So-called theistic evolutionists, have the problem of splitting the difference between belief and unbelief in the Bible. They want to accommodate what they’ve been told is the evidence for evolution while still holding to God’s revelation. But such juggling just looks silly, especially when science doesn’t require (quite the contrary) belief in evolution. Scientists and thinkers on both sides of the debate can see the inconsistency of the theistic evolution position, and here is where atheist Christopher Hitchens and I can agree. In his book God is Not Great, Hitchens says:
The very magnificence and variety of the process [of evolution], they now wish to say, argues for a directing and originating mind. In this way they choose to make him out to be a tinkerer, an approximator, and a blunderer, who took eons of time to fashion a few serviceable figures and heaped up a junkyard of scrap and failure meanwhile. Have they no more respect for the deity than that?
To which creation scientists would give a hearty amen. Hitchens dumps the God hypothesis for Darwinism. Creation scientists dump Darwinism for God’s Word, and get a powerful, if growing and adapting (shall we say evolving?), model of origins to boot. I almost prefer Hitchens’ outright denial to the Quasimodo theory of theistic evolution that in two ways seems to insult God. The first, Hitchens clearly pointed out. The second is that (since they believe the Bible is God’s word) it doesn’t quite trust God.