[Letter to the Editor of The Clinton Journal - 12/13/2011]

I enjoyed reading Paul Williams' piece in the "Speaking of Religion" section from December 9th [he wrote Weinberg's column that week]. Williams made some good points and is correct in noting the complexity of the Creation/Evolution issue, but he made some fatal assumptions on the way to his conclusion.

Williams stated: "Let us assume God chose to use both Creation and Evolution..." That's a rather significant assumption, don't you think? We should ask two questions here: (1) Is it possible? Sure it's possible. God could have used evolutionary processes in creation if He desired. (2) Is it probable? In order for something to be probable, there must be some evidence to suggest it as the most likely explanation. I do not believe the evidence warrants the conclusion that macroevolution has happened at all--either orchestrated by God or by chance, random processes. Merely because I can envision something as possible doesn't mean that it is likely or that it did happen. Such is the case with theistic evolution (i.e., the belief that God used evolutionary processes in creation). I can imagine it, but there is no compelling evidence for it! If so, where is it?

Williams concluded by saying: "The point of this argument was to prove that God is not limited in his selection of methods for advancing his plans." I agree with the conclusion, though not with the reasoning he used to arrive at it. God could have used whatever method of creation He wanted, but this doesn't dismiss the fact that He said He created everything out of nothing in six days (cf. Exo. 20:11), and I believe Him! It's not a matter of me lacking the humility to embrace a form of theistic evolution. If the Bible affirmed it, I would believe it. I am glad Williams believes in God, but he must not believe in the God of the Bible to argue as he has. If the Bible is true (and there is much internal and external evidence to show that it is, which I'd be glad to consider with anyone-- Stephen@AudioEvangelism.com ), then what it records about origins is correct. There is simply no way to insert any form of theistic evolution into Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Man became a living being when God breathed into his nostrils, not when an ape mutated into a human! Either we accept the Bible or we don't. Theistic evolution and the Bible mix about as well as oil and water!

Finally, one cannot believe in Jesus as the Son of God and bringer of truth if Williams' form of theistic evolution is correct. Jesus stated in Mark 10:6 - "From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female." The word "beginning" is critical here. I believe that mankind has been around since the very first week of the Earth's history (day 6, to be specific). Thus, humans have been around "from the beginning," as Jesus taught. Williams, on the other hand, has humans arriving millions or billions of years after the beginning (via some form of evolution). Under his current assumptions, Williams cannot affirm that humans have been around "from the beginning" of creation. So, who is right? I'll stick with Jesus and the Bible every time.