To better evaluate the Vatican’s current position on evolutionism, it is necessary to know of its Project STOQ (Science, Technology, and the Ontological Quest). The Project’s publicly stated purpose is to work toward a new philosophical basis by which the integration of science and re- ligion can be traditionally understood. Apparently they deem this an urgent necessity since they claim that “there is a lack of a solid tradition of affronting [facing] issues in this way, [i.e., through an integrated view of science and religion].”1
The Project’s current plan of action includes exchanging ideas with major worldwide groups in the areas of what is called “science” and religion.2 Thus, under the auspices of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Project STOQ co-sponsored an international conference to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. It held the five-day confer- ence from March 3-7, 2009, at Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University. The title for the confer- ence was “Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories: A Critical Appraisal 150 Years after The Origin of Species.” The purpose of the conference was stated straightforwardly. It was to focus “on the possibility to reconcile in the same philosophical position the ‘Creation’ thinking and the ‘Evolution’ thinking, without the first pretending to be a scientific theory nor the second be- ing reduced to a dogma.”3
According to the London Times, “Msgr. Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Coun- cil for Culture, which co-organized the conference with Notre Dame University in Indiana and support from the John Templeton Foundation, said there was ‘no a priori incompatibility be- tween evolution and the message of the Bible.’”4 The head of the Pontifical Council for Culture could take this position because the primary authority for all Catholics is the dogmas taught by the reigning Pope.5
The Times further noted that, “The Vatican has rejected the claim by Richard Dawkins, the biologist and campaigning atheist, that evolution proves that God does not exist, proclaiming that on the contrary Darwinian evolution and the account of Creation in Genesis are ‘perfectly compatible.’” It is no surprise then that the Vatican conference firmly rejected any presentation
1 http://www.stoqproject.it/index.htm 4/7/2009 Until recently the Roman Catholic Church has addressed scientific issues only by means of their traditional dogmas and for centuries resisted any change that important scientific dis- coveries brought to the fore. For instance Galileo was declared an heretic by them until only very recently. The recovery of the absolute authority of Scripture and the Gospel during the Reformation of the sixteenth century would have given the Vatican the basis by which to deal effectively with important discoveries that modern science has made, had they accepted the biblical base.
2 STOQ “was originated in January, 2000 following the Jubilee for Scientists in which representatives from major worldwide groups met to take up the dialogue between science and religion.” http://www.evolution- rome2009.net/index.php?view=article&id=48%3Ahome&tmpl=comp...4/7/2009
3 http://www.evolution-rome2009.net/index.php?view=article&id=48%3Ahome&tmpl=comp...4/7/2009 Emphasis not in original.
4 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith.article 5859797.ece 4/7/2009
5 The Roman Catholic Church has as its authority both “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” (Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) Para. 80, 82). When there is a discrepancy between the Scripture and their tradition, the reigning pope makes the judgment as to what Catholics shall believe regarding any subject because it is claimed that he is infallible. “The Supreme Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority when, as supreme pastor...he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held as such.” Cate- chism, Para 891. Emphasis not in original
by Creationists as well as those who hold for Intelligent Design. In the organizers’ opinion these positions are extreme. Regarding Intelligent Design, the Catholic News Service also reported, “[The conference] organizers agreed to discuss how it appeared and developed as a cultural ide- ology, not as science. A number of presentations discussed intelligent design’s ‘long and com- plex genesis’ in an historical context and its impact on society and culture.
