In February of this year, 2013, I was invited to be a speaker at a Bible conference held by Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, Arizona. The topic for that weekend was titled, Theistic Evolution, A Sinful Compromise. During that conference, I gave a series of four lectures. There was far more material than I could ever deal with in just four lectures. Since that time, I've expanded those initial four lectures into about 14 messages of which you are listening to one of these. I encourage those who are listening to the messages to visit my publishing website which is triumphantpublications.com and there you can read for free a written version based on all of these messages. These messages are also being compiled into a book soon to be released in mid-June of this year, 2013, under the title Theistic Evolution, A Sinful Compromise. My website will guide you on how to purchase a hard copy of that book when available. If you don't want to purchase a hard version, you can read the transcript of the book by simply going to the website and clicking on the appropriate box titled Theistic Evolution, A Sinful Compromise Transcript. Also on my publishing website, I have listed links to all the audio messages found on sermonaudio.com under the general topic, Theistic Evolution, A Sinful Compromise. May the Lord bless you as you listen and or read about this very dangerous view that is gaining ground, unfortunately, among certain churches and institutions. This is part two of my analysis of one of the compromisers, Jack Collins of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. In Part 1, I began my analysis of his book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?, and I examined his faulty hermeneutic in Part 1. Part 2, which is the subject of this message, is dealing with the possible evolutionary scenarios for man's formation that he considers in his book. That is going to be the subject matter of this message. Well, in his book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?, Collins discusses possible scenarios for man's evolution with respect to Adam. He's going to be, what I believe, purposefully evasive. He says in a footnote, quote, In keeping with my plan of outlining near-historical Adam and Eve-ism, I am not arguing for my own preference out of all of these. Indeed, my four criteria in Section 5c are what counts, but I have shown what I prefer and why in Science and Faith, pages 267-269, At the end of this message, I will discuss his preference as I examine what he has written in his 2003 book titled, Faith and Science, Friends or Foes. The fact that Collins mentions these possible scenarios that fall within the parameters of sound thinking means that he is open to being persuaded if more data is discovered. Collins states, quote, Thus I have reasons why I focus on what I have called scenarios, ways that can help us to picture events that really took place." Collins cannot escape the necessity of considering what modern science has told us about man's distant past. He writes, quote, But first, what are some of the relevant findings from the sciences that we should try to account for? One consideration is the evidence from the study of human fossils and cultural remains. If Adam and Eve are indeed at the headwaters of the human race, they must come before such events as the arrival of modern humans in Australia, which means before 40,000 B.C. In popular presentations of human history, it is easy to get the impression that there is an unbroken procession from the apes. through the early hominins to the genus Homo, of which we are members, right up to modern human beings. However, according to John Bloom's survey, there are two important gaps in the available data. The first occurs with the appearance of anatomically modern humans around 130,000 B.C. The second gap occurs when culture appears around 40,000 B.C. Collins is accepting dates put forth by evolutionists and is not refuting a common scientific perspective on man's evolution and the supposed appearance of the genus Homo, meaning human being. He is accepting a common evolutionary understanding of the supposed fossil evidence. Collins wants us not to neglect pertinent information on the genetic side. He writes, quote, on the genetic side, There are two related conclusions that we must account for. One is the idea that the genetic similarities between humans and chimpanzees require that these species have some kind of common ancestor. A second conclusion is that the features of the human genome, particularly genetic diversity, imply that the human population needs to have been a thousand or more individuals even at its beginning. I'm not sure how to assess the DNA evidence. I do not know whether the evidence is only compatible with these conclusions or if it strongly favors them. I cannot predict whether future geneticists will still think the same way about DNA as contemporary ones do." End of quote. Collins mentions that he has met one biologist who insists that it is an established fact that it is impossible for only two people to be the ancestors of the entire human race. He considers this biologist's opinion to be more of an inference rather than an established fact, meaning that it is the result of certain processes of reasoning. Collins, due to his own admitted limitations, says