Feel free to submit your questions below before, during or after the lecture.


Questions thus far from the Lecture.

  1. It seems that all “belief” systems of all other “faiths” outside the Truth respect, glorify, and worship Death.  Theistic evolution includes Death inside what God calls Good.  Death makes all things “Good,” as for example, abortion and eugenics.
    • It certainly is true that many of the pagan religions glorify death.  It is also true that this paganism has influenced Western culture, so that many of the youth today are infatuated with death.  They dress in black, all black; they wear or are tattooed with symbols of death, the skull being the most common; they listen to rock and heavy metal groups that are glorify death.  And more besides.  For the Christian, death is an enemy.  It always has been and it always will be.  It was our enemy in the beginning, when it began as God’s judgment on our sin.  And it is our enemy now, separating us from those whom we love and all our life and labor in the midst of the world.  That enemy has been conquered in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.  That enemy has become our servant, our servant to lead us out of this life and into the perfection of heaven.  And that enemy will finally be defeated when our Lord Jesus Christ comes again and casts death and hell into the lake of fire, Rev. 20:14.  But now it is our enemy and our attitude towards death ought to reflect that, not the opposite.  Theistic evolution ignores and contradicts the Bible’s clear teaching about death: its origin, its nature, its purpose, its end.  Along with atheistic, Darwinianevolution, theistic (Deistic) evolution teaches that death was in the world from the beginning.  Dearth is part of the warp and woof of evolution.  Evolution is a process that takes place over millions of years.  Evolution is a process according to which the fit survive.  Evolution is a process of natural selection.  All this implies that death has always been in the world and that death is natural, a natural part of the evolutionary process.  Evolution’s callous attitude towards death shows itself in the things that this questioner points to: abortion and eugenics.  Now, there is something else at work in the evolution’s support of abortion and eugenics.  That something else is the teaching of evolution that man is basically an animal, the highest animal, the most developed and advanced animal, but an animal for all that.  And therefore it is not wrong to murder an unborn baby or to murder the aged and infirm, which are a drain on society and make no positive contribution to society, as they suppose,  Very clearly theistic evolution’s teaching concerning death stands squarely at odds with that of Scripture.
  2. You mentioned six tenets of evolution, but did not mention uniformitarianism.  Has this been thoroughly disproved? 
    • The only reason that I did not mention uniformitarianism was that I was running out of time.  The explanation and critique of uniformitarianism takes some time and space.  The lecture was getting long and I was forced to cut out chunks of my manuscript in order to finish in a reasonable amount of time.  My hope was that I would get a question like this that would give me opportunity to discuss this matter.  No, uniformitarianism has not been disproved and it remains one of the Christian’s main objections to the teaching of evolution, atheistic or theistic.  This is also a teaching that connects creation and the flood, and demonstrates that to deny creation involves necessarily also the denial of the biblical account of the flood.  Allow me to quote from my lecture the part that I skipped over.  It is “sixth” beneath the second main point, “How This Heresy Contradicts Scripture.”  “F.  Sixth, theistic evolution is based on the unbiblical principle of uniformitarianism.  So critical is the teaching of uniformitarianism to the theory of evolution that if the teaching of uniformitarianism is disproved, the whole structure of evolutionary thought falls to the ground.  What is uniformitarianism?  Although a frightening word in appearance, the idea expressed by the term “uniformitarianism” is not difficult to grasp.  Those who hold to the principle of uniformitarianism teach that the same natural laws and processes which are at work in the creation today have always been present in the creation and have always operated in exactly the same way.  It is the theory that natural and geological phenomena are for the most part the results of forces that have operated continuously, that is, withy uniformity, and without interruption, over billions and billions of years.  Uniformitarians assuem that the forces at work in nature are essentially fixed and constant.  Scientists who hold to this view explain nearly all geological phenomena in terms of processes that are still occurring in the universe.  All things have remained basically the same, so that laws and processes that are observable in the world today have continued unchanged from the past to the present.  The idea of uniformitarianism has been expressed in the phrase, “The present is the key to the past.”  The principle of uniformitarianism comes into play in connection with the main evidence for evolution, the fossil record.  One of the strongest evidences for evolution is supposed to be the fossil record and the great ages which scientists assign to many of the fossils.  Now, in reality, the fossils are a powerful evidence for creationism and the catastrophism of the flood.  (Cf. Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, by Duance T. Gish and Bones of Contention, by Marvin L. Lubernow.  The fact is that natural conditions are not conducive to making fossils, whereas the conditions brought about by the flood, includingmassive, sudden burying of animals alive results in the formation of fossils.)  But in dating fossil remains, scientists presuppose uniformitarianism.  All the dating methods, besides being flawed in other, significant ways, are flawed because they proceed from the false assumption of uniformitarianism.  The most common method of dating fossils is the radioactive dating method.  The most common radioactive methods are the uranium method and the carbon-14 method.  These and other methods are the basis for the presently accepted idea that the earth is billions of years old.  Without going into great detail, in radioactive dating a parent substance (for example, uranium) is gradually changed into a daughter substance (for example, lead).  This takes place at a fixed rate.  Scientists are able to determine how quickly a given amount of radioactive uranium changes into lead.  Given this rate of decay, by measuring the relative amounts of uranium and lead in a fossil, scientists are able to determine when this process began, and hence, the approximate age of the fossil.  Sounds fool-proof, doesn’t it?  Most scientists and science teachers have thought so.  For over half a century, now, they have contended that uranium dating, in particular ha proved the earth to be billions of years old.  But is this method fool0-proof?  The answer is: No.  Apart from any inconsistencies and discrepancies in the methods themselves, there is one basic flaw to all the dating methods.  What is that flaw?  That flaw is the principle of uniformitarianism.  That is not difficult to see.  All the dating methods presuppose the principle of uniformitarianism.  The uranium method presupposes that radioactive uranium has always turned into lead at exactly the same rate.  The carbon-14 method presupposes that carbon-14 has always turned into nitrogen at exactly the same rate.  If, for example, at some time in the past uranium decayed into lead at twice the present rate, it would be impossible, using the present rate of decay, to determine the correct age of a fossil.  The approximations of the scientists would be incorrect.  The theory of evolution rests heavily on the evidence of the fossil record.  The dating of the fossil record depends on the principle of uniformitarianism.  But is uniformitarianism correct?  Have the same natural laws and processes, which are are at work in the creation today always been present in the creation, and have they always been present in exactly the same way?  The answer of the Bible is: No!  The Bible refutes the principle of uniformitarianism.  The outstanding passage of Scripture that disproves the principle of uniformitarianism is 2 Peter 3:3-7: “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?  For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”  In this passage, the apostle Peter predicts that in the last days unbelieving scoffers will arise who will deny the promise of Christ’s second coming.  One of the arguments that these scoffers will put forward to deny the possibility of Christ’s return in judgment is that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”  These scoffers rest their argument that Christ is not going to come again on the principle of uniformitarianism.  Nothing has changed, they say, since the beginning of the world.  All things continue today as they ever have.  The apostle denies this argument of the scoffers.  He denies that all things continue the same from the beginning to the end of the world.  He does that by appealing to the historical event of the Flood.  “For this they willing are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Pet. 3:5).  The principle of uniformitarianism is disproved by the Flood.  All things have not continued the same since the beginning of the world.  The same laws and processes have not always been at work in the creation.  For at one time, in His just judgement over man’s sin, God sent the great catastrophe of the Flood of Noah’s day.  That was such a catastrophe that it changed entirely the earthly creation.  Such a radical change was produced by the Flood that the apostle Peter refers to two difference worlds in 2 Peter 3.  He refers to the world before the Flood as “the world that then was,” and he refers to the world after the Flood as “the heavens and the earth, which are now.”  They are, very really, two distinct worlds, so completely different are they.  This great difference between the world before the Flood and the world after the Flood is evident from what the Bible tells us in the Book of Genesis.  We will point to only one evidence of this great change.  If you read the genealogy recorded in Genesis 5, the genealogy of Adam up to the Flood, and Noah’s genealogy through his son Shem in Genesis 11, it immediately strikes you that the relative ages of the men recorded in Genesis 11 are about half of those recorded in Genesis 5.  After the Flood man’s life-span was cut in half, a father drastic change, wouldn’t you say?  Suddenly after the Flood men are no longer living to 900 years old and older, but now they are living to be about 450 years old.  By the way, a similar sharp decline in man’s age took place after the Tower of Babel.  