Saverio Forestiero, a member of the conference’s organizing committee, declared that, Intelligent Design is ‘certainly not discussable in the scientific, philosophic and theological fields.’”6 Interestingly Project STOQ was willing to hold discussions among themselves regard- ing the history and cultural aspects of the Intelligent Design movement.7 However, it was abso- lute in refusing to invite any proponents of that movement to make any presentations. Further, those who hold for atheistic evolutionism were also uninvited. Rather, in order to fulfill the pur- pose of the STOQ Project, both the creationists and the atheists were marginalized as “extrem- ists.” Demonstrating that prejudice, Cardinal William Levada, in his opening address, spoke against fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. who want schools to teach the biblical account of creation alongside or instead of evolutionism.8
The current change in the Vatican’s position began with the 1950 teaching of Pope Pius XII. Later, Pope John Paul II, in his 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, said that the theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.” Since then the Vatican agenda has attempted consistently to negate the truth expressed in the very first verse in the Bible. This agenda has now received added impetus. Catholic News Service headlined the recent approval under the title “Evolution and faith complementary: Cardinal Levada.” The account stated,
“Speaking outside a Vatican conference on Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, CDF head, Cardinal William Levada, has said there is a ‘wide spectrum of room’ for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator....‘We believe that however crea- tion has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things,’ he said.”9
It is noteworthy that Cardinal Levada’s comments, as well as those of the STOQ organiz- ers, show Rome to be a very useful tool in the hands of Bible believers’ chief enemy. Rome’s compromise is untenable, however. As Dr. Donald Chittick of Creation Compass explains,
“One of the tricks of the enemy is to not define the word science, but to use it within the worldview of naturalism. In other words the enemy operates on the basis that science equals naturalism and naturalism is equivalent to science. That fact is concealed from unsuspecting public. By contrast, historically, going back to the roots of modern science, the word science according to the first scientists such as Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Pasteur, etc., was defined as a systematic study of the created universe in all areas of study (biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, etc.). Thus science to the founders of modern science and to modern creationists means a systematic study of the created universe. In naturalism, in contrast, so- called science is defined as an attempt to explain the universe without using creation. In
6 http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900635.htm 4/11/2009
7 STOQ receives grant monies from the John Templeton Foundation, a group highly critical of the intelligent design movement. See website http:// www.templeton.org 4/7/2009
8 http://newsok.com/vatican-meeting-snubs-creationism/article/3350880 3/25/2009 See also www.timesonline. (above).
9 http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=12151 3/9/2009
2
naturalism, only naturalistic processes are allowed to be called ‘science.’ The general public thinks that science deals with objective truth. So when naturalism (which in biology is sim- ply evolutionism) presents supposed data—which in fact is only an interpretation of actual data (observation), and is the opposite of creation—the general public can unsuspectingly consider it as ‘science.’ Accordingly the general public can be deceived to mistakenly think that the worldview of naturalism is ‘scientific fact’ based on observation. The word ‘evolu- tionism’ helps people to realize that it is a worldview and not an explanation. It is a frame- work for an explanation. In creationism which is a systematic study of the created universe, creation was an event, not a process. In naturalism, the universe and life originated by a se- ries of supposed naturalistic processes.”10
In this light, the foundational flaws of Cardinal Levada’s opinion—that there is room for belief in “both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator”—are exposed. First, there is no scientific basis for evolutionism.11 Scientific study is observations that are made of the natural world. It is done by perceiving patterns and regularities in these observa- tions. These observations are interpreted within a worldview under which they become a basis for proposing a hypothesis to explain them. When worldviews are different, the interpretations regarding the data are different. When it comes to creation and the origin of life, however, there are no observations since no one was alive at that time. Therefore all so-called scientific studies in these areas are simply explanations that are influenced by a worldview which includes phi- losophical, religious and cultural presuppositions and assumptions. In looking at some of the abstracts of the papers presented at the STOQ conference, the worldviews or presuppositions of the writers were very much in evidence.
Quotations from abstracts of presentations at the conference
Simon Conway Morris, in the abstract of his paper, “Why Evolution is Predictable: Journeys of a Palaeontologist,” stated, “Darwin understood the central importance of the fossil record to his theory of evolution, and since then the many extraordinary finds have dramatically confirmed the genius of his insights. Nevertheless, whilst the reality of evolution is not in dispute problems remain.”12
Douglas J. Futuyma’s, in the abstract of his paper, “Taxonomic Issues: Evidence from Com- parative Biology,” stated, “...the hypothesis that all organisms are related, as portrayed in a phylogenetic tree, is both a central claim of evolutionary biology and a framework for tracing and understanding the history and modifications of organisms’ characteristics. The common ancestry of diverse species is now considered a scientific fact, and methods for determin- ing the relationships among species have become quite reliable.”
