The Dangers of Theistic Evolution: A Critique of Integrating Evolutionary Theory with Christianity
This is a research paper that was presented at the Aurandt Lectures on Theology hosted by Christ Reformed Church of Alexandria, Pennsylvania on March 22, 2025.
Abstract
This paper critiques the attempt to reconcile evolutionary theory with biblical Christianity, particularly as seen in the model of theistic evolution. Using a worldview-based approach, the paper argues that theistic evolution is not merely the integration of a scientific model with theological claims, but a fusion of two fundamentally incompatible systems of thought. The Christian worldview, grounded in divine revelation, asserts a theistic cosmology, anthropology, and moral order that stands in stark contrast to the naturalistic assumptions inherent in evolutionary theory. Through examining key worldview categories—epistemology, theology, cosmology, anthropology, and ethics—this paper demonstrates that theistic evolution not only distorts foundational Christian doctrines but ultimately subordinates Scripture to the authority of naturalistic science. Drawing on Scripture, historical theology, and philosophical reflection, the argument shows that theistic evolution erodes the integrity of the Christian message by undermining the doctrines of creation, sin, and redemption. The paper concludes that Christians must approach science as a tool to explore God’s world—not as a philosophical framework that reinterprets God’s Word. In doing so, it calls the church to maintain theological clarity and biblical fidelity in the face of contemporary pressures to conform to secular paradigms of origins.
Introduction
The modern world has presented with a pluralistic, post-modern attitude towards religious, philosophical, and theological perspectives, which has resulted in modern-day Christians attempting to integrate unbiblical, anti-Christian, and occasionally heretical ideology into their understanding of the world around them—i.e., their worldview. Occasionally, this integration of other ideas results in nothing more than just personal confusion that is corrected relatively quick; however, when Christians attempt to integrate elements of alternative worldviews, the issue rapidly erodes their own Christian worldview and its foundation. In modern-day Christendom, this erosion happens concerning a number of different ideas—e.g., the approval of LGBTQ+ issues in modern churches, integrating worldly entertainment with corporate worship, and the lack of understanding concerning ecclesiology—however, perhaps one of the greatest issues of modern-day Christianity is the integration of evolutionary theories within the framework or worldview of Christianity because it is pervasive, all-encompassing, and deceptively insidious.
This paper argues that the integration of evolutionary theory with Christianity by means of what is usually called theistic evolution has caused significant damage within Christendom. This integration has led to Christians adopting faulty foundations as theistic evolution is not just an attempt to integrate evolutionary theory with Christianity, it is an attempt to integrate two utterly opposing worldviews with differing perspectives concerning the very fundamental questions that worldviews attempt to answer.
Defining Terminology
Due to this paper’s use of somewhat technical terms and the desire to limit the scope of this paper, it is necessary for three terms to be defined at the onset—evolutionary theory, theistic evolution, and worldview. These ideas will be defined according to their modern usage while still limiting the scope of this paper.
Worldview is an idea that has been utilized for over 100 years, but it does not have a standard definition.[1] In fact, Simon P. Kennedy utilizes the “fuzzy” and occasionally “sloppy” use of the idea of worldview by Abraham Kuyper, Christian educators, philosophers, and theologians as the foundation to argue for a better use of the idea of worldview.[2] Kennedy, however, does not want to disregard or eliminate the use of worldview, but rather provide a more definite definition, which he does, “a Christian worldview is a true apprehension of reality that is attained through the process of learning about God, the self, and the world . . . [someone has] a Christian worldview once they apprehend reality in a way that provides them with holistic insight into right thinking and living.”[3] Richard Dewitt suggests viewing worldviews as a jigsaw puzzle in which beliefs are intertwined, interrelated, and interconnected systematically.[4] Essentially, worldview is the framework through which an individual seeks to make sense of all things—the world, the universe, metaphysics, the ultimate questions of philosophy, etc.
Evolutionary Theory is a loaded term in that it carries various meanings depending on who is speaking and what the topic is about. This paper is not concerned with the issue of micro-evolution, which is also termed adaptation[5]—in fact, this author affirms the capability of organisms to adapt to their surroundings and make small-scale changes over a relatively short period of time.[6] Rather, the concern of this paper is that of macro-evolution or the changing of one species into different species—regardless of length of time—through the means of genetic defects and natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man.[7] The ideology of evolutionary theory is not relegated to any one particular worldview, though it is the primary philosophical tool utilized to answer some ultimate questions in the naturalistic worldview. Essentially, evolutionary theory is an attempt to understand and explain the origins of life itself.