that he cannot definitively say whether this biologist's opinion is either good or bad, Collins wishes that there were more critical discussion in popular literature on this subject matter, whether two persons can scientifically be the beginning of the human race. Presently, Collins simply wants people to stay within what he calls the bounds of sound reasoning. And what may those bounds of sound reasoning thinking be, according to Jack Collins? He writes, quote, in other words, even if someone is persuaded that humans had ancestors and that the human population has always been more than two, he does not necessarily have to ditch all traditional views of Adam and Eve. And I have tried to provide for these possibilities more than to contend for my own particular preference on these matters. End of quote. Collins is very evasive at this point as to what his particular view is. He discusses all the possible scenarios for man's origin. Being a professor at Covenant Seminary, which is closely linked with the PCA, he may be very cautious to openly embracing an evolutionary view, knowing of such possible negative consequences if church pastors and members knew of his position. While Collins may not specify which evolutionary model he prefers, it is quite evident that he is open to some form of theistic evolution. Otherwise, why does he go to great lengths to mention all of the possible scenarios that remain within the confines of his notion of sound reasoning? After all, he says that one doesn't necessarily have to ditch all traditional views of Adam and Eve. One could embrace some kind of evolutionary model and still see Adam and Eve at the headwaters of the human race. Collins has four criteria by which one can speculate and stay within the bounds of what he calls sound reasoning. Here is his list of the four criteria. One. To begin with, we should see the origin of the human race goes beyond a merely natural process. This follows from how hard it is to get a human being, or more theologically, how distinctive the image of God is. Second, we should see Adam and Eve at the headwaters of the human race. This follows from the unified experience of mankind as discussed in chapter four. Where else could human beings come to bear God's image? Third, the fall, in whatever form it took, was both historical, it happened, and moral, it involved us obeying God, and occurred at the beginning of the human race. And fourth, if someone should decide that there were in fact more human beings than just Adam and Eve at the beginning of mankind, then, in order to maintain good sense, he should envision these humans as a single tribe, Adam would then be the chieftain of this tribe, preferably produced before the others, and Eve would be his wife. The tribe fell under the leadership of Adam and Eve. This follows from the notion of solidarity in a representative. Some may call this a form of polygenesis, but this is quite distinct from the more conventional and unacceptable kind." It will become evident that while Collins refuses to specify which evolutionary model is most acceptable, he does advocate some kind of model. He simply wants to consider which evolutionary scenario can best fit into a biblical perspective of Genesis. He rules out any kind of unacceptable form of polygenesis. This is a theory that advocates a natural transition from pre-human to human. Collins thinks this is unreasonable. It is unreasonable because it implies that there are some humans who do not need the Christian message because they are not yet fallen. Collins favors the following model, quote, it looks like the models that are more in favor among paleoanthropologists today focus more on a unified origin, as in, the out-of-Africa hypothesis." A more favorable form of polygenesis, says Collins, is that form that at least views Adam as a chieftain of a tribe of humans that failed. It is clear that Collins is not ruling out some kind of evolutionary model. He now examines which various evolutionary scenarios, as to whether they meet his criteria, of acceptability of falling within the confines of what he calls sound reasoning, what he considers the scenario of de novo creation. Collins states, quote, the standard young earth creationist understanding would have Adam and Eve as fresh de novo creations, with no animal forebears. Some old earth creation models share this view, while others allow for God to have a refurbished hominid into atom. For the purpose of this work, I do not intend to make this an issue. On the other hand, my first criteria in Section 5c shows why I think the metaphysics by which the first human beings came about—namely, it was not by a purely natural process—matters a great deal. His common ground matters more than the differences over which God got the raw material. Because either way, we are saying that humans are the result of special creation. An obvious scenario has Adam and Eve as the first members of the genus Homo. Some young creationists have favored this as some old earth creationists. A major difficulty with this proposal is that the earliest Homo is dated at two million years ago, and this leaves a very long time without any specific cultural remains in the paleontological record. This makes the alternatives more attractive." This quote from Collins is most revealing. First, he