I am a logical impossibility, just ask Al Mohler

Al Mohler (at least back in 2005) makes some of the worst arguments in support of the view that theistic evolution is an oxymoron. In an (ill advised to begin with) Time magazine article devoted to the topic, he argues:

“But you cannot coherently affirm the Christian-truth claim and the dominant model of evolutionary theory at the same time.

Mohler (The President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)  asserts (with no evidence) the impossibility of affirming the Christian truth claim and the "dominant model" (whatever that is) of evolutionary theory. What Christian truth claim would that be? Can Mohler connect the dots between a person accepting that God used evolution as a secondary means (never any more outside of his purview that gravity is outside of his purview) and that same person forced, in a logical sense, to deny at least one of these Christian truth claims:

• The eternality of Christ
• The deity of Christ
• Christ is of the same substance as the Father
• He was born of a virgin and made incarnate
• He suffered, died, and was bodily resurrected
• In his death he was a propitiation for  our sins
• He sits at the right hand of the Father and continues to intercede on our behalf
• He will return to end history and preside over a final judgement of all people

I submit he cannot. He offers only same proof always offered: A fallacious combination of an assertion and coupled with an appeal to a slippery slope.

But "theistic evolution usurps the biblical teaching of man being made in the image of God, " Mohler says. But, again, he doesn't offer any support for this bold assertion--this severe limitation as to how a universe-creator God can fashion an image bearer. In theistic evolution (as I affirm it) we arrive, through divine sovereignty, at the same species (man) into whom God then supernaturally breathes life, the self-same Adam that others believe ¹ was instantly (or at least quickly)  supernaturally created less than ten thousand years ago (along with the universe). How is it that Mohler knows that God is restricted to making only the Adam formed via the quicker, more recent route an image bearer? Can he demonstrate this claim of God's limitation? I submit he cannot.

In a succession of extremely weak arguments from Mohler, this might be the weakest

Stalwart evolutionists in recent years have moved away from theories that involve God, Mohler points out. While he disagrees vigorously with their views, Mohler says the evolutionist’s rejection of God and embrace of pure naturalism is more consistent than theistic evolution’s attempt to wed the God of the Bible with natural selection.

This is a bizarre appeal to authority ². An "even my enemy X agrees with me so I must be right" fallacy.  Mohler is telling us, in an attempt to bolster his own claim and in lieu of an actual argument, that the secular scientists are the only honest evolutionists. Why?  Because they agree with him. They acknowledge the incompatibility between the science and God. I wonder if he generalizes that form of argument. Does he acknowledge that secular ethicists and philosophers, who see no need to invoke God or the bible to explain truth and morality, are more consistent than biblical ethicists?

In a way I shouldn't be surprised by Mohler's argument, because there is a perfect symmetry at play. Mohler is saying that, like the proverbial broken clock, secular scientists are occasionally correct--such as in their assertion that evolution cannot be compatible with Christianity. They return the favor, using exactly the same argument in reverse. It is codified here, in Law #11.

To end on a conciliatory note, I'll point out that Mohler says:

I believe the Bible is adequately clear about how God created the world

On this we can agree.

---

¹ And perhaps turn out to be correct. For me, as for the early church (but not for Mohler), it is the who that is important in regards to creation, not the when or how.

² It is also just plain wrong. "Stalwart" evolutionists have not moved in "recent years" away from theories that involved God. The theory, from its foundations, did not invoke God. Mohler writes, for his purposes, as if people like Dawkins are just now discovering that they can jettison God.