Theistic evolution is essentially the combination of evolutionary theory with concepts of creation. BioLogos, one of the leading proponents of theistic evolution, defines theistic evolution as the integration of modern evolutionary theory with creation[8] and they differentiate their ideology of theistic evolution with that of Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and Intelligent Design theories.[9] BioLogos’ distinct position that ultimately defines theistic evolution is that:
At BioLogos, we believe our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena. We believe that scientific explanations complement a robust theological understanding of God’s role as designer, creator, and sustainer of the universe.[10]
Those who affirm BioLogos’ position agree with orthodox positions concerning salvation, grace, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,[11] and they even argue for the inerrancy of the Bible essentially by utilizing different hermeneutical methods.[12] Theistic evolutionists seek to combine the ideology of evolutionary theory with creation itself.
How Is Evolutionary Theory a Worldview?
With these definitions in mind, the question turns to whether evolutionary theory is a worldview. In short, evolutionary theory itself is not a philosophical worldview, but it is a primary element of different worldviews—primarily the worldview of naturalism.[13] Thus, while attempting to understand evolutionary theory and theistic evolution, it is integral to understand the naturalistic worldview—to do so, we will utilize the same framework suggested by Thorvald Madsen.[14] In Madsen’s “Philosophy for Understanding Apologetics,” he argues that a worldview must answer ultimate questions concerning theology, cosmology, anthropology, epistemology, and ethics.[15] Thus, to consider the dangers of theistic evolution, one needs to determine how naturalism answers these worldview questions in contrast to how Christianity answers the same worldview questions.
Understanding and Contrasting the Naturalistic Worldview with Christianity[16]
Naturalism is the confluence of several different philosophical ideas, which makes it difficult to define and difficult to understand historically. In fact, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests that “it would be fruitless to try to adjudicate some official way of understanding [‘naturalism’]”[17] Instead of providing a definition of naturalism the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy outlines philosophical commitments of someone who is generally a naturalist.[18] For the purposes of this paper, Vern Poythress’ definition of naturalism suffices—“naturalism is the view that nature is all that there is (no supernatural). It often goes together with the conviction that scientific method is the primary way to find truth and to solve problems.”[19]
Naturalism came into existence as its own worldview as essentially a paradigmatic shift from idealism.[20] As such, idealism and naturalism are shockingly different—idealists stress the metaphysical reality of the mind and an a priori epistemology,[21] whereas naturalists reframe metaphysics and stress a posteriori epistemology. As such, naturalists tend to reject the tenets of idealism in favor of a worldview focused on empiricism—all knowledge is gained through sensory experience.[22] This rejection of tenets of idealism then extends into other areas of a purely naturalist’s worldview—his theology, cosmology, anthropology, epistemology, and ethics.
Epistemology
Epistemologically, the empiricist ideology that reveals truth to a naturalist negates any form of knowledge that cannot be verified through senses. As such, if someone is consistently naturalistic in their approach to knowledge, there is an element in which all a priori knowledge is suspect[23] and there is an element in which a purely naturalistic individual should simply reject any sort of special revelation regardless of origin. In a consistently naturalistic theory of epistemology, true knowledge is only achievable through observation; and thus, knowledge that is derived outside of the senses is not true knowledge—this pertains to the physical world as well as the spiritual or metaphysical world. Since the spiritual or metaphysical world cannot be experienced through senses, a naturalist would reject knowledge derived purely through spiritual or metaphysical means—including the belief in a supernatural world or a divine being.
In contrast, Christians readily admit that epistemologically, true knowledge can be gained through both a priori and posteriori methods. Aquinas speaks of the need for both human reason and divine revelation in his Summa Theologica:
Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few . . . and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth . . . It was therefore necessary that, besides philosophical science built up by reason there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.[24]
According to Aquinas, both a priori and posteriori methods of epistemology are available and even necessary for a Christian—one for general knowledge of God and the other for special knowledge pertaining to salvation itself (Ps 19). A Christian with a Christian worldview has no issue admitting to the existence of metaphysical or spiritual realities. In fact, the existence of metaphysical or spiritual realities is a necessity in Christianity (Heb 11:1-3; Col 1:15-17; 2 Cor 4:18; etc.)—even if there are disagreements concerning the specific details of metaphysics or spiritual realities.
