Theistic Evolution?
How would you respond to another believer that says Genesis should be viewed as poetry and God could have made Adam through Evolutionary Biological processes?
Theistic Evolution Argument: Many people say that if God used evolution to create we can’t take Genesis 1 literally, and if we can’t do that, why take any other part of the Bible literally? Well, I think, as do some high profile Christians like Tim Keller that the Bible could have been written with many different genres without the integrity of scripture being compromised. I think Genesis 1 could be interpreted as poetry and that God very well could have made Adam through Evolutionary Biological Processes and formed him gradually through it and then breathed life into him once he was fully formed.
Our Response: Well, what is at stake of being compromised in this situation more than the integrity of scripture is the character of God. God created the Earth and he said that it was good. There was no death, destruction, and the world was perfectly balanced. What evolution is based upon is the evolving advancement of creatures through death and through natural selection that eventually led to humans. Furthermore, if what we believe about the Fall is that the world has entered into sin and is getting worse, that doesn’t align with the evolutionary mindset that the humans are advancing.
I believe we must affirm that Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a literal historical account. Few would disagree that it is a foundational theological passage with much significance, but it seems to be a stumbling block for many to accept this text as historical narrative, which therefore speaks authoritatively about the origin of the universe, life, and man and about the age of the earth. Why has this happened? The first reason is that postmodern man has come to realize that one’s view of origins — inextricably linked to the understanding of this text — defines one’s worldview. Determining the genre of this text therefore is not merely an academic exercise, of interest only to specialists, but is the essential first step for anyone wanting to correctly interpret this text. Were it not for the unproven and unprovable theories of evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology, and the faulty but rarely challenged assumptions of radioisotope dating, no one would be questioning what kind of text this is or the age of the earth. This is a needless tragedy among evangelicals, “needless” because evangelicals do not have to adjust Scripture to accommodate to science and a “tragedy” because by taking this stand, they unwittingly ally themselves with those who are trying to destroy the Bible.