top of page
Search

A Response to Dr. MacArthur on Evangelicals, Evolution, & Biologos

  • Writer: Ryan Campos
    Ryan Campos
  • Apr 11, 2018
  • 18 min read


Phil Johnson executive director of "Grace to You" ministries interviewed Dr. John MacAurthur on "Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Biologos Disaster." The full interview audio and transcript can be found here: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/GTY136/evangelicals-evolution-and-the-biologos-disaster#.WsLiz3f3vvs.facebook


This is my response to that interview. My goal is to respectfully point out the errors of this conversation and to demonstrate that it unnecessarily creates a dichotomy between science and faith. This will be a slightly lengthily post. For my one reader, you may want to grab a snack.


So, from here on out, I will do my best to respond in a respectful manner. I mention this not because I have troubles being respectful, but sometimes emotions get lost in translation when put to text.


EDIT: As I was building my response I literally found myself correcting every paragraph of the transcript. I fear that may be too long, so I am attempting to prioritize my response. So, let's dig in...


PHIL:  Hi, I’m Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You and we’re here today with John MacArthur, our pastor/teacher.  John, we want to have a discussion today about evolution.

JOHN:  Great.  That’s a very, very hot topic.


Let's start with a point of agreement. Yes, this is a very hot topic. Like pizza rolls fresh out of the microwave, that makes you breathe fire like a dragon hot. But why? This shouldn't be as "hot" of a topic as it is. It is no doubt an important one, but it seems like its being made more of an issue than it really is. We'll discover that more later.


PHIL:  It is, and I know you’ve noticed that more and more evangelicals seem to be willing to compromise on this issue.  They want to adjust, and tweak, and tone down their opposition to evangelicalism.  And there have been some pretty aggressive campaigns to get evangelicals to sort of silence their firm commitment to the Genesis account of creation.

JOHN:  There’s no question about that and I think there is at the same time, juxtaposed against these massive efforts, the greatest amount of evidence for creation that has ever been marshaled on a scientific side.  There are creation organizations that do nothing but marshal the endless array of evidences for a young earth, for a creation that fits the biblical account.


Right out of the gate Phil, is already creating this dichotomy. He speaks of evangelicals willing to "compromise" on this issue. How are evangelicals compromising? At the very beginning of this interview we see a set up forming that later they'll attempt to attack to show their "superiority." Dr. MacArthur mentions creation organizations that do nothing but demonstrate evidence of a young earth. What evidence? There's literally none that supports a young earth. Star light alone is problematic for a young universe. What I'm afraid of is we're attempting to read into a text what the Ancients never intended us to read. Also, Phil and Dr. MacArthur are already doing a good job on setting up this problem. They are admitting that evolution or even old earth is a problem for scripture or Christianity. Why is it? Young Earth has never been held universally throughout Church history as a mandate for Orthodoxy.


PHIL:  Yeah, and we’re going to talk about BioLogos, which is an organization that has been founded and funded with quite a bit of foundation money to basically wage war against the Genesis account of creation. 


This is simply dishonest. If Phil (or John) has ever seriously read BioLogos, he would see quite the contrary. BioLogos has a variety of authors that contribute to the discussion. Some share differentiating views but they seek harmonization between the natural sciences and God and take Genesis very seriously.


PHIL:  - a couple of years ago.  And you started that article, I remember, with what I thought was a very simple but powerful scientific point, that prior to 1850 or so, many scientists believed in a Bio-Genesis.....yet evolution really is based on the principle that it does.  And there are many who insist that evolution is scientific and all that, and yet science to this day cannot explain the origin of life through any kind of means known to science.

JOHN: So the old idea was that once there was a puddle, and in this puddle there was a spontaneously developed a one-celled thing, and that one-celled things aid to itself, “I think I need a friend,” and became two, and the slow, long – that isn’t what you hear today.


This is where we really begin to understand the lack of understanding they have with the Theory of Evolution and Abiogensis. This is another popular misconception that YEC make in regarding evolution. Evolution isn't a theory of how life began. Evolution deals with once life get's started. It's the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Abiogenesis can be wrong (and it's still highly disputed today), but that wouldn't matter to evolution...nor an old universe.


