all knowledge, had infiltrated not only society, but also many churches. The Enlightenment was a weak period for theology, and Reformed theology was also affected (or better: infected).

Butler recognized that Enlightenment philosophy endangered the Christian faith. In particular, he saw the danger deism posed. Deism is the belief that God is a clockmaker. He created the universe and then wound it up like a clock. He removed himself from it and is no longer intimately involved with it. According to deism, God takes an arms-length approach to the world. Butler rightly saw that this philosophy was in conflict with the teachings of the Bible.

In 1736, Butler published a book entitled The Analogy of Religion. This work was a response to deism. It was a defense of the faith. Butler aimed to show there are no sound objections to the Christian religion. He said all the evidence, especially the evidence in the natural world, points to the very probable truth of Christianity. As long as a person doesn’t ignore the abundance of evidence, he or she should not reject the Bible or any of its teachings. Unprejudiced minds, said Butler, would see the design inherent in the world and almost inevitably reach the conclusion that there is a Creator. A fair evaluation of the external evidence would likely push the open-minded unbeliever to accept the Bible. Butler purposed to demonstrate the truth of the Bible through facts, evidence and logic – and he believed it was not only possible to do this, but also pleasing to God.

When evaluating Butler’s approach, we have to remember the importance of what we call presuppositions. These are our most non-negotiable beliefs or assumptions about the way the world really is. Butler was an Arminian and one of his presuppositions was that man had not fallen so far as to completely corrupt his thinking. He did not confess the doctrine of pervasive (or total) depravity found in the Canons of Dort, but repudiated it. This had consequences for his system of apologetics. So did another related presupposition: the freedom of the will of fallen man. According to Butler and other Arminians, fallen man retains free will to choose for or against God. He need only use his faculties rightly in order to make the right choice.

While Butler saw the dangers of the Enlightenment and wanted to combat deism in particular, the weapons of his warfare were earthly and unscriptural. We might wish that Butler was a mere footnote in the history of Christian apologetics, but unfortunately his approach became widely accepted. Much of what we see today in non-Reformed (“evangelical”) apologetics finds its historical roots in the Arminian apologetics of this Anglican.

Evidential apologetics, historically and in its modern form, makes its case based not only on the evidence (and the nature of evidence), but also on a certain understanding of human nature. According to this system, human nature is not pervasively depraved. The human intellect is not fallen or dead in sin, only weakened or sick. Neutrality is not only possible, but a reality. When confronted with the evidence, and with perhaps a little help from God, the unprejudiced man will recognize the truth and turn to the Bible and believe it. This is Arminian theology applied to apologetics.

Unfortunately, this system has been appropriated by many involved with creation science. Many creation scientists have been Arminian in their theological convictions, so this should not come as a surprise. It is only consistent for Arminians to adopt evidential apologetics, whether in general, or whether specially applied to the question of origins. Inconsistency emerges when Reformed believers adopt this approach. “Following the evidence” is not our way.

A Biblical Approach

When we approach the question of evidence, we need to do so with Reformed, which is to say biblical, presuppositions. There are several of them we could discuss. However, in the interests of time and space, let me restrict our discussion to two of the most important. These are the presuppositions — the non-negotiable beliefs that will govern how we consider the place and use of evidence in apologetics.

The first is our confession regarding the nature of fallen man. As Ephesians 2:1 puts it, the unregenerate person is dead in transgressions and sins. This spiritual death extends to all the parts of a fallen human being: heart, mind, and will are all without a sign of life. When it comes to the Christian faith, fallen man does not have the capacity to interpret the evidence rightly. What the fallen man needs is regeneration. He needs to be made alive by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit needs to open his eyes so that he may see, understand, and believe. The Holy Spirit does this work of regeneration through the Word of God. Therefore, the Word of God, not external evidences, needs to be the focus of our apologetical efforts. From a Reformed perspective, apologetics involves bringing the Word of God to bear on unbelief to expose its futility and to vindicate and commend the Christian worldview.

A second necessary presupposition builds on that. We always start with a belief that the Bible is God’s inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. Those doctrinal positions are not conclusions that we reach through reasoning and proofs. They are held in faith. We hold to what is called the self-attesting authority of Scripture. That means the Bible attests or confirms its own authority. It does not need to be proven. The Bible claims to be the Word of God and we receive it as such. This is a settled truth for Christians. Therefore, the Bible is the basis and standard for all our apologetics. We are defending the Bible and the biblical worldview, but the Bible is also the guide for how we defend the Bible. The Bible gives us the means and strategies to use in defending the Bible.

Where does that leave external evidences? Well, for one thing, we do not build our system of apologetics upon them. Instead, our system has to be grounded on the Word of God. The Word is the supreme authority, not outside evidence. The Holy Spirit does not promise to regenerate people through external evidences. He does promise to do that through the Scriptures, though it is not inevitable in every case, obviously. What’s more, because evidence is always interpreted evidence, and the interpretation is always done by sinful minds, evidence must always be evaluated according to the supreme standard of the Word of God. Since there are no neutral facts or neutral methods for considering the facts, the Word must always be recognized as standing over the facts. It must be the grid through which the “facts” are sifted.

There is a place for evidence in apologetics and in the debate about origins. Evidence from outside the Bible can corroborate the Bible’s teachings. However, it is not the starting place, nor is it the authority. Moreover, external evidences can be fickle. What was thought to be evidence in one generation can turn out to have been misinterpreted by the next. How do you stay off what one writer called “the evidentialist roller coaster”? How do you stand firm against humanists and theistic evolutionist compromisers? Not by retreating to evidence, but by standing firm on what the Word of God teaches. And by evaluating all evidence in the light of the Word of God. That also means being open to the possibility that external evidences, whether for or against biblical teaching, may be wrongly interpreted. When it comes to evidences, one should retain a level of skepticism. After all, creation scientists and humanists/theistic evolutionists are all human beings, prone to sin and to mistakes. The only firm foundation is the Word of God.


“Follow the evidence” might be acceptable for fictional TV characters, but in God’s world his children can’t accept this procedure when it comes to apologetics. To “follow the evidence,” as if we are all neutral observers of the world is to sell out on our fundamental presuppositions. It’s regrettable that the surge of interest in apologetics has led some in our Reformed community to dabble with evidentialist apologetics. It’s sad too that we have often imbibed these apologetics as mediated to us through some creation scientists and their organizations.

Thankfully, in the last number of years, some creation scientists have adopted a Reformed, presuppositional approach to the question of origins. Most notable are Dr. Jonathan Sarfati and Dr. Jason Lisle, both affiliated with Answers in Genesis. Some time ago I reviewed Lisle’s book, The Ultimate Proof: Resolving the Origins Debate, and I want to take this opportunity to again commend it to you as a good example of how to apply Reformed apologetics to this issue. Some of Lisle’s final words in The Ultimate Proof provide a suitable conclusion: “Our defense of the faith comes from learning to think and to argue in a biblical way. God is logical, and we should be too. God tells us that all knowledge is in him (Col. 2:2-3), so we should train ourselves to recognize this fact” (173).

An earlier version of this article was originally published in Reformed Perspective magazine.  It appears here with their gracious permission.