10 Dr. Donald Chittick, private communication 4/22/2009 Dr. Chittick holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. His bio is on his website: www.creationcompass.com
11 On the issue of current terminology, “micro-evolution” and “macro evolution”, Dr. Chittick states, “It is a trick of the enemy to use these terms. Macro-evolution normally means just biological evolution. Genetic change, which is observed, is referred to as micro-evolution, but genetic change is simply genetic change. Observed genetic change is a loss of information, the opposite of the teaching of evolutionism....” Private communication 4/24/2009
12 All abstracts quoted are taken from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0902/S00427.htm 4/7/2009 Emphasis not in original.
3
Stuart A. Newman’s in the abstract of his paper, “A ‘Pattern Language’ for Evolution and Development of Animal Form,” states unequivocally, “Ancient animals arose from unicellu- lar organisms that had billions of years of genetic evolution behind them.”
Yves Coppens’ “The (H)Omo Event” abstract categorically states, “Three million years ago (or a little less), a climatic change happened in the whole world; it was a drought in tropical areas, a cooling everywhere else. In tropical Africa, as elsewhere, the fauna had to react to try adaptations to the new environment to survive. Some animals became extinct; some left the country, some arrived and some – most of them actually – “found” successful answers to the situation: transformation of diet and teeth (Elephants, Suids, Equids, Hominids), trans- formation of locomotion (Equids, Hominids), transformation of the brain (Hominids). It was the time and the reason for the transformation of Prehumans into Humans, the reason of the emergence of the genus Homo.”
Suffice it to say that the statements quoted from these abstracts are all merely specu-
lations based on a worldview rather than on scientific fact. Appeals to the notion of “genetic evolution” are based on claimed fossil records and carbon dating methods that are suspect as they are also highly influenced by the presuppositions of those using them.
The Glory of Creation
In contrast, the account of creation is outlined in the very first verse in the Bible. “In the begin- ning God created the heaven and the earth.”13 This verse is the embryo for what follows in God creating life in six literal twenty-four hour consecutive days. “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is....”14 The Almighty God is the Maker of heaven and earth. The strength of faith which Scripture emphasizes is based on trust in God’s written word regarding His work of creation. It proclaims, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”15 The visible part of the creation is “the worlds were framed by the word of God.” The earth is adorned with grass and flowers; the heavens are decorated with stars and planets. Great order is manifested in vastly differing forms of creation, so that the psalmist proclaims, “O LORD, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.”16 The Author and Cause of this great work is the Lord God Almighty! The wisdom of God and glory of God are seen in His creation.17 Nevertheless, because the evolu- tionists’ worldview is foundationally flawed, knowledge of this divine wisdom and glory is being willingly suppressed by their evolutionary claims.18
Moreover, in holding that there is “no a priori incompatibility between evolution and the message of the Bible,”19 Rome has denied that the Bible alone is the absolute authority. How- ever, to defend itself from accusation of atheism the Vatican carefully added the statement, “‘We
13 Genesis 1:1
14 Exodus 20:11
15 Hebrews 11:3
16 Psalm 104:24
17 “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1
18 Romans 1:18 - 21.
19 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith.article 5859797.ece 4/7/2009
4
believe that however creation has come about and evolved, ultimately God is the creator of all things.’”20 Cardinal Levada’s solution is too simplistic.