Theology
Concerning theology,[25] with an epistemology that rejects any sort of special revelation or supernatural ideology, at the very least, a naturalist would argue for the unknowability of a supreme or divine being. However, it is more likely for a purely naturalistic individual to argue against the existence of a god-like being simply due to their insistence of a naturalistic world—i.e., there cannot be supernatural elements or beings. Unless the supreme or divine being could be physically seen, experienced, or touched, a naturalist would argue for the being’s lack of being, or again, at least the lack of knowability. It has been argued, however, that despite the naturalist rejection of a supernatural being, naturalists have essentially made gods of mankind. Cornelius Van Til makes the argument, while dealing with epistemology, that by relying on mankind’s ability to reason, man essentially becomes the final authority and deifies himself.[26] By refusing to submit to special revelation, mankind has become gods.
In contrast, to be a Christian assumes submission to God as revealed in Scripture—i.e., to be a Christian is to confess Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9), which necessarily entails submission to God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture (John 14:15). Christians cannot be Christian without a theology—even if their theology is deficient or errant.[27] It is beyond the scope of this paper to fully flesh out what exactly Christians ought to believe theologically,[28] however, at the core, a Christian must believe that God is one in essence (Deut. 6:4), three in persons (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14), eternal (Ps 90:2), sovereign (Dan 4:35; Eph 1:11), holy (Isa 6:3), all-powerful (Jer 32:17), all-knowing (1 John 3:20), the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Gen 1-2; Heb 1:3), and worthy of worship (Rev 4:11). Christians have a theology as an inherent part of their worldview that needs to be accepted in its entirety.
Cosmology
Cosmology for naturalists starts with the concept that “the Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[29] With that starting point, questions concerning the origin of the universe are difficult to answer—some naturalists take a similar perspective to the origin of the universe as Aristotle, who argued that matter coming into being from nothing is impossible and thus, all matter has always existed.[30] Aristotle also rejects Plato’s idea of the Demiurge,[31] a temporal or time-based start to the universe, which is subsequently rejected by many naturalists. For naturalists who still purport a start to the universe, most efforts to explain its origins rely on a cosmic Big Bang. The most commonly accepted standard cosmological model of the Big Bang is that “the universe came into being and expanded about 13.7 billion years ago out of an extremely dense, high-temperature state, or singularity. In a phase of increased inflation, time, space, and matter as we know them came into existence.”[32] However, note again, that naturalists differ about cosmological origins while agreeing on the cosmological assertions that the supernatural does not exist, nothing exists apart from matter, and that nature acts within the bounds of the laws of physics.
In contrast, Scripture’s proposed cosmological origin is that of God speaking creation into existence (Gen 1-2; Ps 33:6, 8; John 1:1-3; Heb 11:3) and while great effort has been made by proponents of theistic evolution to exegete Scripture differently, the simplest reading of the biblical text asserts creation ex nihilo rather than creation through other means. The Bible’s cosmological origin account rejects both the eternality of the universe and the start of the universe apart from God’s interaction. Scripture teaches that God created all things from nothing by the very power of His voice with the exception of mankind, which He formed by His own hands. With this in mind, a Christian worldview would assert that cosmologically something exists outside of nature, that that being interacts with nature, and that nature typically acts within the bounds of the laws of physics except when it does not. A Christian worldview asserts that cosmologically, the supernatural does exist, which is why belief in an all-powerful God creating a temporal universe is possible.