From this it ought to be clear to us that conditions before the Flood were not the same as those after the FloodThe world before the Flood, and the conditions in that world, were quite different from the world as we know it today.  In light of the clear teaching of Scripture, the principle of uniformitarianism cannot stand.  And if the principle of uniformitarianism cannot stand, the scientific methods of dating the fossil record cannot stand.  And if the alleged evidence of the age of the fossil record cannot stand, the main pillar of the theory of evolution falls to the ground.  It is interesting that even the fossil record itself testifies against the principle of uniformitarianism and gives evidence for the Flood.  Fossils are not produced by slow uniformitarian processes over long periods of time.  To become fossilizeda plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone or shell.  It must be buried quickly to prevent decay, most commonly either by volcanic activity or by watery inundation.  The evidence of the fossils themselves points to the great catastrophe of the Flood.  And then there are the fossils of wooly mammoths found in the frozen ground of Siberian with citrus fruit in their mouths.  Or the fossils of sea creatures in the highest mountains of the Andes.  Were the fossils and the rocks and the other characteristics of the earth’s surface formed slowly over billions of years by the same processes now at work in the earth?  Does the principle of uniformitarianism apply?  The evolutionist says: Yes.  His entire evolutionary theory depends on the principle of uniformitarianism.  But the child of God, in the light of the Word of God, rejects the principle of uniformitarianism.  And along with his rejection of uniformitarianism goes his rejection of the theory of evolution. 
  3. Please explain how theistic evolution has no place for Jesus Christ?  How does the teaching of theistic evolution affect the doctrine of Christ?
    • In at least three respects the teaching of evolution (atheistic or theistic/Deistic) denies the truth concerning Jesus Christ.  First, evolution denies the miraculous.  If God did not by a miracle create all things in the beginning, neither did he by a miracle cause a virgin to conceive or by a miracle cause the eternal Son of God to become a finite, weak man.  Second, evolution denies Christ because it denies that God created all things with a view to Jesus Christ.  That purpose of God in creation and throughout the history of the creation is denied.  And third, evolution denies the need for the coming of Christ.  Man’s problem is not a sin problem.  His problem is his lack of sufficient development.  Sin presupposes a God who is sinned against.  Sin presupposes rebellion against God, disobedience to God, and guilt before God.  All of this evolution denies.  The only evils are those evils determined by society and upon which the majority of people agree.  There is no objective standard of right and wrong, which precludes the possibility of sin, and in turn the need of Christ.
  4. How would you answer those who say we don’t need to argue about this topic because it is not critical to salvation?
    • I would, of course, not want to make a judgment concerning the eternal destiny of anyone who might hold to some form of theistic evolution.  Out and out atheistic evolutionists who deny God and blaspheme his name have no place in the kingdom of heaven.  But I reserve judgment with regard to some of the “milder” forms of the error of theistic evolution.  Notwithstanding, I do want to underscore the seriousness of this error.  The seriousness of this issue is that it concerns the very first article of the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.”  It concerns the very first chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1.  And the implications are significant: the view of Scripture; the doctrine of sin; the doctrine of Christ; the purpose of the creation; and many other truths besides.  Because of the seriousness of the error itself and because of its serious ramifications, Christians must stand opposed to this grievous error.
  5. We believe that God created the world by faith. Do you think there is value in the scientific proof of scientists that promote “intelligent design theory”?
    • First, I want to say that those who support intelligent design are not yet defending the biblical truth of creation.  We do not support intelligent design; we confess by faith the truth of creation by God.  Biblical creationists must distinguish themselves from intelligent designers.  That being said, I do believe that there is value in the “scientific proof” derived from the creation itself.  And let it be said that the creation does gives testimony to its having been created by God.  Not that it convinces any unbeliever; but it does aggravate his guilt in that even the creation itself gives testimony to the truth that God is the Creator and that God has created all things.  Neither is any “scientific proof” needed by the believer who on the basis of the Word of God believes the biblical truth of creation.  Even though it isn’t needed because his faith rests on the Word of God, the believer’s faith is and can be confirmed by the evidence from the creation itself.  That limited sort of role, the evidence from the creation rightly interpreted plays.  Nevertheless, in the end, our faith rests squarely on the Word of God, for “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God,” Hebrews 11:3.