JOHN: Then if you add another component to that, the whole concept of design, Darwin had no concept of genetics.  He had no concept of DNA.... So I’m only saying all that to say here we have this rising place for a kind of theistic evolution, or some kind of evolution at the very time when science is choking on these very issues.  This thing is trying to survive against what is becoming really apparent.


Here Dr. MacArthur is attempting to bring complexity in the mix to promote intelligent design. I would agree in some cases. There's a lot that is complex about the cell, about the constants that govern the universe, the laws of physics, etc. But what does this have to do with Christians accepting evolution? Of course Christians are going to support a design element. He seems to be presenting a case that just because we can figure out how nature works than it somehow takes away from God. Dr. MacArthur asserts that Darwin had no idea about DNA or genetics. There may be some merit to that. However, DNA has literally only strengthened and confirmed evolution and common ancestry. This is one of the predictions evolution makes and fulfills. It's really quite astonishing! Contrary to what Dr. MacArthur suggest, science is not "choking" in these issues, that's simply false.


PHIL:  Yeah, and one of the points you made a couple of years ago in that article you wrote was that because of that, evolutionary theorists have fallen back on making dogmatic pronouncements, just insisting that, you know, this is factual.  It’s not theoretical.  Let me read one of the quotes you put in that article.  You’re quoting here an evolutionist named Lewontin who says, “It’s time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, it’s time for them to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory.  Birds arose from non-birds, and humans from non-humans.  No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts.”


The irony here is that Phil is quoting Dr. MacArthur, who quoted Evolutionary Biologist R.C. Lewontin, about a quote on creationist misquoting scientist...and they misquote him! Here's the quote:


It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.


I'm not sure what they were trying to accomplish with this quote, but Lewontin, I think was trying to bring out the point that Evolution is a scientific fact, but some of the inter-workings of the theory has room for discussion; such as the mechanisms as is similar to other theories in science.


PHIL:  And their reason for existence is to try to convince evangelical Christians that evolution is true and the early chapters of Genesis are myth.


Here Phil and Dr. MacArthur, are bringing up Dr. Francis Collins and the BioLogos organization. Phil's accusation here is extremely off base. Again, if he or Dr. MacArthur cared at all to read their articles they would understand this. BioLogos is not trying to convince Christians that evolution is true in the manner Phil is suggesting. BioLogos exist to better educate people on the subject of evolution, but to also show harmonization between science and faith. To encourage seekers that regardless of what YEC attempt to preach, you do not have to accept one and throw out the other. The only thing we have here is another exaggerated claim.


JOHN:  Yeah.  And here’s the motivation.  Motivation is not scientific.  Let’s be real honest.  Basically very simple, I can’t stand toe-to-toe on the scientific front with Mr.  Collins. 


Another point of agreement I have with Dr. MacArthur. I agree that he couldn't stand toe to toe with Dr. Collins on science.


JOHN: But I can stand toe-to-toe with him or anybody else on the rational front.  And here’s rationality.  Nobody was there at creation, nobody, except God.  So you can look at what happens now and you can draw conclusions about scientific processes now.  It doesn’t tell you anything about what happened to creation.  That is an independent event.  What we see scientifically now is the product of it.  It isn’t creation.  It is the result of creation.


I"m beginning to doubt the rational front as well. I do not intend to be rude in this statement. Dr. MacArthur is a "seasoned" pastor. He may even have a few things right. However, in this science and faith discussion, he shows his lack of credibility. This is the same type of argumentation that Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis uses..."But were you there?!" Were you there when the writer of Genesis compiled it together? Were you there to determine the authorship of the Torah? Was the jury there to determine a crime? No, you weren't. You look at the evidence and you follow where it leads. And that's ok!


JOHN: Another way to say it is there is no scientific explanation for the creation event.  There is no scientific explanation for the creation event.  You have nothing, then you have something.  There’s no science for that.