mentions that a standard Young Earth creationist understanding of Adam and Eve is that they were de novo, that is, fresh or new creations, with no animal forebearers. This view understands Adam and Eve as the first members of the genus Homo. But then Collins says there's a major difficulty with this view because of scientific data, that is, fossil data, that supposedly dates the earliest Homo at two million years. Therefore, this is not an attractive model and other alternatives should be considered. Second, Collins says that it isn't of critical value whether God got the raw materials to work with, meaning it could have come from an animal forebearer. Either way, he says humans are the result of special creation. The fact that he says the traditional understanding has a major problem is most telling. And why is that a problem? Supposedly the earliest homo is dated at two million years. Collins has already bought into a certain evolutionary presupposition. Moreover, I would hardly call the refurbishing of an existing hominid as special creation. You see why hermeneutics is important? If we don't accept the words of scripture to have their plain meaning in their context, but special creation becomes refurbished ape-like creatures, there's no hope of understanding the Bible properly. You can make it say whatever you want. Having stated that he thinks there is a major difficulty with young earth creationists in insisting there can be no possibility of animal forebears for humans, it reveals Collins' bias against young earth creationism. In fact, he explicitly opposes young earth creationism and those views that generally fall into the category of, quote, creation science. In his 2003 book, Faith and Science, Friends or Foes, Collins writes, quote, many Christians, in seeing the clash between their faith and neo-Darwinism, have supposed that therefore their faith endorses a kind of creation science. I won't use that term since it's already taken. Most people take it to mean science whose purpose is to show that the earth is young as their interpretation of Genesis leads them to believe. And that the amount of biological evolution is quite small. I have given you my reasons for not following this take on Genesis and for not being bothered by biological evolution as such, just so long as it's not the whole story. So I do not urge you to support creation science, but something different, something that has been called intelligent design." End of quote. Having compared Collins' comments in his 2011 book with those in his 2003 book, There is some confusion about his position and what he considers traditional views. In the quotes I just mentioned, Collins refers to young earth creationists as those who espouse Adam and Eve as de novo creations with no animal forebears. Moreover, he does not view himself as a young earth creationist. The confusion arises from the following quote from his 2003 book, Faith and Science. He states, I'm inclined to take the dust of Genesis 2-7 in its ordinary sense of loose soil. That is, it wasn't a living animal when God started to form it into the first man. I think this makes the best sense in view of the way the man became a living creature after the operation. That is, he wasn't a modified living creature. I find it easier to believe that Adam was a fresh creation rather than an upgrade of an existing model," end of quote. There is an apparent discrepancy between his statements in 2003 and 2011. In 2011 Collins is saying that a de novo fresh creation view is indicative of a typical young earth creationist view. But in 2003 he says that he preferred this fresh creation view. And in 2003, he emphatically distanced himself of being associated with younger creationists. I must conclude that Collins has changed his mind in the intervening eight years between the publications of his two books. In 2011, he argued there's a major difficulty with holding to a fresh creation view of Adam and Eve. I will show from his 2003 book that while believing in a fresh creation, for Adam and Eve, he did not rule out the possibility of some evolutionary development for man. Another problem is that Mark Dalvey of Covenant Seminary responded to my concerns about Dr. Collins by providing me a PDF document of where Dr. Collins stands on various issues pertaining to Genesis 1-3. Question number four of this document reads, What is the personal view of Dr. Collins regarding the special creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2? His response? As indicated in the recent By Faith magazine article, Spring 2012, Jack Collins personally prefers a scenario that is simple, namely with God forming Adam by scooping up some loose dirt and fastening it into the very first man. and then forming Eve using a part of Adam's body. There are no other humans around when they sin. Thus, it seems reasonable to Dr. Collins to allow for some differences of opinion on some of the details. Collins notes that the late Francis Schaeffer differed on an approach that he called freedoms and limitations. We have sought some room to imagine various scenarios, and at the same time, we have boundaries on just what sorts of scenarios are worth considering." End of quote. From Mark Galvey, concerning the views of Jack Collins. I'm sorry, but there appears still to be a certain element of duplicity