Theistic Evolutionism
The mixing of evolutionism with faith in God is called theistic evolutionism. It is the belief that God used evolution to create the world. God supposedly created the initial materials, arranged the natural laws, and guided the whole evolutionary process. Life supposedly originated from non-living chemicals. All forms of life that now exist supposedly developed from a first one- celled organism by mutation and natural selection over the course of millions of years. By add- ing theism to such notions, it is expected that at least philosophically the imprimatur of respect- ability has been provided to cover the fact that evolutionism, due to its exclusion of the biblical account of creation, is based solely on the changing imaginations of its adherents. But, as Dr. Chittick rightly points out, “Even theistic evolutionism does not explain the origin of life, or even discuss the origin of life from inorganic materials. One cannot mutate without the first life already being there. Inorganic chemicals do not mutate.”21
The notion of theistic evolutionism is an attempt to negate the absolute authority of the Bible. It holds that words of Scripture are not to be understood as absolutely authoritative. The very framework or worldview of theistic evolutionism logically requires its adherents to reduce the biblical account of creation to a subservient place within the context of their own limited un- derstanding. What is so serious in all of this speculation is that for adherents of theistic evolution God is no longer the God of the Bible but rather a distant “first cause” who started it all. This is simply the impersonal god of Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” that was incorporated in the Roman Catholic philosophy by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.
Theistic evolutionism’s Derivation and History
The starting point of the Vatican’s theistic evolution worldview can be traced back to Aristotle’s god that was incorporated into Roman Catholic theology in medieval times. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century accepted Aristotle’s premise of a “first mover.” Aquinas wrote, “There- fore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone under- stands to be God.”22 Aristotle’s proof of the existence of God was incorporated into Roman Catholic dogma. This thirteenth century theological shift has provided, to use Cardinal Levada’s words, the “wide spectrum of room” for the twentieth century papal shift into theistic evolution- ism. With the “first mover” premise came the blight of an impersonal “first mover” being ac- cepted in place of the absolutely dependable biblical description that the Sovereign Triune God of the Bible has made known of Himself through His written Word.
In modern times the first explicit mention of the concept of theistic evolutionism was in the official 1950 encyclical of Pope Pius XII. He wrote,
“...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, [to] take place with regard to the doctrine of evolu- tion, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent
20 http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=12151 3/9/2009
21 Dr. Chittick, personal correspondence April 22, 2009
22 Summa Theologica First Part Question 2 On line at: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm 3/30/2009
5
and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” 23
Since that time the Catholic Church in various ways has advocated evolutionism, once God is mentioned. For example, the Catholic Study Bible (1990) taught that the biblical account of the creation of man used a number of mythical sources from Mesopotamia. Thus commenting on Genesis 2, 4b-3, 24, it states,
“This is an independent account of the creation which is older than Genesis 1 and uses a number of mythic story themes known from Mesopotamia, although the biblical version is unique as a whole and far more sophisticated in its vision than anything else we have found in the ancient world....The major differences between the biblical accounts and the stories of other religions center on the clear connection in the Bible between a single God’s loving care for humanity, the moral refusal of people to obey God, and the rightful sentence of mortality that now burdens us, together with a change in our relation to the land that now requires backbreaking labor to make it a blessing.24
Here the Catholic Study Bible has made room for evolutionary theory regarding creation. In their commentary, the biblical account of creation is not authoritative and true; rather their pri- mary authority is the ever changing piecemeal collection of literature from mythical sources of Mesopotamia. In contrast, regarding the creation account and all statements in the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ states unequivocally, “thy word is truth.”25 However, the Catholic Study Bible must fall in line with the Vatican dictate that revealed truth is based on Scripture and Catholic tradition.26 It follows, then, for the Catholic that human authority is taken as absolute rather than the truth of Scripture. In 1996 Pope John Paul II showed that he held to the philosophy of theis- tic evolutionism. He stated,
“The magisterium of the Church takes a direct interest in the question of evolution, because it touches on the conception of man, whom Revelation tells us is created in the image and like- ness of God...Pius XII underlined the essential point: if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God.”27
Thus the Pope in 1996, like the Pope Pius XII in 1950, held for the creation of man from matter that “previously existed.” This is a distinct difference from what the Scripture states. In the biblical account God created the body of man out of “the dust of the ground.” He then breathed the soul into man, “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 soul.”28 The Popes’ belief
23 In his encyclical Humani Generis Para 36 August 12, 1950 On line at: www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
24 The Catholic Study Bible, New American Bible (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1990) Reading Guide, p. 62. This study Bible has six endorsements (imprimatur and Nihil Obstat) attesting to its importance as a Roman Catholic source.
