Darrel Falk

	Sign In Sign-Up

Darrel Falk: Evolution's Latest Apologist
by Michel Archer
<Home>

CS Lewis once wrote, "It (evolution) appeals to every part of me except my reason. I believe it no longer."

Unfortunately, there are otherwise intelligent, confessing Christians who allow the appeal Lewis spoke of to alter their spiritual thinking. One of the more notable of this ilk is Darrel Falk, professor of biology and associate provost for research at Point Loma, California. He has written a book titled, 'Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Science.'

In the forward Francis Collins describes the work. (Falk) "presents a loving Creator God who used the mechanism of evolution create living things, including the human race."

Persons who hold such views are commonly referred to as theistic evolutionists. It is my contention, and I believe I will let Falks own words bare this out, that TE's do not believe the Bible, despite how they may insist to the contrary. They have found in evolution another gospel which appeals to them. One for which they are willing to make endless allowances.

But, let let me defer to Mr. Falk. On page 225, he writes, (And uh, I couldn't help but make my own comments.) "Hence it seems likely when God's Word to us shows God reaching down to the ground and making Adam, it is telling us that God created humanity from the dust of the earth, but not necessarily in an instant. (*If we believe the Bible, Adam may not have been made in an instant, however, it was in one days time. Not the billions of years courted by evolution.) Moreover, when it tells us Eve was created from Adams rib, it seems likely (*'seems likely?' Not a good method of interpretation) that it is telling us that husband and wife in God's kingdom are one flesh and the must live their lives that way. (*You could infer that, but what it does tell us quite specifically is that God made woman from Adams rib.) Given the notion that Eve is Adam's bride, just as the church is the bride of Christ, so God's Word to us also foreshadows the fact that the church itself is one body derived at the expense of Christ himself.

"The story of Adam and Eve is an inspired message that comes to us as revelation from God, told for our edification.(*And also our information.) Even if humans were created gradually at the physical level, it certainly is possible that Adam and Eve were real individuals who lived in real time.(*Hmm, did God REALLY say.....? I wonder if he has this sort of problem with 'The Origin of Species?' ) If that were the case, the creation account might be viewed as the creation of humans as spiritual beings, and Adam and Eve would simply have been the first humans to experience what it really means to live in the image of God-in full communication with God as God. (*'with God as God...' I think this is the ultimate appeal of theistic evolution. If Adam and Eve were God at some point, then the theistic evolutionist might grow up to be God someday, too.) If so, then in an historical and figurative sense, their story becomes our story. They sinned. We have sinned. Their action resulted in them becoming separated from the Presence of God. Our sin resulted in separation from God. They were not restored, but we, through Jesus, bring completion to their story for we are able to enter the garden of God's Presence again. Hence, regardless of whether it is historical and figurative or purely figurative, their story becomes our story-a story for all humankind.

"No matter how we know interpret its historicity, humans are spiritual beings created in God's image and able to know God and love him because of his revelation to us through his written Word, the Bible and his Living Word, Jesus."

A prime example of what is appalling when evolution sinks its claws into our churches. For Professor Falk, the Bible means whatever one thinks it might mean. Maybe the interpretation is true, maybe it isn't. Maybe Adam and Eve lived and if so they spent time AS God. But we all love Jesus so it's okay. However, if someone says they love Jesus, then gives mere lip service to His Word, reading it in a way which suits him, then is that really 'love?'

Through his book Falk goes through the same tired Darwinistic arguments we've come to recognize and frankly, dislike such as survival of the fittest and placing death as coming before before Adam, a point he never explains.

He is particularly taken with the idea of evolution by genetic mutation relying on the old saw about 'beneficial mutations,' to cause gradual gentic change. Did you know that is impossible? For example, to destroy bacteria, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacteria's cell called the ribosome. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in ribosomes and since the antibiotic can not connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant to it's effects. But even though they would call this a beneficial mutation, it still constitutes a loss of information. As if someone grabbed books from the cells genetic library and accidentally used them for landfill instead of information. Their information was lost, the bacterium are not stronger for it.

Falk is an instructor at a Christian college and will be loading up students with faith killing lies with all the zeal of any secular instructor. Which is tragic but in the end, I think the best defense for Falk's type of offense is correct information. For serious students of the subject I recommend the following books:

Jonathan Wells, 'Icons of Evolution'
Michael Behe, 'Darwins Black Box'
John Campbell and Stephen Meyer, 'Darwinism, Design and Public Education'
Richard Weikart, 'From Darwin to Hitler'
James Perloff, 'The Case Against Darwin'
Henry Morris, 'The Long War Against God'
Duane Gish, 'The Fossils Say No'
Editor-William Dembski, 'Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing'

And since I'm doing a great deal of quoting this time out let me end with a quote from another book I would recommend, Gorman Gray's, 'The Age of the Universe.' On page 131, he writes, "Theistic evolution is a gross idolatry when it portrays God as creator through death, (genetic mistakes), struggle, tooth, claw, grief, and survival of the brutish. God is implicated because he invented it, if indeed evolution has occurred by these awful means. On the contrary, the miseries of history are a consequence of our great rebellion against God in the garden (Romans 8:20-22 and Isaiah 11:1-9). Death and struggle were never tools of creation and to think so is an offense to Jesus Christ, the Creator, who is love incarnate and who pronounced the creation 'very good.'"

Amen, Mr. Gray, amen.