being implored. In 2003, Collins seemingly advocates a de novo creation of Adam and Eve. In 2011, he views a de novo creation of Adam and Eve as having a major difficulty and indicative of being in the young earth creationist camp. In 2003, Collins emphatically distances himself from young earth creationism. And then in 2012, a year after the publication of his book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?, Collins returns to his 2003 statement about God using loose dirt to create them, the novo. Collins goes on to discuss in his book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?, a up-to-date genetic model from Frazell Rana of the Christian Apologetics Organization called Reasons to Believe. This view traces man's origin to an original woman, Eve, and to one man, Noah, somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago. He also discusses a scenario advanced by Gavin Basil McGrath. Collins discusses the view of evolutionist creationists Davin Basil McGrath, who postulates a scheme that explicitly involves pre-Adamic hominids. He quotes McGrath's work as, quote, God took two hominids to become the first human beings, Adam and Eve, 1 Timothy 2.13. In each case, God provided the new genetic information needed to make her human by using some genetic material taken from one of Adam's ribs So she too would be of Adam's race. Thus Eve's existence as a person was made racially dependent upon Adam, and these two alone are the rest of the human race's progenitors." Collins discusses a scenario advanced by John Scott. Collins discusses briefly the views of John Stott who believed that Adam corresponded to a Neolithic farmer around 10,000 BC. Stott thought it was hard to tell when the pre-Adamic hominids were still homo sapiens and not yet homo divinus. Collins mentions that Stott drew much attention to a view of Derek Kidner in the quote. Collins now discusses a scenario advanced by Derek Kidner. Collins describes the alternative put forth by Derek Kidner, which Kidner himself calls an exploratory suggestion, as involving the refurbishing of an existing hominid. Collins quotes Kidner as saying, quote, It is at least conceivable that after the special creation of Eve, which established the first human pair as God's vice-regents and clinch the fact there is no natural bridge from animal to man, God may now have conferred His image on Adam's collaterals to bring them into the same realm of being Adam's federal headship of humanity extended. If that was the case, outward to his contemporaries, as well as onwards to his offspring, and his disobedience disinherited, both alike." Kintner argues that the unity of mankind in Adam and our status as sinners through his offense are expressed in scripture not in terms of heredity, but simply in terms of solidarity. Collins thinks that this is moving us away from the simplicity of the biblical picture, but it still has the virtue of preserving the doctrine that mankind is a unity, created in God's image and followed in Adam by the one act of disobedience. Collins thinks that Kindness Scenario meets his criteria as long as we imagine Adam as a chieftain or king, whose task is not simply to rule the people, but more importantly to represent them, which he says is the basic idea of a king in the Bible. Kinder even mentioned that his model is unlikely if Eve's name implies that she is the physical mother of all humans. However, Collins says that Kinder's views may not be dismissed if certain things are kept in perspective. Collins writes, a king and queen under that arrangement that Kidner envisions are legitimately the father and mother of their people. So Kidner's own reservation is not fatal, end of quote. Well, let's be sure that we understand the scenario of Derrick Kidner that Collins finds as a legitimate possibility. Kidner is clearly an evolutionist who advocates some kind of refurbishing of existing hominids to become the first human pair. Somehow God transforms these chosen hominids to possess a body soul now in God's image. Moreover, God may have also conferred that image on other hominids existing alongside of Adam so that a community of these refurbished hominids are now under Adam's federal headship. Now I refer to this view of Derek Kidner as what I call the 2001 A Space Odyssey scenario. Upon my graduation from high school in 1969, for a graduation present, my father took me to the new movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. By the way, I was an agnostic then and I was an evolutionist when I saw that movie. The story of 2001 in Space Odyssey deals with a series of encounters between humans and mysterious black monoliths that are apparently affecting human evolution. A space voyage to Jupiter is tracing a signal emitted by one such monolith found on the moon. Thematically, the film deals with the elements of human evolution, technology, artificial intelligence, and extraterrestrial life. One of the opening scenes of the movie has one of these monoliths coming to prehistoric Earth. He shows up with this humming sound that awakens one of these sleeping hominids. This creature is, in curiosity, walks around this monolith putting its hands on it. This monolith is and while this sound is emitting, this hominid in curiosity is putting his hands on this monolith. Soon all the clan of hominids