I feel like I'm being a little snarky. I am not intending to be. I want to try to make another point of agreement here. Yes, there is a lot of things science can't explain. Nor does it intend to. I'm not sure if Dr. MacArthur is attempting to call out the Big Bang Theory here or Evolution? It seems he's mixing the two, at least to me. I could be wrong. Either way, there's strong evidence for both, and yes they are both science. That however, doesn't take away any credit or glory from God. I am truly confused how somehow figuring these facts out that it somehow degrades God? Isn't all truths his? Let's continue.


JOHN: But let’s back up to motive.  What is the motive here?  The motive is intellectual pride, that’s one motive, intellectual pride.  That is a huge motive.  They are so enamored with science as such, they are so elevated in their own minds as to the importance of the role they play.  They have such vast knowledge of processes that are observable in the world today that it’s a matter of intellectual pride.  They think that if Christians don’t bow to this elite scholastic, scientific community, we’re going to look like fools.  I mean, they have as much as said that.


I find this quite remarkable. Dr. MacArthur and Phil seem to be accusing BioLogos and perhaps anyone else that agrees with them of having some sort of intellectual pride. I can't help but to wonder if Dr. MacArthur is reading his own words? I do not think and see no evidence that suggest, if Christians don't "bow" to these "elite" scholars than they're going to look like fools. What makes Christians look like fools is heralding from our platforms with an arrogant ignorance and claiming it's absolute truth. In fact, Saint Augustine had some harsh words for such things (bold emphasis are mine):


Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

The Literal Meaning of Genesis, written in about AD 415.


Dr. MacArthur and Phil continue their accusations but shifts only briefly to Fuller Seminary and begin the "liberal" calling game. Instead of spending time there, let's look at the second "motive" they give us.


JOHN: The second motivation - and this is an underlying motivation that is even more sinister - is they don’t like the Bible, and the best way to create doubt about the authenticity and authority of the Scripture is to make sure that people understand that you can’t trust it even at the very beginning.


More assertions. This is just empty and grossly misrepresenting an organization. To say BioLogos or anyone who is a Christian and accepts evolution "don't like the Bible" is simply disingenuous. I hope that perhaps I am mistaken on what Dr. MacArthur is implying. Perhaps he's speaking of an unknown audience. However, this is in the context of BioLogos. Because this is simply untrue.


PHIL: And he writes back to them and says, “No, BioLogos exists - ” these are his exact words.  “BioLogos exists in no small part to marginalize this view, the belief in the historicity of the Genesis account.”  And then he said, and he said this, again quoting, “A fundamental part of our mission is to show that the Genesis account of Adam is not tenable.”  So he clearly has a motive to undermine what Scripture teaches, and he says that’s the goal of the entire organization.


Here Phil is quoting (sorta) ex president of Biologos Darrel Falk. Dr. Falk wrote an article responding to some critics of Daniel Herrel's essay, "Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary." This essay gained attention from atheist such as Dawkins and Christians such as MacArthur. Unsurprisingly, Phil is misrepresenting Dr. Falk.


In Dr. Falks article "On Living in the Middle" which can be found here :https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/on-living-in-the-middle, he points out two options in regards to Harrel's essay on Adam and Eve. "Option #1 is that Adam and Eve were created with apparent age; Option #2 is (in Harrell’s words) “Adam and Eve exist as first among Homo sapiens, specially chosen by God as representatives for a relationship with him.”


He further expands on option 1: "Option #1 is the standard argument put forward by those who believe in a young earth created by God in six twenty-four hour days less than 10,000 years ago. BioLogos exists in no small part to marginalize this view from the Church. A fundamental part of our mission is to show that Option #1 is not tenable. Daniel Harrell knows this. All members of the BioLogos community know this. And the leaders of powerful young earth organizations like Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and, Grace to You know that BioLogos exists to show that Option #1 is not tenable. Reasons to Believe (RTB) knows that we are diametrically opposed to Option #1, just as we are diametrically opposed to their untenable position that there has been no macroevolution. Finally, the folks over at the Discovery Institute know that we exist to remove “apparent age” from the lexicon of evangelical Christianity. Such a view makes a mockery of the entire scientific enterprise and its ability to reveal truths about nature..........He continues two paragraphs later...


