J.P. Moreland and Theistic Evolution (Part 2: Young Earth Creationist Arguments…Applied Inconsistently)

Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique is a 1,000-page book written by rather well-known Evangelicals (Biola professor J.P. Moreland, Discovery Institute’s Stephen Myer, systematic theologian Wayne Gruden) who, although not young earth creationists, are nevertheless opposed to the idea of theistic evolution.

In my previous post, I began discussing an interview that J.P. Moreland gave about the topic of theistic evolution around the time the book came out in November of 2017. I shared two basic observations: (1) Moreland’s description of theistic evolution actually betrays the fact that he comes to the topic by viewing it through a rather deistic conception of the universe—namely, that God “wound the watch” of the natural world up, so to speak, and then left it to itself, only to occasionally intervene; and (2) Many of Moreland’s objections to evolution are things that evolution doesn’t even purport to address.

In this post, I am going to focus on a number of other comments by Moreland that sound (at least to me) eerily similar to that of young earth creationists like Ken Ham. If I were to summarize Moreland’s comments in a nutshell, it would be this: theistic evolution is a threat to the reliability and authority of Bible.

Theistic Evolution and the “Battle for the Bible”
When asked to discuss one of his chapters in the book that essentially accuse theistic evolution of robbing Christians of their confidence in the Bible, Moreland proceeded to give an answer that, quite frankly, could have been taken from the Answers in Genesis website. He first made a curious distinction between “faith” and “knowledge,” and then claimed that if Christianity is nothing more than a “belief system,” “it will be marginalized from culture and Christians themselves won’t have the courage to share their faith because they’re not at all confident that what they believe is true in the first place.”

Okay…but what does that really mean? Sure, if Christianity is presented as nothing more than just “personal beliefs” that aren’t rooted in any true knowledge or truth claims, then yes, it will come across as just another set of subjective opinions in a sea of postmodernism. But throughout Christian history it is pretty clear: the Christian faith is rooted in the faith and knowledge that God has acted in history, both in the life of ancient Israel and in the person of Jesus Christ. Or more simply put: the Christian faith is rooted in historical realities that can be known.

But unfortunately, Moreland ignores all that, and instead goes straight to the same place Ken Ham goes to: the early chapters of Genesis. For Moreland accuses theistic evolutionists of claiming “that scientists are a far, far more secure source of knowledge of reality than biblical or theological preaching and philosophy,” and therefore are constantly trying to “revise the Bible so that it will be consistent with science.” And thus, “By appealing to theistic evolution, we are actually undermining people’s confidence in the Bible rather than giving them a way to integrate science and Scripture.”

Moreland then accuses theistic evolution of being “the cure that kills the patient,” because it allows scientists to determine what is real, and that ends up forcing the theologian to “wave the white flag of surrender and ask the scientists what he can say Genesis teaches.”

As I read that, I thought, “This is exactly the same argument Ken Ham makes: ‘Christians who accept evolution are undermining biblical authority and are guilty of revising and twisting the plain meaning of Scripture to fit in with the fallible claims of science.’”

How is Theistic Evolution Incompatible with Scripture?
But before I comment on what Moreland said there, I want to point out the next point he made as well. When asked to articulate how theistic evolution is incompatible with Scripture, he made a rather curious argument. He first said (correctly) that Scripture tells us that the universe and the heavens declare the glory of God. He then, though, claimed, “If we can explain everything about the beginnings of life and everything else without needing God as an explanatory tool—in other words, if it can be completely explained naturalistically—it’s very hard to see how it gives evidence of the glory of God and his existence.”

Note what he said: If we don’t use God as a means of scientific explanation, then the universe doesn’t declare the glory of God. That is simply preposterous. Does that mean that if we don’t put “God” as a scientific factor in describing the process of photosynthesis or the process of the development of a fertilized egg into a newborn baby, then there is no “evidence” for the glory of God?

Or let’s state it bluntly: are we to think that Psalm 19:1 (“The heavens declare the glory of God”) is really saying that God must be used in our scientific explanations of the natural world, so we can have “evidence” or “proof” of God’s existence? Psalm 19 is poetry, for goodness sake! All it is saying, in a poetic way, is that nature itself bears witness to God. It’s not talking about “giving scientific evidence to prove God’s existence.” It’s not a theorem or proof—it is praise. To take that and try to make it mean, “We must put God in our scientific explanations of natural processes or else the heavens won’t declare God’s glory” is to, in fact, misread and misinterpret it.

Furthermore, Moreland then says something that seems (to me, at least) to be contradictory to rationale for rejecting theistic evolution. I’ll quote it in full:

“I do think there’s a legitimate difference in the text about the days, how old the universe is and how old the earth is. I’m an old-earth creationist, a progressive creationist, not a young-earth one, and there are solid Old Testament scholars who say there is plenty of room for differences on that issue. But it seems clear that when you read the Scriptures, God actually did some things and put his stamp of brilliance on living things that he made. And if that’s true, then the blind watchmaker thesis—that all of this could happen naturally and God can guide as long as there’s no evidence of it—seems to me to be to flying in the face of a fairly standard read of the activity of God in Genesis in bringing into being the various kinds of living things.”

So let’s be clear: he criticizes theistic evolution for “bowing to the scientists” and ignoring what Genesis “clearly teaches,” but then he turns around and essentially says, “Oh, but Genesis 1 doesn’t really teach a literal six days and a young earth.” Well, I’m sorry, but I am sure Ken Ham would be able to criticize Moreland’s view using Moreland’s own argument against theistic evolution. Let’s face it, Genesis 1 really does say six days, so why is Moreland “rejecting what Genesis clearly teaches”?