  6. It is apparent that much scientific evidence and discovery support a time span of creation and development of the earth over many thousands of years.  What then do we as Christians do with scientific information that does not support the 6 literal days of creation?  
    • I do not believe that there is any “scientific information” that does not support the teaching that God created the world in six, literal days.  There are scientists’ interpretation of their scientific discoveries that supports, or better, it made to support their view of evolution.  That certainly is the case.  And this, in the first place, is what we must say when confronted by the “evidence” produced by the evolutionists.  The second thing that we ought to say is that sometimes we can’t explain how what they are appealing to does not actually support evolution but instead supports creation.  Nevertheless, we are convinced that this is so.  Even though we can’t always explain everything the scientists appeal to, we don’t have to.  Our faith rests, not on scientific discovery, but on Holy Scripture.  And without doubt, Scripture teaches the truth of creation by God in six, literal, consecutive, 24-hr. days.  
  7. Communist in China (about 1938-1940) believed evolution was very important to teach children. It was one of the first things they taught in schools stating if the children believed evolution then they could also be easily taught other things the Communist wanted them to believe and do. Are the Communist and the devil doing the same in our so called Christian schools & colleges today?
    • No only the Communists in China, but also the Communists in Russia taught the children as soon as they were able to attend school the lie of evolution.  And there is no wonder that this is so.  Both Communism and evolution are inherently atheistic systems of thought.  The Communists saw in the teaching of evolution the alternative they needed to make us of in their denial of God.  Karl Marx, the father of Communism, was immediately taken in by Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory upon reading the recently published On the Origin of Species.  And even though they never met, they did correspond.  Marx sent Darwin a signed copy of his communist manifesto Das Kapital.  He saw the theory of evolution as the explanation of the origin of the universe that fit with his own materialistic and atheistic conception of the world.  By exposing the young children in our schools today to the teaching of evolution, the leaders of our country are definitely playing into the hand of the Communists.  And by doing this in the first years of their education, they are prejudicing the children against Christianity.  The theistic evolutionists must not overlook the origins (no pun intended) of their theory of origins.  This is certainly an instance of guilt by association.  
  8. “We have the heavens declaring the glory of God.  We have the many Scriptures teaching creations besides Genesis 1 and 2, such as Psalm 33.  What is the best way to teach and preach these truths?  Is it just to call unbelievers to repentance and faith in God and in Christ, or are there other ways?”
    • I believe that it is certainly necessary to call unbelievers to repentance and faith in Christ.  I am convinced that those who believe, truly believe the gospel will by that very fact reject evolution.  The gospel is the answer to evolution, atheistic and theistic.  I believe that for especially two reasons.  Those who believe the gospel, truly believe the gospel believe the Scriptures which contain the message of the gospel and the contents of the gospel.  They who believe the Scriptures, truly believe the Scriptures, will believe the truth of creation and reject evolution.  Second, the gospel is the answer to the issue of evolution because evolution logically and consistently carried out denies the gospel.  That’s how serious the issue is.  It denies man’s fall into sin.  It denies Adam’s headship of the human race.  It denies the original sin.  It denies the need for penal, substitutionary atonement.  That is the gospel.  From many different points of view, evolution is a denial of the gospel.  That’s not to say that we cannot point to the evidence in the creation that clearly (and loudly!) indicates the truth of creation and the lie of evolution.  But the evidence in the creation is supporting evidence to the conviction formed by faith that God has created all things in six, literal, consecutive, 24-hour days.
  9. Some in church world make a distinction between macroevolution (defined as “molecules to man” theory) and microevolution (referring to the changes that are observable in the creation). Is this a valid distinction? Are these good terms or should we avoid such terms?