Anthropology
The implications of a naturalist worldview then extend into what a naturalist believes about mankind. If all nature exists of itself and cosmologically has a common origin, then what is known as human biological life needs to be the product of some sort of process—as creation ex nihilo and the forming of mankind by the hands of God are supernatural; and thus, rejected. Numerous theories have been posited ranging from not even answering the question of human origins[33] to that of Darwinian evolutionary theory, which was developed to provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of mankind.[34] As Darwin argues his theory of common descent[35] through the means of natural selection and evolutionary biology,[36] he essentially argues for an anthropology in which some “races” of humanity are seen as “civilized” whereas other “races” were seen as “savage.”[37] Historically, evolutionary theory has an unbiblical view of mankind that has led to further issues concerning racism. In addition, if naturalism’s common ancestry and descent are asserted, issues concerning the imago Dei appear. If mankind exists without aid from a supernatural being’s creation or if mankind evolved from lesser forms of life, then elements of humanity have little to no meaning.[38] In addition, because of a naturalist’s rejection of supernatural elements, a spiritual afterlife cannot exist, which eventually leads to essentially a nihilistic viewpoint of all that exists.
In contrast, Scripture clearly identifies mankind as a special creation of God—the pinnacle of His creative act (Gen 1-2).[39] Scripture teaches that mankind is “created in [God’s] own image”[40] and that mankind innately recognizes this distinction from other created beings.[41] Whereas naturalism purports an idea of humanity’s prominence as a result of evolutionary processes—a byproduct of nature’s complex, adaptive systems—Christianity asserts an idea of mankind being elevated above the rest of creation by virtue of God’s Word (Gen 1:28; Ps 8:5-6). This elevation of mankind over the rest of creation provides the basis for understanding humanity in contradistinction to fauna and flora. In addition, whereas naturalism rejects the possibility of an afterlife, part of the hope of Christianity is the promise of dwelling with God in the New Heaven and the New Earth (John 14:2-3; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1-4), which essentially denigrates any nihilistic philosophies.
Ethics[42]
With naturalism’s viewpoint of the origins of mankind, ethics becomes a process of identifying social conventions and normality. Since morality cannot be given by a supernatural being, ethical rights and wrongs need to be discovered or revealed. Of course, ethics from a naturalistic standpoint are not monolithic and so, a plethora of theories concerning morality have been postulated from utilitarianism to virtue ethics to cognitivism. Whether a specific theory of ethics is to be accepted would depend on the naturalist’s perspective of reason—can a priori reasoning deduce proper ethics? In addition, naturalism’s cosmological, anthropological, and theological perspectives make ethics subjective as its ethics have no objective, transcendental standard—morality is based on whether a community or society prefers certain elements of right from wrong or not.[43] Evolutionary naturalist, Michael Ruse explains, “morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.”[44]
In contrast, Christianity relies on the revealed Word of God to define right from wrong by means of the Law given to mankind by God.[45] While Christians can certainly learn from different ethical theories, ultimately, it is God who dictates moral truth. While unbelieving mankind is seemingly left to determine right from wrong, God’s Word clearly states that the Law of God is written on the heart of man—there is an innate sense of morality given by God through which mankind is to live (Rom 2:15). Whereas a naturalist would need to either dogmatically determine morality or succumb to relativistic moral pluralism, a Christian can look at God’s revealed Word to validate the internal impression of God’s Law already given to him.[46]
Is Naturalism Consistent with Christianity?
When considered completely and comprehensively, it is abundantly clear that the worldview of naturalism is not consistent with Christianity. In fact, it is abundantly clear that many aspects of naturalism are not just incompatible with Christianity, but they are also anti-Christian. For instance, while someone could possibly argue that a naturalist could share in Christian ethics, the source of morality would still differ. However, naturalism’s cosmology, anthropology, theology, and epistemology all rely on presuppositions that are utterly opposed to Christianity. For instance, naturalism’s rejection of supernatural elements, inability to trust a priori knowledge, the rejection of a supreme being, and theories of origin are all opposed to biblical truth. While it could be possible to integrate elements of naturalism with a Christian worldview, the reality is that any element of naturalism integrated into Christianity will force the Christian to concede historical Christianity to accommodate anti-Christian ideas; and this simple truth applies to the integration of evolutionary theory with Christian doctrine.