Indeed, Moreland is guilty of the very thing he (wrongly) accuses theistic evolution of doing, namely “waving the white flag of surrender” and asking scientists what he can say about Genesis. Ken Ham is actually right on this: you cannot “fit” millions of years into Genesis 1. And yet, this is precisely what Moreland believes. He accepts what science says about the age of the universe, and then tries to revise what Genesis 1 says to “fit” with his acceptance of the science.

This is why I firmly believe that any kind of concordism (i.e. trying to wed scientific discoveries with Genesis 1) is ultimately a fool’s errand, for it begins with the assumption that Genesis 1 is trying to do science in the first place. It’s trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. We don’t have to try and make science “fit” with Genesis 1, because Genesis 1 isn’t addressing those questions in the first place. If Genesis really is “God’s historical science textbook,” then Ken Ham would be 100 % right. Contrary to what Moreland says, there isn’t plenty of room for differences. But if it’s not, then neither Ken Ham nor J.P. Moreland is right.

One more thing needs to be said about Moreland’s quote here: what does it mean that “God put his stamp of brilliance on living things that he made,” and how would evolution fly in the face of the idea that God brought into being the various kinds of living things? For Moreland, it’s clear: it’s the acceptance of the “blind watchmaker thesis.” Of course, as I said in the previous post, the whole “watchmaker argument” itself is based on a faulty deistic conception of the universe. On top of that, the blind watchmaker thesis is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical argument for atheism—and theistic evolution does not accept it, period.

Moreland’s Inner Ham
Moreland’s final comments in the interview seem to me to be right out of the YECist handbook. First, he claims that theistic evolution threatens the credibility of the early chapters of Genesis, and says that if they simply are mythological narrative and aren’t rooted in history, then “that calls into question the very foundation of the rest of the Scriptures.”

Now, I’ve written on these issues quite a bit, and you can read my more detailed response to such charges in my book, The Heresy of Ham. But for our purposes here, let’s just say he is simply wrong. There were many early Church Fathers who did not believe the early chapters of Genesis were historical, and at no time did anyone in the early Church ever claim that a historical reading of those early chapters of Genesis threatened the foundation of Scripture. We can debate about the proper interpretation and genre of the early chapters of Genesis, but to claim that the foundation of the entirety of Scripture (and indeed the Christian faith) is threatened if one doesn’t read the early chapters of Genesis as straight history is simply ignorant at best, and manipulative and fear-mongering at worst.

…and it’s something Ken Ham would wholly agree with. But then he’d turn around and say, “But Dr. Moreland, if that is true, then why do you reject the plain meaning of Genesis 1 and try to fit millions of years into the clear history Genesis 1 is putting forth?”

And to that, Moreland would no doubt say, “Oh, but Genesis 1 is different. Science clearly shows that the universe is millions of years old. There’s a way to fit that into Genesis 1.”

And then, Ham would be able to read Moreland’s own words back to him, when he accused theistic evolutionists of “waving the white flag” to science and then trying to “revise the Bible so that it will be consistent with science.”

I’m sorry, but in that “game of chess,” Ham has Moreland in check-mate.

Moreland also echoes another YECist argument against theistic evolution, namely that since evolution entails millions of years of death in the process, then that would mean “God chose to use evil as his primary means of creating.”

Now again, this is another issue that people have written books on, but all I want to say here is that Moreland shares the same assumption as Ken Ham about God creating an originally “perfect world,” that then “went bad” when the first historical couple ate a piece of fruit from a forbidden tree. And again, we have the writings of many early Church Fathers that (a) didn’t read those early chapters historically, and (b) in the case of Irenaeus, specifically said that the belief that God created an originally “perfect” creation was a gnostic heresy.

Now, I’m not saying Moreland is s gnostic, obviously. But we need to recognize that his opposition to theistic evolution is rooted in a number of faulty perspectives and assumptions: (1) the deistic worldview I discussed in the previous post, (2) the faulty assumption that God created a “perfect creation,” and (3) the faulty assumption that the early chapters of Genesis are even trying to do history or science. Not only that, but the basis of all his arguments are largely the same as that of YECism and Ken Ham. The only difference, as I’m sure Ham would say, is that Moreland is actually inconsistent regarding his claims of the historicity of Genesis 1.

To Conclude
Moreland ended the interview by saying, “Theistic evolution and naturalistic evolution are being propped up by social pressure, not by the actual strength of the arguments.”

I’m sorry, but no. Evolution is a scientific theory that has a lot of evidence going for it. But it’s not a doctrine, it’s not a philosophy, it isn’t being propped up by social pressure, and it doesn’t threaten or undermine Scripture.

By contrast, what impels men like Ken Ham to build a giant ark in Kentucky and men like Moreland to be involved in a 1,000 page anti-theistic evolution book is (a) a misunderstanding of what the early chapters in Genesis are, (b) an unknowing acceptance of a deistic conception of the universe, (c) a mischaracterization of evolution as a philosophy (rather than the scientific theory that it is), and (d) a fear that if we can’t “prove” God scientifically, then we’ll lose the culture war.

Well, all I can say to Evangelicals who continue to try to reduce God to just another factor in scientific explanations of the natural world is this: if that’s what you’re bent on doing, you’ve already lost.