    • There may be some difference of opinion on this matter.  My answer is: “Yes and no.”  From a certain point of view, the point of the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is valid.  Within species (“species” and “kinds” of Genesis 1 are not exact equivalents, but are roughly synonymous) there are changes that take place.  These changes may be driven by any number of factors including environment.  There are adaptations that occur, for example among animals of the same species.  This must have been the case after the flood.  Noah did not have every variety of dog on the ark, but a pair of dogs from which thereafter all the different types of dogs developed over time.  Germs and viruses undergo changes, becoming immune to different antibiotics, for example.  In this sense, there is such a thing as “microevolution.”  Nevertheless, there is a danger in referring to these changes and developments as “evolution,” whether macro or micro.  Evolution is a random change; these are not purely random changes.  Evolution is change according to fixed, inbuilt, natural laws; but these changes take place according to the providence of an all-wise and almighty God.  Lest we separate these changes from the God who is responsible for making them, we ought to be hesitant to refer to them as “evolution” in any sense of the word. 
  10. Can you give some more concrete examples of the dangers and consequences of adopting evolutionary theory?
    • There are many examples that could be given.  From a doctrinal point of view, adopting the teaching of evolution leads to denial of the headship of Adam; denial of original sin; denial of death in the creation as the judgment of God on account of man’s sin; denial of the need for penal, substitutionary satisfaction by one who is a real, righteous man; denial of the Bible’s inspiration, infallibility, and authority; denial of God’s providence.  All these are serious doctrinal errors associated with the teaching of evolution.  But there are also more practical consequences.  One of the more significant practical consequences is the loss and denial of grace.  Since evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, it looks down on the weak, the helpless, and the “unworthy.”  Practically speaking, evolutionary thinking stands behind the practice of abortion and euthanasia.  Hitler was an enthusiastic advocate of evolution, and we all know about Hitler’s racism and what his attitude was towards the physically and mentally deficient.  You can dress evolution up in pretty clothes, as many scientists, philosophers, and theologians are doing today.  But the teaching is ugly and mean—through and through.  
  11. Does process theology give credence to theistic evolution?
    • Process theology is more a school of philosophy than it is theology.  This philosophy is associated with Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000), and John B. Cobb (b. 1925).  Process theology teaches that just as the universe is constantly changing and becoming, so is God constantly changing and becoming.  God cannot totally control all the events and circumstances in the universe, and is Himself constantly reacting to what takes place, and especially to the free acts of human beings.  God changes He interacts with and responds to an ever changing universe.  It’s easy to understand that such a theology (philosophy) is entirely in harmony with an evolutionary approach to the universe.  So far as I am aware, all process theologians are also evolutionists.  The book Making Sense of Evolution, by John F. Haught demonstrates the compatibility between a process-oriented theology and the heresy of evolution.  Haught makes wide use of Whitehead and Hartshorne.  From a certain point of view, Haught demonstrates where consistent evolutionary thinking ends up.  And where he ends up ought to be shocking to every professing Christian.
  12. How do you explain all the nationalities? How did we get so many different kind of people from Adam & Eve?
    • This is an intriguing question, and while the Bible doesn’t answer this question in so many words, I believe that it does give clear indication as to what the answer is.  The main explanation is the Tower of Babel.  At the Tower of Babel, the history of which is recorded in Genesis 11:1-9, God did more than merely confuse the languages.  Although that was the most significant change, especially as regards the possibility of continuing to build the Tower of Babel, it was not the only change that God wrought.  I believe that at this time he also wrought the other differences, from appearances to skin, hair, and eye color that distinguish the races.  These differences go even deeper to outlook and disposition.  All these differences were the result of what God did to the human race at the Tower of Babel.  There is reference to this event in Acts 17:26, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”  Babel and God’s intervention at Babel is also the “wound to death” that is healed over on one of the heads of the beast in Revelation 13.  It is God’s intervention at Babel that makes impossible the premature development of the antichristian kingdom.  That wound—the language barrier and the racial and ethnic differences—present barriers throughout history that make cooperation among the nations difficult and their unification in one great world kingdom an unfulfilled dream.  The Antichrist of the end-time will overcome this barrier and will, for a short time, bring about a one world government and universal earthly kingdom.  At the same time, the world’s cup of iniquity will reach its full.