25 John 17:17
26 “As a result the [Roman Catholic] Church...does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” Catechism, Para 82
27 “What the Pope Actually Said: Excerpts from the Message of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences”, The Catholic World Report, December, 1996, p. 54.
28 Genesis 2:7
6
in “living matter which existed previously” serves as an entry point for evolutionism. Thus Ro- man Catholic theistic evolutionism can now hold that God used “living matter” to form the hu- man body; yet the Lord God states in His Word that He used “the dust of the ground.” As usual, Rome has attempted to marginalize the Scripture. To accommodate its own ends, the Vatican needs to be able to support or encourage any side of any issue.
Ecumenical Agenda Motivates Project STOQ
The ecumenical purpose of the Papacy concerning Bible believers has been stated publicly. In Vatican Council II Document No. 42, Sect. II states,
“Ecumenical dialogue is not limited to an academic or purely conceptual level, but [rather a] striving for a more complete communion between the Christian communities...[a] closer col- laboration on the level of thought and action, it serves to transform modes of thought and be- havior and the daily life of those communities. In this way, it aims at preparing the way for their unity of faith in the bosom of a Church one and visible; thus ‘little by little, as obstacles to perfect ecclesial communion are overcome, all Christians will be gathered, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, into that unity of the one and only church...This unity, we be- lieve, dwells in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.” 29
Under Sect. VII in the same document, their modus operandi of false ecumenism is given, “Groups of lay people will also meet to face in the light of Christian faith the questions raised by their profession or occupation: problems of law, medicine, politics, business, technology, scientific research, the social sciences... They will readily call upon experts for questions which are beyond the competence of non-specialist participants....The organization and con- duct of such meetings can of course be entrusted to specially trained laymen, who will, where necessary, call upon the theologians.”30
Rome’s acceptance of theistic evolutionism as a cultural tool for false ecumenism fits precisely within the context of their Vatican Council II documents on ecumenism and dialogue, for which they have already set the goal and the rules of engagement. One of the main out- reaches of the Pontifical Council for Culture is through the six Catholic universities that are part of Project STOQ’s program to reach college students to promote Rome’s compromise regarding the biblical account of creation.31 These students fit under the Sect. VII definition of “laymen.” The “experts” upon whom they can call are the professionals of Project STOQ and their associ- ates.
The Calamitous Consequences
The perspective of the Vatican’s theistic evolutionism is also totally corrupted. Having under- mined the absolute authority of the Bible, the Vatican espouses a perspective that neither pro- motes a true fear of God nor allows for true worship of Him as the Creator. Rather the Church of
29 Vatican Council II Document No. 42, “Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue,” S.P.U.C., 15 August, 1970 in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents 1981 edition, Austin Flannery, editor. (Northport, NY: Costello Publ. Co., 1980) Sect. II. All Vatican Council II documents are taken from this source.