Adding Evolutionary Theory into Christianity Is Not Possible without Worldview Collapse
Philosophically, what all this means is that the integration of evolutionary theory as proposed by ministries such as BioLogos and various other advocates does far less to aid a Christian in his worldview as it does to cause inconsistencies within his worldview that results in someone attempting to mesh two opposing worldviews. Whereas Christianity stands on its own as a fully formed and sufficient worldview and arguably, naturalism could stand on its own as a fully formed and sufficient worldview, the integration of both results in foundational issues that cannot work together.[47]
Essentially, evolutionary theory, naturalism, and Christianity have different teleological goals, which is why, when answering worldview questions, the worldviews of naturalism and Christianity offer completely different perspectives on life, the universe, and spirituality. Whereas Christianity asserts that the end of man is God Himself, evolutionary theory and naturalism asserts that there either is no teleological end or that the end of man is man himself.[48] The teleological difference between naturalism and Christianity is reason enough for Christians to reconsider the integration of elements of naturalism. However, just a cursory overview of worldview’s ultimate questions from both the perspectives of naturalism and Christianity provides additional support to reject the integration of both ideologies.[49] The integration of both worldviews does not make for a stronger Christian, but rather a weaker Christian.
How Should Christians View Evolutionary Theory?
Despite efforts made by ministries like BioLogos and efforts by various Christians, including Tim Keller to integrate evolutionary theory with creation, the integration itself does not just tweak or minorly adjust Christian theology, but it destabilizes the entire Christian worldview. With this said, Christians ought not look at the evolutionary theory as just another cosmological and anthropological perspective—one in which Christians are free to utilize for their own worldview. Rather, Christians ought to view the evolutionary theory as part of a competing worldview that aims to disregard the faith as historically taught in its confessions—that “it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days.”[50] After which, “God created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts.”[51]
Conclusion
While it is tempting to integrate ideas like evolutionary theory with Christianity—whether for purposes of reputation, intellectual respectability, or cultural acceptance—to do so is a dangerous proposition that results in the very collapse of a Christian worldview because it is not just the integration of a theory of cosmology or anthropology. To integrate evolutionary theory with a Christian worldview is to attempt meshing two utterly opposing worldviews with different teleological ends—that both can stand on their own—into an amorphous, foundationally weak, and logically inconsistent hybrid of a worldview that undermines the integrity of the Christian faith. Christians are far better served by affirming “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3)—whole, undiluted, and unashamed.
[1] Richard Dewitt, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science, 3rd ed. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018), 7.
[2] Simon P. Kennedy, Against Worldview: Reimagining Christian Formation as Growth in Wisdom (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2024), 8-15.
[3] Ibid., 15., it is worth noting that Kennedy does not believe in a single Christian worldview but will continue in his book to argue for the idea of multiple worldviews that could all be described as Christian.
[4] Dewitt, 7.
[5] Stephen C. Meyer, “Scientific and Philosophical Introduction: Defining Theistic Evolution,” in Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, ed. J.P. Moreland et al. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 35.
[6] Also, this paper is not concerned with issues concerning old earth versus young earth ideologies. This author believes that the Bible teaches a young earth, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to expound on the issue.
[7] It is worth noting that Darwin was not the first to formulate this theory. See Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who developed a theory called the transmutation of species. See also Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently developed similar ideas concerning natural selection in the timeframe that Darwin also developed his theory.
[8] BioLogos no longer utilizes the term theistic evolution. They prefer the term evolutionary creation for three reasons: (1) they still believe in creation (they are not merely theists), (2) utilizing theistic to modify evolution makes no sense in the fields of sciences (where chemistry and physics are not delineated as theistic chemistry or theistic physics, and (3) many have accused theistic evolutionists of being deistic. See “What is Evolutionary Creation? BioLogos, February 6, 2024, https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-is-evolutionary-creation.
[9] “How is Evolutionary Creation Different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?” BioLogos, November 20, 2023, https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism.
[10] “How is Evolutionary Creation Different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?” BioLogos, November 20, 2023, https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-is-biologos-different-from-evolutionism-intelligent-design-and-creationism.
[11] Ibid.
[12] “Is Evolutionary Creation Compatible with Biblical Inerrancy?” BioLogos, January 8, 2024, https://biologos.org/common-questions/is-evolutionary-creation-compatible-with-biblical-inerrancy.
[13] It is worth noting that not all naturalists agree with evolutionary theory and vice versa. While both ideologies are commonly intertwined, there is some pushback as to whether they need to be intertwined. This issue will be talked about again when dealing with anthropology.
[14] Thorvald Madsen, “Philosophy for Understanding Apologetics,” notes for DR38405 Worldview and Ethical Theory, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Spring 2023.