  13. How is it that man continues to define God’s existence using a religion titled Science, when Science continues to evolve in it’s theories or nature of relevance? Is it not a belief or act of faith in the assumption that they are correct from their own understanding? The opposite occurs for me when I reference the following scriptures below, that it is a faith & belief in something greater than man’s logic that created both my / our world and my / our personal existence. Genesis 1:1 – 11:32 is certainly filled with wonder and awl of God’s power of creation. Embracing God’s word is the foundation of choice or free will of acceptance in the rightest Holy truth. God’s word was the same then as it is today. Exodus makes reference that on the 6th the Lord made heaven and earth. Question??? Is God’s measurement of time as a day 24 hours? How can anyone be confused when Hebrews 11:3 makes it clear that God created the world from that which was invisible yet to be spoken into visibility. Bottom line for me is that evolution does occur in our relationship with the Lord our God, however where he the creator has placed me in creation has been a constant physical world until he returns at which time a new heaven and earth will be created.  Amend..       Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth… Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.     Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…   Revelation 4:11 … for you created all things and by your will they existed and where created.                                                                                               Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea…Lord
    • I’m not quite sure what the question is here.  I’m not sure that there really is a question, but rather a point that is being made, or rather, several points that are being made.  I think those points are as follows.  First, that evolutionists go out from certain presuppositions, just as much as do creationists.  That is absolutely correct.  To begin with, every evolutionist presupposes that the only reality is sensual reality, that is, what human senses and the human mind are able to confirm.  Only that which can be seen, heard, smelt, touched, or tasted is real and really exists.  There is no such thing as spiritual and immaterial reality.  And there are other presuppositions embraced by the evolutionist.  For this reason, it has been said that it takes more faith to believe in evolution, that inorganic matter could produce organic matter, that a monkey could produce a man, takes more faith than to believe the straight-forward word of God in Genesis 1 and 2.  Now, in reality, it does not take faith, but unbelief to “believe” evolution.  But the point, nevertheless, is well taken.  It is utterly absurd to believe that all things in the world around us could have evolved from a common ancestral life-form.  Second, it is altogether clear from the rest of Scripture that the “days” of Genesis 1 and 2 were literal, 24-hour, consecutive days.  Third, whereas my questioner speaks of evolution in my relationship to the Lord, I would much prefer to speak of development, as we go from grace for grace (John 1:16).  The bottom line is that the Word of God is crystal clear, that God created all things in six, literal, 24-hour days. 
  14. Thank you so much for your presentation tonight. I really appreciate your research and passion. When you stress for the Church to "Make War" against Evolution, what does that look like "operationally" at work and in our daily lives?
    • Thank-you for your kind words.  Your question is an excellent question.  I am sorry that I did not have the time that I would have like to have had to address this very question.  And although the emphasis in my answer was on the church as institute, your question I sense has more to do with the calling of the individual believer.  Very briefly, I would say that as the believer has opportunity, he or she must give a positive witness to the truth of creation.  That may be on the job, or at university, or in the office.  It may be a mother to her children, a housewife to her neighbor or to a relative.  But besides the opportunity for a positive witness to the truth of creation, as the opportunity arises a testimony against the widely accepted view of evolution.  When someone makes reference to evolution and it becomes clear that they are endorsing or presupposing evolution, there is the opportunity to call attention to the biblical truth of creation.  At the same time, we should be prepared to point folks to places (books and websites) where they can access good literature to help them understand why evolution is erroneous and why biblical creationism is the truth.
  15. During the Q&A, Prof. Cammenga said that new species do not form. If that were true, it would mean that all species that are alive today were on the Ark (excluding those which survived in water during the Flood). Given the number of species alive today, that seems impossible. Creationists such as those at Answers in Genesis say that new species do form, but only within the created kinds (https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/species-and-kinds-and-the-ark/). Would Prof. Cammenga agree that speciation can occur within created kinds? If not, does he believe that all species that have ever existed were created during the Creation Week?