"To accept Option #1, however, is to reject the richness of the fossil data; the millions of genetic fingerprints which point to the common ancestry of all life forms; the premises of nuclear physics which allow us to date minerals in multiple ways; the heart of astronomy which tells us how stars and galaxies are still being born; and the science of geology where we can relate events that are taking place now to ancient events from the deep past. BioLogos exists to show that whereas Option #1 runs into trouble with modern science, Option #2 is still a possibility for Christians who hold to a historical Adam and Eve. The only other option for Christians who hold to historicity is Option #1, which smacks of a God who is deceptive (as Harrell points out). The entire context of Harrell’s article—let alone the context of BioLogos’s hundreds of other posts—ought to make it clear that we do not believe Option #1 is viable…not in today’s world."


His thoughts on option 2: "Option #2 is sound—both scientifically and theologically. There is nothing in science which would say that God could not have begun his interaction with humankind by entering into a relationship with a particular couple. After all, Christians believe that God interacted with a whole nation of people a while later, and then after that with all humankind through the coming of Christ. Science, I think we all know, is silent on these issues. Option #2 is a place where many Christians can rest comfortably, both theologically and scientifically."


I apologize for such long quotes. However, I felt his words were better descriptive and more accurate than what mine would have been. However, as you will notice, this is a much different picture than the one Phil and Dr. MacArthur are trying to paint.


The next few paragraphs of Phil's and Dr. MacArthur's discussion I debated on if I wanted to cover. I have decided not to. All they are are empty and dishonest accusations. Except for this little piece.


JOHN:  Yeah.  And I really think that there’s no difference between BioLogos and Darwin.  They don’t like the God of the Bible.  They don’t like what the God of the Bible says.  I know the Templeton Foundation doesn’t like what the Bible says. 


It is clear that neither of these two have actually seriously read either Darwin or BioLogos. BioLogos is an organization that lifts highly the Bible and God. Don't be ridiculous Dr. MacArthur, and those of you who herald this same arrogance. You are doing well at building this wall between science and faith. Stop it!


I'm skipping a few more paragraphs because they're more dishonest claims against BioLogos and those of us Christians who accept evolution or old earth.


Alright I'm skipping a lot of paragraphs because the disingenuous of these two are actually paining me. I mean that in no attack on their character but it's really discouraging to see such untrue accusations and claims. They go on attacking Joel Osteen, making claims about financial awards (honestly I just scrolled past that), and attacks on Hugh Ross.


JOHN:  The other thing you need to say at this point is this.  Look, there’s no proof that anything actually evolves upward outside of its own category of life into another life form.  There are no missing links.  There is no proof for evolution at any point in any way.  There are different kinds of dogs, and different kinds of horses, and different kinds of breeds of this and that and the other thing.  But catapulting from one genus of life into a completely different one, not only is there no evidence that it ever happens, but science knows now that genetic code means it can’t happen.  It can’t happen because there’s not the information to make that leap.


Ok, this paragraph deserves a separate blog post. Perhaps I will do one on this idea because it would be long. So, let me keep this short. Yes, there is evidence. But what I'm really concerned with is what they think evolution is? Evolution, simply put, a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. If they think Evolution is what Kirk Cameron presents as a Crocoduck (google it), than of course there's no evidence for that. That's not what evolution teaches anyways.


"There's no missing links." By that I think he means transitional fossils. What are transitional fossils? These are just fossils that can give us information about a transformation of one species, they exhibit traits of both the ancestral group it came from and the derived descendant group. Here are just a few examples. There are so many though.

Apes - humans

Ardipithecus ramidus Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus africanus Homo habilis Homo erectus Homo heidelbergensis

Fish - tetrapods

Eusthenopteron Panderichthys Tiktaalik Ventastega Acanthostega Ichthyostega Pederpes


Take a look at the transitional hominid (basically primate family) image. Which one is Homo Sapien? The answers are below. (Smithsonian)


I must move on for now... They seem to back track a little to debate the literal Adam discussion. They claim BioLogos leaves this as an optional thing. To an extent they are right. People at BioLogos may have various views on this (see the already covered section above). I personally think this is a good discussion to have. Again, discussion, not blatant erroneous claims that misrepresent an organization. Me personally, I find option 2 (see above) convincing.