is awakened and they all gather around this monolith and they're touching it So some information is being conveyed to this whole clan of monoliths. And then the movie takes you to the next scene where these enlightened hominids figure out that a bone can be an effective weapon to just, what I say, walk the daylights out of the enabling clan of hominids who didn't have the fortune of being illumined by that monolith. So the reason I refer to Kidner's view as the 2001 A Space Odyssey model is because God chooses two of these eight creatures to become homo divinus. I guess God just one day zapped a male and female hominin with his image. Let's move on to another scenario that Collins mentions in his book. the scenario offered by Dennis Alexander. Colin discusses the scenario postulated by the British biologist Dennis Alexander. In his book titled Creation or Evolution, Do We Have to Choose? Alexander purports that there is a continuity between humans and their animal ancestors, rejecting any idea of the need for special creation. that bestows God's image upon these creatures. According to Alexander, God, in his grace, chooses a couple of Neolithic farmers in the Near East, or even a community of these farmers, to have a personal relationship with him. Collins acknowledges that Alexander wants to preserve the biblical notion of Adam being a real historical person, although he finds it difficult to see how Alexander pictures this representation. Collins does not view Alexander's scenario as falling within the parameters of sound thinking, mainly because Alexander assumes too easily that human capacities could arise in the natural course of evolution. Well then, let's move on to the scenario that Collins mentions, advanced by C.S. Lewis, the popular writer. Jack Collins reserved his last scenario for the honor of the one who advocated it. A view later accepted by the theistic evolutionist Francis Collins. Many C.S. Lewis enthusiasts may not be aware that C.S. Lewis advocated a form of theistic evolution. Lewis sets forth his views in his 1940 book titled The Problem of Pain. Here's what C.S. Lewis writes in that 1940 book. For long centuries, God performed or perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity in the image of himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. Then in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say I and me, which could look upon itself as an object which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. We do not know how many of these creatures God made. nor how long they continued in the paradesio state, but sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods. We have no idea in what particular act or series of acts the self-contradictory, impossible wish found expression. For all I can see, it might have concerned the literal eating of a fruit, but the question is of no consequence." from C.S. Lewis. Collins' greatest criticism of Lewis' position is that Lewis declared that it was immaterial to the discussion as to whether God made many of these creatures that became human. Although Collins does recognize, and at least Lewis acknowledged, that there had to be some kind of supernatural intervention in man's origin, man is not the result of pure natural processes. Some people have thought that Lewis distanced himself from his earlier views of theistic evolution, but there is no direct evidence to this fact. Lewis did have an interchange with an avid anti-evolutionist, Bernard Ackworth, known as the Ackworth Letters, between 1944 and 1960. In these letters, C.S. Lewis makes a distinction between accepting certain aspects of evolution in adopting a broad philosophical perspective of evolution, hence the distinction is between evolution and evolutionism. Lewis opposed the notion of Darwinism, philosophical worldview, from the scientific reality of certain aspects of organic evolution. In his December 9, 1944 letter to Ackworth, Lewis states, quote, I believe that Christianity can still be believed even if evolution is true. This is where you and I differ," end of quote. One of the things that I've brought out in my lectures is that the idea of separating evolution from evolutionism is a common argument among many theistic evolutionists. Tim Teller uses the argument along with the Biologos Foundation, Greg Davidson, and even Jack Collins. Somehow they think that this distinction is paramount in the debate over the acceptability of evolution. But I still consider this approach as an excuse to adopt organic evolution in some respect. And it still is a simple compromise. Jack Collins concludes his book with these comments, quote, As I have indicated, my goal here is not to assess the science, but to display how to keep the reasoning within the bounds of sound reasoning. Nothing requires us to abandon monogenesis altogether for some form of polygenesis. Rather, a modified monogenesis, which keeps Adam and Eve, can do the job. I admit that these scenarios leave us with many uncertainties. But these uncertainties in no way undermine our right to hold fast to the biblical storyline with full confidence. In fact, this holding fast actually helped us to think well about the scientific questions. I do not claim to have solved every problem or to have dealt with every possible objection, but I trust I have shown why the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as our first parents who brought sin into human experience is worthy of our confidence and adherence." So that we understand the terms that Collins is using, monogenesis is the view that all humans have their ancestry in a couple, being Adam and Eve. Polygenesis is the view that there were not just two people, who are the ancestors of mankind, but there may have been at least a thousand progenitors of the human race. Collins states that a modified monogenesis that keeps Adam and Eve is good enough. Well, in the book that I've been examining, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?, Collins has repeatedly distanced himself from affirming all the scenarios that he he mentions. He said that his view can be read in his 2003 book, Faith and Science, Friends or Foes. I do believe we can make a bona fide case for stating that Collins is some kind of theistic evolutionist. If this were common knowledge among PCA church members, I'm not sure whether they would be happy that the seminary most closely associated with the denomination allows a man to teach who embraces some kind of evolution. The fact that Collins considers certain scenarios as viable alternatives to a traditional understanding of man's creation, that should be a red flag to many people right there. The fact that he appeals to scientific findings that support some kind of evolutionary views is most telling. It is vital to see the point Collins is stressing at the conclusion of his book that Adam and Eve really exist. The key phrase is where he says, quote, nothing requires us to abandon monogenesis altogether for some form of polygenesis rather a modified monogenesis which keeps Adam and Eve to do the job. This, quote, modified monogenesis at the conclusion of his book fits in well with his introductory comments to his book. May we not study the Bible more closely and revise the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as well without the threat to faith, he says, This, quote, modified monogenesis at the conclusion of his book fits in well with his introductory comments to his book, where he writes, quote, may we not study the Bible more closely and revise the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve as well without threat to the faith, end of quote. While Collins has done, what he has done in mentioning the various scenarios is to present to us a possible way to have that modified monogenesis that keeps a historical couple, Adam and Eve, as the source for all mankind. This may be a revision to a traditional understanding which he says is the view that Adam and Eve were de novo fresh creations with no animal forebears. I consider Collins' approach to be deceptive. Not necessarily that he is deliberately trying to be deceptive, He and others mislead people. When asked the question, do you believe Adam and Eve are historical persons who are the root to mankind, he can say unhesitatingly, yes. What he doesn't tell you in this response is that this historical couple do have animal forebears. Notice all the scenarios that have God doing something to refurbish an existing ape-like creature that has evolved from lower forms of life. And this is where the covenant seminary position is not telling the whole story either and is misleading. In Mark Galvey's PDF document titled, Covenant Seminary Questions and Answers on Genesis 1-3, Question number two in its response reads, what is the scope of acceptable positions for a professor at the seminary regarding the theory of evolution and particularly the theory of human evolution? Response. The response above to question one clearly requires a denial of the theory of evolution of both the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian kinds. While the work of science may uncover important aspects of God's creation, those findings cannot be held in any way that denies the clear teaching of scripture that God created Adam and Eve as real persons in space-time history by his special supernatural act of creation." Here's the rub. Jack Collins can technically be in compliance with this statement. but still believe that God supernaturally endowed certain common ends with his image who evolved over millions of years. You can still have a historical Adam and Eve as the progenitors of mankind. It is the modified monogenesis that is a revision of the traditional view. Collins still says this bestowal on these creatures is a special supernatural act that separates them from all other creatures. Now I mentioned earlier that Collins vacillates between comments about God using simple dust to create Adam as a fresh creation with some kind of bestowal of his image on hominid creatures. The total evidence points to Collins as adopting the latter view. Remember, he stated in his latest book that there is a major difficulty with accepting the view that Adam and Eve were de novo creations. simply because the scientific evidence does not support that. Thus, how can Collins support some notion of man's evolution and still comply with the covenant seminary statement? This is how he does it. We must look at his 2003 book, Faith and Science. The seminary carefully says that what evolutionary views are unacceptable are those both of the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian kinds. Collins would agree with this. However, there is still an opening to adopt an evolutionary view. Collins describes this in his 2003 book. Collins is critical of what he calls evolution as the big picture, which is promoted by the National Association of Biology Teachers. Their position on evolution is the diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution. an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments. Collins criticizes this position by stating, quote, in case you missed what they mean when they call the process a natural one, they add another point. natural selection has no specific direction or goal, including survival of the species. The reason they said this is to rule out any possibility of finding a purpose behind evolutionary changes." Collins understands that the modern theory of evolution as the big picture is the one that advocates a process that is purely natural, meaning that the supernatural is completely left out of the process. It will become apparent that Collins is not opposed to some kind of evolution, but only a kind that is purposeless, a kind advocated by Charles Darwin and neo-Darwinists. neo-Darwinists eliminate all references to special or creative divine activity. He says that neo-Darwinism is today's ruling theory of biological evolution as the big picture. However, Collins is careful not to say that we should automatically dismiss neo-Darwinism in totality. He writes, quote, We may think that the big picture evolution must automatically fall with it since there may be some other subset that provides a better theory. The great difficulty in deciding just how evolution interacts with Christian faith is the wide variety of definitions for that word." Collins discusses the view that God established natural properties of matter so that they would follow his plan. He supervised the process, bringing all things together at the right time and carried out supernatural operations at key places such as the formation of man. But Collins is quick to note that such a view is neither Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism. Collins states that the term create describes some kind of supernatural action and that man being made in God's image implies such a supernatural action. But Collins is hesitant to describe just how specific the Bible is in describing man's origin. In other words, man's evolution is a possibility just as long as it's not Darwinian or neo-Darwinian views that propound a strictly natural link between man and lower forms of life. In terms of reading Genesis 1, Colin says that he is skeptical of claims that all living things descended from a common ancestor. However, he leaves it for scientific study to determine where the breaks are, so long as that study doesn't start by presupposing that natural processes are the only factors that could be involved. Collins asks an important question, quote, in what of mankind does the Bible allow that we are descended from animal ancestors? A great deal depends upon what you mean by descended. If you mean with only ordinary natural factors in operation, then certainly the answer is no. The image of God in man is the result of special divine action and not a development of the powers of any animal. At least that's what Genesis 127 implies." Collins discusses whether neo-Darwinism is credible. He writes, quote, Let us grant that it is possible that some parts of neo-Darwinism are right, say, that animals today are distributed from animals that lived long ago. and that there had been some process of evolutionary change. Collins discusses whether neo-Darwinism is credible. He writes, Let us grant that it is possible that some parts of neo-Darwinism are right, say, that animals today are descended from animals that lived long ago, and there has been some process of evolutionary change. The basic lines, then, are this. The fossil record shows that living things today are the products of descent with modification from earlier living things. Two, all living things use DNA to encode their characteristics and pass them on to their offspring. And third, there are documentations of descent with modification in the natural world. End of quote. Collins goes on to say that neo-Darwinism can explain so much about the world that it gives us this feeling of intellectual satisfaction that is one of the chief selling points of the theory. Collins then quotes Darwin's Origin of Species, seemingly admiring Darwin's poetic statement, where Darwin says, there's a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers having been originally breathed by the Creator into few forms or into one, and that while this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved." End of quote from Darwin. Well, I need to point out from one of my earlier lectures on Darwin's descent into apostasy He admits by 1849 that he had given up Christianity, and at the end of his life he states that he was an agnostic. So this quote from a portion of Darwin's 1859 work, Origin of Species, should not be admired in the least. Collins asks the question, quote, If you believe that God controlled the process of evolution, you need to define controlled. Do you mean that he made it sure that it led to the results he intended? How did he make it sure? If you mean that he determined the laws by which the natural process operated and preserved them in ordinary providence all the way, then you can be called a theistic neo-Darwinist. But if by control you mean that God added anything to the natural process which would amount to supernatural actions whether at the beginning to get the ball rolling by creating life, or along the way by adapting an ape's body to be the vehicle of a human soul, then even if you call yourself a theistic evolutionist, you don't hold to the official version of the story. In fact, if you're in the second category, then you're on the same side of a gaping philosophical chasm as I am. So what is precisely the nature of this philosophical side that Collins is on? He rejects Richard Dawkins' view of atheism based on the theories of neo-Darwinism. This is a view of neo-Darwinism that there was no divine interference at all. Collins states, quote, so I'm not saying that I disbelieve what the paleo-ontologists say about their fossils, What I'm saying is, so what? We're not asking whether the fossils support some kind of biological evolution. I'm willing to allow that they do. We're asking whether they prove neo-Darwinism or any sort of evolution as the big picture." End of quote. But Collins remains somewhat hesitant to go fully with a neo-Darwinist view as a proven theory. He wants to distinguish between evolution a theory in biology from evolutionism, a philosophical theory about progress. This is what I mentioned earlier about so many theistic evolutionists. They distinguish between evolution and evolutionism, but they still embrace evolution. Collins summarizes it as follows, quote, so where are we at this point? I have argued that traditional Christian faith opposes not all ideas of evolution, but biological evolution as the big picture, with neo-Darwinism as its best representative." End of quote. That's from Collins' 2003 book. Collins rejects any form of evolution that stems from a philosophical commitment to a naturalistic view that excludes what has been called as designed. Collins writes, quote, many Christians in seeing the clash between their faith and neo-Darwinism have supposed that therefore their faith endorses a kind of creation science. I won't use that term since it's already taken. Most people take it to mean science whose purpose it is to show that the earth is young as their interpretation of Genesis lead them to believe. and that the amount of biological evolution is quite small. I have given you my reasons for not following this take on Genesis, and for not being bothered by biological evolution as such, just so long as it's not the whole story. So, I do not urge you to support creation science, but something different, something that has been called intelligent design. End of quote from this book. Faith and Science in 2003. Collins, in his rejection of creation science, adopts what he calls intelligent design that doesn't necessarily rule out evolutionary processes. He discusses various forms of intelligent design. One is design of properties, where the material was produced with certain properties that suit some purpose. In other words, God produced the universe to have the properties that it does so that it can support life on earth. He says that a full-fledged theistic evolutionist thinks God designed the world to have the properties it would need in order for life to begin and develop as it has done. This is a view that Dr. Greg Davidson takes in his book, When Faith and Science Collide. Collins says intelligent design people agree with this, but they go a step further, which he calls imposed design. The differences from the former view is that the purpose doesn't come from the properties of the objects, instead they make use of those properties. Collins argues that intelligent design has said that the world of biology shows cases of imposed design. Collins argues against opponents of intelligent design, saying that intelligent design is not young earth creationism. Collins says, quote, I have argued that faithfulness to the Bible does not require that we believe the earth to be young. That doesn't stop the Bible from giving true and historical accounts, end of quote. In conclusion about the views of Jack Collins, we can we can say, rather conclusively, that he is admitted to being a type of evolutionist. He just isn't in the camp of being one who adopts the philosophy of evolution. His latest book argues for a type of modified monogenesis for Adam's origin. It is a revision to the traditional view, but it falls within the parameters of sound reasoning nonetheless, he says. Are we to be encouraged by this? Absolutely not. Covenant Seminary has an evolutionist on its faculty. It is wholly misleading to the public and probably to its supporters for the seminary. So when Covenant Seminary says that Jack Collins does not subscribe to a Darwinian or a neo-Darwinian view of evolution, it is totally misleading. And when the official seminary statement states that Dr. Collins may allow for some differences of opinion on some of the details, it fails to specify those details that Collins does make known in his books. He subscribes to a form of evolution and he is very critical of young earth creationists and the whole field of creation science. Jack Collins is but another example of a growing problem in the PCA and other professing evangelical denomination.