    • I emphatically agree with the position of the creationists like the folks at Answers in Genesis.  I’m afraid my use of “species” was in a non-technical and less than scientifically precise sense, equivalent to the “after their kind” of Genesis 1.  To avoid confusion, it would have been good if I had made that plain in the speech.  The bottom line is that I am in agreement that speciation can indeed occur, but only within the “kinds” of Genesis 1.
  16. You seem quite confident that, following the flood, God altered select laws through which He governs the universe. You asserted that He altered the laws which govern radioactive decay, that He tilted the earth's axis at the time of the flood, and that solar radiation intensity has increased. You were pretty dogmatic with respect to these examples. Are these salvation issues too? Must PRC young people agree to these changes prior to being admitted to the Lord's table?
    • My answers may have seemed dogmatic because I think that they are pretty obvious.  When I take all that the Bible teaches about the flood, and its comparison of the world “that then was” with the world “that now is” these seem pretty obvious.  You failed to mention the one land mass prior to the flood, which I also believe is quite clearly taught in Scripture.  Must PRC young people agree to these prior to being admitted to the Lord’s table?  No, neither the young people nor older people.  I was merely indicating that it seems to me that the Scriptures give some pretty clear indication that such radical changes were brought about by the flood.  This is nothing original to me, but has been and is maintained by Reformed theologians (and non-Reformed, for that matter) past and present.
  17. What is your take on the lectures that took place in many PRC churches a few years ago which positively viewed some aspects of evolutionary theory? Do you accept that some changes occur according to the tenets of evolution within the living creation?
    • I’m not sure that I have in mind the same lectures that you have in mind.  The lecture that I attended was concerned to emphasize two things.  One was that given the evolutionist’s presuppositions, evolution is not an absurdity but is logically defensible.  Again, the emphasis is on “given the evolutionist’s presuppositions….”  In this light, our controversy with the evolutionist must not be on his terms, since we must proceed out of faith.  Second, the concern was to be sure that our controversy is with what is sometimes referred to as macro-evolution, not micro-evolution.  Micro-evolution would be changes within the “kinds” of Genesis 1.  Macro-evolution would be evolutionary development from one “kind” to another “kind.”  The later we reject; the former we admit.
  18. A comment on a recent blog stated that they were not concerned about Theistic Evolution but they were very concerned about Theistic Evolutionism. I do not quite know what is meant by this. Can you shed light on this difference? Is this a true difference or simply one trying to be "cute" with words? 
    • I would be inclined to agree that this is a distinction without a difference.  And I would also be inclined to say: “A plague on both your houses.”  Theistic Evolution is the basic belief of all Theistic Evolutionism.  Theistic Evolution is the teaching, all by itself, that the world, although brought into existence by God by virtue of His creation of the first life form, developed thereafter according to fixed, natural, inbuilt laws.  When the -ism suffix is added to a word, it forms complex nouns that often imply a system of belief or worldview.  This is what many theistic evolutionists do not want. Theistic evolutionists do not want to associate belief with evolution.  They want to believe the Bible and espouse the belief system of biblical Christianity, while holding to evolution’s explanation about the origin of life.  Dr. David Menton, in an article that can be found on the Answers in Genesis website, “Evolutionism—Is There Such a Word?” writes:  “So is evolution a belief system? Evolution is necessarily a belief because molecules-to-man evolution is not observable but rather must be inferred and believed. This is why evolutionists are stumped when asked to give an observable example of one kind of creature evolving into a different kind of creature. If pressed, they inevitably give an example of limited variation within a kind that is not a contested issue between evolutionists and creationists. It clearly takes a lot of credulity (willingness to believe without evidence) for evolutionists to believe that an expanding cloud of hydrogen turned into people over 14 billion years. Finally, is evolution a worldview? Any belief system that purports to explain the origin of virtually everything that is real is a religion or worldview. Evolution was certainly the worldview of evolutionist Julian Huxley who believed that ‘evolution is the whole of reality, a single process of self-transformation.’ Indeed for those who consistently hold the worldview of evolution, nothing can be elevated above evolution because everything that is real must ultimately be a product of evolution, including religion and even God, if he is to be considered to be part of reality. And so it is that evolutionism is a widely held, essentially atheistic belief system that dare not speak its name.”  I concur.