PHIL: Now I don’t understand why anyone who claims to be a Christian and they say they believe God is in the process of evolution.  And yet they bristle any time anyone tries to point out evidence of design in nature.  And I want you to talk about those three things.  You want to take them in a reverse order?


Let's be fair. Phil has a small point here. I think regardless of where the Christian falls, there's some sort of agreement that there's design in the Universe. But I also think there's a lot of things that don't appear designed. There's a little difference between looking at creation and seeing design and the Intelligent Design movement which is what people probably "bristle" at.


JOHN:  To say that there’s no design is just stupid.  I mean, are they kidding?  The complexity is absolutely staggering.  The complexity of the macrocosm, the complexity of the microcosm, all the way down to the cell, the DNA strip.  How could they possible think that that comes out of non-intelligence?  I mean, that is just intellectual suicide.  That is just, that is willful blindness at the rankest level.  That isn’t even rational thinking.


Did I miss something? I'm confused. Are we still talking to Christians here or atheist? I'm not sure a Christian would say intelligence comes from non-intelligence? I feel like Dr. MacArthur is just ranting here. Also, is he aware of what microcosm is?


Dr. MacArthur and Phil continues to talk about Romans and the Intelligent Design movement and more wrongfully claims about BioLogos. I won't comment on any of that.


After re-reading the transcript and evaluating my response, I am just astonished at Dr. MacArthur and how dishonest this article is. I have decided to only comment on one more thing that I think reveals all we need to know about this bash session between Phil and Dr. MacArthur.


JOHN: You know, my scientific skill amounts to boiling water in the morning and pouring it over a few tea bags.  So, that’s my foray into the phenomenon of science.  I don’t know anything about science, but I trust the Bible.  And I read a lot from various and sundry organizations of scientists that are putting out an endless array of material supporting from real science a biblical account. 


Dr. MacArthur,


Here is another thing we agree on. You do not know science. It is clear from the beginning. The moment you attempted to equivocate Abiogenesis with evolution, to discussing evolution without actually looking at biology. Describing the Big Bang as an explosion. Referencing Darwin and genetics. Misquoting scientist. Misrepresenting a science and faith organization. Admitting you know nothing about science yet still attempt to say there's so much evidence for a young earth--which there's literally none. You demonstrate you don't read any other scientific views, thus showing your lack of understanding in scientific concepts. You then criticize "these guys" because they don't look at "real" evidence. You set yourself up as an authority on this issue but then claim ignorance of it and want people to follow what you say. You claim that you just trust the Bible but also seem to lack the theological richness that is deep within church history about this topic. You speak of glorifying God, and then slander BioLogos with lies and misconception. How does that glorify God? You speak lowly about Dr. Francis Collins who was the head of the Human Genome project and also was directed by President Obama as the director of National Institute of Health, and he was the founder of BioLogos. The lack of humility on display here is very discouraging as well and I repent if I spoke in the same way.


Dr. MacArthur, if I may. You will never read this. In fact there's probably only 1 or 2 that would have made it this far in my response to you. But as a proclaimer of the Gospel you must be careful. When you so forcefully speak on a subject you clearly and admittedly know nothing about, people take you at your authority and don't look for themselves. Misinformation continues to spread in the church thus creating division and barriers that do not need to be there. If you wish to make some headway with this discussion, you might try exegetically. Although, I do not think scripture supports a young earth nor disproves evolution, you would do far better than attempting to attack evolution through science.


There are far too many things that could have been said, but at least for me, I choose to ignore for now. A seasoned pastor you are, but seasoned in this discussion you are not. And that is ok. Just please don't help add barriers where none need to be.


 
 
 

Comments

© 2023 by The Book Lover. Proudly created with Wix.com

Join my mailing list

bottom of page