Big Bang Advocacy
Approximately 3,500 years ago, the inspired scribe recorded in the book of Genesis the events which signalled the beginning of physical creation. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The first chapter of Genesis records in straightforward, concise language the origins of the universe, life, and man himself. For thousands of years men accepted at face value what the inspired writer penned, "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done" (Genesis 1:31-2:2).
The presentation of the Genesis account, together with the geneologies contained in that book present a clear history which shows the creation of the universe and the history of mankind to be of recent origin in relation to the claims of great antiquity advocated by evolutionary theorists.
Some men have chafed under the yoke of accountability, and desired an explanation of origins which could account for man's existence without referencing the obvious evidence of a creator. Charles Darwin, with the publication of his The Origin of Species in 1859, gave such individuals the rallying point of "chance and time." Basically stated, if sufficient time were supplied for gradual, unguided change, then even blind chance could account for the universe and life itself in all its glorious diversity.
Theorists trumpeted the eventual victory of reason over faith, of science over superstition. As evolutionary theory was further developed, men began to confidently assert that the universe and life could be explained without reference to divine intervention. In 1970, the Nobel Prize winning French biologist Jacques Monod wrote in his treatise Chance and Necessity, "The ancient covenant is in pieces: Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance."1
Many who are ostensibly Bible believers have felt pressured to reinterpret the Biblical account of creation, in an attempt to reconcile Genesis with the interpretations atheistic evolutionists have put on the physical data supplied by nature. Perhaps the climactic event in this compromise took place with the proclamation of the Catholic Pope that, "new knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis."2
The Evolutionist's Call for Compromise
The December 2002 issue of Wired Magazine, in a special feature entitled The New Convergence, points out that many evolutionists are now backing off of their strong claims that science has made the concept of the divine obsolete and unecessary. What once was trumpeted as sure knowledge that man "is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance", is now being questioned, and not by Bible believers, but by the very men who once proclaimed it as established fact. Notice the following startling admissions:
What is even more startling is the admission made by Easterbrook as to why scientific thought is trending back toward the possiblity of a designer for the cosmos. He states:
What Easterbrook describes is the cyclical nature of popular thought. It has always been that men have devised theories that seem true and unassailable, only to be shown false in later generations. This in fact, is what sets apart the revelation of God from the thoughts of men. While the theories of men are often ultimately rejected, the truth of God's word has been established throughout the generations of humanity.
It is not surprising that men, even when admitting they were wrong, seek to find a middle ground rather than returning to revealed truth. Rather than accepting the Bible account which proclaims what they once rejected, but now embrace, these men are calling for a "new convergence." Easterbrook is saddened that the how-did-life-begin question is usually lost between "orthodox Darwinians and hard-line creationists"7, and calls for a compromise between the two. In effect, scientists could accept the concept of a designer, if creationists could see fit to give up their literal interpretation of the creation account. The call is for compromise.
The Christian's Call for Compromise
What is less understandable, and more disturbing, is that at the very time evolutionists are making great concessions in regard to their theories of origins, there are Christians who are advocating compromise as well. While it is common for popular thought to change, why should those who accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God seek to conform Bible teaching to such current popular thought. Why compromise with theories and views which have shown themselves in the past to be transitory? Why hitch the wagon to scientific theory that has been shown to be dependent upon the "cyclical nature of intellectual fashions"? And yet, many in the Lord's church are calling for such compromise. Note the following quotes, taken from correspondence this writer received at the publication of the Open Letter to Florida College on this issue, posted to the Watchman site in July, 2002.
All of these quotes indicate an emerging view of Bible interpretation that is becoming more prevalent among Christians today. More and more brethren are advocating our interpretation of scripture based upon man's understanding of the natural world. Such a method of interpretation leaves us vulnerable to the vagaries and inaccuracies of popular thought. It subjugates the word of God to the human interpretation of scientific data. Rather than interpreting the world with a Bible view, some now advocate interpreting the Bible with a world view. This is readily admitted by proponents of the "old earth" position. Note the following quote from Hill Roberts, a proponent of the Big Bang theory who serves as a deacon in one non-institutional church:
You note that Roberts accedes to the fact that the Genesis account alone would lead one to believe the earth was created in seven days. It is his position that the natural creation would preclude that interpretation, and so the Genesis account must be understood in light of what man determines as scientific fact.
Tom Couchman, himself a member of a non-institutional church, takes the same position in his response to the Open letter, in defending Roberts:
Couchman and Roberts and many others believe that to ignore the claims of science in this area (which they say contains very clear and indisputable evidence as to the antiquity of the universe) is tantamount to being a member of the "flat earth" society. Amazingly, Couchman and Roberts claim that the evidence of the Big Bang and an ancient universe is clear (stellar evolution), but deny the clarity of the evolutionary process regarding the diversity of life (biological evolution). The evolutionists quoted in Wired Magazine believe just the opposite. Note the following quote from the late biologist Gerald Soffen, who oversaw the life-seeking experiments carried out by NASA's Viking probes to Mars:
Brethren need to understand the danger of conforming God's will to popular thought. Such attitudes resulted in Israel clamoring for a king (cf. 1 Samuel 8:5-7), the Judaizers binding circumcision upon the Gentile (cf. Galatians 6:6-9), and the Gnostics denying the humanity of Christ (cf. 1 John 4:2-3). It led to the adoption of ecclesiastical heiarchy leading to the establishment of the Catholic church, the embracing of the instrument in Christian worship, and the acceptance of the social gospel concept in our generation. And, it is leading some to deny the literal nature of God's account of His creation of the world.
Too, brethren need to understand the extent of this compromise. The quotes used earlier in this article indicate the foothold it has among Christians. Hill Roberts and his Lord I Believe organization has been utilized by approximately 75 different congregations. This hermeneutical view is affecting the thinking of brethren throughout the world, and the leaven, if unchecked, will lead to another apostasy of God's people. We must heed the words of the Apostle Paul: