In the article, "Darwinâ€™s bulldogâ€”Thomas H. Huxley," Russell Grigg reports that even though Charles Darwin knew that his evolutionary conception ultimately meant that man was not created in the spiritual image of the living God but was rather an evolved ape, he nevertheless preferred not to involve himself in the controversies engendered by the publication of his Origin of Species in 1859. Not so Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) who enthusiastically, "...leapt to the fray, even dubbing himself â€˜Darwinâ€™s bulldogâ€™. Darwin called him, â€˜My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospelâ€”i.e. the devilâ€™s Gospel." (Darwinâ€™s bulldogâ€”Thomas H. Huxley, Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
When applied to the Bible, Darwin's evolutionary conception twists, distorts and inverts the Revealed Word of God, hence the devil's gospel is a very fitting description of it. Though Huxley was an unbeliever he was thoroughly familiar with the Gospel, therefore clearly saw how the devil's gospel perversely affected the Bible, thus he had nothing but contempt for Christians who compromised both the Bible and their faith by adopting evolutionary naturalism. He mocked:
"I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them." (ibid)
If God did not speak,
"..and if the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the â€œten wordsâ€ were not written by Godâ€™s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Romeâ€”what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?" (ibid)
The Universality of the Deluge is recognised, said Huxley, and concerning the attempts of compromisers to say the Flood was only a local event, he said even, "A child may see the folly of it."
Pouring contempt upon compromisers, he wrote:
"When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noahâ€™s wife, and his sonsâ€™ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of Godâ€™s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of â€œWolfâ€ when there is no wolf? If Jonahâ€™s three daysâ€™ residence in the whale is not an â€œadmitted reality,â€ how could it â€œwarrant beliefâ€ in the â€œcoming resurrection?â€ â€¦ Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?" (ibid)
Again, if Darwinism is true, then the living God did not speak and Matthew 19:5 is absurd:
"Have ye not read, that he which made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh?"
Without divine authority, the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis is meaningless:
"And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a â€œtypeâ€ or â€œallegory,â€ what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?" (ibid)
And concerning 1 Corinthians 15:21â€“22, (For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.â€™), Huxley wrote,
"If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive â€œtype,â€ comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paulâ€™s dialectic?" (ibid)
Huxley very correctly concludes that the position taken by Christian compromisers "..is hopelessly untenable." (ibid)
Both Evolutionary Christianity (i.e., BioLogos) and Evolutionary Theism bespeak compromised Christianity, and as Huxley made clear, Christians who accept uncritically the Devil's Gospel have given no thought to whether the Bible and the devil's so-called scientific claims are compatible.
For instance to be an evolutionary theist,
â€œ..requires one to adhere to polygensism (the theory that Adam was not one historical man but, rather, a euphemism for â€œmankindâ€). That position, however, is not compatible with the teachings of the Bible, the Church, or of Jesus. The polygensism problem is, for me, the biggest stumbling block to uncritically accepting the theory of macroevolutionâ€¦â€ (Can A Christian Accept Evolutionary Theory Uncritically? Joe Carter, First Things, Oct. 18, 2010)
The fact is, the Bible and evolutionary theory canâ€™t both be true even though evolutionary theists believe otherwise. They commonly rationalize their beliefs by stating that â€œyes, God created the heavens and the Earth,â€ but then He used evolutionary processes to produce the Universe and man we see today.
However, as Huxley made very clear, the uncritical acceptance of Evolutionary Theory places evolutionary theists in the untenable position of having to compromise Genesis 1-11. And to compromise the Genesis account is to compromise the whole Bible, which in turn compromises the Biblesâ€™ main theme: manâ€™s need of redemption.
The Genesis account speaks of manâ€™s relationship with God starting at the pinnacle of Creation week in the Garden of Eden after which degeneration commences. But evolutionary theism turns the Genesis account upside-down by teaching that man started out at the bottom and evolved his way to the top via the old chemical matter-to-amoeba-to-fish-to-dinosaur-to-ape-to-man story---macroevolution.
If macroevolution is true then man is a bag of chemicals and genetic material from every lifeform--from androgynous forms to male and female lifeforms such as rats, birds, and apes--- that preceded him.
It also means that possibly millions of lifeforms arose and died before man finally appeared. If true, then God the Father is a God of death not life. As such, man needs to be saved from Him, not by Him.
Now either man--created in the spiritual image of the living God---started at the top and fell, as Godâ€™s Word and His prophets--who long ago declared the fall of man and his need for a Savior---declared or he started at the bottom and rose to the top and is therefore an evolved bag of chemicals and genetic material as evolution indicates. Both cannot be correct.
Scripture teaches that manâ€™s fall is the reason for sin, degeneration and death. But if man is not fallen, then Original Sin does not exist and there was no need for Jesus Christ the Word made flesh, the Son of God, to come to this planet and suffer a cruel death on the cross.
Additionally, Scripture emphatically declares that time has a beginning and an end. In this view, the living God dwells outside space, time and matter, and history is the unfolding of His Redemptive Plan within time, thus history will end with Judgement and resurrection unto eternal life in either heaven or hell.
The Devil's Gospel turns all of this upside-down by placing time and man on an eternal escalator going â€œup, up, up.â€ Mary Midgley coined the phrase â€œthe Escalator Mythâ€ to refer to the idea that humanity is everlastingly riding an evolutionary escalator smoothly, progressively, ever upward toward some imagined state of perfection. (Scientific Mythologies, James A. Herrick, p. 100)
Now Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God Himself. But if evolution is true, then what becomes of Jesus Christ? Is there to be a future being greater than Him as evolution implies?
â€œSurely evolution will not have to reverse itself and concede that it reached its zenith with the birth of the Christ child a long, long time ago. Surely this colossal system will not have to concede that it is less able now to produce a greater than Jesus than it did produce two thousand years ago. If evolution is not now able to produce a greater than Jesus, then it seems the system has ceased to be evolution and has become devolution, at least in one sense." (Taylor, 1974, quoted in â€œCan a Christian Still be an Evolutionist? Brad Harrub, Ph.D. ApologeticsPress.org)
Finally, if Evolutionary Theory is true and man is a bag of chemicals and genetic material, then it stands to reason that no man is really either male or female. Once again we see the inversion and destruction of the Genesis account:
â€œMale and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.â€KJB
Jesus Himself stated in Matthew 19:4 (cf. Mark 10:6):
â€œHave ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.â€
But if Evolution Theory is true then Jesus Christ is Himself an evolved product of evolution, thus a mere man who is perhaps a liar, a madman or possessed by Beelzebul, as the Pharisees claimed.
And as long as we are tossing aside the Genesis account and Jesus Christ, then why not toss out all references to the Creation, starting with the gospelsâ€”Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John:
â€ â€¦ we also would have to throw out John, because the first few verses of chapter one review the beginning and Creation. Other scriptures such as Acts 4:24, Acts 17:25, Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:16, 1 Timothy 2:13, Hebrews 1:2, 1 Peter 4:19, and Revelation 4:11 also would be called into question if the Creation account is merely a â€œnice story,â€ but not historically accurate. As a matter of fact, the only books that do not refer to the first eleven chapters of Genesis in some form are the books of Philemon, and 2 and 3 John.â€ (Can a Christian Still be an Evolutionist? Brad Harrub, Ph.D. ApologeticsPress.org)
In the end we are left with two choices. We can choose the living God Who spoke (i.e., the Genesis account of creation, Ten Commandments, Old and New Testament) and Jesus Christ the Word made flesh, the Savior Who was crucified for the sins of men, or we can choose the Devil's Gospel, which as Huxley clearly knew, twists, distorts and inverts the Bible, inverts creation, destroys Godâ€™s Word, turns Jesus Christ into a mere man and thereby blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.
(Evolutionary Thinking: How and Why it Blasphemes the Holy Spirit http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=18062 )