[15] Madsen, 6.
[16] It is worth noting that many philosophers draw distinctions between different elements of naturalism—some will argue that a methodological naturalist does not need to be a metaphysical naturalist, others will argue for ontological naturalism while still allowing for non-naturalistic ideas in other realms, etc. This paper primarily deals with naturalism as a whole rather than delineating parts of naturalism.
[17] David Papineau, “Naturalism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition), eds. Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/naturalism/.
[18] Papineau, “Naturalism.”
[19] Vern Poythress, “Personhood and the Challenge of Naturalism,” Concise Theology, The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/personhood-and-the-challenge-of-naturalism/.
[20] Gary R. Habermas, “Paradigm Shift: A Challenge to Naturalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra. 146 no. 584 (Oct-Dec 1989): 437.
[21] See Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.
[22] William P. Alston, “empiricism,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998)
[23] This rejection of a priori knowledge places a purely naturalistic person in a predicament concerning mathematics. Mathematics relies on a priori knowledge as its basis for reasoning.
[24] Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1, q.1, a.1.
[25] This paper utilizes The Lexham Glossary of Theology’s definition of theology—“narrowly, the study of God, especially his attributes and nature. Commonly, the investigation of God, his revelation in Scripture, and the relationship between God and the world.”
[26] Cornelius Van Til argues this idea in several of his works. See The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed. Edited by K. Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), 129); Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed. Edited by William Edgar (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 24; “A Survey of Christian Epistemology” in In Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1969), 202; Common Grace and the Gospel (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1972), 52.
[27] See R.C. Sproul’s Everyone’s a Theologian: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2014).
[28] See the abundance of Reformed confessions for a sufficient Christian understanding of theology proper.
[29] Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York, NY: Random House, 2002).
[30] See Aristotle’s Physics, On the Heavens, and Metaphysics.
[31] See Plato’s Timaeus.
[32] Alex K. Rich and Alexander Stingl, Points of View: Big Bang Theory (Ipswich, MA: Great Neck Publishing, 2024), 1.
[33] This seems to come from naturalists who assert a more Aristotelian view of the eternality of the universe.
[34] See Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.
[35] Darwin, The Descent of Man, 5-25.
[36] Darwin, The Descent of Man, 26-64.
[37] Darwin, The Descent of Man, 148-209.
[38] This is regardless of whether the imago Dei deals with mankind’s ability to reason, his correspondence to God in spiritual attributes, or whatever else it could possibly mean; and this is regardless of if the imago Dei and the likeness of God is identical.
[39] K.A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 163-164.
[40] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to the English Stand Version (ESV) (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
[41] Consider the prohibition against shedding man’s blood unrighteously (Gen 9:6) and the Law of God written on man’s heart.
[42] This section could be significantly longer if one considers the ideology of tabula rasa and how it differs from the doctrine of total depravity, but to do so would move this paper to primarily a theological argument rather than a more philosophical argument concerning worldviews.
[43] See J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 450-460 and Paul Copan, True for You, but Not for Me (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009).
[44] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Ethics: A Phoenix Arisen,” in The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on Its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 253.
[45] Despite the differences in hermeneutics concerning the interpretation of how the Old Testament Law applies, all Christians readily admit that it is ultimately God who determines right from wrong—though, admittedly, there is the philosophical conundrum of whether or not something is good because it is good or if it is only good because God calls it good, but these are musings for another paper.
[46] Harrison Perkins has an excellent section in his book Reformed Covenantal Theology concerning natural law and God’s giving of the Law.
[47] This does not imply that naturalism is a fully consistent worldview within itself, nor does it suggest that a person is perfectly justifiable in following a naturalistic worldview—it simply means that as a worldview, it answers all the ultimate questions that worldviews are supposed to answer.
[48] This is a good point to reconsider the deification of mankind as previously mentioned.
[49] From a confessional standpoint, it does not take much effort to see the dissonance between Christianity and naturalism.
[50] Westminster Confession of Faith, 4.1; 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, 4.1; and the Savoy Declaration, 4.1.
[51] It is worth noting that despite clear wording in many of the Reformed confessions concerning creation in a literal six-day period, not all from that tradition hold to a literal six-day creation. In addition, none of the ecumentical creeds hold to a literal six-day creation either.