30 Ibid., Sect. VII, pp. 540, 541; 550, 551.
31 http://www.stoqproject.it/index.htm 4/7/2009
7
Rome presents its own gospel. In Rome’s theistic evolutionism, God is not the omnipotent sov- ereign Lord whose Word is truth, but a god integrated into their system as a “first cause.” More- over, Rome’s theistic evolutionism requires death and the survival of the fittest millions of years before man comes on the scene. In this system, death is not the enemy but the very means by which God administered everything. But the Bible is precise on this, “the wages of sin is death.”32 Death came into the world through Adam’s sin as explicitly stated in Scripture, “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin.”33 God is omnipotent.34 For Him to use death and a struggle for existence, where the weak perish and the strong survive, is inconsistent with His character. The god of Rome’s theistic evolutionism merely makes death and survival some of the building blocks by which he guides evolution. This god’s power and wisdom differ from man’s ability only in degree, not in kind. Clearly distant, removed and inept, the Vatican’s god of theistic evolutionism is totally distinct from the God of the Bible. The God of Scripture is revealed as “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God,” “our God is in the heav- ens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” 35
The inflexible conceit of Rome is shown in that it knows biblical truth and still rejects it. In Scripture sin originates from man, as the Word states, “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”36 This continues to be the case, as Scripture also states, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”37 The Bible states that sin came through man and describes mankind’s state as being “dead in trespasses and sins.”38 Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and spiritually dead seek the Savior who came to save that which was lost.39 Though mind-boggling, Papal Rome teaches that man is basically good in being able to know and love God when it officially states, “...For sacred Scripture teaches that man was created ‘to the image of God,’ as able to know and love his creator...”40 Rome does admit that there was the “first sin;” however, they have determined that sin has only “wounded” mankind. Official dogma states, “Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called ‘original sin.’”41 Rome knows and rejects the biblical truth that man- kind is “dead in trespasses and sins,” for Rome declares, “The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom.”42 Scripture in fact upholds just what the first reformers believed, “...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”43 “For the wages of sin is death...”44 Nonetheless the official doctrine of Rome is that mankind is simply damaged by sin, “...man has been wounded by sin...When he is drawn to think about his real self he turns to those deep recesses of his being
32 Romans 6:23
33 Romans 5:12
34 Jeremiah 32:17
35 I Timothy 1:17; Psalm 115:3
36 Romans 5:19
37 I John 3:4
38 Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13 “And you, being dead in your sins....”
39 Luke 19:10
40 Vatican Council II Document No. 64, Gaudium et Spes, 7 Dec. 1965 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Vol. I, Sect. 12, p. 913
41 Catechism, Para 417
42 Catechism, Para 406
43 Genesis 2:17
44 Romans 6:23
8
where God who probes the heart awaits him, and where he himself decides his own destiny in the sight of God.”45 Biblically, it is not question of being “wounded” but of being spiritually dead! Romans 3:10-11 states, “There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.”
The Gospel
Since Papal Rome does not have anything to offer except its pride, what then are we do to be right with God? One must first acknowledge that he or she is spiritually dead, and cry out for help. It is the Holy Spirit who awakens within a person that sense of need under the conviction of sin. It is the power of the Holy Spirit that overcomes the pride of the natural man so that he or she is ready to come to Christ to receive life. In the Lord’s own words, “he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condem- nation; but is passed from death unto life.”46 God’s holiness is the distinguishing factor in all His essential characteristics. This is the reason why every one of us needs to be in right standing before the one and only All Holy God on the terms He prescribes. By His grace turn to Him in faith alone for the salvation that He alone gives, by the conviction of the Holy Spirit, based on Christ’s death and resurrection for His own, and believe on Him alone, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”47
If the Lord God Almighty did not create the world, all other aspects of His works are ne- gated. Rome’s agenda regarding evolutionism is of critical importance in our day, for there are many who might be tempted to follow Rome to what is presented as safe middle ground between the biblical account of creation and evolutionism. But theistic evolutionism is not a middle ground “safe house” that the Vatican would have you believe—for Papal Rome utterly excludes biblical creation and the All Holy Creator God of the Bible. Rather, regarding this issue, Chris- tians must return to the first heritage of biblical faith: the absolute truth of the written Word of God. We as Christians have, “the certainty of the words of truth” and worship the Creator, Lord God almighty, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heav- ens are the works of thine hands.”48
To all those trapped in evolutionism, theistic and otherwise, we put to you a few of the several thousand year old questions that God asked Job, “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and an- swer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou has understanding. Who hath laid [i.e., determined] the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof...”49 ♦
Permission is given by the author to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes. Permission is also given post this article in its entirety on Internet WebPages.
45VaticanCouncilIIDocumentNo.64,Sect.14,p.915 Emphasisnotinoriginal 46 John 5:24
47 Ephesians 2:8, 9
48 Proverbs 22:21; Hebrews 1:10
49 Job 38: 2-6
9